AnonymousBrother

La primera, pero no es la ultima.

2 John 9~11 (ESV) Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. 2 John 10 explains not to associate with those who are basically wicked. In the case of the prodigal son, there are also some things you need to remember. Luke 15:11~13: "And he said, “There was a man who had two sons. And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property between them. Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living." And, of course, Luke 15:20-24: "And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate." What do we see in these verses? 1. The son had not been kicked out by his father. 2. The first words from the son's mouth were contrition. 3. (In verses 14~19) Jesus tells us the *undisputed true* state of the son's feelings. With these in minds, how would the father have reacted if the son had just said: "Give me more money?" How would Jesus have re-worded the parable if the son had not *truly* been repentant? Scriptures also leave out certain details. For example: 2 Corinthians 7:8-10 (ASV) For though I made you sorry with my epistle, I do not regret it: though I did regret it (for I see that that epistle made you sorry, though but for a season), I now rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye were made sorry unto repentance; for ye were made sorry after a godly sort, that ye might suffer loss by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation, a repentance which bringeth no regret: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. Paul says "for I see that that epistle made you sorry" but never mentions how, and also "I now rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye were made sorry unto repentance", but, once again, not how he knows that to the *certainty* he is writing about. Paul *knew* they were repentant, but we are not told *how* he knew. He does give hints, however: 2 Cor 7:11-12 (ASV) For see what earnestness this godly grief has produced in you, but also what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what punishment! At every point you have proved yourselves innocent in the matter. So although I wrote to you, it was not for the sake of the one who did the wrong, nor for the sake of the one who suffered the wrong, but in order that your earnestness for us might be revealed to you in the sight of God. So, Paul did not just take anyone's word about repentance. He watched for signs of it. In those case where an expulsion has not taken place, but just discipline has been carried out, Paul advises us: 2 Cor 2:5~11 (ASV) Now if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure—not to put it too severely—to all of you. For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs. And, in that case, the scriptures of James applies. Paul *does* mention certain aspects of repentance: Acts 26:19-21 (ASV) “Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance. For this reason the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me. "performing deeds in keeping with their repentance." Repentance has to be more than just words. We do not have the gifts the Apostles had, nor are we Jesus. We cannot look into people's hearts to see if they are truly repentant or not. But Paul's words indicate a "waiting" period for full re-instatement is *not* unreasonable. Paul was quite adamant that expulsion was quite a different manner than casual sinning. 1 Cor 5:1-7 (ESV) It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Hope this helps.

Two ways you can look at it. 1. Jehovah will fully provide (i.e., they will get donations). 2. Jehovah will not provide (no donations).

References Exodus: Exodus 6:2-4 (ASV) And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them. And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their sojournings, wherein they sojourned.

The exact pronunciation is not known anymore. So, as to the validity of "Jehovah". It only applies in the languages it was defined as. How, you wonder? Let's take "fire". Is that the original pronunciation of what we know as fire by the being that first mentioned it? We can 99.999999999999999% guarantee it is *not*. So. Is "fire" the incorrect word for fire? By the reasoning some want to apply, the answer is "yes." Which means, pretty much, no-one in he world knows what they are talking about and are speaking gibberish. That is where we have "transliteration" and "translation". YHWH is incorrect. Why? The Tetragrammaton is *not written in modern Romanized characters.* YHWH is *not* God's name, *by any means.* It is an attempt to use existing character combinations with an aproximate sound to the word in another language. In the case of YHWH, this is even *more* incorrect, since the pronunciation is not being transliterated, but raw characters, whose pronunciation in that particular combination in their native language *no longer exists.* This brings us to "translation". To use an example, if you ever meet a Korean with the name "Lee", "Lee" is *not* his name. It is a *translation*. His real name, in accurate *transliteration* is "Ee". Lim is really "Him" without the "H" sound. Mr. Park has no "r" in his real name. I am sure you also have many examples. Which, now, brings us back to Jehovah and English. Until the time of Tyndale, no one had translated the original Hebrew texts into English. Yet, there is a word there that occurs about 7000 times, the concept and exact match of which the English language *does not have*. Now, since *no one alive then or now* knows *how* that word is pronounced, Tyndale could have written Spongebob with a notation on the front that "Spongebob" is how he will represent the Tetragrammaton in his *translation*, because, with the pronunciation of the original *not known* he *cannot* transliterate. But, instead, he noticed that "Jeova" was being used elsewhere and why, so, rather than pick "Spongebob" he picked Jehovah (modern spelling. It was with an "i" before) and maintained some sort of reasoning for the translation. And, of course, the reason Tyndale had to make a translation in the first place has its origins *with God.* (ASV) Genesis 11:9 Therefore was the name of it called Babel; because Jehovah did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did Jehovah scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth. As God did not reveal His Name until *after* the Babel episode, those who eventually learned English *had no native concept* of the meaning of God's name, therefore no equivalent word to the Tetragrammaton. They would have to come up with them when they ran into the concept. And, when Tyndale did, he coined "Jehovah" to represent the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in the English language about 500 years ago. And, this fact is attested to, still, in dictionaries: British "Jehovah" in British English See all translations Jehovahnoun UK /dʒəˈhəʊ.və/ US /dʒəˈhoʊ.və/ › the name of God used in the Old Testament of the Bible http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/jehovah Now, you can call out "Korean Dude!" or "Mr. Lee!". But, Mr. "Ee" will appreciate you using his name, which, in English, is Mr. "Lee." And that is how we view Jehovah, which, in Korean, is Yohowah, which, in ancient Hebrew is . . . The Tetragrammaton. But, you can use Yahweh (or one of the 50 different variations claiming to be the True Pronunciation) if you want: It is *still* wrong. When the New Kingdom arrives for good, I am sure the True Name will be in wide use, and all will have the correct pronunciation. But, until then, we are left with Jesus's words at John 17:26 (CEB) I’ve made your name known to them and will continue to make it known so that your love for me will be in them, and I myself will be in them.” And that is a *critical* reason to be using God's Name, *however* it may have been translated into the language *God Himself* gave you.

" Prison staff sent Huang to the on-site hospital, where he eventually died at the age of 36. Two forensic experts said that he had been beaten to death, but in their report changed the official cause of death to “sudden death following heart attack.” " Gotta love the truth of that, no? Paraphrasing Billy Crystal: When you fall off a sky-scraper, it's not the fall that kills you: It's the sudden stop. Gregory Hines: "AH, "Deceleration Trauma"" Surprised they just didn't say "Cause of death was life leaving the body." Then, of course, they can always claim they did not beat him for having a Bible, but for refusing the order to hand it over for, uhm, "inspection." And here I thought it was some of his ex-triad members that had done the deed.

They don't have Hurricanes. They are in the Pacific. They have "Typhoons" But, isn't that *one* way to guarantee "0" future emissions? Perhaps they were looking to use wind power . . .

Optical delusion in the other post. Guess it's not a fork. So, who is it? Constantine or Jesus?

Is that a fork on his forehead?

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him.

Their launches are usually successful. It's the in-flight time they have problems with. Does that mean we have a NK basketball with a webcam going "beep, beep" every 90 minutes?

They are soooo much better off without that maniac Kadhafi

I guess that looks good on the world resume: A Leader in Global Environmentalism.

The squirrel *isn't* laughing . . . Probably wondering why he thought the nuts on the ground were so impotent--important. . .

I was a beta tester for them in 1984 because the owner of the company I was working at knew some guys at Autodesk. We got a completely free setup. Type in "regen", go to lunch, come back an hour later, have cofee, restroom stop, make rounds on the machining floor, check in with the R&D head to see if he needed any additional programming help (I happened to know PDP-11 BASIC), back to the desk by 2:00 PM. Wait another 5 minutes, and voila! A clean picture. Lol.

It's true. Look into: Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace:A Critical Examination of the Foreign Policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Its Aftermath. At least *a year* before Pearl Harbor, they had broken Japanese diplomatic codes, and they *knew* because of this that the trade embargo of 1940 was going to lead to war.

Dan Quayle Part-II

Ahh. American stats. You ought to include that in the title.

Say "suspending" probably has different connotations. Should he get good numbers somewhere else (since will probably be on the ballots, anyway), he can always later say "Vacation is over, time to re-start." But maybe the reps just want to back *one* solid candidate and let the presidential campaigning start early. Puts the dems on the defensive until they can consolidate under one candidate.

New name: Inc.

"thank you dear brothers and all the Jehovah's witness comunity worlwide for trying to protect us from bad cats !" It's not the cats. It's the parasites. One reason for posting the article is to properly inform people. Try reading it. Against all odds, you might actually learn something.

This is old news, Librarian. The article I remember reading several year ago also highlighted women's heightened affinity to Toxoplasma, and it is a typical screening item for pregnancy because of it. It also was used to fin out why the old adage of "crazy old woman with cats."

And the idiots keep trying to come up with Artificial Intelligence they can put in them as well. Satan's double-play at it's best.

They have a safety standard for hoverboards?

That should get Apple cracking (pun intended). Once McAfee gets the job done, their encryption is trashed. Should efforts (IIRC) used to be illegal, but as a "help to the Government" I am sure it would be quite overlooked.