Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple...
Student

Beavercreek, OR

#34939 Jun 5, 2013
Working for the Lord wrote:
The Body Sleeps, Not the Soul
Here is a fact that must be underscored. When the term “sleep” is used to depict the death of a person, the allusion is always to the disposition of the body, not the soul. There is no passage in the Scriptures that reflects the notion that one’s soul sleeps (i.e., is unconscious) in death. The case to the contrary may be argued briefly in the following fashion.
The prophet Daniel affirmed that those who “sleep katheudonton in the dust of the earth shall awake”(Dan. 12:2). Note that the part of man that “sleeps” is that which is deposited in the “dust of the earth.” This obviously is a reference to the physical body. The awakening, then, is a reference to the bodily resurrection.
DOES MAN HAVE AN IMMORTAL SOUL?
Is it not a part of man that separates from his body at death and goes on living?

To answer this properly we need to determine what the soul is. You may be surprised to know that animals as well as men are called “souls” in the inspired Scriptures. For instance, Numbers 31:28 speaks of “one soul [Hebrew, nephesh] out of five hundred, of humankind and of the herd and of the asses and of the flock.”

See also Revelation 16:3, where the Greek word for “soul,” psykhé appears.

What, then, is the soul? Let us see what the Creator’s own written Word says about it. At Genesis 2:7 we read:“And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.”

Note, please, that after God started man breathing “the man came to be a living soul.” Hence the man was a soul, just as a man who becomes a doctor is a doctor.(1 Corinthians 15:45)

Since the human soul is man himself, then it cannot be some shadowy thing that merely inhabits the body or that can exist apart from the person.

In harmony with this fact, the Bible makes plain that the human soul possesses physical qualities. For example, the Bible speaks of the soul’s desiring physical food, saying:“Your soul craves to eat meat.”(Deuteronomy 12:20; see also Leviticus 17:12.)

It says, too, that souls have blood traveling through their veins, for it speaks of “the blood of the souls of the poor innocents.”(Jeremiah 2:34, AV)

Yes, your soul is really you, with all your physical and mental qualities.
Student

Beavercreek, OR

#34940 Jun 5, 2013
Working for the Lord wrote:
The parallel passage in Luke 12:4-5 makes this point even clearer. Luke wrote:“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He hath killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!” If physical death brings annihilation of the soul, then it is ridiculous to speak of casting the soul into hell after killing the body.
The soul and the spirit are not the same. The body needs the spirit in much the same way as a radio needs electricity—in order to function. To illustrate this further, think of a portable radio. When you put batteries in a portable radio and turn it on, the electricity stored in the batteries brings the radio to life, so to speak. Without batteries, however, the radio is dead. So is another kind of radio when it is unplugged from an electric outlet. Similarly, the spirit is the force that brings our body to life. Also, like electricity, the spirit has no feeling and cannot think. It is an impersonal force. But without that spirit, or life-force, our bodies “expire, and back to their dust they go,” as the psalmist stated.

Speaking about man’s death, Ecclesiastes 12:7 states:“The dust [of his body] returns to the earth just as it happened to be and the spirit itself returns to the true God who gave it.” When the spirit, or life-force, leaves the body, the body dies and returns to where it came from—the earth. Comparably, the life-force returns to where it came from—God.(Job 34:14, 15; Psalm 36:9) This does not mean that the life-force actually travels to heaven. Rather, it means that for someone who dies, any hope of future life rests with Jehovah God. His life is in God’s hands, so to speak. Only by God’s power can the spirit, or life-force, be given back so that a person may live again.

How comforting it is to know that this is exactly what God will do for all of those resting in “the memorial tombs”!(John 5:28, 29)
Student

Beavercreek, OR

#34941 Jun 5, 2013
socci wrote:
<quoted text>
first, you need to get a better translation. What you have is a butchered version. Even still notice the what was nailed to the cross were the "commandments contained in the ordinances" that were the "handwriting of Moses" -- this is the Law of Moses, not God's 10C law. Two different things. The sacrificial system was nailed to the cross as I explained earlier.
The apostles did continue in the 7th day Sabbath.. and Jesus mentioned the Sabbath after his resurrection. All 10C remain.
I believe you had better read again what I posted!

Student wrote:
The Scriptures plainly state that Christ’s sacrifice “abolished ... the Law of commandments consisting in decrees” and that God “blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees ... and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake.” It was the complete Mosaic Law that was “abolished,”“blotted out,” taken “out of the way.”(Eph 2:13-15; Col 2:13, 14)

Consequently, the whole system of Sabbaths, be they days or years, was brought to its end with the rest of the Law by the sacrifice of Christ Jesus. This explains why Christians can esteem “one day as all others,” whether it be a sabbath or any other day, with no fear of judgment by another.(Ro 14:4-6; Col 2:16)

After Jesus’ death, his apostles at no time commanded Sabbath observance. The Sabbath was not included as a Christian requirement at Acts 15:28, 29, or later. Nor did they institute a new sabbath, a “day of the Lord.” Even though Jesus was resurrected on the day now called Sunday, nowhere does the Bible indicate that this day of his resurrection should be commemorated as a “new” sabbath or in any other way. First Corinthians 16:2 and Acts 20:7 have been appealed to by some as a basis for observing Sunday as a Sabbath.

From the foregoing it is clear that literal observance of Sabbath days and years was not a part of first-century Christianity. It was not until 321 C.E. that Constantine decreed Sunday (Latin: dies Solis, an old title associated with astrology and sun worship, not Sabbatum [Sabbath] or dies Domini [Lord’s day]) to be a day of rest for all but the farmers. it-2 Sabbath Day, p. 833

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#34947 Jun 6, 2013
It seems that some of the less intellectually endowed among us think that Exodus 6:2,3 means that God did not reveal the pronunciation of his name in Hebrew to "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob".(I truly hope that such is not the case, and that I have misinterpreted, but in case I have not, I continue...)

There is ample evidence that Yahweh was already in use long before Moses wrote exodus. Moses himself shows us that Jehovah pronounced his name to Abraham directly in Genesis 15:7 , and Abraham replies with the name in the following verse.

As such it becomes clear that what was meant in Exodus 6:2,3 is not that Jehovah did not literally reveal the pronunciation of his name, but rather that these faithful men did not get to know Jehovah as the one who causes to be (the meaning of his name). By not living to see the fulfillment of God's prophecies, they failed to know the full significance of God's name.

The same will happen to some who claim to know God's name today -- they will realize that they didn't "know" his name after all. But for them, willful ignorance coupled with a failed form of devotion will pay a great price.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#34951 Jun 6, 2013
Working for the Lord wrote:
<quoted text> The Catholic church is a false religion for so many reasons. They sprinkle a baby when a baby has no sin and no where does it say to baptize a baby, because a baby has no sin. God never appointed a pope and Peter was never a pope and the bible clearly tells you that Peter was never a pope, and there's nothing mentioned in the bible about a catholic church or a JW's church. There is only ONE way God expects to be worship and the bible clearly tells you that. Read your New Testament and you will see how he wants people to worship him. Man has come up with many ways they want to worship God, but God has only one way he wants to be worshipped. Look and read what the bible says in the New Testament on how he expects to be worshipped and you will see that there's only one way. You can't do one thing right and not do the other things wrong and be acceptable to God, he has his way and his way is the only way he wants us to worship him.

A baby is born with original sin.
Upon this rock....
Catholic literally means universal.
Catholics would agree there is only one way to worship God.
......

So you seem to be wrong on every point.

Typical CoC'ist.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#34952 Jun 6, 2013
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
To be fair, I force myself to be literal and interpret things literally when the other person is prone to mis-interpreting what I said or going way farther than was intended. But I digress.
<quoted text>
I read page 12 of Peace on Earth. I didn't see where it says that JW's are the restorers of God's name, much less in Hebrew. That I know of, we have never denied that we don't know the exact pronunciation of God's name in Hebrew -- and we certainly have not denied it recently.
<quoted text>
'Your' website claims:
"The translation committee was headed by (then vice -president of the Jehovah's Witnesses)Frederick W.Franz. Other members included Nathan H. Knorr (then president of the Jehovah's Witnesses),AlbertD. Schroeder, Ceorge D. Gangas and Milton Henschel."
Prove it.
If you can't, it's invalid.
And if it's invalid, the source was invalid at the moment of making this claim.
If the credibility of the source is in question, then it's futile to use it -- it's not a solid base for any arguments.
So, Prove it.

But you can agree that the "Jehovah" is not even close to anything.

It is between Yahweh, Yahwah, Yehaweh.

Sorry, the translation committee is well known and multiply attested.
A bunch of illiterates.

And their translation reflects their ignorance.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#34953 Jun 6, 2013
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
Was it done intentionally? Yes. Do you consider it a mistake? Yes. Is it an English word? Yes.
I don't see how your reply invalidates any of this -- so my statement stands.

So you ignore the evidence and just repeat what you said before.

That is moronic and closed minded. Exactly what is expected from a cult mentality.

ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
Some of these appellations are titles and not names, but I hardly expect you to know the dictionary definition of anything and much less the differences between apparent synonyms. Common use in English has caused the transliteration Yahweh to be rendered Jehovah in most cases. This is accepted by the dictionary which implies, in turn,(and rightfully so) that it is accepted by the majority of the English speaking people as a spelling and pronunciation of the divine name in English. Nothing you say will change that. You aren't a Linguist, you aren't a translator, you didn't study English as your major, you demonstrate a lack of knowledge in basic dictionary definitions, and specially if you are a mono-lingual you should learn to "Be sensible and keep your mouth shut" (Proverbs 10:19) when talking about things you don't know about.
<quoted text>
Coming from you, that's a compliment.
<quoted text>
Thank you for regurgitating information that I've already read (and much better explained) in the past. The problem with that (and your) argument is that while many of these elements do increase persuasion, there is no proof (nor, that I'm aware of, way of getting proof) that these methods persuade a person against their will or without them realizing it. Indoctrination and Brainwashing are bogus terms, because it's impossible to separate them from persuasion, or to definitely prove that the person lost control of their own thoughts at some point, and didn't simply choose to adapt a new set of thoughts. I do hope you are aware of the lack of evidence for Brainwashing, because it would be sad if my "undergrad sociology" research had protected me from believing unsubstantiated claims, but your 'highly educated' mind had fallen prey to it.
Or do you have empirical evidence that Brainwashing can happen against a person's will? Of course you don't. It doesn't exist.
<quoted text>
This would imply that if the religion were untrue, that I would be less capable to identify it than disgruntled former members that were likely thrown out for reasons unrelated to theology, but then decided the theology was wrong. Contrary to your opinion, I'm fairly certain that I'd discover anything that needs tuning before these ignorant apostates -- and if I did, I'd send a letter to Head Quarters, and it would be tuned in time. Tuning has never stopped, and continues to progressively give more and more light "until the day is firmly established" as it goes.

This is just a bunch of whining because you can't defend your cult with substantial facts. You just cry "is not!, is not!, is not!!!".

Most of the members of JW recovery organizations are people who left because they discovered the theology was wrong, that the organization lies, or because they were abused. Even a cursory reading of these sites would prove that to any objective person.

I don't deny some of them are there because they are disgruntled. Just as many of the JW cult are rejects from more mainstream religions.

Student

Beavercreek, OR

#34954 Jun 6, 2013
Jehovah’s Witnesses - Faith in Action, part 1: Out of Darkness

http://www.jw.org/download/...

Since: Jun 13

Kathmandu, Nepal

#34955 Jun 6, 2013
It may be true.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#34956 Jun 6, 2013
yon wrote:
<quoted text>
NOOO - the CoC apostatized and merged with Rome and started eating pork, et al.
Listen, when you're serious about understanding the truth let me know, as I really have no desire to be child like in what I do as an adult when it comes to helping people become Christians, as I take it seriously, after all Jesus took it seriously, even died for us.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#34957 Jun 6, 2013
yon wrote:
<quoted text>
Your ignorance is profound. You don't know the difference between a Jew and an Israelite. All twelve tribes were at the base of the mountain. And that law was kept by Messiah and continued to be kept by the early church until it apostatized, started eating pork and merged with Rome.
Acts 18:4
"And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded Jews and Greeks."
There is no Biblical record of the Early Church not keeping 7th Day Sabbath.
Are you saying that we are to worship God on Saturday?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#34958 Jun 6, 2013
Student wrote:
<quoted text>
So I am your top priority on this forum?
FYI …….Satan was the first creature to turn apostate.

So you decided to follow him?

I just understand the bible. Over 40 years of learning it. JWs offer nothing but mythunderstanding and lies. Who is the author of lies?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#34959 Jun 6, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
A baby is born with original sin.
Upon this rock....
Catholic literally means universal.
Catholics would agree there is only one way to worship God.
......
So you seem to be wrong on every point.
Typical CoC'ist.
We all are born to die. So what you're saying is we are to be baptized for someone's sin other than our own. So what if catholic means universal, what's that got to do with the CoC being the first and only church of the bible. So if I get baptized as a child will I still die if I don't get baptized? If Adam sinned by cheating his neighbor, would we to suffer for his sin of cheating like he did when he sinned and God punished him with death. So my point is this, your analogy is flawed, to say the least. The catholic may agree they are the first church, but the bible says differently, so who are you going to believe, the catholic's or the bible?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#34960 Jun 6, 2013
Student wrote:
Beliefs and Attitudes of Christendom
God’s personal name is unimportant:“The use of any proper name for the one and only God ... is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.”(Preface to the Revised Standard Version)
What the Bible really Says
Jesus prayed that God’s name be sanctified. Peter said:“Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”
Acts 2:21-“And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”
Joel 2:32-“And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will prove to be the escaped ones, just as Jehovah has said, and in among the survivors, whom Jehovah is calling.”
Matthew 6:9-“YOU must pray, then, this way:“Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.”
Exodus 6:3-“And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them.”
Revelation 4:11-“You are worthy Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.”
Revelation 15:3-And they are singing the song of Moses the slave of God and the song of the Lamb, saying:“ Great and wonderful are your works, Jehovah God, the Almighty. Righteous and true are your ways, King of eternity.”
Revelation 19:6-And I heard what was as a voice of a great crowd and as a sound of many waters and as a sound of heavy thunders. They said:“Praise Jah, YOU people, because Jehovah our God, the Almighty, has begun to rule as King.”

What makes brainwashed cult members think sane people care?
Student

Beavercreek, OR

#34965 Jun 7, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes brainwashed cult members think sane people care?
2 Timothy 4:3-4

3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Acts 2:21-“And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”

Romans 10:13-15
13 For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” 14 However, how will they call on him in whom they have not put faith? How, in turn, will they put faith in him of whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? 15 How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent forth? Just as it is written:“How comely are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!”
Student

Beavercreek, OR

#34966 Jun 7, 2013
yon wrote:
<quoted text>
Acts 18:4
"And he(PAUL) reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded Jews and Greeks."
What day do you suppose Paul was keeping?
Do you suppose he was teaching,
"now that Jesus is dead we don't have to follow that old law stuff."?
There is no Biblical record of the Early Church not keeping 7th Day Sabbath
After Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension into heaven did they continue to keep the sabbath?

NO they did NOT.

But they did take advantage of local customs to preach to the people who usually gathered on the sabbath.

Thus we read that Paul and his companions entered a synagogue on the sabbath.

Why? Because that is when people were there.(Acts 13:14-16)

And it was their listeners, accustomed to gathering on the sabbath, that asked that they be permitted to hear more on the following sabbath.(Acts 13:42-44)

Whenever the sabbath is mentioned in the book of Acts, it is in connection with non-Christian worship, either at a synagogue or other place of prayer.(Acts 16:11-13; 17:1-3; 18:4)

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#34970 Jun 7, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
But you can agree that the "Jehovah" is not even close to anything.
I agree that Jehovah is not an accurate transliteration. I've never claimed otherwise. I don't think anyone believes Jehovah is an accurate transliteration. It is, however, an accepted translation into modern English.
Dogen wrote:
Sorry, the translation committee is well known and multiply attested.
A bunch of illiterates.
The abundance of evidence you provided has convinced me. Lol. It's attested by who? What's your credible source?
Dogen wrote:
And their translation reflects their ignorance.
I respect your right to be wrong.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#34971 Jun 7, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
So you ignore the evidence and just repeat what you said before.
I ignore irrelevant evidence, yes, and then restate my point to see if you can process it the second time and understand how your 'evidence' doesn't attack, disprove, or cause anything I said to require reconsideration.
Dogen wrote:
That is moronic and closed minded. Exactly what is expected from a cult mentality.
Ad hominem ignored. Come back when you have something useful to say on this point.
Dogen wrote:
This is just a bunch of whining because you can't defend your cult with substantial facts. You just cry "is not!, is not!, is not!!!".
Define whining, because your brain dictionary is at odds with the actual dictionary again. My response was well-reasoned to the greatest degree that it could be while speaking to someone who is ignorant to the art of translation and linguistics. Clearly, your definition of substantial facts doesn't agree with that of the dictionary or any reasonable person.
Dogen wrote:
Most of the members of JW recovery organizations are people who left because they discovered the theology was wrong, that the organization lies, or because they were abused. Even a cursory reading of these sites would prove that to any objective person.
I don't deny some of them are there because they are disgruntled. Just as many of the JW cult are rejects from more mainstream religions.
Most of them left because of theology? Prove it.
Student

Beavercreek, OR

#34973 Jun 7, 2013
yon wrote:
And prove it from Scripture.
Acts 13:14-16-
14 They, however, went on from Perga and came to Antioch in Pi•sid&#8242;i•a and, going into the synagogue on the sabbath day, they took a seat. 15 After the public reading of the Law and of the Prophets the presiding officers of the synagogue sent out to them, saying:“Men, brothers, if there is any word of encouragement for the people that YOU have, tell it.” 16 So Paul rose, and motioning with his hand, he said:
“Men, Israelites and YOU [others] that fear God, hear.

Acts 13:42-47-
42 Now when they were going out, the people began entreating for these matters to be spoken to them on the following sabbath. 43 So after the synagogue assembly was dissolved, many of the Jews and of the proselytes who worshiped [God] followed Paul and Bar&#8242;na•bas, who in speaking to them began urging them to continue in the undeserved kindness of God.
44 The next sabbath nearly all the city gathered together to hear the word of Jehovah.

Who’s SYNAGOGUE ?

45 When the Jews got sight of the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began blasphemously contradicting the things being spoken by Paul. 46 And so, talking with boldness, Paul and Barnabas said:“It was necessary for the word of God to be spoken first to YOU. Since YOU are thrusting it away from YOU and do not judge yourselves worthy of everlasting life, look! we turn to the nations. 47 In fact, Jehovah has laid commandment upon us in these words,‘I have appointed you as a light of nations, for you to be a salvation to the extremity of the earth.’”

Acts 16:11-13-
11 Therefore we put out to sea from Tro&#8242;as and came with a straight run to Samothrace, but on the following day to Neapolis, 12 and from there to Philippi, a colony, which is the principal city of the district of Macedonia. We continued in this city, spending some days. 13 And on the sabbath day we went forth outside the gate beside a river, where we were thinking there was a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women that had assembled.

Acts 17:1-3, 5-
They now journeyed through Amphipolis and Apollonia and came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 So according to Paul’s custom he went inside to them, and for three sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving by references that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and [saying]:“This is the Christ, this Jesus whom I am publishing to YOU.

5-But the Jews, getting jealous, took into their company certain wicked men of the marketplace idlers and formed a mob and proceeded to throw the city into an uproar. And they assaulted the house of Jason and went seeking to have them brought forth to the rabble.
Student

Beavercreek, OR

#34974 Jun 7, 2013
yon wrote:
And PROVE that they used the name Jehovah!
Are you serious? Was English spoken by the apostles?

Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote:“Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed.”(De viris inlustribus, chap. III) This Gospel includes 11 direct quotations of portions of the Hebrew Scriptures where the Tetragrammaton is found. There is no reason to believe that Matthew did not quote the passages as they were written in the Hebrew text from which he quoted.

Other inspired writers who contributed to the contents of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted hundreds of passages from the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Many of these passages included the Hebrew Tetragrammaton right in the Greek text of early copies of the Septuagint. In harmony with Jesus’ own attitude regarding his Father’s name, Jesus’ disciples would have retained that name in those quotations.

Jesus in his prayer’s to his Father has this to say-

John 17:6-“I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word.

John 17:26- And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”

It is really hard to believe that you studied with us for 10 years!

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
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 3 min Hypocrite watch 71,558
James Comey's conflicted TWO FACES 6 min Dang Jersey Piney 106
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 6 min Big Al 995,041
REAL reason Pelican's Davis appeared in "Barber... 7 min Doctor REALITY 1
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 14 min Big Al 699,400
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 16 min Dang Jersey Piney 447,400
Got any good jokes?? (Mar '07) 1 hr quilterqueen 1,838