Shiwiii

As far as different doctrines, I don't expect the society to be totally infallible in their understanding and neither have they ever said they were. But they require you to believe them as if they were, no? As I've mentioned, I come from different denominations and have seen changing doctrines and teachings from one church on the corner this week to a different teaching the next week visiting the church down the street. I've seen mainstream televangelists preach hellfire/no hellfire, Unitarian/Trinitarian and still undecided, make predictions every Sunday that fail to come to fruition, not to mention the history of Christendom deliberately murdering our people and taking our land. So what? Does their wrong make the wrongs of the society right? I also did not use the word misquote. You continue to twist my words. I quoted you, it was you who said "Sometimes things may not be in the exact context in which it was written and I would rather have all the facts and not a one-sided opinion. " I did not twist your words, you admit that to get the context of the source the society quoted, you must look it up yourself and NOT rely on the society. If you think I did misquoted you, then do you feel that it was dishonest? Is that not what I'm trying to say about the society?

wait, I Thought That The Spirit / Soul Goes Into Nonexistence Until The Resurrection?

So not many jws know that the society has excluded Jesus from being their mediator. Interesting, but they have to have a mediator, right? I mean, how could a regular jw have access to God otherwise?

So by organized, you mean changing doctrines and interpretations as the need suits? For example the organ transplant ban and lift, not really knowing who your faithful and humble servants were until recently? and the people of Sodom and Gamorrah being resurrected? Do those changes demonstrate organization and sheparding? "Yes, I agree terms like Trinity or hellfire would be describing certain concepts, also like rapture, Lord's prayer, Lord's Evening Meal, Memorial, etc." Good, glad to see you do not hold the hard and fast rule among most witnesses. "If you notice, I stated the website is to point people to information about the kingdom and of course there is information about Jesus, the ruler of God's kingdom. Once there people can learn how they can put faith in Jesus and receive everlasting life by means of him. " Isn't that suppose to be the Bible and not a website that you agree misquotes not only scholars but also the Bible? See my answer below. "I myself don't always quote a whole scripture if I'm trying to make a point or I can include part of it in the thoughts I am writing. I do understand what you mean though as I have had to look up some quotes of the society most notable if they quote an outside reference on a matter, commentaries or certain scholars or experts. Sometimes things may not be in the exact context in which it was written and I would rather have all the facts and not a one-sided opinion. " Would you not deem this as a sort of dishonesty? Especially if it taken out of context to promote a view point of the society?

This is because they do not have the "Good Shepard" as their master. Jesus is the way the truth and the life, not an organization. do you mean like Trinity and Hell? Directing people to a website for salvation IS idolatry, especially when we should be pointing people to Jesus for salvation as the Bible says we should. I think your goal and the goal of the society are not one in the same. I was just overlooking at the "text of the day" threads and saw that conveniently the society had not fully quoted a scripture. This causes one to only see what the society wants them to see. Thus the objective is not the same for the follower as it is for the leaders. I can elaborate if needed.

Thank you for sharing. I am sure there is more to your experience than what you have told us. My heart aches for you and my anger boils for those who have done these things. I will research more about you. I feel that is why you wrote and how you wrote. It is a disgrace when children, or anyone, is violated and people turn a blind eye. I feel those who know but do nothing are just as guilty as those who did the act.

Thank you for your answer. At least someone is willing to give their opinion. I am in agreement with your quote. Do you see how each of us does have a mediator?

maybe I need to be more clear. You DO have a mediator, but who do you say this mediator is? Is it Jesus? Is it the anointed? Is it the GB? Is it the org as a whole?

Yes, you are right, I'm not a jw. I'm still asking though.

First we have to determine what we know of the first resurrection. The first resurrection is that of the righteous. This is shown to us by a few scriptures. First being Luke 14:14 "And you will be blessed, since they do not have to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous. " It is talking about the good you do to those who are unfortunate, the widows and poor, crippled lame and blind. Philippians 3:10&11 "that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead." Paul is speaking about being as close to Jesus as we can, so that will be resurrected to eternal life. 1 Thessalonians 4:16 "for the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. " Again, those who are righteous are in this first resurrection. Those who died while being in Christ Jesus are who this is talking about. Now on to your question. Since we know that the first resurrection is those who are righteous, not by their own doing, by being in Christ and relying on Him for salvation. We see that none of the supporting scriptures speak of those who are unrighteous, but we need to make sure if they are not included. Verse 6 of Rev 20 says that these in the first resurrection are blessed and that the second death has NO power over them. They have to ONLY be the righteous, or how could the unrighteous be saved from the second death? The second resurrection is described in verses 12 and 13. Remember in 1 Thessalonians those who died in Christ were already resurrected, so who is left? The unrighteous. They come out of the sea, sheol, hades etc. They were resurrected to judgement, not a second chance because this second resurrection takes place AFTER the 1000 year reign! Read chapter 20 again. Also note Daniel 12:2 "Many of those who have sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt." Revelation 20:13 tells us that those resurrected in the second resurrection are then judged according to their deeds and anyone who's name is not found in the book of life was cast along with death and hades into the lake of fire. Done! That's how I see it, if others have a different view, I'd like to know how and why.

Who is the mediator between you and God/YHWH?

There is no 2 Tim 1:28, or a verse 28 in either books of Timothy.

The agreement to disagree is a disgraceful defeat if it means surrendering the hope of agreement through deeper understanding.

It's funny how you have stated that answering me is foolishness and you feel as though you are "casting your pearls before swine ", but yet you continue. Not only continue, but when presented with context of your "swine" quote and showing you that Jesus didn't dismiss questions, you want to write three paragraphs in support of you not continuing. Then state that you will....for the rest of the evening? !? Lol Nice rabit hole, but I'm not following. You have exhausted your position, I can see that.

Didn't you say you had more important things to do? To your quote, Jesus had no problems speaking to anyone, tax collector (Matthew ), devout Jewish leader (Nicodemus ), even Judas. But you seem to believe He excluded those who asked questions. Yes, pass the buck to someone else. Like I said, usual answer for a jw who needs an escape.

Jesus’ own name, which we know as “YHWH is Salvation”. Jesus name is also Immanuel, "God with us"

Cop out, and a way for you to bow out. No need to respond, you're much too important for foolishness like this forum. It is answers like this that I get all the time from jws that find themselves without a good explanation. Good day Janice

" I didn't see a need to respond to foolishness" Then what are you even doing here? 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to be ready to make a response. It doesn't say if you think it's foolishness don't. "The honor is equal as I would not honor my mother less than my father because he is head. " Then you should do the same to Jesus. "For example, we are commanded to love our enemies, but we would not love our enemies the same as we love our family because our family comes first." I beg to differ, we are to treat our neighbor as ourself. You don't have to continue to respond as I can see you have your view and it is in contrast to the Bible I believe in. So we see things differently. No problem, good day to you.

I understand your position. However there are scriptures that you cannot ignore. "If Jesus is 100% God, then why is the Bible always so careful to show that Jesus fully represents God to us, but that he is never called "God" anywhere, with only some possible exceptions in the book of John. " Do you mean like John 7:37&38? (Isaiah 55:1-3), John 10:11&12 (Psalms 23:1, Psalms 95:7), John 12:41 (Isaiah 6:1), John 13:18 (Isaiah 43:10), John 14:15 (Exodus 20:6). The context of each of these is in harmony with the OT scripture. The account at John 12:41 is undeniable that it is equating Jehovah of the OT with Jesus of the NT. "Still, even in John there is a kind of hesitation to speak of Jesus as "fully" God: "no man has seen God" but "the only-begotten god... has explained him." To me, it's as if it's saying that -- for all intents and purposes as far as humans can perceive -- the Word is so close to a full representation of God that we can now know God fully through the manifestation of the Son of God, who is not God, but for our purposes, might as well be because he has done such a perfect job representing him." So there is some degree within you to accept that Jesus is God. Good. "I, naturally, don't think that we should be blamed for our interpretation either." I am not blaming, but rather explaining. There are many who hold your position and many who hold mine, but it IS our job to express our position according to the Bible. "Therefore, we don't see the conflict in NT writers choosing verses that were originally about YHWH (Jehovah) and using them to tell us something about the Lord Jesus Christ. " The conflict comes in when the context and subject is changed, and that is my whole point. If the NT is equating something that God of the OT has done or is to Jesus, then the only logical reason is to show us that Jesus is the God of the OT. This is by reason of Isaiah 46:9, "there is no one like me"

Janice-"and it is hypocritical to complain when others try to correct the apparent deception and manipulation of God's word; " There is no proof for them to correct anything in the NT. I see that it matters not to you. Janice- "It was not until the 20th century that solid proof was found that God's name was included in the original writings of the OT, therefore, we do not have to wait another two thousand years to realize Jesus also spoke his Father's name when he was on earth, and it wasn't LORD or GOD." Wow, I can't believe what you just said. You want to take the assumption of man as if it were fact. There is no evidence Janice, none. Janice - "Although none of the extant Greek New Testament manuscripts contain the Tetragrammaton, " Right here is the answer in your quote, you just choose to listen to men instead if the fact that in God's word it's not there.

It is, however the quote is applied to Jesus in Romans 10:13. The chapter testifies to Jesus and describes Him as Lord in verse 9. Then goes on to quote the OT and apply it to Jesus in verses 11 and 13. The dishonesty done by the writers of the NWT have changed the text to insert, not just the name, but the Father when He is not who is spoken of here. This is just one of the reasons against the insertion of YHWH.

you are arguing for something with another topic all together. That doesn't work. You cannot introduce something else that has no relevance to the topic we are discussing, especially if you think it is also a theory, to support this. and this is the point, no one else has found it either! It is inserted by men who WANT it to be there. That is what this discussion is all about there is no evidence to support YHWH in the NT. There really is no arguing about it. It is inserted by man to fit their theology. then why do they insert it? to fit their theology, not God's. while I can see your points here, it is still all speculation. On the same note, Could it be that God proclaimed to the wt to put it there? Could it be that Satan had the wt put it there? Did Genghis Khan ride in and destroy all Bibles and write it himself? see these types of questions mean nothing as they are unsubstantiated. Without any historical support these are merely guesses. If this is the case and you feel that it is proper, then one MUST adhere to it totally. If bringing the divine name over from the OT it has to be consistent and not when it suits the need of men. See that is where the men who insert it do not want to go. For instance at Romans 10:13 is a direct quote from Joel 2:32, but it is applied to Jesus. If we were to insert the divine name it would say clearly that Jesus IS Jehovah. Men who want to insert the name are reluctant to do it here because it will disrupt up their theology. unfortunately they do grasp tightly to this interpretation (NWT), when they should have stuck with the KJV if anything. The failure of the interpreters to have any sort of Biblical language skills is a disservice to those who hold tightly to this NWT. I do not feel that they even cared, it was only to push their theology upon the rank and file and fool them by pointing to their interpretation of the Bible to prove their case, even though they knew it was erroneous from the start.

This is the point, it is only a theory, there is no support historically for this and until some is found, then it remains a theory. A guess, an assumption and we cannot base the word of God on an assumption. either it is or it isn't there can be no maybe. What we do know is that the pronunciation was lost, how or why is also a guess. Did God allow that? obviously. If it were so important and a matter of true worship according to God, then I would have to believe that God would have preserved it. He preserved the rest of the Bible, why not this one thing?

My point was that the LXX is not the NT and just because the LXX has it in it doesn't mean that the NT did. The link supposes that because the LXX does then the NT must have. This is the position that Manuel Boyet Enicola has also taken, but it is unsubstantiated. The argument is based on the LXX to support the NT containing YHWH. There is no evidence to show that the NT contained YHWH. I do understand your point, and I apologize to you and Manuel Boyet Enicola on that. Nowhere does Manuel Boyet Enicola state that he believed that the LXX is the NT. Rather, Manuel Boyet Enicola believes that because the LXX contained YHWH, the NT must have also.

I would say it's worshiped. I mean, what do disciples direct folks to? Jesus gathered people to Himself, and told the apostles to point others to Himself. If one is adamant in pointing someone to a website that claims to be the only way to salvation, then those people are disciples of that website.