Jump to content

70 topics in this forum

    • 0 replies
    • 37 views

    • 0 replies
    • 78 views
    • 0 replies
    • 58 views
    • 0 replies
    • 48 views
    • 1 reply
    • 49 views
    • 0 replies
    • 75 views
    • 0 replies
    • 22 views
    • 0 replies
    • 40 views
    • 0 replies
    • 52 views
    • 0 replies
    • 25 views
    • 0 replies
    • 45 views
    • 2 replies
    • 61 views
    • 0 replies
    • 32 views
    • 0 replies
    • 35 views
    • 0 replies
    • 43 views
    • 0 replies
    • 18 views
    • 0 replies
    • 30 views
    • 0 replies
    • 28 views
    • 0 replies
    • 36 views
    • 0 replies
    • 55 views
    • 0 replies
    • 82 views
    • 0 replies
    • 45 views
    • 0 replies
    • 37 views
    • 0 replies
    • 51 views
    • 0 replies
    • 336 views
    • 0 replies
    • 32 views
    • 0 replies
    • 28 views
    • 0 replies
    • 22 views
    • 0 replies
    • 38 views
    • 0 replies
    • 28 views




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • “Search For Everything Related to Jehovah.” New Details of the Raid on Believers In Kazan On January 21, 2020, after three Witnesses spent a day in the temporary detention center, the Vakhitovsky District Court of Kazan released Tatyana Obizhestvit and Lyaysan Bochkareva under house arrest. Meanwhile, Laysan’s husband, Andrey Bochkarev, was put in pre-trial detention. During the search, security officials said they were looking for weapons, drugs, and “everything that is related to Jehovah.” https://jw-russia.org/en/news/2020/01/22.html
    • I would say most of the JWs who comment on here are unconventional! 😀 Lol!
    • WT Society publications going to explain with this terminology (professing JW member), how sinning is not just part of imperfect human character that all people inherited by Adam and Eve. As imperfect people we all are sinning, in every direction, in every sort of transgression, in various degrees. Here they suggest how some individuals became part of JW's with bad motives. In regard to child abuse cases, sentence in article suggesting this sort of view:  Why? “Wicked men and impostors” abound, and some may try to enter the congregation. (2 Tim. 3:13) Then, they continue with this sort of people inside congregation who doing same sin/crime: In addition, some professing to be a part of the congregation have succumbed to perverted fleshly desires and have sexually abused children. This sort of people are people who can't help themselves. This evil inside them is too strong. Next, in other article, they showed us third group of people inside congregation. After the Hebrew Scriptures were written, superstitious Jews considered the name Jehovah too holy even to be pronounced. They avoided pronouncing it because of fear of violating the Third Commandment.  What sort of people inside modern JW congregation could be superstitious and have fear? Not about speaking God's name, but about some other things, and with that to give their contribute in wrong things. Fourth group described in article is: First the common people, who felt themselves unworthy to mention the name, left off pronouncing it. Again, how many congregants inside JWorg, consider themselves unworthy, and because of that sort of feeling, can do or can't do things, because of which they just professing own belonging to organization, but because of serious state of soul can be easily deceived or choose wrong path and bring to own fall. As you can understand, we can use this details from these two articles in using them for various questions about doctrines, folkloric, traditions, instructions that are part of JW religion. And because all this what making JW member to be JW member, that is to go in line with directive from WT Society, we need to ask: If old doctrines and instructions are substituted with new ones, does it means how JW members are, in every period of time and in all things that was error and wrong, just "professing to be part of true Congregation"? Because they accepted error teachings and they spread error teachings and they lived by error teachings. Intentionally or not.  All that would make them to be "false, professed" Christians (or JW's) and not "true or genuine" ones.        I know one JW family from my ex congregation. Children are now grown and not going to meetings for very long time now. I think they never been baptized too. They call theirs mom and dad with names. Very strange custom, very strange to hear :))) 
    • I like this man's opinion: YHWH...                  The "Name" of the Father in heaven.           Most Hebrew "Names" had meanings. Names of people today in general are often less like that.  They are given based on what the parents prefer to call their children.  Sometimes the name may simply be one that the parent likes, or it may be the name of a relative. This is even sometimes the case in ancient Israel during Jesus time, where many people expected the parents to name their child after a relative. (Luke 1:61) (Luke1:59,60,61,62,63,64)  But notice this; the angel of the Lord told Zechariah, that he should name his son John, (Luke 1:13) , and that is what both he and his wife did.  Mary the mother of Jesus was also told what name to give her son by an angel. (Luke 1:31)  The names in the bible, are unlike the names parents give their children today.  Most bible names have meanings that encompass so much more.   God brought the animals to Adam to see what Adam would call each of them. (Gen 2:19) Although the bible fails to say this, it is unlikely that Adam simply picked a nice sounding name.  I think Adam was very careful about this assignment... Adam probably studied the animal and thoughtfully decided on a name that fit the animal.  God even changed the names of some persons to describe the individual more accurately.  For example at age 99 God changed Abraham's name from Abram to Abraham, and his wife's name from Sarai to Sarah.(Gen 17:1-5; Gen 17:15)  These names defined  some of the attributes of an individual. In this sense the Father's "name" is less likely just a "proper name" as we understand names today. It is probable that no human could comprehend it's full meaning. (Compare Rev 19:12; Rev 2:17)  These two scriptures alone show us that a "name" is more than simply a person's "name" as we understand it today.  There is so much more meaning that we can fail to discern.  The white pebble (or stone) that is given to the faithful who conquer, is known only to the one who receives it. (Rev 2:17)  When Jesus said "I have made your name "known"...it meant something other than making the spelling or sound of the "name" of God known. (Most of the Jews of his day already had a better handle on the Hebrew language than we do).   Even Pharoah of Egypt "knew" that part of it...But did he really "know" God ? . (Exodus 5:2) Holman Christian Standard Bible But Pharaoh responded, "Who is Yahweh that I should obey Him by letting Israel go? I do not know anything about Yahweh, and besides, I will not let Israel go." YHWH:  The descriptive "name" of God.  For us to routinely use that descriptive name, as if it were a proper name, may be the wrong thing to do. Here is an interesting thought:  How would you address your earthly father?  You could call him "Father" or possibly "Dad".   Out of respect for your father, would you call him by his first name?  Would you introduce him to your friends using his first name? Would you introduce your earthly father by his descriptive name... as..."He who caused my birth"?  Would you introduce your earthly mother as "She that gave birth to me"?    (I think most people would consider that disrespectful.) Jesus is going to hand everything back over to his "Father". (1 Cor 15:24, 28)    When he does, God will become all things to everyone.   If Jesus calls his Father..."Father", then what will we call him when we become God's earthly children? Jesus told the Samaritan Woman at the well, that "True Worshipers" would worship the "Father" with spirit and truth, for indeed, the "Father" is looking for suchlike ones to worship him.  (John 4:21, 23, 24) It makes me wonder...since Jesus had many opportunities to verbally make the spelling and sound of God's descriptive "Name" known, then why didn't he?  Instead he simply and respectfully called God..."Father", as did the Apostles and disciples.  They all had ample opportunity to use the "Name", but if you search the scriptures,  it would be a difficult task without their original writings, to conclusively challenge the fact that this is absent. The True God's name, a verb form of Hebrew, means "To be"..."He causes to become"...so he can be whatever he has to be to accomplish his purpose. He can cause to be whatever he will, to accomplish his purposes.  {Hebrew verb...hawah..."to be"}. Knowing God's "name" means understanding him as fully as we humans can.   It means having faith in the meaning of his name, that he will live up to his "Name"...specifically, the description of what his name means.   Jesus would never have followed any man-made traditions.  Nor today, would he use any "man-made" names for God, as Bible translators do today, simply because that name was in use for a couple of centuries. ( The  J   is absent in Hebrew. The J that Bible translators use, comes from the Germanic language in much later centuries.  Those translators also decided to place vowels from the Hebrew word Adonai as well.   In the Hebrew language ... the word "hovah" essentially means;  to destroy, ruin, disaster, to make mischief, according to some.  This descriptive "name"  more of a description of Satan, than it is of Almighty God...the one who creates and gives life). (Genesis 1:31) The name "Hovah" fails to convey a creator of life and good.      If we had the original manuscripts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John from the First Century, as well as all the original letters that Luke, Paul, Peter, James and John wrote, there would be little controversy as to whether Jesus used God's descriptive name as has been said by the Watchtower organization.             We fail to have the original First Century manuscripts. We only have parts from the second and third century at the earliest. Those could have been corrupted by the then already existing men of lawlessness.     We are unable go back in time to the first century to hear whether they used the divine name. Were we there to listen to Jesus or his Apostles speak, we would be able to know, however, without this possibility to go back in time, to know how to "pronounce" the divine "name" would be even more difficult.        God has promised that the understanding of the "scrolls" (bible) would be opened up to us in the time of the end.  If Jesus called God "Father", then why not imitate him? You can imitate Jesus. It is allowed. Agape,  Obadiah   https://nameofgodatobadiah.blogspot.com/2013/09/yhwh.html?m=1
    • If I was to describe myself, it would be in words very similar. A story, with opening background: I have always been ‘out there’ in appearance (for a brother), at times downright shaggy, with hair falling over my ears, and I don’t fuss much with combing it, usually not at all. I don’t fully trust anyone who has not a hair out of place. I don’t like cuff-links either, though I will concede that some will wear them and figure that they are like the fine seamless garment Jesus wore. Nobody would rebuke the Lord with: “Why don’t you wear a regular garment from the Goodwill so no one thinks you are putting on airs.” They would not say that, so cuff links get a free pass, too, but I would never wear the stupid things. Amazingly, I have never been counseled on general shagginess, despite all the carrying on about ‘dress that befits a minister of GodI’—which rubs me the wrong way when it is overdone. I’ve had speaking assignments at the District Convention, now called Regionals. I can only surmise that my personality otherwise offsets a moderately (at times) unorthodox appearance.  In my 50’s, after my eldering days, I got into the habit of moussing my hair when it got long, running my fingers through it once so it stayed off my forehead, and I would go about my day with it spiked up, flopping over any way it liked as gravity took over. If I see a young woman with green hair, I won’t harrumph as many of our people would—I’ll say, “Huh! You know, I kind of like that.” These days I am less that way and I now say to the barber: “Look, so long as you are not thinking “US Marine,” cut it as short as you like—even if you get it too short, I will not complain—it grows back.* That way I don’t have to horse with it for a while.  Brother Lloyd of the US Branch gave the talk at our Assembly Hall. He is an old-timer who has been around forever. The place was packed out. For reasons I don’t remember, my wife and I arrived late and we were shoehorned into the only two seats available—directly in front of him. His talk was hard-hitting, the type you used to hear from old-timers and the type that you will not hear today—‘if you do not make time for Jehovah, maybe he will not make time for you’ was the tone some of it took. Now, I am not one of those brothers who has to track down the speaker so as to shake his hand. If I don’t speak with him at all, that is perfectly fine by me. I have stated here that I would love to have a Governing Body member stay at my house so I could ignore him (which would probably make me popular in his eyes). “There’s your room. Come down and hang out if you like, but don’t feel you have to—I know that you have things to do, if only unwinding free of persons who you have to talk to,” is what I would say to him. So after the closing prayer I turn around with my spiked hair and find myself face to face with him—the crowds have not closed in yet. I exchange a few pleasantries—nice of him to make the sacrifice to travel, and so forth, and he says, almost with a twinkle, “I wasn’t too hard on you brothers, was I?”  “Well,” I said, “we’ll adjust.” ......*With regard to not complaining about a bad haircut, I remember reading a book by Peter Lynch, the Fidelity fund manager known for investing in what he liked. He bought a ton on Dunkin Donut stock and it went to the moon—his interest first piqued because he loved their coffee. He also bought Supercuts. True to method, he went there first to get a haircut. He thought he looked a little funny as he left, but he allowed that it might simply be due to some new style that he was unaware of. The horrified look on the faces of his wife and daughters convinced him that it was not. The CEO, when he related the experience to him, observed cheerfully that hair grows back at 6 inches per....some quantity of time that I forget. Lynch is the same fund manager who once observed of General Motors: “The nicest thing I can say about it is that it is a terrible company.” I never forgot that line. PS: the good guys have all migrated for now to Anna’s new thread on the closed site. You’re welcome to join them. Leave 4Jah, Srecko, and Witness here to talk among themselves. They’ll soon discover that they can’t stand one another.      
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      16,534
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Marek Markus
    Joined
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      62,032
    • Total Posts
      116,638
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.