Cos

Many of JW members who read the topics in this forum can not accept the fact that the main church body aka Gb violates both laws - divine and human.
GB asks of every member to report any fact and person that violates the JW Code in the assembly. But the GB does not want to report and give facts, evidence, documents, statements that would allow a justice, even "imperfect, worldly" justice. hehe

Further in Romans 13 -    
"Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.  For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.  Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. "   Rom 13:2-5
 
 

This is just ONE of MANY instances in the past few years where the Society's lawyers constantly, consistantly, and without conscience, pervert Justice. 
Wednesday night we dropped a small check in the contribution box at the Kingdom Hall ... and felt guilty that part of that money would be used to deliberately, and with premeditation ... to pervert Justice.
Normally, lawyers have a fiduciary responsibility to win at any cost ... and the Society's lawyers are no different. What gives them special "power" is that they are now redefining our core theology based on economic considerations.
This has already happened, as due to many lawsuits, we are now "allowed" to take into our veins up to 99% of all blood products ... if they put it in separately.
The REASON it is now a matter of conscience ... is that the Governing Body does NOT want to lose all that money.
This has all been brought out here on the Archive over, and over, and over ... so I will not beat a dead horse into mush.
Jehovah's Witnesses are rightfully becoming known in the community of men as extremists ... perverting Justice in many ways ... and this reflects on the reputation of the God whose name is Jehovah.
BADLY!

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OSBALDO PADRON,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT
SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.,
Defendant and Appellant.
D070723
(Super. Ct. No. 37-2013-00067529-
CU-PO-CTL)
 
Nonetheless, Watchtower refuses to comply
with the court order and maintains the court was just wrong. In this sense, it refuses to
acknowledge the authority of the court and repudiates the procedures and rules all
litigants are supposed to follow in superior court. In these extreme circumstances, we
conclude the superior court was authorized to issue the monetary sanctions below. Also,
we see nothing in the Civil Discovery Act that expressly prohibits the superior court from
imposing monetary sanctions like the ones issued here. Indeed, we find Watchtower's
conduct so egregious that if it continues to defy the March 25, 2016 order, terminating
sanctions appear to be warranted and necessary.
It is clear that those responses, at least in
part, were in consideration of future litigation and liability that could arise from the
placement of known child molesters in positions of leadership and authority within the
Jehovah's Witnesses organization.
Here, Watchtower has abused the discovery process. It has zealously advocated
its position and lost multiple times. Yet, it cavalierly refuses to acknowledge the
consequences of these losses and the validity of the court's orders requiring it to produce
documents in response to request number 12. And, in a further act of defiance,
Watchtower informed the court that it would not comply with the March 25, 2016 order
requiring it to produce documents responsive to request number 12. The court, following
Lopez, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th 566, as an incremental step toward terminating sanctions
if Watchtower persists in its unjustified conduct, imposed monetary sanctions. On the
record before us, we are satisfied that the superior court's order was not arbitrary,
capricious, or whimsical. To the contrary, the superior court has shown great patience
and flexibility in dealing with a recalcitrant litigant who refuses to follow valid orders
and merely reiterates losing arguments. We therefore affirm.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Padron is awarded his costs of appeal.

Mr Sostar,
 
And it can easily be shown that the NWT is the incorrect rendering. <><

Ms Fofana,
 
Sorry for the lateness of this response, so many things occupy my attention of late.
 
Nana:
It is very deceptive, imo, to refer to "quoting articles out of context", as if the customary and accepted practice is not to quote anything unless 'context'   -maybe the whole article?, or maybe the whole book?, or maybe everything the author ever wrote, along with his life history, including the context of the times in which he operated?-   is included,  and then to portray a false innuendo by calling them "misquotes." 
 
Of course it depends on which side you are on whether you agree on the use of any quote, but for me if the quote is intentionally made so that it appears to say one thing when really it is saying another that then constitutes as deception, and that is not a trait of real Christianity, no matter how you try to excuse it, only false religion would stoop to that leave...sorry. Visit any good library and you will see what I mean for yourself!
 
 I didn't hear  what you say is "Oneness idea" at the UCC, and that's what I was trying to say all along!
 
Wherever you get this idea from that Jesus is the Father it is incorrect and it is not the Trinity. The Father is a person, the Son is a person, and the Holy Spirit is a person who exist as One (Matt. 28:19) that, put simply, is the Trinity. Jesus being God does not mean that Jesus is the Father, any who claim this are just as wrong as the JWs claims about Him.
 
Here is offered some New Testament basis that the trinity concept is unscriptural.-
 
You refer to Matt. 16:13-16 where Jesus is confessed to be the Son of God by Peter. Jesus’ sonship is also confessed by the disciples in Matthew 14: 33, it was also a part of Caiaphas’s question to Jesus at his trial (Matt 26: 63), and the sonship of Jesus is also the focus of a round of taunts lobbed at him while nailed to the cross (Matt. 27: 39– 43). These people all knew what being the Son of God meant!
 
Jesus is the Son of God, but what that means must be understood in the way the ancients viewed the term, not read with a modern “understand” back into the Scriptures.
 
Jesus is called "the Son of God" in a non-literal sense, since He was not procreated. In fact Christians claim that Jesus, according to the NT and the way those around him understood the term that it meant that Jesus possess the nature of God fully and completely (see for example Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:3).
 
When Jesus was condemned to death by the Jewish Sanhedrin, the Jews insisted to Pilate, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God” (John 19:7). Prior to this, the high priest who was the president of the Jewish council, put Christ under oath, and asked Him two questions (mentioned together in Matt and Mark, but stated as proposed separately by Luke. “Are you the Christ?” (Luke 22:67) and “Are you then the Son of God? (Luke 22:70). And it was the affirmative answer of Jesus to the last of these questions, which were grounds for condemnation.
 
Keep in mind that Jesus knew the sense in which the question was asked (for He had been accused of this before, see John 5:17-18 and John 10:30-39), and He was bound to answer it honestly and truly in the sense in which He knew the high priest meant it.
 
He therefore affirmed under oath, at His trial before the council, that He was the Son of God in the high sense the phrase was meant, and for this He was condemned to death.
 
According to the Law of Moses, any person who enticed others to idolatry was to be punished with death (Deut. 13:6-8, see also Lev. 24:16). A mere creature, who should claim divine honour to himself, was guilty of this crime, and even though the Romans had taken away from the Jews the power of inflicting this punishment, they still had the right to report to the governor concerning such a person, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die” (John 19:7). This was their decision as reported to Pilate, concerning Jesus, and if He was not entitled to this claim then their decision was just.  
 
So when we read the account in the Bible, the Jews brought two charges against Jesus, one was treason against Caesar, by making Himself a King.  To this charge Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you a king?” (John 18:37). Jesus answered in the affirmative, but so that they would not convict Him of a crime of which He was not guilty, He explained, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). His reply was satisfactory to the governor, who acquitted Him of the charge (John 18:38).  
 
In the other case He not only claimed to be the Son of God, yet accompanied the claim with NO explanation. He could have said, I am the Son of God, but not in such a sense as true Deity. But he made no such explanation.
 
If Jesus was not entitled to divine honour, He knew it; and He also knew then that He deserved death for claiming it. To make the claim before the court was to be guilty of the crime. To answer as He did, on oath, if He did not mean to make the claim, was perjury. And to allow the sentence against Him to pass, without any effort to explain, was to be guilty of His own death. 
 
Yes Jesus is the Son of God. That is, true God from true God, Amen. <><

Hi Shiwiii,
 
Yes I believe so. The booklet became an embarrassment to the JWs because of all the false and misleading quotes. <><

Hi Shiwiii,
 
Yes I believe so. The booklet became an embarrassment to the JWs because of all the false and misleading quotes. <><

Ding Ding Ding Ding, I take "what we are allowed to read and what is forbidden" for three hundred Alex. 
 
Hey, isn't that why the WT pulled the Trinity book in the first place? Something about the quotes used were taken out of context and those whom the WT quoted fought back? 

Ms Fofana,
 
Once again thank you for your response and for sharing a little of your background. I know what you mean about TV evangelists sometimes the way they speak can seem a little off-putting, but in general that does not mean that what they say is wrong, for its not.
 
Can I just say that Jesus, the Son, is not the Father! I looked up the beliefs of the United Church of Christ head office at http://www.ucc.org, and they nowhere claim to believe that “the son is the father”. I don’t know where you got this Oneness idea from, which is not the Trinity at all.
 
You mention what JW’s believe, but what you give under “definition” is not a clear representation of the Trinity, sorry. And you then go on to quote, questionably, from certain secular source.
 
The first from the Encyclopedia Britannica, which, in your quote gives the impression that the Trinity developed some 300 years after the apostles; this is NOT the case as I have stated before. Interestingly left out of this quote is a lot of information which is contrary to the innuendo of your quote, for example the Encyclopedia Britannica has, “Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, Trinity, Vol. X, p.126 emphasis mine)
 
You know, I wonder if you actually have read the whole article from the Encyclopedia Britannica or if you just read the misleading quotes given in Watchtower publications/website?
 
Your next quote comes from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, and again the quote is very misleading. The article your quote from in this Encyclopedia concludes “it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity Vol. 14, p299-300).
 
Not only does your selective quoting not give the full picture, it does not even investigate the primary objectiveness of the article from where the quote comes.
 
Next is the quote from The Encyclopedia Americana, this quote of yours is again misleading and projects the false impression that early Christian teaching was not Trinitarian. The Encyclopedia Americana, says under the article “Trinity Doctrine” Vol. 27, page 67, “In the New Testament it is evident that the doctrine of a trinity in the divine nature is clearly and copiously taught”.
 
Next the quote from Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel. When read in context, the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel doesn't say that the Christian trinity is borrowed from either the Platonic or pagan trinities. All that the dictionary says it that Plato borrowed his trinity from the pagans. The dictionary suggests, which clearly indicates that it is not sure, ("appears to be" means not certain) that there is a connection between the Christian trinity and the "Platonic trinity". In other words, the dictionary is guessing!
 
And lastly you quote from John McKenzie’s Dictionary of the Bible; but your quote fails to mention that in the very same article it states, "He (Jesus) knows the Father and reveals Him. He therefore belongs to the divine level of being; and there is no question at all about the Spirit belonging to the divine level of being." (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, Trinity, page 899).
 
It is very deceptive to quote articles out of context and then to portray a false innuendo by those misquotes.
 
The fact that the early church spoke of the Tri-unity of God long before the fourth century shows that you JWs are wrong in your claims; and as history shows it was Arianism which was developed in the fourth century, and that Arianism was totally unknown prior to this date.
 
We have Christian writers before the fourth century, such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Melito, Athenagoras, and Irenaeus who all spoke of Christ as God and of the Trinity. These early Christian writers demonstrate that belief in the deity of Christ and the Trinity did not originate in the fourth century as you JW’s mistakenly claim. Here are some examples of this fact:
 
Justin Martyr 100 AD – 165 AD “…you will permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order TO PROVE that Christ is called BOTH GOD AND LORD OF HOSTS…” ( Dialogue with Trypho, Chpeter 36 emphasis added).
 
Hippolytus 170 AD – 235 AD writes “A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, WHO, BEING GOD, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three.” (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus, section 8 emphasis added)
 
I could easily call up many more examples from the early church, all before the fourth century, that refute the JW claim, but because a lot of the above is taken up with showing you how the quotes you cite are deceptive in their implied innuendo, this response has already turned out quite long. The writings of the early church demonstrate clearly that Arianism (which is similar to the JW belief system) was invented in the fourth century. <><

Ms Fofana,
 
Thank you for your reply, and I’m sorry that it has taken me a long period to reply, many things have, and still do, occupy my time, but your reply was a “must respond to” which I marked in my calendar.
 
Your language is somewhat strange you use “izz” instead of “is” a few times, please explain why? You say also that in your many years of “churchgoing” you never heard anyone claim that “Jesus IS God”. Can I ask which church you attended during that time?
 
Now, the Jehovah’s Witness I spoke to said that the Trinity began to be taught (invented) in the fourth century. Try this simple test, ask one of your JW friends when they say that the Trinity “began”.
 
I noticed the Watchtower broacher on the Trinity was brought up. It is interesting that in that broacher on page seven the Watchtower conveys the idea that "the Trinity was unknown throughout biblical times and several centuries thereafter." (Emphasis mine). That statement implies a fourth century ‘invention” and that statement is incorrect! In fact many things in that Watchtower broacher are incorrect, which, I believe, explains why the Watchtower pulled it from circulation. <><

I was speaking with a Jehovah’s Witnesses who mistakenly alleges that at the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century AD is when belief in Christ’s Deity originated.
 
Folks, the facts are these, the NT explicitly uses the Greek term theos (“God”) in reference to Jesus Christ. Further, there was a consistent application of theos to Jesus Christ long before the 4th century AD!
 
Christian authors such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Melito, Athenagoras, and Irenaeus all spoke of Christ as “God.”
 
These early Christian writers demonstrate that belief in the deity of Christ did not originate in the fourth century as JW’s mistakenly claim. 
 
 What happened at Nicaea and after is a continuation of what these early Christians taught on the matter with focused emphasis on terminology and explanatory nuance to safeguard this truth from the ravages of Arianism, which, as history shows, actually was a fourth century invention! <><

Cognitionis
 
Sir, if the error “lies with” me, as you accuse, maybe you should ask the person with whom I was in discourse with at the time on whether what Mr. Smith alleges is the correct conclusion, for nowhere do I dispute that “fill” is in the passage of Exodus 31:3 as Mr. Smith contends.
Did you not you read what I said? I was responding to what Mr. Smith alleges, what would you have me say, that he was correct in his allegation when he was not?
 
Interestingly how you just joined this forum and then at the same time just jumped in on this conversation...you know what that looks like? But hey, whatever motive moves you to do what you do is not my concern. <><

Mr. Smith,
 
Do I dispute that “fill” is in the passage of Exodus 31:3? NO!
 
Yet you give the impression that for some reason you think that I did. You are wrong!
 
Please try and read what I say a little more carefully then you might avoid jumping to the wrong conclusion. <><

Gone fishing,
 
Your contradiction is a fact, trying to make out that is just my opinion, ignores the dictionary definition.
My dear deluded friend, you say one thing and then another, and on top of that you try to deny the meaning of what you said. Like it or not you have contradicted yourself which seems to be a pattern. I don’t say this to offend, it is just an observation of mine (and that definitely is my opinion). <><

Mr. Smith,
 
You say the Holy Spirit is Yahweh’s “expression of holiness”, and that this “expression of holiness” as a “separate ‘empowerment’” “was given to Isaiah to receive that that was necessary” (?).
 
Your use of Yahweh instead of Jehovah shows that maybe you are not a JW. Anyway, that is not the issue; how can “an expression of holiness” be given to Isaiah? You carry this idea further by saying, “in Acts 28:25 makes that distinction the “Holy Spirit” becomes separate from YHWH as an action”.
 
Then comes the twist in your reasoning your jump to the assertion that the Holy Spirit is “not the same as a symbolized being” (I do not say this at all) but it is you who said “Yahweh’s Holy Spirit as an expression of holiness it symbolizes the holy spirit as a separate ‘empowerment’”. That to me is circular reasoning and makes no sense, sorry.  
 
The solemnity of Paul’s words in Acts 28 is increased by him indicating that it is the Holy Spirit that spoke by Isaiah the prophet (see also Acts 8:29; 13:2; 21:11).
 
I’d like to ask you a couple of questions if you don’t mind;
 
What capacity of the Holy Spirit is indicated in Rom. 15:30?
 
Heb. 10:29 tells of a fearful sin against the Holy Spirit; What is that sin? <><

Otto,
 
John 14:16;  ἄλλον παράκλητον allos Parakletos
Jesus is also referred to as Parakletos in 1 John 2:1. “Another” like Jesus (John 14:16), is that specific enough for you?
 
Maybe that is not enough, then here is more; in Jesus’ discourse in the upstairs room on the coming of the Holy Spirit He compares the Holy Spirit to Himself as a person over and over again. For example; 
 
John 12:49; “because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak." (NWT)
 
John 16:13; “However, when that one arrives, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his OWN IMPULSE, but what things he HEARS he will SPEAK, and he will declare to you the things coming.” <><

Otto,
 
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is like a person’s disposition?
 
If so then the Holy Spirit is the disposition of Jehovah, and not a force because you also go on and say “the power of the spirit is the force”?
 
I’m totally bemused, one JW says this, and another says that. <><

Mr. Harley,
 
No I don’t have a problem, “many”, as defined in some dictionaries refers to a large and considerable number. I doubt, in the context of the conversation, that many (a large and considerable number) practicing Catholics are ignorant of their belief system. <><

The Watchtower has maintained a steady relationship with demonism, one just needs to consider how often they cite occult sources to support their doctrines and teachings!

It's thoughts like these that make me question the devotion to each and every teaching that comes from the wt's mouth as if it WERE from God. Obey or else! Why is there no allowance for personal opinion/understanding? What about all of those folks who thought that it was probably ok to take SOME blood fractions, or organs prior to the change made by the wt? Doesn't really matter now, they're dead.....well you get the point. 

Hello JW Insider,
 
It is good to speak with you again. At least someone else can see the absurdity of Mr. Ewing’s claim, however, the other JW’s here are not going to like that from you, even Mr. Ewing when speaking of you as an “ex-bethelite” does so with such venom in his tone.
 
I must thank you for a very detailed description of some of the “goings on” in WT H.Q., some of which I have heard about before.
 
 
Over the many years that the Watchtower quoted Greber for support does constitute a “steady relationship”, there was no other way for me to say it. Also, I can understand, due to your obvious background, how you would think that I exaggerated by using the words “how often”, it’s just a way of saying more than once.
 
 
Greber mentions that the ‘spirits’ directed him to alter what they said were “many erroneous doctrines that had subsequently crept into the Christian faith” and it was these that he changed under the their guidance. 
 
 
I get the impression that you do not think that the occult is an actual phenomenon? Through my study of the Bible I am convinced that the occult world of demons is quite real and that their continual evil influence should not be dismissed as a “maybe”.
 
 
There is a problem here. If you are going to quote, and use as support someone else, wouldn’t the credentials of that person be looked into? Or is that something that the writers neglect to do? Surely someone in the writing department was paying attention to what was mentioned in 1956…? And then, what about the proof readers whose job it is to make sure that what goes to printed is acceptable…?
 
I notice that you make some further interesting comments in other posts that I’d like to discuss with you some other time, I’ll have to end this post here as I have other pressing matters that I need to attend to for now. <><
 

Mr. Ewing,
 
I really donÂ’t know what it is you are talking about for you make no sense. My guess is you are irritate because you donÂ’t like it when someone questions your wild ideas and by pointing out the absurdity of them. <><

Mr. Ewing,
 
At least I acknowledge to Mr. Rook my reason and apologized…you on the other hand make excuses and change the allegation to “I was only referring to the ‘mental’ state”.
 
Wow I would have to be a mind reader to have known that that was what you meant, since you specifically said “you or your alter ego Shiwiii”.
 
Google and others, according to you, are in cahoots with “publisher’s” (who are these “publisher’s” you refer to, and who you claim “get the results they wish”?). Now if that were even true, and it’s not, then they could have programmed translate to do both, that is with, and without the period, wow maybe these “publishers” never thought of that! That by the way is me being sarcastic to the claims you make.
 
And you know why this wild theory of yours fails? Because of those of us who have taken the time to learn Latin, maybe that is something you should do.
And you not bias?
 
By the way, I do not adhere to “oneness” theology. So you got that wrong as well!
 
As I showed the Sahidic indefinite article is used with nouns. When translated to English this article is not required. You JW’s want to ignore the linguistic of the Coptic so that it fits in with your erroneous rendering, that’s not “sound judgment” now is it? Why didn’t I bring up the Coptic version, because there is no problem with it, only the wild misconception some have!
 
The rest of what you say is a mix of disjointed sentences which would require me to use my powers of mind reading to know what you even mean, the only bit that is a bit coherent  is the quotes you use at the end which mean absolutely zilch! <><

Mr. Ewing,
 
You accusation that in some way Shiwiii and I are the same person just proves to me how irrational your judgments are.
 
To date all the things you say are fake and that’s not a mockery, it’s the plain truth!
 
Let me ask you, for what reason do you think I lack “understanding of the Greek Language” are you just making up another false accusation to accommodate with your previous claims?
 
And it would only have been a matter of time till one of you JW’s brought up the Coptic version of John’s Gospel, mistakenly thinking that that this ancient version support’s the JW’s rendering.
 
My interest in this version was initiated when I was first shown the November 2008 Watchtower article “Was the Word ‘God’ or ‘a god’”, where the Watchtower appeals to the rendering in this version of John 1:1 as support of their own rendering. So I started by looking at “The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect” by George Horner, and what I found did not support the Watchtower’s claim.
 
Now the problem is you JW’s narrowly look at John 1:1 and automatically think “aha proof”, while ignoring everything else. What was interesting is that George Horner explains in his critical apparatus for his translation that, “Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English, while curved brackets supply words which are necessary to the English idiom.”
 
Horner translates John 1.1c into English as follows: “. . . and [a] God was the Word.”
 
Unlike English, the Sahidic indefinite article is used with nouns (e.g., water, bread, meat, truth, love, hate). Examples of these can be seen from where the Greek has no article but the Coptic does.
 
“because out of fullness we all of us took [a] life and [a] grace…” (Coptic version John 1:16)
 
“…I am baptizing you in [a] water’’ (Coptic version John 1:26)
 
“That which was begotton out of flesh is [a] flesh…” (Coptic version John 3:5)
 
“…ye say that ye have [a] life for ever in them…” (Coptic version John 5:39)
 
“. . . and immediately came out [a] blood and [a] water.” (Coptic version John 19:34)
 
Many more examples can be cited but this should be sufficient to make my point. None of the words in brackets are necessary in English but are still noted by Horner’s translation. The claims made by the Watchtower and by others who follow their teaching are unfounded and deceptive. <><