Anna

Hmmmm.... I wonder if you would have known ANY of this had you not been contacted by Jehovah's Witnesses....

Those were exactly my thoughts! 😂 I would obviously die without Google! P.s. I'm thinking it's one of these very obvious things that you can't get if you think too hard. And then when you hear the answer you have a face palm moment.

You're going to have me racking my brain all day now!

You are able to come up with some logical reasoning, but then you let go of reason and start assuming things that aren't true. JW do not worship the org. because all know that worship belongs to God only. You pull out the Roman scripture (subjection to superior authorities) as proof that the org. is bad. You expect the annointed never to draw the wrong conclusion. You expect them to be either perfect, and sinless or led by holy spirit to the point where they do not have their own thoughts but are more like robots. Then you pull out the CSA as proof that the org. is bad, again insinuating that every JW should be perfect and without sin. Well I hate to break it to you again but that's not what the Bible says about Christians. Time and time again examples of faithful men and women who made mistakes were pointed out to you, but you ignore it...and then of course there are some that were bad and had to be thrown out.

I never thought I would use a Catholic site to explain the difference between bowing down and worshiping but here is: Question: Catholics say that they don’t worship Mary, but isn’t it the case that their actions suggest otherwise, such as when they bow before a statue of Mary? Answer: The question assumes that bowing before something or someone necessarily involves worship. But this is not true. For example, Solomon didn’t offer worship to his mother when he bowed before her in 1 Kings 2:19. It was simply a gesture of honor, since Bathsheba was the queen mother. Isaac wasn’t prophesying that the nations would worship his son Jacob when he said, “Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you” (Gen. 27:29). He was merely indicating that the nations would honor Jacob and his descendants. Moreover, the act of bowing can’t be idolatrous in and of itself, because God commands that it be directed to finite beings. For example, in Revelation 3:9 Jesus says that he will make “those of the synagogue of Satan” “bow down” before the feet of the Christians in Philadelphia. If bowing before another were an act of worship, then Jesus would be commanding idolatry. But that’s absurd. It’s possible that someone who bows before a statue of Mary might offer the statue, or Mary herself, worship. But the idolatry would not be due to the act of bowing. It would be due to the intentional offering of worship; like in the case of Cornelius who bowed before Peter and worshipped him (Acts 10:25-26). If a Catholic were to do such a thing, they would need to repent and begin offering worship to the one who alone has a right to our worship—namely, God. Edit: I forgot to include the source: https://www.catholic.com/qa/bowing-isnt-worshipping

No, I don't see this, at all. Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’” The Bible is explicitly clear that worship belongs only to God. It is a case of what does "worship", as opposed to "obeisance" or "bowing down" or "honoring" mean? I understand this to mean that you can bow down, kneel or curtsy to anyone entitled to such a sign of respect and honor. But you would not worship them. Unfortunately the Greek word proskuneo has been translated in various ways in different Bibles depending on what the translator "deemed appropriate" For example in the same Bible (New American Standard Bible): Matthew 2:2: "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him." Matthew 8:2 And a leper came to Him and bowed down before Him, and said, "Lord , if You are willing, You can make me clean. Matthew 14:33 And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God's Son! Matthew 15:25 But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord , help me!" Matthew 20:20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him Matthew 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. etc. The Darby translation: Matthew 2:2 Where is the king of the Jews that has been born? for we have seen his star in the east, and have come to do him homage. Matthew 14:33 But those in the ship came and did homage to him, saying, Truly thou art God's Son etc... Mark 15:19: American Standard Version: And they smote his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him Good News Translation: They beat him over the head with a stick, spat on him, fell on their knees, and bowed down to him. King James Version: And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him. Duay Rheims Catholic: And they struck his head with a reed: and they did spit on him. And bowing their knees, they adored him ETC. Strong's Number: 4352 Browse Lexicon Original Word Word Origin proskuneo from (4314) and a probable derivative of (2965) (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand) Transliterated Word TDNT Entry Proskuneo 6:758,948 Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech pros-koo-neh'-o Verb Definition to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank to the Jewish high priests to God to Christ to heavenly beings to demons NAS Word Usage - Total: 60 bow down 1, bow down before 1, bowed down 1, bowed down before 2, bowing before 1, bowing down 1, prostrated himself before 1, worship 32, worshiped 17, worshipers 1, worshiping 1, worships 1

Everyone and all sorts. This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, whose will is that all sorts of people should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth. (1 Timothy 2:3,4)

From the sahidicinsight blogspot linked above: John 14:14: To "me" or not to "me", that is the question With apologies to Shakespeare's Hamlet. Many modern Bible translations are based on a critical text like the Nestle-Aland 27 (NA27). At John 14:14 such texts read: ἐάν τι αἰτήσητέ με ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐγὼ ποιήσω, "If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." (English Standard Version) New Testament textual scholars consider the Alexandrian text to be generally "the best text and the most faithful in preserving the original." (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 5) The "me" reading is found in a number of such ancient textual witnesses, including p66 (2nd century). The Sahidic Coptic text (2nd/3rd century) is also in the Alexandrian text family. Like still other ancient witnesses, it does not have "me" at John 14:14. Rather, the Sahidic Coptic text reads: ЄΤЄΤΝϢΑΝΑΙΤЄΙ ΝΟΥϨШΒ ϨΜ ΠΑΡΑΝ ΠΑΙ ϯΝΑΑΑϤ, "If you should ask anything in my name, this I will do." Some scholars think that "ask me" is original because it is the more difficult reading. That is a consideration, but a more important consideration would be if it squares with everything else that Jesus said and did. "Ask me" would be logical in the immediate context of Jesus' speaking with his disciples while he was still with them. Even the first Christian martyr Stephen implored Jesus as if he were still present. (Acts 7:59) But it is not unusual that Jesus as a living presence would still resonate with Stephen, since Jesus' ministry and resurrection were recent events for Stephen. However, beyond that context, Jesus directs Christians to pray to "Our Father" (Matthew 6:9), and the apostle Paul said "I bend my knees to the Father." (Ephesians 3:14) There is no other verse in the New Testament where Jesus requests or directs that prayer as an act of worship should be addressed to him. If the "me" reading is original, it would be an anomaly that is out of character with the whole New Testament. "Ask me...in my name" is tautological, a needless repetition that is also ambiguous. Further, in the context of the Gospel of John as a whole, "ask me...in my name" is strange doctrine, if it is taken to refer to prayer. But the Sahidic Coptic reading, ЄΤЄΤΝϢΑΝΑΙΤЄΙ ΝΟΥϨШΒ ϨΜ ΠΑΡΑΝ ΠΑΙ ϯΝΑΑΑϤ, "If you should ask anything in my name, this I will do," harmonizes with the rest of Jesus' teaching. -- John 15:16; 16:23 http://sahidicinsight.blogspot.com/

Some interesting observations form a blog: John 14:14 'me' is omitted after 'ask' in the following trinitarian Bibles: ASV; CBW; Darby; GNV; JB; KJ21; KJV; MLB; NEB; REB; NKJV; LB; MKJV (Green); NLV; RSV; WEB; WE; Young’s. Many of them do not mention an alternate reading of 'me' in a note! And, likewise, many of the Bibles which do translate ‘ask me’ in this verse do not mention an alternate reading without ‘me’!! The prestigious The Expositor’s Greek New Testament (Vol. 1, p. 824) also omits “me” from its text and does not even bother to address the matter in its voluminous notes. Bible Analyzer calls this 5-volume work “The Premier Greek Resource.” This is a disputed text. There exists manuscript evidence that ‘me’ may not have been used by the original writer. (Also see http://sahidicinsight.blogspot.com/ - Nov. 2, 2010 - where ‘Memra’ explains the importance of the ancient Coptic translation of this verse.) However, there is no such dispute about John 16:23 where John wrote: “... whatever you ask the Father for, he will give you in my name.” We should ask the Father (not the Son) in Jesus’ name. Therefore 'me' at John 14:14 is even more in doubt. Bowman has access to a copy of (and is quite familiar with) the 1984 NWT Reference Bible. He repeatedly quotes from it and refers to notes in it in both this 1991 publication (Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses) and his 1989 publication, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John. Yes, the 1984 NWT Reference Bible (which does have notes, of course) says in a footnote for John 14:14: 14* “Ask,” ADIt and in agreement with 15:16 and 16:23; P66 [Aleph]BWVgSy(h,p), “ask me.” Source: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2010/11/john-1414-from-rdb-files.html

I don't see ME in this interlinear https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh14.pdf

No doubt!

I’m sure I let some sleazeballs I just thought she might be a bit savage 😁

I just had a look on your FB page, Ursula Iwuchukwu seems ok. Not so sure about DaVinci Dy Savage 😂

I will put that on our watcht list, although my husband will probably say we've already seen it. That's the trouble, when it comes to movies I have a brain like a sieve, well not just movies. I tell him if I ever get Alzhimers he won't notice the difference.... Yes, I hate that too. It's such a pity when good quality movies are peppered with swear words, they grate on me like nails on a chalkboard. They are really not necessary. The other day we watched something pretty tense (don't ask me what it was) and it had no swear words in it at all! It didn't take away from the story. In fact I doubt anyone, even the most cuss filled people, would have objected. I can't see anyone saying; well I can't watch this, there isn't a swear word every 2 minutes. I used to hate it even more when our teenage soon would watch something with us. He would casually say: mum, that's nothing, I hear that at school all day.... That is cultural. The more you see it the less you notice it. I lived in one country where the sisters were dressed more sparse on top. Everyone else was. Nobody seemed to care. Then I moved to the USA and I had to adjust my wardrobe slightly. It's funny, but even movies are categorised differently here. Nudity (without sex) gets you an immediate R, but gory violence a pg 13, whereas elsewhere, only violence (and obviously explicit sex scenes) gets the R treatment. In any case, as my mum would say, in paradise we are all wearing fig leaves. Hey, even Rutherford thought it ok to depict Eve topless....

👍Yes, I agree

I know you are being sarcastic, but if anything changed, then it wouldn't be for the first time, you know that. And really, it is not a fundamental problem whether the number is literal or not, (even though I said it could solve the problem of increasing partakers, as you say, it could be because some have dropped out etc.. ) Ultimately God knows the correct interpretation, we can only do our best to understand it, and we can be wrong, as so many others in Bible times were. I am not worrying about it.

Yes, of course. There are very few numbers in Revelation that are taken literally. Even the number 144,000 is made up of a non-literal number of tribes (12) each made up of a non-literal number of persons from each one of them (12,000). I have wondered about that too, for the same reason. If the number was not literal, it would help in solving the problem of ever increasing partakers each year. I would not be surprise if it was dropped one day....

Nothing to do with not being transparent. It's quite normal if someone wants to be part of a club, they have to meet club rules. The JW only club is just that: for JWs only. Nothing dishonest or secretive about that. The scripure you quote applies to relationships and interactions with people, even then, the scripture doesn't mean you have to indiscriminately tell everyone everything. You have examples in the Bible where faithful servants of God did not say everything they knew. There is a time to speak, and a time to be quiet.

I must admit I never thought of thinking of God as grandfather 🤔🥴

Yes and no. You have to be approved to join the JW Only club first in order to read the contents and comment.

It's already there

Intetesting question. I can understand why you are asking these questions, and you give good reasons for asking them. The article you posted a link to shows why prayer is only appropriate for God, but you are right when you ask is there anything wrong with having some kind of communication with Jesus. Here is just my opinion: during the memorial season we are supposed to reflect on what Jesus has done for us, and read scriptures pertaining to that. Well perhaps when reading the gospels we can "communicate" with Jesus in the sense that we think about him and his life and thank him for his love for us. Jehovah sent his beloved son because he loved us, but Jesus didn't have to go, like all of God's creatures he had free will. Jesus came to earth and allowed himself to be killed because he was fond of mankind, so like Jehovah, he loves us. His feelings for us are evident in the Gospels, and we can imagine how he would communicate with us were he on earth now. So through the scriptures we can feel close to him and we know he feels close to us, and he talks to us, and we can talk to him while we are reading them. Also, because we direct our prayer through Jesus, Jesus is also the recipient of our prayers in a way. (But I don't think this is what you had in mind). Just a suggestion, you might want to post questions like this in the JW Only club. But it's up to you of course. If you want imput from ex JWs as well then you are in the right place.

It is a difficult doctrine for me to accept, yes, however, I am not saying it can't be true. The organization is obviously convinced it is true. If one day there is sufficient evidence for them to stop being so dogmatic about it, they may change their opinion. They have done it before with other things. If that happens, then it won't change my opinion about Jws. It will remain the same as it is today because I do not hang my faith on the 1914 doctrine.

Russell's intention is clearly seen from the book's first page where he quotes theses scriptures: "Times of Refreshing shall come from the Presence of the Lord: and He shall send Jesus Christ, *** Whom the Heavens must retain until the Times of Restitution of All Things; which God hath Spoken by the Mouth of all His Holy Prophets since the World began." "Ye, Brethren, are not in Darkness, that that Day should Overtake you as a Thief,"—Acts 3:19-21;1Thes.5:4. In context, Jesus at Luke 21:8 is talking about a person's impersonating or saying they are the expected Messiah during the time of the end. Russell did no such thing. In verse 34-35 Jesus is clearly defining the urgency of keeping in expectation of him: "“But pay attention to yourselves that your hearts never become weighed down with overeating and heavy drinking and anxieties of life, and suddenly that day be instantly upon you as a snare. For it will come upon all those dwelling on the face of the whole earth. Keep awake, then, all the time making supplication that you may succeed in escaping all these things that must occur and in standing before the Son of man.” It is in that spirit, the spirit of keeping awake and in anticipation, that the book "The Time is at Hand" was written. “Look! I am coming as a thief. Happy is the one who stays awake and keeps his outer garments, so that he may not walk naked and people look upon his shamefulness.” Rev 15:16

I don't think so. Not in English speaking countries. But I do think CC aka Allen's first language is not English. And then there are all kinds in a congregation, and some are brothers in name only. What I find strange is that CC aka Allen never calls God by his name...