Jump to content
The World News Media

Christ Divinity Explained in John 1:1c


BroRando

Recommended Posts

  • Member
33 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Exactly - I now live in a country where only one letter is changed to indicate if it is a definite article or not. This changes the meaning. It is NOT the same..... no matter how technical you try to get! !

Meaning?  Different...... 

Then you must have missed the point.

  • Theo-n means either god, God, a god, or the God.
  • Theo-s means either god, God, a god, or the God.

It all depends on other things going on in the sentence (and sometimes context). It is NOT about whether the word theo-n or theo-s was used. To explain John 1:1, you indicated that "theo-s" means "a god" and "theo-n" means "the God." As you can see from the scriptures: this is plainly wrong. It can even be the opposite. John 3:16 (quoted) calls "The God" theo-s, and John 10:33 calls "a god" theo-n. This is the OPPOSITE of your claim about John 1:1.

  • (John 10:33) "... for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” [theo-n] (NWT)
  •  image.png

And, it's also not true that just because the Bible writer leaves out the word "the" that it must mean "A god."

Just because Luke 12:21 says "theo-n" without a THE in front of it doesn't mean it should be translated:

 "So it goes with the man who stores up treasure for himself but is not rich toward a god.”

 Οὕτως Thusthe (one)θησαυρίζων treasuringαὑτῷ to himselfκαὶ andμὴ notεἰς intoθεὸν Godπλουτῶν. being rich.

So that supposed rule does not apply in general. In fact there are about 280 places where "the God" is meant by just the word "god," even though there is no "the" (or other form of definite article) in front of it.

But there are good examples of "theos" such as in Luke 20:38 where the Greek form would be supportive of the translation "a god" in John 1:1, rather than "God" or "divine."

(Luke 20:38, Kingdom Interlinear Translation)

θεὸς

Godδὲ   butοὐκ notἔστιν isνεκρῶν of dead (ones)ἀλλὰ butζώντων, of living (ones),πάντες allγὰρ forαὐτῷ to himζῶσιν. they are living.

38  He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him.” (NWT)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 3.1k
  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Agree.  If Jesus was in all sense, the Almighty God, he wouldn't have said... "Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He

Christ Divinity Explained in John 1:1c John 1:1 is the Beginning of Creation that supersedes Genesis 1:1. For example, we read, "When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, And all th

Wow, How to make a simple thing more complicated. 

Posted Images

  • Member
14 hours ago, BroRando said:

One way, is in the Masculine sense as in the first instance of (John 1:1) But what about in the second instance as in John 1:1c? Isn't that scripture describing his qualitative sense? His divinity in being divine?

No. It's too much of a stretch to say that John 1:1c being used in a feminine sense. It's BOTH the word theos (theon) in John 1:1a AND the word theos (theos) in John 1:1 c that can be used in both a feminine and a masculine sense. Also the word "logos" (word) happens to be "masculine" in Greek (and Hebrew, too.) [Although "wisdom" in Hebrew and in Greek is a feminine noun.]

It may very well be that John 1:1c intends to imply that Jesus is divine in a qualitative sense. But NOT because of any possible use of THEOS as either masculine or feminine. The Greek word THEOS can be used to refer to a female god (feminine) or a male god (masculine) or effectively, even a "neutral" god.

(Philippians 3:19) Their end is destruction, and their god is their belly . . .

[Although "belly" happens to be a feminine noun in Greek, and it can also mean womb.]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
15 hours ago, Witness said:

2 Tim 3:16,17  🙂

When that was written only the Hebrew scriptures were known, and some of the Greek scriptures hadn't even been written. I think that scripture is misused, unless it was a prophesy.  But once again I say that the scriptures were written for the Anointed,  so I do wonder how much the 'little dogs' need to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Wow, How to make a simple thing more complicated. 

Because information is vital. It is one of those things, annoying things when dealing with Jehovah Warriors, KJV-Onlyist and Trinitarians, etc who primarily use the verse to "prove" Jesus is God - hence the crusade of core Christianity, in this sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
32 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

It may very well be that John 1:1c intends to imply that Jesus is divine in a qualitative sense. But NOT because of any possible use of THEOS as either masculine or feminine. The Greek word THEOS can be used to refer to a female god (feminine) or a male god (masculine) or effectively, even a "neutral" god.

Most of the time - this.

Some people who simply read the verses when they see THEOS quickly come to a conclusion. The title can be applied to anything or anyone, for it does not automatically make them The True God. Other similar examples would be Isaiah 9:6 and Titus 2:13, where as for this verse, Trinitarians often appeal to the Granville Sharp Rule in order to identify Jesus as God. 1 Timothy 3:16 is also another interesting one, for "God" being included into the verse proves problematic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Thanks for showing the same thing from other scriptures. There is a sense in which the Word is God and that is the basic point of John 1:1. But it is not the point, of course, that Jesus himself is God, but that Jesus so fully represents God. It's not so strong as Trinitarians make it out to be. But the Gospel of John, in general, introduces us to the idea that Jesus is "divine" but not himself "God."

Agree.  If Jesus was in all sense, the Almighty God, he wouldn't have said...

"Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner."  John 5:19

"I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me."  John 5:30

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

No. It's too much of a stretch to say that John 1:1c being used in a feminine sense. It's BOTH the word theos (theon) in John 1:1a AND the word theos (theos) in John 1:1 c that can be used in both a feminine and a masculine sense. Also the word "logos" (word) happens to be "masculine" in Greek (and Hebrew, too.) [Although "wisdom" in Hebrew and in Greek is a feminine noun.]

It may very well be that John 1:1c intends to imply that Jesus is divine in a qualitative sense. But NOT because of any possible use of THEOS as either masculine or feminine. The Greek word THEOS can be used to refer to a female god (feminine) or a male god (masculine) or effectively, even a "neutral" god.

(Philippians 3:19) Their end is destruction, and their god is their belly . . .

[Although "belly" happens to be a feminine noun in Greek, and it can also mean womb.]

 

A few scriptures that support John 1:1c in the Feminine Sense.  (Other Feminine Nouns)

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of All Creation; (Col 1:15) Trinitarians make the claim Jesus is God. Well then, can we conclude that God is the firstborn of All Creation?  

Strong's Concordance
ktisis: creation (the act or the product)
Original Word: κτίσις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: ktisis
Phonetic Spelling: (ktis'-is)
Definition: creation (the act or the product)
Usage: (often of the founding of a city), (a) abstr: creation, (b) concr: creation, creature, institution; always of Divine work, (c) an institution, ordinance.
HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 2937 ktísis – properly, creation (creature) which is founded from nothing (this is also the sense of this term from Homer on); creation out of nothing (Lat ex nihilo).

This leads us back to John 1:1.  Notice the introduction... "In the Beginning was the Word" (John 1:1)  The Beginning is descriptive of whom?  The Word.

 

Strong's Concordance
arché: beginning, origin
Original Word: ἀρχή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: arché
Phonetic Spelling: (ar-khay')
Definition: beginning, origin
Usage: (a) rule (kingly or magisterial), (b) plur: in a quasi-personal sense, almost: rulers, magistrates, (c) beginning.
HELPS Word-studies

746 arxḗ – properly, from the beginning (temporal sense), i.e. "the initial (starting) point"; (figuratively) what comes first and therefore is chief (foremost), i.e. has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent").

Do you see the consistency? Feminine nouns are pointing to a Creation that is brought forth and begotten as with labor pains. Read (Proverbs 8:22-31)

The scripture plainly tell us that Christ is the Wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:24)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, Witness said:

2 Tim 3:16,17  🙂

 Then he said: “Go, Daniel, because the words are to be kept secret and sealed up until the time of the end.  Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will act wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand; but those having insight will understand." (Daniel 12:9-10) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Most of the time - this.

Some people who simply read the verses when they see THEOS quickly come to a conclusion. The title can be applied to anything or anyone, for it does not automatically make them The True God. Other similar examples would be Isaiah 9:6 and Titus 2:13, where as for this verse, Trinitarians often appeal to the Granville Sharp Rule in order to identify Jesus as God. 1 Timothy 3:16 is also another interesting one, for "God" being included into the verse proves problematic.

Most don't recognized the the truth when it is staring them in the face.  I'm saying this in general not pointing at you.

"During that time {Jesus Christ} will stand up, the Great Prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book. And many of those asleep in the dust of the earth will wake up, some to everlasting life and others to reproach and to everlasting contempt." (Daniel 12:1-2)

"And war broke out in heaven: {Jesus Christ and his angels} battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them any longer in heaven." (Rev 12:7-8)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
19 hours ago, BroRando said:

A few scriptures that support John 1:1c in the Feminine Sense.  (Other Feminine Nouns)

You offered 3 scriptures so far, and you could easily find more. For every one of them, there are at least twice as many that refer to Jehovah God the Almighty Father, with the same supposedly "feminine" nouns. You are playing with the kind of Talmudic "wordplay" that Jewish rabbis got caught up in for many centuries. Whether a word ends up being masculine, feminine or neutral in a language is not part of any divine plan or purpose. In general, Hebrew and Greek and German and many other languages that split words into "genders," will tend to treat attributes, concepts, ideas, and qualities as "feminine" more often than as "masculine," but not always.

As a basis for any doctrinal support, this is about as meaningless as saying that a bed or couch is "feminine," just because the Hebrew word is "feminine." Or that a table is "masculine" just because the Hebrew word is "masculine." Or that a lampstand is "feminine." Or that rain, snow, hail and cloud are "masculine." But "rainbow" and "wind" (and therefore also "spirit") is "feminine."

A man's birthright (like the one Jacob wanted to buy from Esau) is "feminine."

Even though a bull is obviously masculine, both male and female cattle (or beasts) are referred to with a feminine noun. That includes the great Behemoth in Job, or when Nebuchadnezzar is referred to:

  • (Daniel 4:16) Let the heart of a beast (feminine) be given to him.

And it's the same "feminine" word for beast used everywhere else, including here:

  • (Daniel 7:19) . . . the fourth beast (feminine), which was different from all the others; it was extraordinarily fearsome, with iron teeth and copper claws, and it was devouring and crushing, and trampling down what was left with its feet;

There was nothing especially "feminine" about Behemoth, or Nebuchadnezzar, or the fearsome fourth beast with iron teeth and copper claws.

And there is nothing especially "feminine" about Jehovah God, even though he is described as the Creator (feminine), and in the Beginning (feminine), and a God of Salvation (feminine), and a God of Jealousy (feminine), and God of Greatness (feminine).

And there is nothing especially "masculine" about the female breast or bosom, and yet the word for a female breast is masculine.

(Ruth 4:16) Na·oʹmi took the child and held him to her bosom [masculine], and she cared for him.

19 hours ago, BroRando said:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of All Creation; (Col 1:15)

If Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, then he is the firstborn from the viewpoint of the father of all creation; the Creator himself; which would just as easily suggest that Jehovah is feminine. And he isn't.

19 hours ago, BroRando said:

This leads us back to John 1:1.  Notice the introduction... "In the Beginning was the Word" (John 1:1)  The Beginning is descriptive of whom?  The Word.

The Word (masculine) was in the beginning (feminine). But it wasn't just the Word associated with Creation and with the Beginning. What about Genesis 1:1?

(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The beginning is associated with whom? God. The creation is associated with whom? God.

You could do this for 100 other scriptures. Jehovah's qualities are described very similarly to the qualities seen in Jesus.

Think about Hebrew and Greek word genders in about the same way that you would think of German word genders. A common example is the typical set of eating utensils. A spoon is masculine, a fork is feminine, and a knife is neuter (neutral).

  • der Löffel (the spoon),
  • die Gabel (the fork)
  • das Messer (the knife)

Why should a spoon be masculine, a fork feminine, and a knife neuter? ("Neuter" means neutral gender here, not the implication about knives in Galatians 5:12.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

You offered 3 scriptures so far, and you could easily find more. For every one of them, there are at least twice as many that refer to Jehovah God the Almighty Father, with the same supposedly "feminine" nouns. You are playing with the kind of Talmudic "wordplay" that Jewish rabbis got caught up in for many centuries. Whether a word ends up being masculine, feminine or neutral in a language is not part of any divine plan or purpose. In general, Hebrew and Greek and German and many other languages that split words into "genders," will tend to make attributes, concepts, ideas, and qualities more often feminine than masculine, but not always.

As a basis for any doctrinal support, this is about as meaningless as saying that a bed or couch is feminine, just because the Hebrew word is feminine. Or that a table is masculine just because the Hebrew word is masculine. Or that a lampstand is feminine. Or that "rain" "snow" and "hail" are masculine. But "rainbow" and "wind" (and therefore also "spirit") is feminine. And cloud is masculine. A man's birthright (like the one Jacob wanted to buy from Esau) is "feminine."

Even though a bull is obviously masculine, both male and female cattle (or beasts) are referred to with a feminine noun. That includes the great Behemoth in Job, or when Nebuchadnezzar is referred to:

  • (Daniel 4:16) Let the heart of a beast (feminine) be given to him.

and it's the same "feminine" word for beast used everywhere else, including here:

  • (Daniel 7:19) . . . the fourth beast (feminine), which was different from all the others; it was extraordinarily fearsome, with iron teeth and copper claws, and it was devouring and crushing, and trampling down what was left with its feet;

There was nothing especially "feminine" about Behemoth, or Nebuchadnezzar, or the fearsome fourth beast with iron teeth and copper claws.

And there is nothing especially "feminine" about Jehovah God, even though he is described as the Creator (feminine), and in the Beginning (feminine), and a God of Salvation (feminine), and a God of Jealousy (feminine), and God of Greatness (feminine).

And there is nothing especially "masculine" about the female breast or bosom, and yet the word for a female breast is masculine.

(Ruth 4:16) Na·oʹmi took the child and held him to her bosom [masculine], and she cared for him.

If Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, then he is the firstborn from the viewpoint of the father of all creation; the Creator himself; which would just as easily suggest that Jehovah is feminine. And he isn't.

The Word (masculine) was in the beginning (feminine). But it wasn't just the Word associated with Creation and with the Beginning. What about Genesis 1:1?

(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The beginning is associated with whom? God. The creation is associated with whom? God.

You could do this for 100 other scriptures. Jehovah's qualities are described very similarly to the qualities seen in Jesus.

Think about Hebrew and Greek word genders in about the same way that you would think of German word genders. A common example is the typical set of eating utensils. A spoon is masculine, a fork is feminine, and a knife is neuter (neutral).

  • der Löffel (the spoon),
  • die Gabel (the fork)
  • das Messer (the knife) Why should a spoon be masculine, a fork feminine, and a knife neuter? (Neuter means neutral here, not the implication about knives in Galatians 5:12.)

Are you now denying that Jesus is the faithful and true witness, "the Beginning of Creation" at Rev 3:14Since Jesus was brought forth (begotten), then at one time he did not exist.  

Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago. From ancient times I was installed, From the start, from times earlier than the earth. When there were no deep waters, I was brought forth, When there were no springs overflowing with water. Before the mountains were set in place, Before the hills, I was brought forth, When he had not yet made the earth and its fields Or the first clods of earth’s soil. When he prepared the heavens, I was there; When he marked out the horizon on the surface of the waters, When he established the clouds above, When he founded the fountains of the deep, When he set a decree for the sea That its waters should not pass beyond his order, When he established the foundations of the earth, Then I was beside him as a master worker and was the one he was especially fond of day by day; rejoiced before him all the time; I rejoiced over his habitable earth, And I was especially fond of the sons of men. (Proverbs 8:22-31) 

This is how Jesus became known as the Son of Man.... God is not the Son of man. (Numbers 23:19)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

God is Truth and Jesus fully expressed that Truth by everything he said and did. God is Light and Jesus fully expressed the Light of the Father in all the words he spoke and works he did in the name of his God. God is Love and the flesh named Jesus fully expressed the Father's Love; dead flesh crucified for the sins of mankind. The Word of God was something the man named Jesus always kept. The Word became flesh, that is, God the Father was manifested in flesh, that flesh named Jesus. Jesus came so that we might know the Father and Jesus fully expressed the Father in all the things he did because he always kept His Father's Word. Jesus' words and works were not his own but the Father's. For the Word of which Jesus speaks is God's Spoken Word.

SM, I don't normally agree with you, but this is beautiful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • An interesting concept, bible discipline. I am struck by the prevalence of ignorance about spiritual discipline on "Reddit." While physical and mental disciplines receive attention, the profound impact of spiritual discipline on a person's physical and mental well-being is often overlooked. Is it possible to argue against the words of the Apostle Paul? When he penned those words in Hebrews 12, he was recognizing that there are moments when an individual must be "rebuked" in order to be corrected. Even Jesus himself established a precedent when he rebuked Peter and referred to him as Satan for failing to comprehend what Jesus had already revealed to the apostles. Did that imply that Jesus had an evil heart? Not at all, it was quite the opposite; Jesus had a loving heart. His need to correct Peter actually showcased his genuine love for him. If he hadn't cared, he would have let Peter persist in his mistaken ways, leading to a fate similar to Judas'. There is a clear emphasis on avoiding the apostate translation and its meaning, yet many seem to overlook the biblical foundation for the reasons NOT to follow the path of the fallen brethren or those with an apostate mentality. Those individuals have embraced the path of darkness, where the illuminating power of light cannot penetrate, to avoid receiving the righteous discipline based on God's Bible teachings. They are undoubtedly aware that this undeniable truth of life must be disregarded in order to uphold their baseless justifications for the unjust act of shunning. Can anyone truly "force" someone or stop them from rejecting a friend or family member? Such a notion would be absurd, considering the fact that we all have the power of free will. If a Witness decides to distance themselves from a family member or friend simply because they have come out as gay, who is anyone within the organization to question or challenge that personal sentiment? It is unfortunate that there are individuals, both within and outside the organization, who not only lack a proper understanding of the Bible but also dare to suggest that God's discipline is barbaric. We must remember that personal choices should be respected, and it is not for others to judge or condemn someone based on their sexual orientation but should be avoided under biblical grounds. No one should have the power to compel an individual to change their sexual orientation, nor should anyone be forced to accept someone for who they are. When it comes to a family's desire to shield their children from external influences, who has the right to challenge the parents' decision? And if a family's rejection of others is based on cultural factors rather than religious beliefs, who can impose religious judgment on them? Who should true followers of Christ follow? The words of God or those who believe they can change God's laws to fit their lives? How can we apply the inspired words of Paul from God to embrace the reality of God's discipline? On the contrary, how can nonconformists expect to persuade those with a "worldview" that their religious beliefs are unacceptable by ostracizing individuals, when God condemns homosexuality? This is precisely why the arguments put forth by ex-witnesses are lacking in their pursuit of justice. When they employ misguided tactics, justice remains elusive as their arguments are either weak or inconsistent with biblical standards. Therefore, it is crucial to also comprehend Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 9:27. The use of the word "shun" is being exaggerated and excessively condemned by those who reject biblical shunning as a form of punishment. Eph 5:3-14 NIV 3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person — such a man is an idolater — has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.  6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.  8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10 and find out what pleases the Lord. 11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. 13 But everything exposed by the light becomes visible. The impact of the message becomes significantly stronger when we emphasize the importance of avoiding any association with unrighteousness and those who remain unrepentant. In fact, it becomes even more compelling when we witness how some individuals, who dismiss biblical shunning as a method of discipline, excessively criticize and condemn the use of the word "shun". Therefore, Jehovah's Witnesses do not shun people; instead, they choose to focus on the negative actions being committed, which is in accordance with biblical teachings. This should be construed as ex-Witness rhetoric. Now, let's consider why ex-Witnesses specifically target one particular religion. What justifications do they provide when other Christian denominations also adhere to the same principle grounded in the Bible? Chapter 1 - Preface Both must therefore test themselves: the one, if he is qualified to speak and leave behind him written records; the other, if he is in a right state to hear and read: as also some in the dispensation of the Eucharist, according to  custom enjoin that each one of the people individually should take his part. One's own conscience is best for choosing accurately or shunning. And its firm foundation is a right life, with suitable instruction. But the imitation of those who have already been proved, and who have led correct lives, is most excellent for the understanding and practice of the commandments. "So that whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  It therefore follows, that every one of those who undertake to promote the good of their neighbours, ought to consider whether he has betaken himself to teaching rashly and out of rivalry to any; if his communication of the word is out of vainglory; if the the only reward he reaps is the salvation of those who hear, and if he speaks not in order to win favour: if so, he who speaks by writings escapes the reproach of mercenary motives. "For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know," says the apostle, "nor a cloak of covetousness. God is witness. Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome as the apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children."   (from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2) Divine promises 2. The manner of shunning, in the word escaping. There is a flying away required, and that quickly, as in the plague, or from a fire which hath almost burned us, or a flood that breaketh in upon us. We cannot soon enough escape from sin (Matt 3:7; Heb 6:18). No motion but flight becomes us in this case. Doctrine: That the great end and effect of the promises of the gospel is to make us partakers of the Divine nature. (from The Biblical Illustrator)  
    • Clearly, they are already demanding your exile. Yes! It's unfortunate that Pudgy spoiled a great discussion about science. I hope the discussion can continue without any more nonsensical interruptions. Just a suggestion since they are on your heels. Wow! You speak! It seems you have a lot to say! Now they are going to treat like, who do you think you are, mister big stuff! Are those aliens now going to imply that anyone who speaks out against the five or six key contributors to this site will be treated as though it is George just because those in opposition speak the language they hate to hear, the TRUTH? They are seeking individuals who will embrace their nonconformist values and appreciate what they can offer in shaping public opinion contrary to the established agenda of God and Christ. Their goal is to enhance their writing abilities and avoid squandering time on frivolous pursuits, mainly arguing about the truth they don't care for. They see it all as a mere game, even when leading people astray. They believe they have every right to and will face no biblical repercussions, or so they believe. They just want to have fun just like that Cyndi Lauper song. Be prepared to be belittled and ridiculed, all the while they claim to be angels. Haha! By the way, please refrain from using the same language as George. They appear to believe that when others use the same words, it means they are the same person, and they emphasize this as if no one else is allowed to use similar grammar. It seems they think only they have the right to use the same or similar writing styles. Quite amusing, isn't it? See, what I just placed in bold, now I'm George, lol! Now, let's leave this nice science thread for people that want to know more about science. I believe George left it at "Zero Distance."  
    • Nice little thread you’ve got going here, SciTech. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it.
    • It's truly disheartening when someone who is supposed to be a friend of the exclusive group resorts to using profanity in their comments, just like other members claiming to be witnesses. It's quite a ludicrous situation for the public to witness.  Yet, the "defense" of such a person, continues. 
    • No. However, I would appreciate if you do not reveal to all and sundry the secret meeting place of the closed club. (I do feel someone bad stomping on Sci’s little thread. But I see that has already happened.)
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • lauleb  »  misette

      merci pour ton travail très utile. tu es une aide qui fortifie
      · 0 replies
    • Pamela Dunston  »  T.B. (Twyla)

      Hi, TB
      I would like to get the weekly meeting and watchtower materials  and the 2024 convention 
      Attend the 2024 Convention—“Declare the Good News!”
      notebook, I just recently got a new computer, If don't mind my brother to add me on and allow me access to our study again.
       
      Thank you, so much
      Sister Dunston
      · 1 reply
    • SpiritualSister 24  »  DARLENE2022

      Hello, Darlene, I just love your name, I had a cousin named Darline, and had a classmate also named Darlene! It's a pleasure to know another Darlene! Especially a Spiritual Sister! There's some websites, Ministry Ideaz , JW Stuff.com, and Etsy that I use to order my yearly buttons for the Conventions! They always send me what I order, and their also Jehovah's Witnesses, that send us the merchandise we order!  You can check out these websites, and they might have what your looking for! I hope I have been helpful in assisting you, Darlene! Agape love, Shirley!😀
      · 1 reply
    • SpiritualSister 24

      2024"Enter Into God's Rest" Circuit Assembly! 
      · 0 replies
    • Janice Lewis  »  T.B. (Twyla)

      Hello Twyla, when will the weekly study material be available. I am a member.
      Janice Lewis     lewisjanice84@gmail.com
      Thank you
      · 1 reply
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,685
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    josteiki
    Joined
×
×
  • 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.