Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post Praetorian homer_simpson 31  2  1-15-08  12:29 am Quotations "verse this verse that" etc homer_simpson 1  1  9-03-07  12:18 am JUST A FRIENDLY HELLO!! crawly 2  1  9-01-07  4:45 pm   Start New Thread

Author Message   cky (cky) Junior Member Username: cky Post Number: 30 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 137.3.122.49 Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 5:53 pm:        Are Jehovah's Witnesses Christians?   kcassity New member Username: kcassity Post Number: 6 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 71.14.79.2 Posted on Wednesday, April 05, 2006 - 2:52 pm:        yes. they believe in the teachings of Christ. They are a far more simple and straight forward religion than any of you are making it seem. By the way, rampant sexual abuse is EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!! catholics abuse, as do jews,atheists,agnostics,fundamentalists,mormons,etc.,etc.,etc.,   pointlessshrew Intermediate Member Username: pointlessshrew Post Number: 127 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 208.157.173.138 Posted on Friday, June 09, 2006 - 12:03 am:        No, they are not Christians. The Watchtower Society denies key, biblical tenants of orthodox Christianity, and they are, therefore, not Christians. And they *do* *not* believe the teachings of Christ. Jesus Christ declared that He is GOD and Scriptures acknowledges that He is worshipped--Jehovah's Witness deny this Jesus Christ said "YOU must eat My Flesh and drink My Blood to have Life" (ten times in John 6 alone...)--Jehovah's Witnesses deny this. The Holy Spirit is GOD and is a Person--Jehovah's Witnesses deny this. They have changed Scripture in thousands of places to match their doctrines. They have flipped on doctrines almost yearly since their inception. They call themselves prophets and then deny they ever said such a thing. Nope, the WTS is a mind-control cult, plain and simple. And just like KCassidy did above, when the burden of proof is laid at their door, they point the finger elsewhere or use some other act of subterfuge to derail the conversation. Not a convincing defense by any means. In His Grace, miki   bear Intermediate Member Username: bear Post Number: 465 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 24.247.112.45 Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 11:43 pm:        Shrew, Good points! Kcassity, To begin with, the New World translation has been discredited by Christian and non-Christian scholars. It is interesting that the other bibles that the society uses to give credibility to its doctrines are themselves not even credible. Second, and I would love a response, what is the "Good News" that the society preaches? I can tell you for a fact that it is not what Jesus,Peter or Paul preached. Paul's focus was on preaching Jesus, which is NOT what the society does. You see, one can not truly preach about Jehovah unless they first preach Jesus. Jesus is the focus, not a claim of restoring the divine name YHWH. I use the Name Jehovah, but it is not even the correct form of the name. Also, the society claims that yhey are the only organization preaching the correct way: door to door. LOL! True Chrisitianity does more to spread the message of Jesus than the society can shake a proverbial fingure at. Note the following: - Jesus went door to door beacause of the custom of his day, the time in history and the culture. - We do not read about Paul going door to door - Door to door may work in third world countries, but not very well in the USA. The culture has changed; they are reached in different ways. However, the society refuses to change its mode of reaching people. I was a Catholic boy (as many Jw's were) who was sucked into the organization at age 11. After fighting my parents for years, I gave up the struggle, and decided to enjoy going to the Kingdom Hall, Assemblies, etc. However, the truth that was instilled in me, by my true Christian friends (not Catholosism), never left. A the age of 19, I left on my own free will. Three years later, I found true Christianity, the real "truth", and freedom arrived. I have spent the past 15 years in study of the WTBTS, though not out of revenge or obsession. I have uncovered so many false doctrines which a JW never realizes, due to being under the complete control of 12 men in New York. BTW, some have left the governing body in the past, and have exposed the organization for what it is. As a JW, you believe that you have the truth. With some many factions in Christondom, it hard to fathom any truth outside of the so called "truth". Well, it is out there; all around the world. I have travelled to the hills of Mexico, the jungle of Asia, and I have found true fellowship with bible believing Christians; people which the JW's have only scratched the surface of reaching. How do you reach an animist tribe in Asia by wearing a tie, and offering a Watchtower publication? Answer: you don't! Your thoughts...   marilyn_m Intermediate Member Username: marilyn_m Post Number: 125 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 142.177.79.112 Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 6:57 pm:        bear, Your thoughts were interesting. I too was once a JW & have also uncovered false doctrines of the JW"s .However I do believe that there are some good people in the JW's that believe with their hearts that they are doing what is right, just as I once did & most of those people never question what the watch tower Soc. tells them is true, I questioned anything that did not add up to me & spend a lot of time in the back room being chastised, one elders even called me Jezebel because he was afraid that I would cause other"widows in the truth" to question things. WE widows were more of a threat to them I guess because we had no "husbands in the truth to keep us in our place" We should never stop searching because there are new truths to be learned every day.   marilyn_m Intermediate Member Username: marilyn_m Post Number: 127 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 142.177.105.231 Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 1:50 pm:        kcassity, Yes sex abuse is everywhere, but as far as I know other religions don't try to protect their members from the "law's of the land" as the jw's do & I know for a fact that they do! I personally want no part of any religion that allows adult members to prey on children & hides them from the law , telling their victims that "It is up to Jehovah to punish them"   inkorrekt Advanced Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 697 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 208.54.15.1 Posted on Saturday, October 28, 2006 - 3:30 pm:        MARILYN_M: I feel so sorry for all the JW's that they have been misguided into thinking that they are Christians. When they believe that Jesus Christ is only a man and not God, then how could they claim to be christians? Who is a Christian? Is he the one who reads the bible, goes to church and prays? No, Why? Does a Dog sitting in a gagrage become a Car? Thsi is exactly what the problem with the JW's is. JW does not believe that Jesus christ was both human and divine. CHRISTIANS ARE THOSE WHO ACKNOWLEDGE JESUS CHJRIST AS THEIR SAVIOUR. They can live agood life, they can do door knocking. They can read the Bible, they can conduct Bible studies. They are all good. But, none of these activities will ever make them christians. Christians are also FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST. But, JW's only follow anon exiosting Jehovah.   bear Advanced Member Username: bear Post Number: 581 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 24.176.44.177 Posted on Saturday, October 28, 2006 - 7:09 pm:        marilyn_m, Amen to that.   rebel8 Junior Member Username: rebel8 Post Number: 36 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 24.58.75.167 Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 6:58 am:        Thankfully the watchtower society has been ordered by the court to turn over their database of pedophiles. The public became aware of the database in 2002 and the watchtower society has been refusing to share its contents ever since. What possible ethical reason could they have for refusing? www.silentlambs.org ---> more info there   bear Advanced Member Username: bear Post Number: 594 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 24.176.44.177 Posted on Friday, November 03, 2006 - 9:05 pm:        The Laws of the Land must be obeyed. Protecting molesters does not fall into the category of "obeying God rather than man". Anyone who is invloved with the WTBS should not be afraid to look into their organizations past and present political tactics.   artdog New member Username: artdog Post Number: 2 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 69.229.38.158 Posted on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 - 2:27 am:        Wondering if anyone had read anything by James Randi? I read a passage in one of his books while in college... and it got the gears turning. I was raised JW... and was begining to question a few things... this passage just hit me. Maybe Bear knows if this is accurate, since he (I'm assuming he) studied theology. Can be found here http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Jehovah's%20Witnesses.html It states... "One of Russell's strange preoccupations was inventing correlations between historical events and the measurements of the Great Pyramid of Giza. In common with Flinders Petrie and many other fans of Great Pyramid lore, Russell “discovered” hundreds of seeming links that he said showed the divine nature of the Pyramid as a history book and prophetic document which could only be properly understood by an adept. His analysis, published in 1891, called for the resurrection of all mankind and the end of the world——again——to take place in 1914. Though there were some defections from the Jehovah's Witnesses sect when 1914 arrived and passed, the religion has survived and now prefers not to discuss their founder's odd Pyramid notions..." I had never heard the pyramid thing before... and its the only place I have heard it... just wondering if its accurate. Doesn't change my perceptions on JW beliefs... obviously, I'm not there any more, and dont really count on going back... I'm just curious. (PS I know I have a VERY bad habit of using "..." I don't know why... it just happens... lol)   praetorian Junior Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 35 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - 1:15 pm:        Bear and Company: If you enjoy reading, you will want to pick up and “READ” a book called "Truth in Translation", Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, by Jason David BeDuhn, University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland, 2003; rather than an internet compendium that only selectively picks and chooses. There is a lot of ignorance out there and no end to those who perpetuate it as, ‘Repetition of Error Becomes Truth.’ P.S. Bear, it’s been a while. Hoping all is well! And by the way, Professor BeDuhn while also criticizing JW’s in his book, only permits his students to take his course if they use the NWT or a particular Catholic Bible. I guess the Scholar is “wacked out-huh?”   bear Advanced Member Username: bear Post Number: 792 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 71.82.80.189 Posted on Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - 10:40 pm:        Why does he do this?   praetorian Junior Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 37 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Thursday, March 08, 2007 - 11:12 am:        Bear I do not understand your question. Please elaborate. Thanks   pilgrim Intermediate Member Username: pilgrim Post Number: 408 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 195.93.21.134 Posted on Thursday, March 08, 2007 - 12:48 pm:        artdog, You said, "It states... "One of Russell's strange preoccupations was inventing correlations between historical events and the measurements of the Great Pyramid of Giza." Look at "AMERICA UNDER THE CURSE OF THE MASONIC JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES" in the following website, one of the symbols used by freemasons is the pyramid. http://www.geocities.com/jesuselcristos/hoaxology_10.html   praetorian Junior Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 40 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Thursday, March 08, 2007 - 1:38 pm:        Pilgrim: I must tell you that in any lie there is always a bit of truth. Just for the heck of it, since most people take the words of someone else and parrot them as their own when the find what they like, without really doing the research themselves…. Take just one example, quote of this web site: “The Jehovah's Witnesses changed the following passages in their New World Translation because it is shown that Jehovah=Satan” I must tell you that a simple reading of 2 Samuel 24:1 shows in plain English God YHWH gets angry against Israel and David for taking the Census, in 8th grade English, mening that God is against this action, as opposed to 1 Chronicles, 21:1, that shows Satan incited David and others to do the Census meaning he was for it. Now what point do they really make? Looking it up shows how they contradict themselves!!! Also , how many people will look this up parrot this as accurate? Repetition of error becomes ‘truth!’ This is what happens when people blindly accept and believe things like this. I think the right or better phrase is, what does one become when one “assumes” information like this is correct? Too Funny!   pilgrim Intermediate Member Username: pilgrim Post Number: 409 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 195.93.21.134 Posted on Friday, March 09, 2007 - 4:22 am:        Praetorian and everyone, I have just done a quick five minutes search for Jehovah's witnesses connection to freemansons and I have found several websites. I recommend to everyone to do a google and a yahoo search to get more information. I have posted below a small number of the websites that I had found. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Jehovah%20Witnesses/jw.htm http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Illuminati/occult_connection. http://www.cephasministry.com/masonic_connection_of_the_watchtower.html http://www.cephasministry.com/masonic_connection_of_the_watchtower_2.html   pilgrim Intermediate Member Username: pilgrim Post Number: 411 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 195.93.21.134 Posted on Friday, March 09, 2007 - 5:11 am:        To Everyone, Look at the following website, Reasoning with Jehova's Witnesses http://www.kevinquick.com/kkministries/books/reasoning/index.html http://www.kevinquick.com/kkministries/books/reasoning/deity.html http://www.kevinquick.com/kkministries/books/reasoning/holyspirit.html http://www.kevinquick.com/kkministries/books/reasoning/trinity.html http://www.kevinquick.com/kkministries/books/reasoning/earth.html I hope that you find these website helpful. Blessings pilgrim   praetorian Junior Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 50 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Friday, March 09, 2007 - 4:50 pm:        And Pilgrim, what I believe is mine, I did the research, I looked up the scriptures, and what I know may be little, but I know it well, and again it is mine, and not borrowed from someone that thinks like me. It is easy to find someone to agree with especially on the net. Did you do the research yourself? Did you read the statements in the post to you and look up all the scriptures, and deal with the questions presented. Where did you disagree? Why? Be specific. I even showed you a place where the one of the sites quotes Bible passages incorrectly. Ok, I am sorry the quoted it wrong..they did it, not me...a or a JW..... In the end,   inkorrekt Advanced Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 860 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 71.33.139.244 Posted on Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 3:03 am:        KCASSITY writes JW are christians.What makes anyone a christian? It is not someone who believes Him. Christian is one who is dead to his sins by the acknowledgement that we are all sinners, Christ became the sacrifice for our sins, He is the Lord of our lives and those who follow Him. A dog sitting in a Garage does not become a Car.Mormons and JW's are not christians.   praetorian Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 59 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 7:25 pm:        Dear inkorrekt" You must have some hatred for JW’s to call them or anyone else “dogs” while holding yourself out as judge and jury let alone a “Christian!” All Hail Hitler, oops I meant inkorrekt, the keeper of all knowledge and wisdom. Isn’t that what Hitler did to the Jews, and some others, decide they were “dogs”, pests and no longer needed? The way you express yourself is more in common with Hitler than Christ! Please don’t confuse the two! Are you a truly a Christian? If so, you certainly have a fine way of expressing it! And, if you are what it means to be a Christian, then I indeed have a different Bible than the one you use, as yours must have different words in it than any of the ones I or others have, that teach Christianity! Do tell? Oops now you could be a psedo nazi skin head white supremacist something or other, that also claim to be Christian but hate all races and religions other than their own! In this case, there is no reasoning with you!!!   inkorrekt Advanced Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 880 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 130.253.33.52 Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 10:38 pm:        Can you not understand the difference between and example and actual statement? Once again, A DOG is a DOG is a DOG is a DOG. Though it can sit in a Garage (meant for cars mostly), can it ever become a Car? Similarly, for example, Bill Clinton went to Church every Sunday with a huge Bible tucked in the arm pit. Did he ever read the Bible in his home and follow it? He only knows and God only knows. So, everyone who carries Bible and talks about it can be and cannot be a Christian. This is the point. I never compared JW's to Dogs.If this is your level of your understanding, you do not belong in this forum. Once again, why is it that the sexual abuse in the Kingdom Hall is covered up? Why is it that those who challenge the leadership are subjected to discipline such as "Disfellowshipping", harrassment, public humiliation and separation from family and friends?   inkorrekt Advanced Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 881 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 130.253.33.52 Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 10:42 pm:        Can you not understand the difference between an example and actual statement? Once again, A DOG is a DOG is a DOG is a DOG. Though it can sit in a Garage (meant for cars mostly), can it ever become a Car? Similarly, for example, Bill Clinton went to Church every Sunday with a huge Bible tucked in the arm pit. Did he ever read the Bible in his home and follow it? He only knows and God only knows. So, everyone who carries Bible and talks about it can be and cannot be a Christian. This is the point. I never compared JW's to Dogs.If this is your level of your understanding, you do not belong in this forum. Once again, why is it that the sexual abuse in the Kingdom Hall is covered up? Why is it that those who challenge the leadership are subjected to discipline such as "Disfellowshipping", harrassment, public humiliation and separation from family and friends? I do not hate JW's. I never expressed this in my posts. It is your owqn assumption. On the other hand, I feel sorry for all those Blind Sheep who follow the False Leaders.   inkorrekt Advanced Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 882 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 130.253.33.52 Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 10:48 pm:        Can you not understand the difference between an example and actual statement? Once again, A DOG is a DOG is a DOG is a DOG. Though it can sit in a Garage (meant for cars mostly), can it ever become a Car? Similarly, for example, Bill Clinton went to Church every Sunday with a huge Bible tucked in the arm pit.Did this make him a Christian? Did he ever read the Bible in his home and follow it? He only knows and God only knows. So, everyone who carries Bible and talks about it can be /and cannot be a Christian. This is the point. I never compared JW's to Dogs.If this is the level of your understanding, you do not belong in this forum. Once again, why is it that the sexual abuse in the Kingdom Hall is covered up? Why is it that those who challenge the leadership are subjected to discipline such as "Disfellowshipping", harrassment, public humiliation and separation from family and friends? I do not hate JW's. I never expressed this in my posts. It is your own assumption as usual. On the other hand, I feel sorry for all those Blind Sheep (brain washed) who follow the False Leaders. I am waiting for the opportunity to show them how they are wrong and who will enter Heaven and who will enter Hell. It is also my desire to show each of those JW's Who true God is and how personal He is and how much He loves us all. Unfortunately, they have been programmed never to allow anyone to ask questions, but to quote scriptures and practise their prememorized scripts.   praetorian Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 60 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 69.244.39.179 Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 10:59 pm:        Thank you for the clarification, I guess when you introduce the voice inflection to the words, it can read more than one-way. I could not agree more with you that carrying a Bible does not make you a Christian. As to cover-ups and sexual misconduct (which I discuss in my other reply to you) etc. you make contradictory points. On one hand you criticize them for the sexual matters etc. and on the other hand, you do so for disfellowshipping those who practice such things. As to feeling sorry I trust they have the right to feel the same way about you and your views! In the end, no matter how thin you cut a slice of ham, you still have two sides!   inkorrekt Advanced Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 889 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 71.33.135.14 Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 4:33 am:        Disfellowshipping is the punishmennt given to those who challenge the leadership for any matter including sexual abuse.This means who will question any misconduct by those in authority and so such abuses will continue? Accordeing to the law of non contradictions 2 opposing views cannot be both TRUE. JW's use the Bible(their own version) and antagonize the Teachings of Christ. Therefore, how could JW and True christianity be TRUE?   praetorian Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 69 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Thursday, April 05, 2007 - 5:59 pm:        Inkorret: Did I not deal with your hubris assumptions in this thread? I forgot, when you write, you presume the people reading the thread are stupid and cannot read! Alrighty then….please know, that in all my responses (Stay with me Jimbo, Stay with me) above, I have replied by sticking to the issues in the posts, and have done my best, in fact, to keep to scripture, with no outside sources (or opinions) so that I can truly say that “All the sayings of my mouth are in righteousness. Among them there is nothing twisted or crooked” (Proverbs 8:8) with regards to the replies! You however have resorted to a series of interesting things in yoru responses that only serve to characterize “your” so called Christian demeanor such as: 1. Avoiding the issues; 2. Emotionally attack; 3. Used unflattering terms-name calling; 4. Blown your own trumpet (Humble real Humble) only to belie your claims of a learned person; 5. Responded to matters not at issue; 6. You unnecessarily feel the need to challenge folks, me and others on this board much like you admit you do to others (See your Post 879) which in the end, simply means you sure can argue “real good” etc. etc. etc. Now, it was after these post exchanges above, you reached the conclusion where you “feel” the urge to express that you are “forgiving me” yes? Ok……Help me with this, (Stay with me Jimbo, Stay with me) forgive me for what? Please tell me what wrong I have committed against you? Fellow, you extended forgiveness to me because of the plain and simple fact, that I don’t agree with you, for having a different opinion than you do, that’s all. Where is the sin in this Fellow? I must tell you, that it takes an extraordinary amount of hubris to do this, (Satan is the leader in this perhaps he is your father) as you are not my, nor for that matter anyone’s judge, let alone you as a human are NOT better than anyone else. You Know Jimbo, stay with me—stay with ..that you believe you are! Duh, but datz anoder storee (Since you like to spell words wrong to make correct points with others they think like you). Fellow, it is I, who is exchanging emails with you, not anyone else let alone the JW’s etc, as they would not bother to kick at a barking dog, however me, I like eating them, especially the mean ones for breakfast! You have overestimated yourself while underestimating others by your assumptions and deep hubris demeanor. You truly believe your own Poop! I must tell you , and your not gonna like this Jimbo, nor where I quote it from….. just for you. The scriptures speak of people like you when it states in Proverbs 8:5, “O inexperienced ones, understand shrewdness; and you stupid ones, understand heart” also, Proverbs 14:33, “In the heart of the understanding one there rests wisdom, and in the midst of stupid ones it becomes known”, and Proverbs 15:14 “The understanding heart is one that searches for knowledge, but the mouth of stupid people is one that aspires to foolishness” and last but certainly not least, Proverbs 17:10, “A rebuke works deeper in one having understanding than striking a stupid one a hundred times.” Tata   praetorian Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 70 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Thursday, April 05, 2007 - 6:45 pm:        As to your post 889, I have addressed the matter of disfellowshipping in this and other threads to only be responded to by your ridicule. Even opponents can agree to disagree however, you seem to fancy or gravitate toward taking this to another bizarre level! I do not deal with bizarre so therefore it is difficult to understand you! Take it up with the scriptures Fellow. As to the other things you mention, which you have second hand from disgruntled people, again, this has been addressed by me previously. You are speaking of the same thing here Fellow, in reverse, as they are the only ones doing something about misconduct and disfellowshipping in the end, is only one way to deal with matters like these. Have you not read what happened to the man in 1 Corinthians and then later in 2 Corinthians? Silly man, tricks are indeed for kids! Look at it this way, if you (or others) were a wrong doer in Israel, disfellowshipping would be a welcomed blessing as God had them executed for various things including disagreeing with Moses, i.e. Korah etc. I guess they all thought Moses was a jerk! Satan was the first person (angelic person, but a person none the less) in effect, disfellowshipped by God! You are in a good company of complainers! And what is more, you are very well mistaken! Concerning your using laws and principles from philosophical sources, please note, that you need to find another thread for this; as I thought we were speaking on Biblical [or other] matters…oops sorry, you use other authorities outside the Bible to prove or support your views on the “Bible”, korrekt inkorrekt? I told you “where to go” oh learned one since it seems to be your bag, (the intent by me was to share with you, and get from you normal non raving views of the Book Truth in Translation since you are a indeed a scholar yourself) in order to view what this scholar says about 8 Bible… (Call them versions translations or whatever) to see if it matches with your scholarly learning! Alas, poor thing, it may be to much for you to digest. Tata   inkorrekt Advanced Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 899 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 130.253.33.42 Posted on Saturday, April 07, 2007 - 8:29 pm:        Disfellowshipping is also a punishment given to JW's associating with Christians. The JW's are continuously being spied on and monitored. JW's are very good in quoting scriptures. Where is the justification for this punishment from the Bible? Liberalism is a mental disorder, by Dr.Michael Savage is a very enlightening book that shows what is happening all over. Surrounded by idiots, by Michael Gallagher is another fascinating book. Mike was on a tour and the bus had the banner "SURROUNDED BY IDIOTS EXPRESS" .When the bus was in New Jersey, there were protestors all around the bus who proved his book. The liberal tactic is never to discuss issues, but attack the MESSENGER. Yet, the message will continue to HAUNT. Oneday, JEHOVAH GOD (Jesus Christ) will judge everyone including the JW's. So, get ready folks. You can all attack me. I am only giving you the message. By attacking me, the messenger, you cannot escape God's punishment. God's judgement is coming on all of us. It is time for you to stop repeating your fluff(Blowing the trumpet).I never claimed to be a scholar. I would have never said anything about myself if you had not attacked me first(8th grade education and being fired from the job). You never responded to my challenges, but began to attack me and Oneway. You started this first. I never did this. What a wonderful christian way of communication is this? Here is the major difference between a JW and a Christian.   bear Advanced Member Username: bear Post Number: 815 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 71.82.80.189 Posted on Sunday, April 08, 2007 - 7:50 pm:        inkorrekt said: "JEHOVAH GOD (Jesus Christ) will judge everyone including the JW's." Which is it? Jehovah or Jesus? They are not the same person.   praetorian Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 71 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 2:32 pm:        Inkorrekt: (Part 1 of 2) Does your mommy love you? Do your friends like you? You strike me as a person who argues so much (you know that person), they know everything and are never wrong! Usually, people avoid such ones! You keep quoting books on politics to support your religious—pseudo biblical postings. Do you not find that strange? Even you? What does this have to do with the price of bananas? The book I referred you to you was one from a scholar on translating the Bible from the original tongues into our English language. When it is all said and done, he is probably from you religion! Wow, you do buy into believing your own poop! It is interesting to note that Jesus was continuously being spied on and monitored too! Therefore this can only be understood as a compliment! Thank you! It just might surprise you to know, that in order to practice pure and simple Christianity as taught by Jesus and his disciples in any Bible is without the politics, without the hype, without the paganism, etc (Boy that would leave you with nothing) and would also leave you today with a Christianity that indeed would be not only be unpopular but “hated” by all, including other (Counterfeit) Christians. John 15:18 and 25 (You should/need to read the entire context to really get the point) it clearly shows that Christ was “hated” and his followers would be also; John 17:14, notes that the disciples were “hated” because they are no “part of the world”. What does that mean to you? You vote, you support killing people, you are involved in politics. I kinda missed those scriptures that showed Jesus and his disciples did the same thing? Help me out here, please? Hey, don’t the ministers in your Church also get paid? Wow, just like Jesus did and his disciples right? Show me those scriptures Jimbo---please!!!! As to where the disfellowshipping is in the Bible, don’t you read your Bible? In 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 (I used the website: http://www.biblegateway.com as it gives you the NIV and a bunch of others, for this reply) you will read, depending upon which Bible you use, words like, “expel” quit mixing” “must not associate”, etc. etc. etc. which also means disfellowship. Now in 2 Corinthians, 2: 5-11 it appears the person expelled is spoken of here, when it discusses taking “the man” back, forgiving him etc. etc. etc. (On this very matter also see Also 2 Corinthians 7:8-13). I trust that when this man was out-expelled (or whatever you want to call it) of the congregation it caused that man and others great pain etc. however, it did not stop it from happening. Jimbo, the point of any discipline (even jail by civil authorities) is to deter bad actions, behavior, and to punish and discipline, or train them to do better, in other words reform them. So take up the issue with the one who inspired Paul to take this action and write it down! I trust you don’t suggest leaving criminals on the street without punishing them do you Jimbo? I guess according to you “man” can do what God cannot or is not allowed to do, according to the book of “inkorrekt.” What Bible is that, that you use? Must be nice [interesting] to be you! As to your resorting to political and pagan beliefs in your worship of God, that speaks for itself as you have deal with those issues, I don’t!   praetorian Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 72 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 2:33 pm:        (Continued from Above Part 2 of 2) Do you read your replies before you post them? You must have no life! Hey, on the spying thing, you can go to a meeting yourself and tape it, and save the clandestine tactics for something else like the Betty Crocker Group, I hear they are truly Space Aliens, as you may want to rid the world of these, as their meetings are closed to the public. Watch out, they bite!! Wuff, Wuff!!! As to not responding to your “challenges”; I thought I responded to all of the “issues” you raised, and at times in kind, however, (without challenging you or anyone) if you feel I did not address an issue on point (Now read all my posts Jimbo before you put your foot in your mouth—OK!!!) please feel free to “point” it out and I will do my best to respond. In the end, “Why is it you do not know what I am speaking? Because YOU cannot listen to my word” (John 8:43) is the question you need to seriously ponder as the “One day” you point to, where God (the non pagan triple God etc.) will judge everyone also includes you Jimbo! I trust you are not beyond this also? Maybe you are—who knows… And finally, I made a plain and simple reply that touched your emotional buttons which was in response to the way in which you made your previous posts and points, but you fail to see that, as I responded “in kind” you know Jimbo (take it slow) in like manner as you did! I guess you don’t like it when it is turned around on you, and now you want to play nice. You are just like the bully who does not grow up, that gets mad when someone stands up to you, only to find out you are not that tough at all! Which personality here I am responding to? Ok, since you made my reply to be (again) unchristian, you should know that I was following what Jesus himself did (as she left us a model to closely follow) when dealing with people with a “BA” [Bad Attitude] (as in John 8:43 above) which you seem to love to imitate and call “Christian”; however Jesus did say (among other things) two noteworthy things; One: In the Sermon on the Mount, specifically in Matthew 7:6 he states, “Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw your pearls before swine, that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip you open” and then later, (two—stay with my Jimbo, stay with me) at Matthew 23:27, 28 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you resemble whitewashed graves, which outwardly indeed appear beautiful but inside are full of dead men’s bones and of every sort of uncleanness. In that way you also, outwardly indeed, appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. Tata for now   balaam New member Username: balaam Post Number: 5 Registered: 5-2006 Posted From: 68.209.251.36 Posted on Monday, May 28, 2007 - 6:06 pm:        If JW's are not supposed to have contact with non-JW's, then please all JW's listen up: STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM MY FRONT DOOR!!! Bunch of hellbound nutcases.   praetorian Junior Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 29 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 68.63.206.252 Posted on Monday, May 28, 2007 - 6:20 pm:        balaam: Listen to your "donkey(•••)!" They have contact with non-JW's everyday! If you do not want them to come to your door, then the next time they come ask to be placed on a "do not call list!" thereby solving your problem at your door! P.S. What does this have to do with the subject string? Next time open a new string...or so I am told!   jeeprube New member Username: jeeprube Post Number: 1 Registered: 5-2007 Posted From: 75.39.194.240 Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 11:42 am:        praetorian said: "It is interesting to note that Jesus was continuously being spied on and monitored too! Therefore this can only be understood as a compliment! Thank you!" Jesus was spied on by the Pharasees. The admission that JW's are also spied on only proves that those who do the spying, the elders, are more like the Pharasees than Jesus.}   praetorian Junior Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 39 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 6:29 pm:        What duh? How did you make that jump? You simply quote the words out of context, twist it, and make it fit your own agenda, this is not anything new pal! Bravo!!! Now, if you carefully read the exchange where this comment is taken from, it was meant to address a comment made by inkorrekt, in an on-going exchange between us, specifically about people that according to inkorrekt are taping witness meetings etc. and I used that statement within that context that if inkorrekt and those like him feel the need to do this in "open meetings" etc. so be it; and then used this as a closing point to that discussion. Nice try pal! Duh, please do not insult the intelligence of those on this board, as while we may disagree, this type of twisting is easily detected! You got to love these posts as they are etched in stone! P   jeeprube New member Username: jeeprube Post Number: 8 Registered: 5-2007 Posted From: 75.39.194.240 Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 9:44 pm:        I'm glad we're pals now, nice to meet you. Sorry, your just plain wrong. Nobody is spying on JW's, on the contrary it is those of us who speak out against their abuseful tactics who must fear retribution.   praetorian Junior Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 45 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 12:00 pm:        Dear Jeeprub: Cute opening! LOL... I said in my reply to you above, that the comment made in my post was aimed directly at what was expressed in a previous post of ongoing exchanges between inkorekkt and myself, but for some reason this is not penetrating! Therefore let me make this matter crystal clear, and therefore I will go more S-L-W-O-L-Y! In inkorrekts’s post above of April 07, 2007 at 8:29PM, first paragraph, second sentence, states, “The JW's are continuously being spied on and monitored” And therefore in my reply (1 of 2) to him above of April 09, 2007 at 2:32PM, I state in my third paragraph (quoted in its entirety): “Wow, you do buy into believing your own poop! It is interesting to note that Jesus was continuously being spied on and monitored too! Therefore this can only be understood as a compliment! Thank you! It just might surprise you to know, that in order to practice pure and simple Christianity as taught by Jesus and his disciples in any Bible is without the politics, without the hype, without the paganism, etc (Boy that would leave you with nothing) and would also leave you today with a Christianity that indeed would be not only be unpopular but “hated” by all, including other (Counterfeit) Christians.” The above was again, part and parcel of an on-going exchange between us! Should you need the scriptures on how the Pharisees and others were working on finding ways to set Jesus up, keep tabs on him, trip him up, falsely accuse him, stage witnesses to testify falsely against him, buy off Judas Iscariot to set him up and kill Jesus, you let me know! This should now completely address your comment: “Sorry, your just plain wrong. Nobody is spying on JW's,..” as it was inkorrekt that made that statement and not I, as I was the one addressing it! As to whether people are actually “spying” on JW’s or not, this is not my concern, as people will do what they want to do especially when doing so in open public forums (meaning the meetings); as again, I was responding to the comment made. So, now, in simple English, since you have an issue with making points of people being just “plain wrong” what does this make you? Just curious? Now as to the remainder of your comment “..on the contrary it is those of us who speak out against their abuseful tactics who must fear retribution” all I can say is that I feel sorry for you or anyone else that “fear retribution” from the JW’s or anyone else especially in a religious setting as, when you do this; you empower those over you! This is truly sad and may be the crux of your problem. Now since you used the terms “those of us..” then it appears to the reader of your post, that you have a personal issue or problem with the JW’s! Now be honest and express here what it is since nobody really knows who the posters are! Now you will note I said be honest, as you, if you are a JW or a DF’d JW, when answering this here, should first be brave enough and honest to state what brought you into the situation or problem or issue to begin with, before you start expressing how your heavenly epiphany now brings you to the conclusion that their teachings are wrong and the people are this or that…..etc? Your turn! P   inkorrekt Junior Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 48 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 208.54.15.1 Posted on Saturday, June 02, 2007 - 12:02 am:        BEAR: In John JEsus Himself said, I and the Father are One. He who has seen Me, has seent the Father. Who is the Father? Who is the Son?   inkorrekt Junior Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 50 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 208.54.15.1 Posted on Saturday, June 02, 2007 - 7:07 pm:        JW's being acult is very strong in mind control. The first and foremost tool is information on each and every recruit as well as well groomed member.Every member must report anything unusual happening to any of those in their fold.Either they who have connection with authentic Christians will be disciplined. If they continue, then they will be cutt off from everyone including their own families.I have an XJW friend whom I had helped to find Lord Jesus Christ.She is so excited and she looks back at those days when she was a slave to JW indoctrinations and slavery.My own father was going to become a JW. He read the JW Bible and demanded to see the true God in person as he was on aquest for many years to find the true God. He did not see Jehovah. But he saw only Lord Jesus Crucufied for all his sins who had transformed his life.JW's are false propagandists of a twisted gospel   bear New member Username: bear Post Number: 19 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 24.247.157.3 Posted on Saturday, June 02, 2007 - 7:43 pm:        Inkorrekt, The bible tells us that no one has see God, so your father would not have seen Jehovah; period. No Human has ever see Jehovah. I would question your fathers vision. First, he "demanded" to see the true God in person... Who does he think that he is? That is NOT even within the scriptural bounds! His "demand" to see the true God, and then his vision of Jesus on a cross, does not prove that Jesus is Jehovah, or that he is the father. Because of your fathers unscriptural "demand", God would not give in to this foolishness. However, as we seek for something outside of the scriptural bounds, and God does not answer, Satan will.   bear New member Username: bear Post Number: 20 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 24.247.157.3 Posted on Saturday, June 02, 2007 - 8:29 pm:        cont... inkorrekt, You stated: In John JEsus Himself said, I and the Father are One. He who has seen Me, has seent the Father. When Jesus said they he and the Father are one, he is speaking of one in unity and purpose, not one as a person. Jesus is a representative of the Father. When asked "show us the Father" Jesus' response is to show that everything the Father is can be seen in Jesus himself. You ended your statement with: Who is the Father? Who is the Son? Are being arrogant? Or, are you truly ignorant, due to your lack of theological training which allows you the ability to exegete the text in a proper manner? If Jesus is the Father, who did he pray to, and why did he address him as "Father"? Instead o   jeeprube New member Username: jeeprube Post Number: 22 Registered: 5-2007 Posted From: 70.250.211.46 Posted on Wednesday, June 06, 2007 - 10:49 am:        praetorien said: "Now as to the remainder of your comment “..on the contrary it is those of us who speak out against their abuseful tactics who must fear retribution” all I can say is that I feel sorry for you or anyone else that “fear retribution” from the JW’s or anyone else especially in a religious setting as, when you do this; you empower those over you! This is truly sad and may be the crux of your problem." I love how JW's always come back to the same tactics. So now it's my fault that I fear retribution for an informed opinion that the GB are wrong? This tactic is called "blame the victim", and you'll hear it a lot within JW circles. Well so and so knew the consequences so it's their fault they were DFed. Whenever a group of people live under a common system of rule there will be dissenters who disagree with some rules. It is how those in power deal with such dissenters which indicates what type of leadership they provide. The leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses choose to suppress and intimidate dissenters....calling them "evil ones," and "children of Satan." Indeed since the early eighties the Governing Body have engaged in an active campaign to suppress any and all who would challenge their authority. All the while instructing their loyal members to deny the practice, as we see Praetorian doing on this board. Make no mistake people, within the JW congregation there is no room for dissent, no room for individual thought and scriptural interpretation. What JW's call research is actually just reading what the Governing Body has written and accepting it outright. Any and all who challenge this arrangement are kicked out, denied access to family, and called all manner of evil names. I ask you, is this Christian, or is it merely the by product of a self-interested group of men bent on control of a world wide printing empire?   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 114 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Wednesday, June 06, 2007 - 5:23 pm:        I am sorry are you sure you are not speaking about the Scientologists here! Wrong string! And I guess when the Bible says to remove the wicked person from among you, that this would be cruel as well, and would no doubt cause pain the family members of that one as well! We have exchanged posts on this several times! Wow for someone who feels sorry for others your posts give off a lot of heat! P   inkorrekt Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 51 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 208.54.15.1 Posted on Wednesday, June 06, 2007 - 11:47 pm:        BEAR, you are a false teacher and a wolf in sheep's clothes deceiving the naive, religious and weak christians. You do not have to believe what happened to my father. Those who knew him before and after this experience only know the transformation that took place after he saw Jesus. He demanded to see the true God for 2 years. He did not see jEHOVAH, BUDDHA, MUHAMMED, ALLAH WHATEVER. HE SAW JESUS. YOU CQN DENY EVERYTHING. REMEMBER YOU WILL BE JUDGED FOR REJECTING JESUS. DO NOT SPEND YOUR ETERNITY IN HELL REJECTING JESUS.   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 119 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 12:34 pm:        Inkorrket: I have three sincere questions for you. They are not meant to criticize you, but understand where you are coming from. I respect what you express about you’re your father told you and believe that he did indeed tell you this (without a doubt) and also respect that your father believed in what he experienced! Here are my questions below: 1. Since Bear is not a JW, and is a Christian, but may not be of your same denomination or Church, why do you express or imply, that he “may” be dammed to an eternity in Hell? 2. If Bear is dammed in an eternity in Hell, for not believing as you do, do you really feel this is fair; as to eternity of damnation in Hell verses his 100 (which I doubt he is) of a life trying to be a good Christian though, not in line with your thinking? 3. I would very much like your take on 2 Corinthians 11:14, regarding, how one can tell the difference if Satan appears as an Angel of Light, verses an appearance of an Angel of God? Sincerely, P. P.S. I will be leaving the country (US) tomorrow and will return sometime mid next week, so I may be unable to respond to your post until then.   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 120 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 12:37 pm:        Inkorrket: I have three sincere questions for you. They are not meant to criticize you, but understand where you are coming from. I respect what you express about you’re your father told you and believe that he did indeed tell you this (without a doubt) and also respect that your father believed in what he experienced! Here are my questions below: 1. Since Bear is not a JW, and is a Christian, but may not be of your same denomination or Church, why do you express or imply, that he “may” be dammed to an eternity in Hell? 2. If Bear is dammed in an eternity in Hell, for not believing as you do, do you really feel this is fair; as to eternity of damnation in Hell verses his 100 (which I doubt he is) of a life trying to be a good Christian though, not in line with your thinking? 3. I would very much like your take on 2 Corinthians 11:14, regarding, how one can tell the difference if Satan appears as an Angel of Light, verses an appearance of an Angel of God? Sincerely, P. P.S. I will be leaving the country (US) tomorrow and will return sometime mid next week, so I may be unable to respond to your post until then.   crawly Junior Member Username: crawly Post Number: 27 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 4.240.81.115 Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 12:12 pm:        thank you for the links, pilgrim. yup, charsle taze russel was all tied up with the masons and involved in wicked numerology. he used it to fool everyone into thinking jesus already arrived, and appointed his little group to rule from then on. it's a trick that jesus warned about in matt 24;24.... the jw leadership are experts at that trick.   inkorrekt Intermediate Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 152 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 208.54.15.1 Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 1:16 pm:        Satan appears as an angel of light. Those who do not have any discernment (function of the holy spirit) will believe Satan to be God.All those who are into JW have accepted Satan's message(RUSSEL of WatchTower) as that of the angel of light. They keep on reinforcing their false beliefs over and over and over again. There is a saying,"EVEN IF YOUR BOSS IS WRONG, ALWAYS GO BACK TO HIM". This is how the leaders of JW control, program and misguide the blind sheep.Those who have little bit of reaoning and common sense have the courage to question the false teachings by the leaders. These people are "Disciplined" by disfellowshipping. We are also admonished to give answers to anyone who asks.So, Disfellowshipping for asking questions is UNBIBLICAL.   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 183 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 2:29 pm:        inkorrekt: Since you are good at repeating things I thought I would repeat a little ditty, where in I provide my “Two Cents” that I have done here before as it well applies to “ALL” of your posts and trust you will agree with some or part of it and if not, oh well, it is what it is! One Penny: A kind woman who was known for never having anything bad about anyone, was approached by a person who said, ‘I know someone you cannot say anything good about’…..After a moment, she said, then I don’t want to know, and immediately the person said, ‘Satan The Devil’……And the women thought for a moment and said……’He’s a hard worker!’ Second Penny: If the general consensus is Christians believe that all or most roads lead you to God, and JW’s do not, then ponder; Under the belief systems of general Christians, JW’s are saved! Good and Bad are found in and among all people and belief systems, Christ himself had his own bad egg, Judas Iscariot, but that does not did not make Christ wrong or bad! If Judas had written a book entitled “Proof Jesus is not the Messiah, from a man who knows”, I can tell you that none of the other apostles or those that new Jesus and believed in him, would have bought or started to re-think what they knew of Jesus, as is suggested by the people of this board. I close my comments by quoting the words of a non Christian, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, in Acts 5: 38 and 39, “And so, under the present circumstances, I say to YOU, Do no meddle with this men, but let them alone (because, if this scheme or this work is from men, it will be overthrown, but if it is from God, YOU will not be able to overthrow them) otherwise, YOU may perhaps be found fighters against God.” P   crawly Junior Member Username: crawly Post Number: 43 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 4.240.81.67 Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 3:38 pm:        hi inkorrect, pleased to meet you. you are correct. the wicked jw leadership is just a bunch of "self-appointed" men working the matt 24;24 scam that jesus warned about, as they listen to their angels of light. but their angels of light are just wicked lying demons.   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 213 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 6:33 pm:        crawly and inkorrekt: Since you are good at repeating things I thought I would repeat a little ditty, where in I provide my “Two Cents” that I have done here before as it well applies to “ALL” of your posts and trust you will agree with some or part of it and if not, oh well, it is what it is! One Penny: A kind woman who was known for never having anything bad about anyone, was approached by a person who said, ‘I know someone you cannot say anything good about’…..After a moment, she said, then I don’t want to know, and immediately the person said, ‘Satan The Devil’……And the women thought for a moment and said……’He’s a hard worker!’ Second Penny: If the general consensus is Christians believe that all or most roads lead you to God, and JW’s do not, then ponder; Under the belief systems of general Christians, JW’s are saved! Good and Bad are found in and among all people and belief systems, Christ himself had his own bad egg, Judas Iscariot, but that does not did not make Christ wrong or bad! If Judas had written a book entitled “Proof Jesus is not the Messiah, from a man who knows”, I can tell you that none of the other apostles or those that new Jesus and believed in him, would have bought or started to re-think what they knew of Jesus, as is suggested by the people of this board. I close my comments by quoting the words of a non Christian, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, in Acts 5: 38 and 39, “And so, under the present circumstances, I say to YOU, Do no meddle with this men, but let them alone (because, if this scheme or this work is from men, it will be overthrown, but if it is from God, YOU will not be able to overthrow them) otherwise, YOU may perhaps be found fighters against God.”   crawly Member Username: crawly Post Number: 78 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 4.240.81.45 Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 10:14 pm:        understanding the wicked jw organization is easy! they claim jesus returned in 1874 ooops, ok 1878 and it was invisible and he appointed them to rule......... ooops, ok he came in 1914 and appointed them to rule...... ummm oooops.. so, anyway, they are now in charge of all christians and anyone who disagrees with their demonic numerology is bird food at armageddon.   mariabee New member Username: mariabee Post Number: 6 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 64.85.244.43 Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 2:34 am:        I'll admit I haven't read all of the above posts, but I wanted to put in my two cents about where the rank and file JWs are coming from. They believe they are the "true" Christians. According to mainstream Christianity they are not. But does that really matter to them? No, of course not. They believe that they are "footsteps followers of Christ" (I can't tell you how many times I heard that growing up). That's the simple answer. They think they are. Others think they aren't. But does it really matter? To me it doesn't. The JW Organization is one of the less harmful cults, but harmful all the same and a horrible trap to be caught in. I am so grateful that I am now free and so are my parents and sister. I pray and hope that my dearest friends will also one day leave and we can talk again.   inkorrekt Intermediate Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 166 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 71.237.125.180 Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 12:41 pm:        Thank God for your deliverance. I am an EX CULT member. As long as I ws into them, I was too proud, arrogant and felt that I was better than the rest not realizing that I was wrong. During all these times, I even defended my position when I did not have any support. I still did it. This is how strong and powerful the influence of the cults are. Anyway, about JW's, they still believe that Jesus Christ was a Man and He is not God. (In the beginning, there was the Word and the word was "a" god).To them, Jehovah is an impersonal difficult to reach non entity. Just like muslims, JW's always go back to Jehovah in CIRCLES. They do not believe in Trinity. Of course Jesus Christ is alo a non entity. Still they claim(poase as believers in Christ) This is the greatest hypocrisy. The Sheep can never understand this lie as well as confusion. The bottom line is,"IF THE BLIND SHEEP HAVE ANY DOUBT, THEY HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE LEADERS(MORE BLIND) THOUGH THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG"   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 256 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 6:32 pm:        Mariabee: I like and respect your post! inkorrekt: You are still a cult member, unto yourself! Craw: Oops, duh! P   crawly Intermediate Member Username: crawly Post Number: 110 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 4.240.81.238 Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 9:42 pm:        you all are making it all to complicated....... understanding jws is easy. they claim jesus came back invisibly, and secretly appointed their leadership to rule over all other christians because of some numerology that they believed, but tuned out to be demonic. but all the same, they were still appointed by the invisible return of jesus that only they knew about.   junefever Junior Member Username: junefever Post Number: 40 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.172.116.155 Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 2:28 pm:        "Anyway, about JW's, they still believe that Jesus Christ was a Man and He is not God. (In the beginning, there was the Word and the word was "a" god)." Their interpretation--which is different from that of any other interpretations, which all say the Word was God--even makes no sense and is an inheritant contradiction. Jehovah said there were no other gods but him. He also said all others gods were false gods. That makes Jesus a false god. Of course the JWs never seem to get that far. They were forced to deal with a scripture that blows there theory, so they changed the translation. But they couldn't even stretch it far enough to make any sense.   inkorrekt Intermediate Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 184 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 71.237.125.180 Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 12:37 pm:        PRAETORIAN: In a little Baptist Church in Indiana, I was delivered from the cult in 1983. They prayed for me for 40 hours (with breaks) People from all over the world come here for healing and deliverance. Since then, I have experienced total Freedom. Most importantly, the Love of Jesus.I never had so much of peace for nearly 20 years while I was in the CULT. It was amazing. You too need to experience this. I will give you an example: If I told someone who has never tasted honey that honey is sweet, he is not going to believe me. He will only believe me if and when he will take a drop of honey and put it into his tongue to taste it. This is where you are now. You can talk about Jesus, quote the entire Bible and evangelize. Yet you cannot experience God's love. Why? You have laid down many barriers(you have been told) for God's love to flow through your heart. As long as people do what they are told to do, they cannot meet God. You are not going to believe this. It does n matter whether you believe this or not. Just as the blind man who was healed by Jesus, I can only state that I was totally blind into the CULT. Now that JESUS had set me free, I can SEE the TRUTH. Those who knew me before 1983 only can tell the difference in my life. I am certain that you are going to discredit all of this. It does not matter whether you believe this or not. The fact is I am FREE and FREE INDEED. You too need to come out of JW. The sooner you do, better it will be for you and those around you. In this church where I was delivered, they have a video of my deliverance. You can see what happened to me as well as to thousands of others.. www.hbcdelivers.org.   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 281 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 3:20 pm:        Crawly/Junefever and Inkorrekt: (Part 1 of 2) Crawly: I do like your opening words about things getting complicated and would agree with what you state about understanding the JW’s beliefs is easy, however, differently than what you express. Yes, they do believe that Jesus came into “power” as King of God’s Kingdom, in 1914, as an “invisible” event, naked to human’s eyes, taking place in Heaven, though not yet on earth. They do feel that they are being used by Jesus and his Father on earth, though this does not entitle them to perfection or infallibility. Yes, their dates are based on Chronology (the science of determining dates as opposed to numerology which is the occult study of numbers with supposed influence on life) some of which has turned out to be wrong, though they believe some of it was right. At the very least they should get credit for noting that 1914 would be a year with world changing events. While you feel they are demonic in this, millions do not, of course speaking of JW’s themselves which include many who were disfellowshipped and later reinstated. And yes they feel they were or are the religious group that knows this, meaning that God is using them. You feel that because of the failed chronology that you can call it numerology, and I hear you, I just don’t agree with you. Junefever: On Jesus they do believe that Jesus Christ fulfilled the role as the promised Messiah, and that he was a man, but that had a pre-human existence and that he is not God. They believe that Jesus today is the mighty God, spoken of in Isaiah 9:6 as distinguished from Almighty God, YWHW. Concerning John 1:1, JW’s are not the only ones who translate this verse differently, though they get most of the attention for doing so. I would like to also express a few things for your consideration. First at best, if true, (John 1:1) this would show a duality, not trinity. Also in the Greek, keeping to the KISS theory, with Greek in-between the verse reads; “In the beginning was “the Word” (ho [the] logos [word]), and “the Word” (ho [the] logos [word]) was with God (ton [the] theon [God]), and the Word (ho [the] logos [word]) was God (theos).” There is a clear distinction, difference in the “all” Greek texts between “ton theon” (The God) and “theos” (God). At the very least, the scripture when translated into any other language other than Greek, needs to show this distinction. That is why there are other translations that do not translate this verse in the way it is today by the majority. The textbook Truth in Translation by Professor David Debuhn has much more to say about this. You say it is a contradiction, yet in scripture the Messiah is to be called “Mighty God” showing no such contradiction, as he is God’s Son, at God’s Right Hand, and so forth, so he must be God Like, in substance and form. I submit to you that there is as much reasonable merit to this, as unpopular as it may sound or appear when compared to what is believed in main stream Christianity.   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 282 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 3:22 pm:        Crawly/Junefever and Inkorrekt: (Part 2 of 2) Inkorrekt: When you refer to this particular Baptist Church, and that you were delivered from a cult, are you referring to being one of JW’s yes? If not, I am sorry I did not understand. I appreciate and respect what you express they do, and did for you, along with the “freedom” you found for yourself! You speak of finding the love of Jesus and peace, good for you and I mean that! And I see the passion and heartfelt feeling with which you express that “I” need to find the same. Please know that I have found what you describe though differently than you did, that’s all! I truly appreciate what it is you are trying to express with regards to your analogy of honey, though again feel differently about where you “feel” I am in this regard. Let me ask you, in your church, do they not have rules and regulations, for how their meetings are run, managed, and for the building on how it is maintained and cared for; how about the way they operate their ministry, etc.? Do you respect and follow these? Also, among these people, do they make mistakes? Is your church found only in once place, or are they found teaching and doing the same things throughout the earth? I am not trying to discredit you, just point out things that show that one can have more than one view or opinion on this and that a different opinion than yours should be respected as much as yours! In the end, all of the matters we discuss will one day be settled with permanency and according to the scriptures; whether you believe they are the JW’s or Hedewisch Baptists etc. (Are Junefever and Craw members of your Church?) the scripture in Matthew 7: 13, and 14 make clear that “few” among Christians are the ones finding life, salvation whereas “many” are not on that road. Also verses 21-23 (Same chapter) expresses that “many” who worship God, will be rejected by Jesus and “I” state that this applies to anyone who professes to be Christian or have the way to salvation, life. Sincerely P   crawly Intermediate Member Username: crawly Post Number: 136 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 4.240.81.3 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 9:51 am:        praetorian, so you have found peace by being a disfellowshipped jw?...your no. 3 post where you claim to be disfellowshipped, and so not really a jw is still up. you are just jw leadership writing articles to mislead people because jws are figuring out your lies and leaving in droves.... lying has become a tradmark of jw leadership. as i mentioned before to everyone here, jw leadership claimed jesus returned in 1874 and appointed them to rule by means of wicked demonic numerology...... russel was a mason who loved to count the cobble stones in the pyramids of egypt. they made that claim a main doctrine all the way past the ww1 and almost till ww2, when they revised it because that generation was up and once again their gig was up. you want credit for dreaming up 1914?.......sure, i'll bestow upon you the credit of wicked false prophets on their way to gehenna..... jesus warned about wicked men who would come along and self-appoint themselves with a fake coming of jesus. here is what the watchtower was teaching in 1929; ''the scriptural proof is that the second presence of jesus began in 1874''...prophecy pg 65. here is some more...... '' the battle of the great day of god almighty which will end in a.d. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earths present rulership is already commenced''.... time is at hand pg. 101 1889 korah self-appointed himself too, preatorian. the ground opened up and took care of him and his leadership. self appointed false prophets often make big boasts to gain a following. here is on of russels big boasts after 1914 fell apart; ...''in the year 1918, when god destroys the churches wholesale and the church members by the millions, it shall be that any escape shall come to the works of russel''... finished mystery. wasn't he a sweetie?   junefever Junior Member Username: junefever Post Number: 42 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.172.116.155 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 11:43 am:        "On Jesus they do believe that Jesus Christ fulfilled the role as the promised Messiah, and that he was a man, but that had a pre-human existence and that he is not God. They believe that Jesus today is the mighty God, spoken of in Isaiah 9:6 as distinguished from Almighty God, YWHW." First, you should quote the entire scripture that you believe references Jesus: -------------------------------------------- For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. ------------------------------------------------ “Eternal Father?” How can Jesus be called that? Isn’t that name reserved for Jehovah? Don’t JWs claim that the “Father” and “Son” can’t be one? Secondly, as to your theory about Jesus being only a “Mighty God, what about these scriptures: ------------------------------------------------ Joshua 22:22 "The Mighty One, God, the LORD! The Mighty One, God, the LORD! He knows! And let Israel know! If this has been in rebellion or disobedience to the LORD, do not spare us this day. Psalm 50:1 The Mighty One, God, the LORD, speaks and summons the earth from the rising of the sun to the place where it sets. ------------------------------------------------- Surely you don’t challenge that these scriptures were referencing Jehovah, the Father? And HE's referred to as “Mighty God.” Further, it’s right there in the 10 commandments that there’s only one god. --------------------------------------------- Exodus 20 2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 3 "You shall have no other gods before [a] me. 4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, It’s also in the new testament: -------------------------------------------------- Romans 3:30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. ------------------------------------------------- If there was only one god, why would Jesus be called “a god?” Post 1 of 2   junefever Junior Member Username: junefever Post Number: 43 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.172.116.155 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 11:49 am:        (Post 2 of 2_ "Concerning John 1:1, JW’s are not the only ones who translate this verse differently, though they get most of the attention for doing so." Oh, really? What other group translates it like the JWs? "At the very least, the scripture when translated into any other language other than Greek, needs to show this distinction." Not when it renders the scripture non-sensical and does not reflect the true meaning. Not all languages are the same or can be translated word for word; it changes the meaning in a way that wasn't intended. In this case, the issue is whether there should be a definite article or not before the last "God" referenced. The JWs translated it in such a way as to be highly misleading. The same construction occurs elsewhere in the passage in referencing others, but the JWs didn't translate those in the same manner. To follow the JWs rules of translation, they would make reference to “a John” or “a beginning.” The JWs are twisting the translation to fit their beliefs (which as I’ve shown elsewhere, don’t even make sense, in referencing Jesus as “a god.) ------------------------------------------- Finally, John 1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ----------------------------------------------- The Word was with God “in the beginning?”   junefever Junior Member Username: junefever Post Number: 44 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.172.116.155 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 1:20 pm:        "You say it is a contradiction, yet in scripture the Messiah is to be called “Mighty God” showing no such contradiction, as he is God’s Son, at God’s Right Hand, and so forth, so he must be God Like, in substance and form." Then why is "Jehovah" referred to as Mighty God?: ____________________________________________ Isaiah 10 20 In that day the remnant of Israel, the survivors of the house of Jacob, will no longer rely on him who struck them down but will truly rely on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel. 21 A remnant will return, a remnant of Jacob will return to the Mighty God. ________________________________________________ It's unlikely that John, a devout monotheistic Jew, would suddenly refer to Christ Jesus as "a god." That would be against God's stated commandments: ----------------------------------------------- Isaiah 44: 6 "This is what the LORD says— Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. ------------------------------------------------ God was "the first and the last." Which brings up another contradiction in the JW's, theory. In Revelation Jesus refers to himself in this way: ----------------------------------------------- Revelation 1 17When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades. ------------------------------------------------ And when Thomas saw Jesus resurrected, he refered to him as "My Lord and My God." Jesus didn't correct him and say, "No, I'm not." ------------------------------------------------- John 20 26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." 28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" -------------------------------------------------- JWs typical response is that Thomas was so overwhelmed that he swore. That's ludicrous that Thomas, raised as a Jew, would take God's name in vain, which was a violation of the 10 commandments, in front of Jesus, no less. Clearly, JWs theory hinges on little evidence and far to many biblical contradictions to make any reasonable sense.   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 283 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 6:33 pm:        Craw: Not much express to you other than to say I don't agree with you. P   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 284 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 8:21 pm:        Junefever: (Part 1 of 3 and is for your reply 42 and 43 above) I like very much liked your reply, as it gives one an opportunity to respond, despite agreeing to disagree! Let us take the expressions then equally, that of “Mighty God” and “Eternal Father” by themselves as there are a few others used in Isaiah and so I am not intentionally ignoring them but rather would like to focus in these two as a reply since these two appear to be at issue. We cannot ignore the fact that the scripture still refers to Jesus as “Mighty” and not “Almighty”. There is a distinction here whether we like it or not, and I trust you agree with the word distinction only. Now with “Eternal Father”, one must keep the point of “Mighty” in mind, as the use of “Eternal Father” does not nullify the previous applied term of “Mighty” therefore, whoever this person is, (whom I think we can agree is Jesus) he also occupies the role, title and term as “Eternal Father.” To be fair we are left with two apparent terms that each, taken on their own can give the impression “equally” of the person spoken of here as being either Almighty God or a Mighty God. Now keeping the “Mighty” in mind, I find that for instance one could use 1 Corinthians 15:22, to appreciate that because of Jesus, the dead have an opportunity to come back to life and never die! As such he can be appropriately called an “Eternal Father” to these and those who live because of him not yet dead, and yet be “Mighty God”. Also in Revelation 1:18, Jesus words shows that he has the keys of death and of Hades, also supporting this point of his being an Eternal Father though again not nullifying the term applied to him as “Mighty.” In the end one cannot take one term above the other, as they should be equally compatible to and with each other! And if it was God who was going to come, it would be just as easy for the inspired writer Isaiah to have written, “Almighty God”, “Eternal Father” etc. but it does not, yet it should be compatible to each other. This then actually really boils down to whether one believes that Jesus is God Almighty or not! Perhaps the best way to address this is to allow Jesus to himself to reply to this specific subject matter, which he did when speaking to Mary, in John 20:17 where he states plainly, that he was going ascend to his (“my”) Father and his (“my”) God, where he further makes clear is the same Father and God of Mary and all of his disciples. Now please keep in mind that these are Jesus words and without adding to it he tells us! Now you believe that Jesus the Mighty God, Eternal Father (Messiah) spoken about in Isaiah 9:6,7 and the “Almighty God” YWHW are the ‘same person’ despite Jesus himself clearly stating and referring to himself as a different and distinct person apart from the one he called “My Father” and “My God”. Anything more to this as their being the same person is clearly “adding” to what Jesus himself expressed! (Continued Below)   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 285 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 8:23 pm:        (Part 2 of 3) Now take the comment he made and put in into prospective, in a relationship we can understand as we are made in God’s image (Oddly enough I just discussed this with someone earlier today) Would you not have respect (healthy fear) of the Vice President of the United States, as you would for say the President of the United States? (Politics excluded as I am drawing on this analogy only) While different persons, ones actions of respect or healthy fear would be the same. Now say you work for a company, and the owner of the company has a Son who is second in command in the company. Would you disrespect (not have a healthy fear) of the Son when he directs you or asks you to do something in and for the company simply because he is not his Father? Of course not as in your company (in this example) the Son is second in command and speaks for his Father, and the respect, or healthy fear you would show the Son (as your Boss) you would also show the Father (Also Your Boss)! They represent the same authority and work in the same or similar manner for the company (their company) and as your employer, they are both over you as head, but they are two separate distinct individuals, with no conflict listening or following the directions of the Son or Father. I now submit to you that this is clearly supported not only by what I quote above, in John but you probably know that this same matter or question of who Jesus was, came up in the Bible between Jesus and his disciples!!! Notice how Jesus handles it in Matthew 16:13-17, [please read this and also Mark 8: 27, 28 and Luke 9:18-20] where Jesus asked Peter who he, Peter thought Jesus was? Note Jesus’ answer and commendation to Peter!!!!! Now if you go beyond what Jesus stated, and believe something else or more like Jesus was in reality God Himself (in whatever form etc you want) this is NOT what is clearly stated in scripture EVER!!!!! Think about this: What a perfect opportunity for Jesus to correct Peter and say something like; No Peter, but I am the Living God, in Flesh! This is not found in scripture but is dogma!!!!!! Now, the scriptures quoted above deal with this matter on point and thus if we take other scriptures to show something different, then we must take the obvious position that the Bible is contradicting itself on this subject matter, which I submit to you, that it does not! Regarding Joshua 22:22 and Psalms 50:1, I submit to you that a quick visit to a library for you to look at a Hebrew manuscript, clearly shows that “Mighty God” is not used in the Hebrew, and the Hebrew unlike the English “versions” and “translations” do not change EVER! And for instance Young’s Literal translation uses in these verses, the phrase “The God of gods” instead of “Mighty God” and the New Life Version uses “the Powerful One” and the NWT uses “Divine One” in both places, thus my point; other bibles besides the NWT translate this differently showing the scripture you quote, in the Bible you are using is at the very least subject to investigation. I am sure if you do this, and check it in the Hebrew, this matter will be clear to you on this issue once and for all! (Continued Below)   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 286 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 8:25 pm:        (Part 3 of 3) Thus your quote, “Surely you don’t challenge that these scriptures were referencing Jehovah, the Father? And HE's referred to as “Mighty God” is not accurately stated when compared to other Bibles that translate this differently and “ANY” Hebrew manuscript! The scripture in Exodus has no conflict when applied to God’s Son as discussed above in the analogy as when speaking of a Son and his Father without taking anything away from either one of them. And again, if so, then there are scriptures that are in conflict with one another which cannot be the case. There is no conflict in Romans either as Jesus himself makes it clear in John 20:17, and also in 1 Corinthians 15: 27-28, (Note that Corinthians was inspired and written after Jesus went back to Heaven, meaning already in Heaven for some years to be God again in your belief) where Paul speaks of Jesus as subjecting himself to God so that God may be all things to all people! He speaking of another person besides himself as God does not submit to God this makes no sense! Jesus is called a God because he is a God, just not Almighty God, YWHW. They are both called Lord, and God, but only one is Almighty God, the one Jesus called “My God” and “My Father” and in Corinthians as above, he will subject himself to God after he is done with his work. This is what the scriptures reveal without adding or interpreting them, JW or not! On John 1:1, James Moffett New Translation of the Bible reads, “The Logos was Divine”, Smith-Goodspeed Bible reads, “The Word was Divine” and Hugh J. Schonefields Bible also reads, “The Word was Divine” and others, clearly showing that this passage merits further investigation to say the least. I also provided you with a reference you ignore as well, Truth in Translation” by Professor Jason Beduhn, that explains this as well in DETAIL. These are not JW sources!!! While this is not like the JW’s NWT as “a God” it again goes to show it is not as clear cut as you make it out to be. When you speak of translating, you need to go to a source, as I do not believe that you are a scholar, so that is why I refer you to the above to show differences as fact and refer you to a scholar that teaches Greek in a University, Professor Jason Beduhn, who teaches at Northern Arizona University today! Surely this is worth investigating as well! In the end, if one were looking at this as to the words alone, without emotion, and dogma, you would have to, being fair, admit that there are Biblical scriptures to show that they are not the same person, and if you go one more step and say it also supports they are the same person, then we have a contradiction, and God does not contradict. Sincerely, P   junefever Junior Member Username: junefever Post Number: 45 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.172.116.155 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 4:36 am:        Post 1 of 3 "We cannot ignore the fact that the scripture still refers to Jesus as “Mighty” and not “Almighty”. There is a distinction here whether we like it or not, and I trust you agree with the word distinction only." Nor can you ignore the fact that YHWH is spoken of in identical terms as Jesus: “Mighty God.” "Now with “Eternal Father”, one must keep the point of “Mighty” in mind, as the use of “Eternal Father” does not nullify the previous applied term of “Mighty” therefore, whoever this person is, (whom I think we can agree is Jesus) he also occupies the role, title and term as “Eternal Father.”" That’s fairly obvious. "Now keeping the “Mighty” in mind, I find that for instance one could use 1 Corinthians 15:22, to appreciate that because of Jesus, the dead have an opportunity to come back to life and never die! As such he can be appropriately called an “Eternal Father” to these and those who live because of him not yet dead, and yet be “Mighty God”. Also in Revelation 1:18, Jesus words shows that he has the keys of death and of Hades, also supporting this point of his being an Eternal Father though again not nullifying the term applied to him as “Mighty.”" Nowhere did I suggest that “Eternal Father” and “Mighty” nullify each other. That’s some argument you’ve set up to distract from the issue. Jesus was referred to as Eternal Father, period. He was referred to as “Mighty God,” period. Both are terms that have been applied to God the Father. The bible doesn’t say “why” he was referred to as the “Eternal Father.” Your attempt at explaining why is merely personal conjecture. "In the end one cannot take one term above the other, as they should be equally compatible to and with each other! And if it was God who was going to come, it would be just as easy for the inspired writer Isaiah to have written, “Almighty God”, “Eternal Father” etc. but it does not, yet it should be compatible to each other." Again, they are. They are compatible in that they refer to Jesus as God.   junefever Junior Member Username: junefever Post Number: 46 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.172.116.155 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 4:41 am:        Post 2 of 3 "Perhaps the best way to address this is to allow Jesus to himself to reply to this specific subject matter, which he did when speaking to Mary, in John 20:17 where he states plainly, that he was going ascend to his (“my”) Father and his (“my”) God, where he further makes clear is the same Father and God of Mary and all of his disciples. Now please keep in mind that these are Jesus words and without adding to it he tells us! Now you believe that Jesus the Mighty God, Eternal Father (Messiah) spoken about in Isaiah 9:6,7 and the “Almighty God” YWHW are the ‘same person’ despite Jesus himself clearly stating and referring to himself as a different and distinct person apart from the one he called “My Father” and “My God”. Anything more to this as their being the same person is clearly “adding” to what Jesus himself expressed!" Clearly you don’t understand the concept of the trinity. Three beings, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. God is characterized in all three beings. "Now say you work for a company, and the owner of the company has a Son who is second in command in the company. Would you disrespect (not have a healthy fear) of the Son when he directs you or asks you to do something in and for the company simply because he is not his Father? Of course not as in your company (in this example) the Son is second in command and speaks for his Father, and the respect, or healthy fear you would show the Son (as your Boss) you would also show the Father (Also Your Boss)! They represent the same authority and work in the same or similar manner for the company (their company) and as your employer, they are both over you as head, but they are two separate distinct individuals, with no conflict listening or following the directions of the Son or Father." Your analogy is weak when applied to the relationship of God and Jesus. What does a “healthy fear” of Jesus have to do with anything? You’re using a lot of words (none of which are contained in the scripture) to characterize the relationship between the Father and Son mentioned in the bible. Who’s adding to the scripture now? Jesus said “the Father and I are One.” Thomas referred to Jesus as “My God and My Lord.” Why are you adding to that? (And using an analogy to a modern day corporation, no less). "I now submit to you that this is clearly supported not only by what I quote above, in John but you probably know that this same matter or question of who Jesus was, came up in the Bible between Jesus and his disciples!!! Notice how Jesus handles it in Matthew 16:13-17, [please read this and also Mark 8: 27, 28 and Luke 9:18-20] where Jesus asked Peter who he, Peter thought Jesus was? Note Jesus’ answer and commendation to Peter!!!!! Now if you go beyond what Jesus stated, and believe something else or more like Jesus was in reality God Himself (in whatever form etc you want) this is NOT what is clearly stated in scripture EVER!!!!! Think about this: What a perfect opportunity for Jesus to correct Peter and say something like; No Peter, but I am the Living God, in Flesh! This is not found in scripture but is dogma!!!!!!" Those scriptures merely say Jesus was identified as the Christ, the Savior. Again, he took an earthly form and became a man, and was at that point, “less” than the Father. I have shown you scriptures indicating that Jesus was referred to as God, including in Revelation where he is expressly termed the “First and the Last,” terms given to God.   junefever Junior Member Username: junefever Post Number: 47 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.172.116.155 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 4:52 am:        Post 3 of (4) "Now, the scriptures quoted above deal with this matter on point and thus if we take other scriptures to show something different, then we must take the obvious position that the Bible is contradicting itself on this subject matter, which I submit to you, that it does not!" The interpretation of the JWs results in a contradiction. Another example is their interpretation of the Holy Spirit merely being “God’s active force.” I pointed out that the Holy Spirit is spoken of as being lied to, being grieved, as teaching others, as bearing witness, all characteristics that do NOT make it simply an inanimate “active force.” Yet, people who have developed JW “dogma” choose to ignore those scriptures. "Regarding Joshua 22:22 and Psalms 50:1, I submit to you that a quick visit to a library for you to look at a Hebrew manuscript, clearly shows that “Mighty God” is not used in the Hebrew, and the Hebrew unlike the English “versions” and “translations” do not change EVER! And for instance Young’s Literal translation uses in these verses, the phrase “The God of gods” instead of “Mighty God” and the New Life Version uses “the Powerful One” and the NWT uses “Divine One” in both places, thus my point; other bibles besides the NWT translate this differently showing the scripture you quote, in the Bible you are using is at the very least subject to investigation. I am sure if you do this, and check it in the Hebrew, this matter will be clear to you on this issue once and for all!" You’ve got to be kidding. You’re now resorting to some faux expertise that you know can’t be verified or substantiated in any reasonable way. You tend to make these ridiculous suggestions when your phony explanations have worn thin.   junefever Junior Member Username: junefever Post Number: 48 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.172.116.155 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 4:59 am:        Post 4 of 4 "There is no conflict in Romans either as Jesus himself makes it clear in John 20:17, and also in 1 Corinthians 15: 27-28, (Note that Corinthians was inspired and written after Jesus went back to Heaven, meaning already in Heaven for some years to be God again in your belief) where Paul speaks of Jesus as subjecting himself to God so that God may be all things to all people! He speaking of another person besides himself as God does not submit to God this makes no sense!" He’s speaking specifically of the resurrection; how fleshly bodies turn into spiritual bodies (which by the way, JWs say only 144,000 will have this opportunity—talk about dogma!) Again, if you understand the separate nature of God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son, all spoken of as separate manifestations of God in the bible, there is no contradiction. "On John 1:1, James Moffett New Translation of the Bible reads, “The Logos was Divine”, Smith-Goodspeed Bible reads, “The Word was Divine” and Hugh J. Schonefields Bible also reads, “The Word was Divine” and others, clearly showing that this passage merits further investigation to say the least. I also provided you with a reference you ignore as well, Truth in Translation” by Professor Jason Beduhn, that explains this as well in DETAIL. These are not JW sources!!! While this is not like the JW’s NWT as “a God” it again goes to show it is not as clear cut as you make it out to be." First, since JWs reject the divinity of Jesus, those translations hardly make your point. Second, as you quoted in Greek before, the same term for GOD is used; in that scripture; the first one translated as God (the subject), and the second reference to God is the predicate. JWs are unique in translating the second reference to God with an indefinite article (“a”). Greek doesn’t contain indefinite articles. The vast majority of translators disagree with JW’s translation. Further JWs were inconsistent and selective in their use of the indefinite article in that passage. As I mentioned, in the same passage they didn’t translate it as “in a beginning,” or “a John.” Translators from Greek into other languages have to use common sense and try to retain the intended message, since each language is different. JWs took liberty with this particular translation to support their dogma, although, as I pointed out earlier, it renders the scripture awkward and requiring much explanation to try to support it. "When you speak of translating, you need to go to a source, as I do not believe that you are a scholar," And are you yourself claiming you’re a bible scholar? I certainly hope not. Regardless, referring people to hand-picked esoteric, controversial sources in order to understand the bible is simply another trick used by JWs. Most people won't challenge their claims at this "special knowledge" of translating. OTOH, the vast majority of theological and biblical scholars find no contradiction in the scriptures in supporting the manifestation of God in three distinct forms. The JWs pseudo-scholarly interpretation has been repeatedly discounted by true scholars.   inkorrekt Intermediate Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 187 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 71.237.125.180 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 12:41 pm:        PRAETORIAN: I do not know the denominational affiliations of Crawly and Junefever. All that I know is that are not JW's. The church wehere I was delivered from CULTS is a Baptist church. most of the Baptists do not believe in deliverance. MY CHURCH: Yes, the adminsitration is carried out by a group of elders and they direct the pastor.They have their guideliens. The congregation also has the voting rights. IT is not a theocracy. IT is a democratic process. They have rules and regulations. They are not legalistic. There is nothing such as "Disfellowshipping" My church strongly believes in forgiveness, reconciliation and peace with God and others. When someone commits a serious crime, the civil law takes care of this. Church believes in forgiveness. They give the directions and it is then left to the Believer and God. This distinguishes from JW.   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 287 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 1:15 pm:        Junefever: I have tried my best, to explain differences in beliefs and have quoted sources to establish that the JW’s are not alone when translating certain passages. That is all I can do. As to your statement: “You’ve got to be kidding. You’re now resorting to some faux expertise that you know can’t be verified or substantiated in any reasonable way. You tend to make these ridiculous suggestions when your phony explanations have worn thin” that is neither accurate, fair nor true!!! For the Bible you can go online and see what I pointed out in my post. For the other, concerning Hebrew manuscripts, you can indeed go to any library or Christian Book Store and pick up any Hebrew Manuscript to easily verify what I have represented as accurate, so I am not kidding, and I find it strange that you would not take up the opportunity to verify the same and to establish I was wrong etc. So be it, it is stated above for all to read and do what they want to do with the information. As to being a scholar or not, it is not worth discussing as no matter what I express you will take issue with it. Thanks for the reply and know that I don’t agree though one does not have to be a JW, to disagree with you on some of the points raised about the trinity etc. P   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 288 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 1:20 pm:        Inkorrekt: Thank you for your reply! It was well appreciated. P   junefever Junior Member Username: junefever Post Number: 49 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.172.116.155 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 3:05 pm:        "Regarding Joshua 22:22 and Psalms 50:1, I submit to you that a quick visit to a library for you to look at a Hebrew manuscript, clearly shows that “Mighty God” is not used in the Hebrew, and "the Hebrew unlike the English “versions” and “translations” do not change EVER! And for instance Young’s Literal translation uses in these verses, the phrase “The God of gods” instead of “Mighty God” and the New Life Version uses “the Powerful One” and the NWT uses “Divine One” in both places, thus my point;" When confronted with the fact that translating John 1:1, as JWs do--claiming Jesus is "a god," actually reflects a polytheism which is not supported in the scriptures (e.g., only one true God) you use Isaiah 9:6, and the term "Mighty God" as distinctive from the "Almighty God." Then when you are shown that YHWH is referred to in the scripture as "Mighty God," as well, you claim there's simply an error in translation. There is no reference to a Mighty God in Hebrew, you claim. If "Mighty God" never appears in Hebrew, then how do you explain it's use in reference to both Jesus and YHWH? It's the same construction, so whether you claim Hebrew never uses the term "Mighty God" or not, the same word is used to refer to both Jesus Christ and YHWH. As you said, the manuscripts don't change. You've tried to distract from the issue through meaningless semantics. Again, using JW's faulty translation of John 1:1, we are left with the scenario that John is promoting a polytheistic view has never been supported in the Old Testment or the New Testament. The bible mentions only one true God; all others are false. Therefore, we are left with the ludicrous suggestion that Jesus must be a false god. Further, how many "firsts and lasts," the Alpha and Omega are there? The bible refers to both Jesus and YHWH in these terms. Not to mention "Eternal Father." You can claim there's something wrong with the translations because the term never appeared in Greek, Hewbrew, or some other weak argment. But that does not change the fact that, again, the exact terms have been used to refer to both YHWH and Jesus. "As to being a scholar or not, it is not worth discussing as no matter what I express you will take issue with it." Of course I take issue with your contradictory statements. I have shown you specific scriptures reflecting contradictions with JWs beliefs. One doesn't have to be a theological or biblical scholar or fluent in ancient Hebrew or Greek to use their education, intelligence, and common sense to pick up on these contradictions. Your arguments are not persuasive and can be easily refuted. "Thanks for the reply and know that I don’t agree though one does not have to be a JW, to disagree with you on some of the points raised about the trinity etc." Virtually all other people who claim to be Christians accept the divinity of Christ, except JWs and a few other cults.   junefever Junior Member Username: junefever Post Number: 50 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.172.116.155 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 11:02 am:        Again, you’re tripping over your smooth tongue, praetorian. Here’s another contradiction in your convoluted “translation” claim: You said: "On John 1:1, James Moffett New Translation of the Bible reads, “The Logos was Divine”, Smith-Goodspeed Bible reads, “The Word was Divine” and Hugh J. Schonefields Bible also reads, “The Word was Divine”" However, after that you said: “[Regarding Joshua 22:22 and Psalms 50:1 where YHWH is referenced]...the NWT uses “Divine One” in both places, thus my point;" So, you're citing other translations for John 1:1; one of them says the word was "Divine." Then to try to refute YHWH as being referenced as a "Mighty God," you show that the JW's bible, the NWT, makes translates the obvious reference to YHWH as "Divine." You've just blown your own argument. You're attempt at making fine distinctions between the titles used to refer to YHWH and Jesus Christ just don't hold up to scrutiny. Even yours.   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 289 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 11:52 am:        Junefever: I would be more than happy to send you via email, as I do not know how to post the same on this site, copies of pages from the Book Truth in Translation for your consideration on John 1:1 and other matters. I submit to you that believing in God’s Son, and the responsibilities bestowed upon him by his Father is not polytheism at all. I too have shown you scriptures, in my view (which is as good as yours despite it being in the minority) that are indeed incompatible with your thinking and views whether you like it or not! You are basing your view on what the majority believes, which the Bible clearly shows is not a safe way support ones thinking. If you think that my citing other Bibles blow out my argument so be it, it was meant to show that not all persons translate John 1:1 as “the word was God” meaning there is something in the Greek that compels them not to do so but “treat” the verse differently. Being God’s Son makes him Divine! By the same token, you can apply this to your beliefs if you believe Jesus is God, also making him Divine. Let me know if you want me to send you via email the copies of pages from the book I mention above for your consideration while I clean my tongue from the tripping! Sincerely, P Praetorian_g@hotmail.com   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 290 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:12 pm:        Junefever that is an underscore after the "n" before the "g" in the email. P   crawly Intermediate Member Username: crawly Post Number: 142 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 4.240.254.9 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:16 pm:        gosh preatorian, what was that?....you didn't even address the last simple statement junefever made exposing your tactics of how you offer other heb translations of the same phrase, but those same translations use the same phrase for jah thus proving jesus is referred to in the same manner as jah....... so you avoid that part. all you did was offer to get this discussion out of the public and into private e'mail......... hey i don't blame you. the last thing the gov body of jws wants is for their followers to figure out that their cult version of jesus is not biblical at all.   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 291 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:53 pm:        Craw: No, it is not avoiding, I have indeed addressed this however, it is my ‘apparent inability’ to further express my point; as I simply don't agree with Junefever (and apparently your) view of things; No more and no less! To this you can add, (or should I say will add) whatever spin you will to my words. If you show me how to post the copies of the pages of the book I want to send to Junefever (or anyone else that wants to view them) on this site I will do so (not to mention the legality of doing so on a public site) therefore; so much for your comment. Remember a person getting an email is free to comment via post here as a follow up to express whatever they want wish to express so again, so much for your comment. Sincerely, P   crawly Intermediate Member Username: crawly Post Number: 143 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 4.240.81.252 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 2:36 pm:        no preatorian, you avoided the whole issue, as you are doing now because you know you are just blowing smoke to avoid getting exposed. and you would rather not have jws find out that your leadership are con-artists working the matt 24-24 scam....... so you are slyly trying to move the discussion to private e'mail. the same hebrew scripts that you brougt up refer to jah in the same manner as they refer to the word and the son....... but you avoid that part because it exposes your tricks.......so basically it proves the opposite of what you are claiming.   junefever Member Username: junefever Post Number: 51 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.172.116.155 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 3:45 pm:        "I submit to you that believing in God’s Son, and the responsibilities bestowed upon him by his Father is not polytheism at all." But expressly calling Jesus "a god" certainly is. Your fine distinctions on the various levels of Divinity or "god"-likeness are completely convoluted. "I too have shown you scriptures, in my view (which is as good as yours despite it being in the minority) that are indeed incompatible with your thinking and views whether you like it or not!" You've done nothing but to focus on semantics and nuances in translations to try to disprove that Jesus is god. You're contradicting yourself in the process, as I've shown. "You are basing your view on what the majority believes which the Bible clearly shows is not a safe way support ones thinking" No, I'm not basing my view on what the majority believes. I'm basing it on what the scriptures actually say. Not surprisingly, if that's what the scriptures say, it figures that the majority will, in fact believe the same way. Being in the extreme minority, by default, doesn't make one right. Although JWs like to imply this, because they're in the extreme minority in most beliefs. "If you think that my citing other Bibles blow out my argument so be it, it was meant to show that not all persons translate John 1:1 as “the word was God” meaning there is something in the Greek that compels them not to do so but “treat” the verse differently." In JWs case, they selectively "treated" the term used in John 1:1, inserting an indefinite article which doesn't even appear in Greek in an attempt to slant it toward their personal interpretation of God. They didn't use the same rules in other verses in the passage. And again, you blew your "other people translate it differently" when you threw out Divine, because YHWH was called "Divine" according to other translations that you cited. "Being God’s Son makes him Divine!" Oh, and being God makes one Divine as well. Hmmm... JWs have always expressly rejected the divinity of Jesus, which is understood to mean Jesus is GOD. At least now you seem to imply Jesus is Devine. Just a tad lower in divinity than YHWH? "By the same token, you can apply this to your beliefs if you believe Jesus is God, also making him Divine." Now your just employing JW double talk to deceive. Either Jesus is God or he's not. It's not a matter of subtle translations. Of throwing around doubts and questions about how some people translate the concept "differently" depending on the particular Hebrew or Greek translation, as you try to suggest when you're backed into a logical corner. If the concept of the nature of God is so fluid and that much up in the air, depending on the linguistic translation of a particular person, then you'd think that would be ample reason for the JWs not to take such a dogged stance to insist there model is right, as they have done throughout the decades. God is a God not of confusion, but of order. And suggesting his true nature as recorded in the scriptures is vague, questionable, open to the personal translation of men is to minimize its importance. You're tactic is to throw doubt into people's minds of any certain conclusion on God's true nature. With the secret goal of eventually winning them over to the JWs "unique" dogma. This is why so many people find JWs cultic tactics insidious and deceitful. In the process you're disrespecting the word of God by suggesting it's all just too confusing to comprehend on one's own.   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 292 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 4:15 pm:        CRAWFISH: (Isn’t at a bottom feeder). I have not avoided any issues, and you are either a legitimately mentally ill person, which would explain why you express yourself the way you do, or you have problems with the reading of simple words and phrases or; you are doing this on purpose making you an evil person. Call this insulting if you like! I don’t care!!! You don’t even have the courtesy to allow others to see that I posted a reply to them for them to respond to me! You are RUDE!!!! There is NOTHING MORE I can express to Junefever or you and others like you on this board or string on specific subject matters like the Trinity other than the replies I gave and to further state that we DON’T AGREE on this and other matters!!! This is not AVOIDANCE, donkey, it is a reasonable statement that a reasonable mind can grasp!!! And you have in fact done what I predicted above; put your own SPIN on my words!!! This is more like the ravings of a lunatic mind attempting to be logical!!!! I have OFFERED to provide copies of scholarly material that I CANNOT POST ON THIS BOARD UNLESS YOU KNOW DIFFERENT, and your silence on this SUBJECT MATTER makes this patently clear that I cannot! So, donkey, how do you propose I provide this material for others to view….See--- This is the ISSUE here at hand……Not that I am this or that and that others like pigs can fly!!!!!!! Address this almighty simpleton!!!! You take my statements and respond off point and reply by attacking the leadership of the JW’s! OK, let me make this easy for you; F them and YOU!!! Are you happy!!!!!! Are you for real????? Even if they are everything you say and then some, it has nothing to do with my responses NOTHING!!! GET IT!! I will state this more slowly; N-O-T-H-I-N-G!!! I would gladly express this to you in person, but this forum will not permit that, though I believe you would get it then!!! Take that any which way you want, but the BS of your twisting and interpreting my words is just that BS! So go contact the moderator oh drunk simpleton one in a trashy trailer in Arizona and tell them how awful this post is! You are not a normal person and you need help as you are consumed by others to the point that they are ruling you! I end this by quoting the words (to the best of my Craw/type/smooth/tongue wicked ability) used by a well known (no I will not give the name as I do not want to enter into political commentaries that I Must Be This or That) political commentator and debater who when in a debate was confronted by someone with your type of “reasoning” skills and stated to end the debate (with some variation) ”I would continue to reply to you but I am afraid that the illumination of my mind my blind you!” P   crawly Intermediate Member Username: crawly Post Number: 144 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 4.240.248.119 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 5:08 pm:        those insults were funny, praetorian, you must have made a donation to mary a bee. so, now let us sum it up.... you offered some verses of a hebrew script that refer to the text of john 1;1 differently, implying it is not god therefore, yet that same hebrew script uses the same terminology for 'jah' in other places, yet you change the subject when it comes to discussing that part because it actually proves the opposite of what you are saying, and then you try to turn it into a private e'mail session............. preatorian, i am very familiar with jw cult leadership tactics. then you call me a bunch of names. so, in your number 3 post, you claim to be a disfellowshipped jw, but other places you claim not to be a jw at all, but yet you sound like a watchtower article..... hmmmmmm. could you possibly be jw leadership in disguise? come on now preatorian, i am familiar with the jw cult leadership and their tactics. (Message edited by crawly on August 30, 2007)   junefever Member Username: junefever Post Number: 52 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.172.116.155 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 5:43 pm:        My goodness, Praetorian, was your emotionally-charged dissertation called for? You call Crawly mentally ill, unable to read, and a simpleton just because he said you dodged a question (which you did). Seems like you're a bit emotionally invested in this issue, as well as projecting your own anger issues on others. "There is NOTHING MORE I can express to Junefever or you and others like you on this board or string on specific subject matters like the Trinity other than the replies I gave and to further state that we DON’T AGREE on this and other matters!!! This is not AVOIDANCE, donkey, it is a reasonable statement that a reasonable mind can grasp!!!" Stating the obvious doesn't substitute for civil, logical responses to the contradictions you have put forth thus far. I--and I am sure craw--understand perfectly that you and all other JWs disagree on the concept of the trinity. That's been no secret for decades. However, it is you who, when faced with legitimate points supporting the sciptural proof of the trinity, make inherently contradictory claims about various translations, which when analyzed, actually futher support the trinity. And, when those are pointed out, you claim "manuscripts" not readily available are needed to substantiate your argument (when of course, no one here is a trained Greek or Hewbrew scholar, to my knowledge.) You didn't address the substance of the issues at all. "I have OFFERED to provide copies of scholarly material that I CANNOT POST ON THIS BOARD UNLESS YOU KNOW DIFFERENT, and your silence on this SUBJECT MATTER makes this patently clear that I cannot!" I have no knowledge of which materials you think will prove the JW's unique view of God. Many reputable discussions on this issue are found on the internet, so you can certainly cite those if you think that makes your case. And, no, I can't promise that I'll go out and read a bunch of books that support your unique view on this issue, because I'm very selective what books I choose to spend my time reading. Further, if you can't defend your points of view without having to pull in esoteric manuscripts, it does become quite questionable. You should be able to articulate your POV on your own, having read and understood the points. The "secret, specialized knowledge" tactic doesn't work with too many people (those who aren't drawn to cults, that is). "So, donkey, how do you propose I provide this material for others to view…." Perhaps you can paraphrase it? If you're so convinced this is show stopping stuff that proves the trinity is a lie, I would have hoped you would have familiarized yourself enough with it to be able to articulate it and defend it on your own. Using the scriptures, common sense, and straightforward, non-contradictory explanations.   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 293 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 6:16 pm:        Junefever: (Part 1 of 3 though could be 4) I am going to take your silence on my offer to provide you with copies of scholarly works; that I submit to you, will clearly demonstrate you are wrong on various subjects as a NO to my offer. You state, “But expressly calling Jesus "a god" certainly is.” I submit to you it is not! Exodus 7:1 YHWH states, to Moses “I have made you God to Pharaoh”! Also in Psalms 82:6, YHWH expresses to certain humans “you are gods”. Interestingly Jesus quoted from this verse in John 10:34 applying it to the religious leaders, clearly expressing that his claim as “God’s Son” was less than theirs as God! Supposing for a moment, that God YHWH and Jesus were not the same person (I said suppose, imagine; stay with me Jimbo, Stay with me) and God YHWH was Jesus Father, then it is not unreasonable to call him Jesus a God, just not the same person as God, since he is God’s Son! What is so horrible about this? (OK Jimbo imagine time is now over). Distinctions I have made have all been from the scriptures and the analogies used are what we use in everyday life. “You've done nothing but to focus on semantics and nuances in translations to try to disprove that Jesus is god. You're contradicting yourself in the process, as I've shown.” I submit to you that the very semantics and nuances in translation go to show that things are not as clear cut as you make them out to be. And, I have gone one step further, offering to provide copies of scholarly works on point that has flatly been refused with others on this board using it to ascribe wrong motives to me! Interesting indeed! “No, I'm not basing my view on what the majority believes. I'm basing it on what the scriptures actually say. Not surprisingly, if that's what the scriptures say, it figures that the majority will, in fact believe the same way. Being in the extreme minority, by default, doesn't make one right. Although JWs like to imply this, because they're in the extreme minority in most beliefs.” I submit that a simple reading of your posts clearly show the opposite of what you state, as you do indeed appear to use the opinion of the majority as a rule to support your views! I too have provided you with clear scriptures on what Jesus himself said about himself, and you must go outside this, by adding to it, interpreting what he actually meant, by going to your dogma to explain something else! His simple words say something different!!!!!! PERIOD!!!!! The scriptures are against the majority and you avoid discussing the scriptures I showed you this at Matthew 7:13, 14. Jesus was not approved by the majority and was hated and persecuted by the majority or the “world” for his beliefs and said his followers would be also at John 15:20. Jesus was in the minority in his beliefs and one would expect his followers to be also. You are right about the fact the JW’s are in the “extreme minority” and so was Jesus! Ain’t that a hoot! (Continued below)   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 294 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 6:19 pm:        (Part 2 of 4) ”In JWs case, they selectively "treated" the term used in John 1:1, inserting an indefinite article which doesn't even appear in Greek in an attempt to slant it toward their personal interpretation of God. They didn't use the same rules in other verses in the passage.” As to this, I gave scriptural references from other Bibles which you refer to as “semantics and nuances in translations” in order to demonstrate that there is more to the scriptures you quote than what you express and I also have OFFERED to provide you with copies of scholarly works showing that your position is wrong! The simple truth is, that there are thousands of ancient works available today in the Greek and Hebrew that were simply not available to the writers of the “King James Version” in the year 1611, not to mention the fact it was translated from a Latin text, not the Greek or Hebrew, which is why in the name of the Bible itself, you find the word “VERSION” as they considered the Latin tongue an original tongue in which the bible was translated into! (KING JAMES VERSION-I trust you will not argue that there is a distinct difference in a “version” and a “translation”) Do your homework Bub!!!! As to the JW’s not using the same rules in other verses; please be so kind as to POINT this out so I can confirm what you know that I obviously do not! But before you open you mouth on this, do your homework carefully as no one today uses a science text book etc. from 1611 as a standard today for good reasons!!!!!! But you (and Crawfish) are very intelligent and know this already right? I trust you both graduated from the same Grade School I mean High School yes? “In JWs case, they selectively "treated" the term used in John 1:1, inserting an indefinite article which doesn't even appear in Greek in an attempt to slant it toward their personal interpretation of God. They didn't use the same rules in other verses in the passage.” I have OFFERED, many times to provide you with copies of a scholarly work showing that your position is wrong and quite antiquated! As antiquated as using a science or history book that is six hundred years old!!!! “And again, you blew your "other people translate it differently" when you threw out Divine, because YHWH was called "Divine" according to other translations that you cited.” I am not sure what you are attempting to express here above, however, the other Bibles were used to clearly show they express it differently than what you quoted, as the Hebrew from where it is supposed to be translated shows it differently, so I will make you an OFFER here again to send you copies of the pages in Hebrew from Hendrickson Publishers settling this once and for all! You state: “Oh, and being God makes one Divine as well. Hmmm... JWs have always expressly rejected the divinity of Jesus, which is understood to mean Jesus is GOD. At least now you seem to imply Jesus is Devine. Just a tad lower in divinity than YHWH?” I did not say Jesus was “Devine” and I don’t think this is an English word, though you may be making it up as you do most of your thoughts, though many are just like you! I hope you did not intentionally twist my words to mean that I was comparing Jesus to Devine Texas, right? But who knows!!!!! I bet ya Craw will agree if you say so!!!! And Yes, Jesus is God’s Son so call it whatever you want, you are doing that, Jesus is simply not his Father. You and those like you have the identify crisis thing going on man not Jesus! (Continued below)   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 295 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 6:21 pm:        (Part 3 of 4) And also; “Now your just employing JW double talk to deceive. Either Jesus is God or he's not. It's not a matter of subtle translations. Of throwing around doubts and questions about how some people translate the concept "differently" depending on the particular Hebrew or Greek translation, as you try to suggest when you're backed into a logical corner.” I said “Divine”, and not divinity as you use it. But since you accuse me of “employing JW double talk to deceive” I will quote below from one of several sources as my reply to this: “From the online Etymology Dictionary, divine (v.) "to conjure, to guess," originally "to make out by supernatural insight," early 14c., from L. divinus (see divine (adj.)), which also meant "soothsayer." Hence, divination (c.1374), from O.Fr., from L. divinationem (nom. divinatio) "the power of foreseeing, prediction," from divinatus, pp. of divinare, lit. "to be inspired by a god." Divining rod (or wand) attested from 1656.” Interesting how they use “inspired by a god.” THEY MUST BE JW’s TOO!!!! NO wait they are purposaealy deceiving you! Dude why is it when someone does not agree with you, they are automatically deemed “deceptive?” You and your friends think too much of yourselves!!!! As to being “backed into a logical corner” you again give yourself too much credit, however, when faced with someone backing you in a corner, one must act decisively, and that is what I did and do, by going to the words we have in the language in which it was penned in, to verify and validate the accuracy of statements relied upon! You choose to ignore it and call me deceptive but refuse to go to the source so who really is deceptive here pal???? Dude, if you bought a home in a foreign country and had the documents and deed translated there by a source deemed reputable, to only later find out when you get to your home country that liberty was taken in certain parts of the documents and that you actually “leased” the property instead; I tell you truly Dude, you would (besides probably going nuts) do everything in your legal power to right this wrong! And now when I suggest you do the same thing with matters affecting life, by suggesting you verify what you quote as accurate with the source, the manuscript, form which Bibles are translated from today, you accuse me of “employing double JW talk” deception etc…..Dude it seems that you like being deceived! What are you afraid of, in taking the time to see if what I assert is accurate or not! I guess this is a perfect example of what you call reasonable, no wonder we are having problems here!!!! “If the concept of the nature of God is so fluid and that much up in the air, depending on the linguistic translation of a particular person, then you'd think that would be ample reason for the JWs not to take such a dogged stance to insist there model is right, as they have done throughout the decades.” (Continued below)   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 296 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 6:22 pm:        (Part 4 of 4) The concept of God is not fluid, however you obviously make this statement because of our exchanges, showing that there are scriptural differences, that can easily be seen, making some feel that is “fluid”, as you cannot have these two opposing views using the same scriptures so someone has to be wrong! Ergo, the view of the sincere beliefs you have, and that held by the JW’s, but they are under attack here not you! “God is a God not of confusion, but of order. And suggesting his true nature as recorded in the scriptures is vague, questionable, open to the personal translation of men is to minimize its importance.” You are correct in saying God is not a God of confusion, as this is not only obvious, the scriptures state so! Dude the scriptures I used were not vague; I pointed them out to you, showing that their plain simple language was in conflict with your Trinity belief making or allowing for vagueness or confusion to your beliefs! “You're tactic is to throw doubt into people's minds of any certain conclusion on God's true nature. With the secret goal of eventually winning them over to the JWs "unique" dogma. This is why so many people find JWs cultic tactics insidious and deceitful. In the process you're disrespecting the word of God by suggesting it's all just too confusing to comprehend on one's own.” My “tactic”, again, if I say no and you say yes, who is right? It must be YOU!!!!!!!! As it does not matter whatever I say as you and your Cronies will say it isn’t so, right dude? What I did is show scriptures that cannot be nullified and they will never go away! So, if this causes confusion, it is your belief system that is causing the confusion via the miss-use of scriptures! P   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 297 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 6:58 pm:        Junefever: (Part 1 0f 2) Your Goodness!!!! You misunderstood my reply, as you need to have the voice inflection to really get the sense of it, and yes, it was indeed called for; you know one of those things subject to opinion that you and yours will arbitrarily override me as wrong! Was it not strong enough! Shucks!!!! No emotions, just saying or calling it as it see it! You need the laughter mixed in with the voice inflections to really get the sense of what I wrote!!! Sorry we can’t do that here LOLLLLLLLLLLL. Does this help a little? I don’t need protection but to make a statement like that, originating the thought kinda really puts the icing on the cake from your side huh! LOL! “Stating the obvious doesn't substitute for civil, logical responses to the contradictions you have put forth thus far. I--and I am sure craw--understand perfectly that you and all other JW’s disagree on the concept of the trinity. That's been no secret for decades.” Are you serious, please are you kidding about civility! You folks can dish it out but can’t take it back!! That’s what this is all about! Hooray for your knowing the JW’s don’t believe in the Trinity! Wow you do get some things right after all!!! LOLLLLLL “However, it is you who, when faced with legitimate points supporting the sciptural proof of the trinity, make inherently contradictory claims about various translations, which when analyzed, actually futher support the trinity. And, when those are pointed out, you claim "manuscripts" not readily available are needed to substantiate your argument (when of course, no one here is a trained Greek or Hewbrew scholar, to my knowledge.) You didn't address the substance of the issues at all.” So sad, so bad, say it isn’t so Mom!!!! Now when analyzed further, support for the Trinity, now that is true blasphemy!!! You haven’t even checked these things out for yourself!!! Wow, what a mind!!!!! Hey you and your buddies can take that pagan doctrine the Trinity and share it with them (You know the pagans) in the moonlight, because the pagans believed it before the false Christians did….That you do share in common! Because of a lack of scholars on this board is the reason why I have offered to share certain things with you! Duh!!!! LOLLLLL “I have no knowledge of which materials you think will prove the JW's unique view of God. Many reputable discussions on this issue are found on the internet, so you can certainly cite those if you think that makes your case. And, no, I can't promise that I'll go out and read a bunch of books that support your unique view on this issue, because I'm very selective what books I choose to spend my time reading.” (Continued below)   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 298 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 7:00 pm:        (part 2 of 2) Your statement in the first paragraph above is too broad to address, so what I will state is that the works I have in my possession clearly and incontrovertibly support the things I have stated in these post replies to your John 1:1 and other passages about “Mighty” etc. Stay with me Jimbo, Stay with me, as we don’t want people losing track here!!! Right!!! LOL. You do no have to promise anything, and what is on the internet seems to be vainglorious parroting and great repetition of older flawed works, welcome to the world of the internet or should I say lazy research!!! LOL. Hey just keep using that dictionary and science text book from the 1600’s, and you will always be right!!! LOLLLLL “Further, if you can't defend your points of view without having to pull in esoteric manuscripts, it does become quite questionable. You should be able to articulate your POV on your own, having read and understood the points. The "secret, specialized knowledge" tactic doesn't work with too many people (those who aren't drawn to cults, that is).” Those “esoteric manuscripts” is where you get your bible from Bub, so if you are using a Bible that in some parts is incompatible with the “esoteric manuscripts” dude you have a problem!!! Thank you for the statement as I now know and understand why you and others like you believe what you believe, as you don’ t care what is translated from the ““esoteric manuscripts” is translated correctly so long as you it reads and supports what you believe!! Got it. So bad so sad!!! LOL…. “Perhaps you can paraphrase it? If you're so convinced this is show stopping stuff that proves the trinity is a lie, I would have hoped you would have familiarized yourself enough with it to be able to articulate it and defend it on your own. Using the scriptures, common sense, and straightforward, non-contradictory explanations.” Wow, now that was really, really “profound stuff” dude! No need to paraphrase so I’ll repeat, "So, donkey, how do you propose I provide this material for others to view…."; so how do you suggest I do this dude? You know send you the stuff that I can’t splain man! Indy’ I know the way!!!!! P   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 299 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 7:11 pm:        Crawfish: Hey I am glad you liked it! I did, but I am certain that if you feel that I have done something wrong you have every right to report it just the same as money will not buy this board, and I proved their integrity once on another string! So have at! “so, now let us sum it up.... you offered some verses of a hebrew script that refer to the text of john 1;1 differently, implying it is not god therefore, yet that same hebrew script uses the same terminology for 'jah' in other places, yet you change the subject when it comes to discussing that part because it actually proves the opposite of what you are saying, and then you try to turn it into a private e'mail session............. preatorian, i am very familiar with jw cult leadership tactics.” Do you read your own stuff? Or is this part of a drunken tirade? Thanks for the compliment, and sorry you feel that I am a leader; unfortunately I cannot say the same for you, as I feel you are not! I called you a bunch of classy names not just any names! Tell me please, or rather ponder me this; when is a DF’d person a JW? Who is twisting words here mister? Come on?????? Be Happy!!!! Hey you say “sound like a watchtower article..... hmmmmmm” and I say; I did not know you could hear my voice, but then again, you probably do hear voices!!!!! Well, I can express that your writings make you sound like your insane and drunk most of the time! “come on now preatorian, i am familiar with the jw cult leadership and their tactics.” Was this meant to be a sentence with a cohesive thought somewhere? Help! Not me, you! You sure know a lot Jumbo, and I’m surre impressssed!!!!! Duh! P Tata for now!!!   crawly Intermediate Member Username: crawly Post Number: 145 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 4.240.81.235 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 9:05 pm:        gee praetorian, are you not able to discuss the trinity?......... is that why you must post almost a chapter in a book, still saying nothing at all, just a bunch of smoke? yup, i am familiar with that jw cult tactic too! flood the thread with long winded nonsense to push the logical argument into oblivian and bore and confuse everyone. also, please note, everyone....... there are at least two distinctive jws posting as preatorian..... they have different speech styles and in this case didn't get the posts numbers coordinated....... it is the jw leadership taking turns. now, preatorian, let us discuss the father and the son and the holy spirit that are all god, ok? ........no, the pharoh was never compared to the most high god in heaven, he was only labled god as a high position leader. ...it is not the same as when jesus is referred to as ''god and creator'' throughout the whole bible and you well know that....... jesus is the first and the last, the beginning and the end, the omega and the alpha ...and so is jah....... now are you suggesting the pharoh was also sorta labled that?...... how sly. i am still waiting for some evidence from you that supports your case....... but i know you can't produce any... you can only blow smoke and talk about manuscripts that are too special to post, as you claim the bible itself is not good enough to prove it. again, thank you for all the names, i enjoy them. i'm familiar with that jw cult tactic too.......from the beginning of jw history they have called true christians names throughout all of their literature for disagreeing with their self-appointed cult leadership that claim jesus already arrived in 1874 and appointed them to rule...errr, oooops, ok 1878 ooops, errr ok umm, 1914 errrr, oppps ,ok that generation, errr ooops again, but we are appointed to rule when jesus retuned on those dates......jw red rev book pages 166 or so.   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 300 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 10:00 am:        Dogma! I got some Dogma for sale! Cheap too! Crawfish, even cheaper!!!   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 301 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 11:05 am:        Crawfish: (Part 1 of 2, maybe 3, I think) I wasn’t going to respond other than to offer to sell some dogma and crawfish above, however, your post is so ridiculously funny, it compels to be respond in kind!!! “gee praetorian, are you not able to discuss the trinity?......... is that why you must post almost a chapter in a book, still saying nothing at all, just a bunch of smoke? “ I have discussed it and you don’t agree, and if you can read, you would know that, or stop drinking long enough to digest the replies. It is that we don’t agree. Also, I have “offered” nitwit to give copies of scholarly work, that is up to date with what is known today which is much greater than what was known in 1611, or are you one of those creatures that believe the earth is flat? Can’t help you there bud! As to smoke, sorry to disappoint, as I don’t smoke! “yup, i am familiar with that jw cult tactic too! flood the thread with long winded nonsense to push the logical argument into oblivian and bore and confuse everyone.” You’re just too smart for me and my “cult tactics”; boy you should run for president or something! You got my vote…NAH!!!!! Hey I never use water to flood this site; how do you do that? You argue, I reply, you argue, I reply’ rinse lather and repeat! If you do this long enough you will stay in the shower and avoid further bothering humanity with your illogical drunken ravings! Now as to being a bore, Your Honor, (not) I Object! Confusing to you, that is a no brainier—I understand……poor craw…. “also, please note, everyone....... there are at least two distinctive jws posting as preatorian..... they have different speech styles and in this case didn't get the posts numbers coordinated....... it is the jw leadership taking turns.” Silly boy, your powers of Satanic telepathy have you truly confused. I am three in one! So depending upon my personality I change my writing style to fit the need of the nut I deal with. You caught me! Wow you’re Good! What is that stuff your on??? I am the leader taking turns with my second, no wait, my third, hold it, I know it is confusing, a first person responding…I think.. Hold it, let me check with Craw, he knows all, don’t ya Crawfish! “now, preatorian, let us discuss the father and the son and the holy spirit that are all god, ok?” Whew, I didn’t know this had a point to it, please by all means discuss…how do you do that on this board anyway? Now the next part of your email caused me so much laughter, I have to thank you for making my day!!!! “........no, the pharoh was never compared to the most high god in heaven, he was only labled god as a high position leader.” (Conitnued below)   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 302 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 11:08 am:        (Part 2 of 2) YOU MUST BE KIDDING ME? WHERE DID I SAY, (LAUGHING NOT YELLING) THAT “pharoh” compared himself to God, the scripture I show above DONKEY,,,,ney, ney (best I could) that GOD YHWH (or as you call him Jesus) told MOSES, (DONKEY) that he (God whom ever you think he is) made MOSES “GOD TO PHARAOH” nitwit!!!!! Read from that book you know, the B-I-B-L-E…..You just set yourself up so badly it is impossible not to point it out as your hubris causes this knee jerk reaction of my responses from one of my three personalities. You are Evil!!!!!!!! (Stop said one part to the other two self parts). “...it is not the same as when jesus is referred to as ''god and creator'' throughout the whole bible and you well know that....... jesus is the first and the last, the beginning and the end, the omega and the alpha ...and so is jah....... now are you suggesting the pharoh was also sorta labled that?...... how sly. i am still waiting for some evidence from you that supports your case....... but i know you can't produce any... you can only blow smoke and talk about manuscripts that are too special to post, as you claim the bible itself is not good enough to prove it.” You are just too profound for me, and I just don’t know what to say other than to laugh at you LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL OK, you WIN!! Where do I send the doggy prize Crawfish!!!!! “again, thank you for all the names, i enjoy them. i'm familiar with that jw cult tactic too.......from the beginning of jw history they have called true christians names throughout all of their literature for disagreeing with their self-appointed cult leadership that claim jesus already arrived in 1874 and appointed them to rule...errr, oooops, ok 1878 ooops, errr ok umm, 1914 errrr, oppps ,ok that generation, errr ooops again, but we are appointed to rule when jesus retuned on those dates......jw red rev book pages 166 or so.” I know you like names, that it why I oblige you!!!! You caught me again….I can’t get anything by you…I am just gonna have to re-write those cult manuals again, shucks, your just to bright for me, Crawfish!!!! Darn wish you were on my team so I could be four in one not just three!!!! NOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT Hell, I trust you will be Satan’s second in command to be there to burn those JW’s up real good and hear em scream and all that good stuff! You need to pick up Dante’s Inferno to get your kicks off, and if that does not work you can always read up on Marquis De Sade! I know you will LOVE this as well as all of your Hell believing cronies!!!!! You are just da man, Donkey! I’m proud of you!!! Keep up the fine work. Hey, I am flying over on my jet to Sedona, (Some of us have those you know) north of you this weekend, perhaps you can leave your area and attend the New Age stuff there!!! You fit right in with those folks, but I guess you have too many things to do today, getting ready for Hell and all with your dyslexic God, with the personality problems! P   junefever Member Username: junefever Post Number: 53 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.172.116.155 Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 11:12 am:        "I submit to you it is not! Exodus 7:1 YHWH states, to Moses “I have made you God to Pharaoh”!" Clearly, you’re not suggesting Moses was actually God, now? Obviously, if you take the context of the scripture, you’ll see that God was empowering Moses to speak for him. God was reassuring Moses that he will speak through him and Aron, empowering Moses to perform miracles. In response to Moses hesitation, in Exodus 6:30: “And Moses said before Jehovah, Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips, and how shall Pharaoh hearken unto me?” Moses obviously was not a well-spoken man, so was questioning how he could speak for God. God in return said in Exodus 7: 1-3: 1 And Jehovah said unto Moses, See, I have made thee as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. "2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee; and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land. 3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. " Again, reading the scripture in context, it becomes clear that Jehovah was using Moses; he was not making Moses God, or “a god.” No matter how you look at it, that's a weak argument to try to back into how Jesus was "a god." Aside from the obvious common sense application of the context, you trying to claim Moses was "a god" like Jesus? JWs think Jesus is on par with Moses?   junefever Member Username: junefever Post Number: 54 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.172.116.155 Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 11:15 am:        "Also in Psalms 82:6, YHWH expresses to certain humans “you are gods”." Again, you need to look at the context of the scriptures. Clearly YHWH was not saying this as something positive. Psalms 81 says: “10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it. 11 But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me.” They rejected YHWH as God. And instead set themselves up as gods, following their OWN counsel. Paslms 82 says: 1God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. 2How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked?... 5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." Clearly, YHWH is telling theses “gods” that they have set themselves up, rejected YHWH, and will die. It makes no sense to try to compare this to the divinity of Jesus. He even referred to such ones as “haters” of God.   junefever Member Username: junefever Post Number: 55 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.172.116.155 Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 11:20 am:        "Interestingly Jesus quoted from this verse in John 10:34 applying it to the religious leaders, clearly expressing that his claim as “God’s Son” was less than theirs as God!" Again, read the context of the passage: "30I and my Father are one. 31Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." Again, Jews understood that Jesus was communicating that he was God. “34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 39Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand," Clearly the Jews thought Jesus was blaspheming by making himself God, or equal to God. He was telling them that if he performed “works” they were from God. Jesus reference to the Psalm 82, again, is not a positive one. Just like ones who set themselves up as “gods” back in those days, who ignored the works he had shown them, whom he even termed “haters of God,” who walked in their own counsel, so were the Jews who would not believe the works God was showing him through Jesus. God was again among them, but he knew that they would again reject him. Rather than see it, they sought to kill Jesus for “making himself equal to God.” John 5:18: “ For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” Further, Jesus words in that passage show that “the father and I are one,” the father is in me and I am in him,” again, clearly supporting that Jesus was God, but taking on a human form.   junefever Member Username: junefever Post Number: 56 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.172.116.155 Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 11:31 am:        ”I submit to you that the very semantics and nuances in translation go to show that things are not as clear cut as you make them out to be.” And I submit to you that the tactic you use to imply that the sciptures can only be understood by people who are fluent in ancient Greek and Hebrew is contrary to Christianity itself. Again, all I have done is provided obvious interpretations by READING the scriptures, including the surrounding context. Any reputable translation (of which the NWT is not considered) will not be so fraught with nuance and subtle meaning as to make it impossible to understand without the help of a Greek or Hebrew scholar. JWs take a few single scriptures and trying to force a literal meaning out of them, without considering their context and the entire passage to try to promote their own dogma. That's why they must focus on all of the "nuances" and so called subtle meanings to make their case. It wouldn't stand up to common sense and contextual scrutiny. ”I submit that a simple reading of your posts clearly show the opposite of what you state [not basing my beliefs on what the majority think]., as you do indeed appear to use the opinion of the majority as a rule to support your views! I too have provided you with clear scriptures on what Jesus himself said about himself, and you must go outside this, by adding to it, interpreting what he actually meant, by going to your dogma to explain something else! His simple words say something different!!!!!! PERIOD!!!!!” I’m quoting the scriptures, period. I’m not alluding to some esoteric manuscripts that must be perused, explained, and spun like the JWs do. The majority of JWs don’t know anything about ancient Greek and/or Hewbrew, and they don’t think they can read the Bible on their own. They simply lap up the twisted interpretations of a few men back in New York who have no college education at all, let alone having the credentials of being bible scholars. JWs would be totally lost in any sort of scholarly discussion on the issue, or any truly independent reading of the bible. Don’t project their ignorance and herd mentality on others.   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 303 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 2:02 pm:        Junefever: (Part 1 of 2) Do you people use the same drugs? “Clearly, you’re not suggesting Moses was actually God, now? Obviously, if you take the context of the scripture, you’ll see that God was empowering Moses to speak for him. God was reassuring Moses that he will speak through him and Aron, empowering Moses to perform miracles. In response to Moses hesitation, in Exodus 6:30: “And Moses said before Jehovah, Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips, and how shall Pharaoh hearken unto me?”” Now I know you like crawfish have a problem with selective memory and twisting things so let me help you with the above by starting with your words below that gave rise to my response that you respond to here above!!! You start by quoting me in your post above number 51; "I submit to you that believing in God’s Son, and the responsibilities bestowed upon him by his Father is not polytheism at all." And you respond, “But expressly calling Jesus "a god" certainly is.” And now look at your quote above repeated here: “Clearly, you’re not suggesting Moses was actually God, now? Obviously, if you take the context of the scripture, you’ll see that God was empowering Moses to speak for him. God was reassuring Moses that he will speak through him and Aron, empowering Moses to perform miracles. In response to Moses hesitation, in Exodus 6:30: “And Moses said before Jehovah, Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips, and how shall Pharaoh hearken unto me?”” Makes good sense to me!!!!!! So I repeat the question, do you people use the same drugs? My statement dear dude, to your “But expressly calling Jesus "a god" certainly is.” Was this: “I submit to you it is not! Exodus 7:1 YHWH states, to Moses “I have made you God to Pharaoh”! Also in Psalms 82:6, YHWH expresses to certain humans “you are gods”. Interestingly Jesus quoted from this verse in John 10:34 applying it to the religious leaders, clearly expressing that his claim as “God’s Son” was less than theirs as God! Supposing for a moment, that God YHWH and Jesus were not the same person (I said suppose, imagine; stay with me Jimbo, Stay with me) and God YHWH was Jesus Father, then it is not unreasonable to call him Jesus a God, just not the same person as God, since he is God’s Son! What is so horrible about this? (OK Jimbo imagine time is now over).” The point is that by calling Jesus “a” God, that this supports polytheism!!!!!!!!!!!! I then used the above to show where Almighty God was said that (God) about Moses, and later Jesus quoted this, and yet there is no conflict with polytheism!!!!!!!!! Dude, get with the program OK (A little Valley Girl and Bill Engwvald inflection here please and don’t forget the drum roll….) [Side Bar: Now stay with me Jimbo, Deuteronomy 18:15-18, in particular 18 states that God will raise up a prophet from among his people Like Moses, who is this?] Toto says: Jesus, and YOUR RIGHT!!! The crowd is going wild!!!! He gets his prize of crawfish! (Conitnued below)   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 304 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 2:04 pm:        So your statement "I submit to you it is not! Exodus 7:1 YHWH states, to Moses “I have made you God to Pharaoh”!" is way, way way off base Dude! The point was use of “God” toward someone to show that it is not polytheism. So I don’t know what do you think I was suggesting in my reply to you about the usage of “God” in relation to Moses, and also to Jesus? I think your TWISTING THAT AGAIN..oh no Toto, I don’t think we are not in Kansas anymore!!!!! Help!!!! Now you state: “Moses obviously was not a well-spoken man, so was questioning how he could speak for God. “ ”God in return said in Exodus 7: 1-3:” ”1 And Jehovah said unto Moses, See, I have made thee as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. “ "2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee; and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land. “ ”3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. "” After your several quotes above… I reply, OK!!!!! “No matter how you look at it, that's a weak argument to try to back into how Jesus was "a god." Aside from the obvious common sense application of the context, you trying to claim Moses was "a god" like Jesus? JWs think Jesus is on par with Moses?” The argument you speak of here is not at issue as shown above, so untwist it bucko, and deal with the original issue, that calling some or referring to them as God or a god does not lead you to polytheism. As to the first question; “Aside from the obvious common sense application of the context, you trying to claim Moses was "a god" like Jesus?; since you have to ask it I will S-L-O-W-L-Y say NO! As to the second question; “JWs think Jesus is on par with Moses?” since you have to ask it I will S-L-O-W-L-Y say A-G-A-I-N, NO!!!!!!! Go it, get it, GOOD!!!! Rinse lather and repeat! P P.S. Your other posts will have to wait till next week. Tata...Have a "Real Good One"   praetorian Intermediate Member Username: praetorian Post Number: 305 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.89.75.242 Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 2:06 pm:        Junefever: The herd is chanting for you; Mooooooo P   junefever Member Username: junefever Post Number: 57 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.172.116.155 Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 3:00 pm:        "Do you people use the same drugs?" Your comments have no place in a rational discussion. Name-calling and implications such as you are making only make your intentions more obvious. "The point is that by calling Jesus “a” God, that this supports polytheism!!!!!!!!!!!! I then used the above to show where Almighty God was said that (God) about Moses, and later Jesus quoted this, and yet there is no conflict with polytheism!!!!!!!!!" Dude, get with the program OK (A little Valley Girl and Bill Engwvald inflection here please and don’t forget the drum roll….) And again, that was covered in my prior posts. Jehovah wasn't suggesting polytheism by his statement to Moses "I will make you God (or as God, as some other translations suggest). He was saying he was bestowing HIS power upon Moses to speak God's words and to demonstrate HIS power through miracles as testament to Jehovah's being the only true God. He wasn't suggesting that Moses was "a god." "Interestingly Jesus quoted from this verse in John 10:34 applying it to the religious leaders, clearly expressing that his claim as “God’s Son” was less than theirs as God! Supposing for a moment, that God YHWH and Jesus were not the same person (I said suppose, imagine; stay with me Jimbo, Stay with me) and God YHWH was Jesus Father, then it is not unreasonable to call him Jesus a God, just not the same person as God, since he is God’s Son! What is so horrible about this? (OK Jimbo imagine time is now over).” You're just repeating yourself here, word for word. Again, in the scripture referenced in Psalms 81-82, God was condemning the Israelites for rejecting him as the true God. They had set themselves up as "gods," choosing their own counsel. That wasn't in support of the concept of polytheism; in fact, just the opposite. Jesus was referencing the Jews' behavior with regard to him. They clearly believed that he was claiming he WAS god and equal to God(which was blasphemy--since there was only one true God. Jesus, understanding their motives and their hearts, made a parallel between those who had rejected God as described in Psalms. They also were not convinced by his works he displayed at that time. Just as the Jews who were rejecting Jesus. They had set themselves up as their own "gods," seeking their own counsel, and denying their true Father. "My statement dear dude, to your “But expressly calling Jesus "a god" certainly is.” Was this: “I submit to you it is not! Exodus 7:1 YHWH states, to Moses “I have made you God to Pharaoh”! Also in Psalms 82:6, YHWH expresses to certain humans “you are gods”." And again, your claims have been dispelled. In the instance in Psalms, those who rejected Jehovah, and in fact set themselves up as "gods" and who were called "haters" of the true God were doomed to die. No support of polytheism there. As to Moses, Jehovah was not cloning himself into a man. He was not appointing a second God. He was using Moses to accomplish his goals and to demonstrate his power to Pharoah. No polytheism there, either. Still only one god, Jehovah. (Message edited by junefever on August 31, 2007) (Message edited by junefever on August 31, 2007)   junefever Member Username: junefever Post Number: 58 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.172.116.155 Posted on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 7:12 am:        Post 1 of 2 "[Side Bar: Now stay with me Jimbo, Deuteronomy 18:15-18, in particular 18 states that God will raise up a prophet from among his people Like Moses, who is this?] Toto says: Jesus, and YOUR RIGHT!!! The crowd is going wild!!!!" Let's start by looking at the actual passage: "17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." 21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him." Obviously God, through Moses, was talking about other prophets who would come after Moses. Many others after him among Israel were called prophets and prophetess in the OT. Obviously, Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the prophets, so he is referenced there as well. He too, was speaking the words of god, just as others before him had.   junefever Member Username: junefever Post Number: 59 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.172.116.155 Posted on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 7:23 am:        (Post 2 of 2) A major point in Deut. 18, was that God, through Moses, was communicating how they would be able to tell a prophet from HIM as opposed to a false prophet, one who was NOT from him. He clarified thatif the person claiming to be a prophet from God spoke words that did not come true, then he was a false prophet. He or she was not to be listened to, and he would eventually be put to death. Let's see, they claim to speak for Jehovah and they make prophesies/predictions that don't come true... Sound familiar? ______________________________________________ *** Watchtower 1972 April 1 p.197 ‘They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them’ *** "So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? IDENTIFYING THE "PROPHET" These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet? … This "prophet" was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses. … Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a "prophet" of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record." _________________________________________________ Yes, let's review a snapshot of the record: "This generation (of 1914) will by no means pass away before the end comes" (circa 1920's or so) "Millions now living will never die!" Regarding the end of the system schedule for 1975: “If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things. Why not? Because all the evidence in fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years. Of the generation that observed the beginning of the 'last days' in 1914, Jesus foretold: 'This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.' Therefore, as a young person, you will never fulfill any career that this system offers. If you are in high school and thinking about a college education, it means at least four, perhaps even six or eight more years to graduate into a specialized career. But where will this system of things be by that time? It will be well on the way towards its finish, if not actually gone!" -- Awake! 1969 May 22 p.15 _________________________________________________ God did not respond to the question of "How can you tell a prophet is from God?" by saying: You can tell a false versus a true prophet because the true ones are really clean cut people who look nice and respectable and try to live good lives. They've been wrong about virtually everything they've claimed, but they're really trying hard--they get an A for effort. After all, they're just imperfect people, but I'll be working with them to try to shine the light brighter and brighter, and maybe eventually they'll get my message correct. So, if they warn you of something, or tell you what to do, just to be on the safe side, cover your bases and believe it/do it. But don't be disappointed if it doesn't happen. Got that? (Message edited by junefever on September 01, 2007)   crawly Intermediate Member Username: crawly Post Number: 147 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 4.240.81.253 Posted on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 2:14 pm:        preatorin, thank you for the additional name calling. i can tell you don't have the holy spirit. hopefully others will recognize that too. now......... let us sum it up again, ok? you are just blowing smoke and calling names and bragging about a jet while being a smart alec in general........ i am familiar with that jw cult tactics. now back to basics; in john 1;1 in the beginning the word was, amd the word was with god...... and the word was a god. yup, the word was a real god, and since there is only ''''one real god'''', and... all other gods are false, the word was the true god. now, when the word of god came to earth, it was still a god, a real one, and when it died and went to heaven it was still the word of god, a god, the god, the alpha and the omega the first and the last.   junefever Member Username: junefever Post Number: 60 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.172.116.155 Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 12:46 am:        How many "first and lasts" can there be? How many true "gods" can there be? How many "Eternal Fathers" can there be? How many "Mighty Gods" can there be? How many "Saviors" can there be? How many "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" can there be? Both Jehovah and Jesus are spoken of in those terms in the bible. Please explain how two entities can share the same divine attributes and not be considered the SAME personage in a monothesistic model, which promotes only one true God. To suggest otherwise indicates there is more than one God. (Message edited by junefever on September 02, 2007) (Message edited by junefever on September 02, 2007)   inkorrekt Senior Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 1115 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 71.33.139.45 Posted on Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 3:24 am:        Jehovah Witnesses prefer not to witness their own sexual crimes!!! New evidence in Jehovah’s Witness allegations By Lisa Myers and Richard Greenberg NBC News Investigative Unit updated 4:43 p.m. CT, Wed., Nov. 21, 2007 MSNBC The Jehovah’s Witnesses have settled nine lawsuits alleging church policies protected men who sexually abused children for many years. Frederick McLean is one of the most-wanted fugitives in the United States, charged with 17 counts of child sexual abuse in California. Law enforcement sources say that when a victim’s family confronted McLean in 2004, he allegedly confessed. But before he could be arrested, McLean fled. Authorities identified at least eight victims that McLean allegedly abused over the course of nearly a decade. One victim estimated McLean molested her “over 100 times,” according to the U.S. Marshals Service. Deputy Marshal Thomas Maranda, who is leading the hunt for the 56-year-old fugitive, says McLean gained the trust of many of his victims through his leadership position, as a so-called ministerial servant, in his local congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses near San Diego. “His role in the church was significant,” Maranda explains, “because we believe that his participation in the church gave him access to his victims.” His role in the church also became a matter of legal controversy. Last year, some victims’ families filed suit against the Jehovah’s Witnesses, alleging that both McLean’s local congregation and the church’s national headquarters, the Watchtower Society, “knew, or should have known, that Frederick McLean was a pedophile.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses recently agreed to pay to settle that lawsuit and eight other similar cases, without admitting wrongdoing. The cases all involved men the church allegedly knew had sexually abused children. The settlements for those cases are confidential and filed under seal. However, NBC News has obtained a copy of one of the settlements from the McLean lawsuit, and it may offer an indication of the potential magnitude of the payouts. According to the court record, the church agreed to pay $781,250 to the accuser, who claimed McLean abused her from age 3 to age 9. (After legal fees and other costs, the accuser was set to receive approximately $530,000.)>>>>>>>>>>>>>CONTINUED   inkorrekt Senior Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 1116 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 71.33.139.45 Posted on Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 3:29 am:        To:- JW theologian Rev.Preatorian: Lawyers for the plaintiffs declined to comment. The Jehovah’s Witnesses did not comment specifically on any of the lawsuits, but issued a statement to NBC News: “For the sake of the victims in these cases, we are pleased that a settlement has been reached. Our hearts go out to all those who suffer as a result of child abuse. Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide are united in their abhorrence of this sin and crime.” [Click here for the complete statement.] Internal records now coming to light from the settled lawsuits may help explain why the church agreed to settle the cases. Documents show that the church knew for years that some prominent members were sexually abusing children and did little. Church officials allegedly became aware of several of the cases in question through what amount to internal judicial proceedings, at which local elders confronted suspected abusers, obtained confessions, then meted out punishments. Do clergy members have to report child abuse? James Henderson, for example, was a longtime Jehovah’s Witness elder in Red Bluff, California – and a serial molester. The newly uncovered documents include a 1994 letter from a senior regional church official to headquarters stating that Henderson was sanctioned by the church, stripped of a leadership position, “in the early ‘70’s” in another California town. “Now he has admitted to doing it again,” the letter states. In the late 1980s, according to another internal church document, a local elder dismissed allegations that Henderson had been sexually abusing a young boy: “There was no way it could be true so it was forgotten.” By October 1994, Henderson was Presiding Overseer – the top elder – in his congregation. After a father of one of his victims confronted him, according to church records, Henderson confessed to other elders preemptively, although he said he had stopped molesting the boy more than three years earlier. That was significant, because, at the time, the church apparently had a policy of waiving sanctions if a sinner was repentant and the sin had occurred at least three years earlier. Elders chose not to tell police in 1994 In spite of Henderson’s confession, the elders did not inform California authorities. (In 1994, California law did not yet mandate that clergy report suspected abuse; the law changed in 1997). Instead, they conducted their own inquiry, apparently while Henderson and his wife were on vacation. A few weeks later, elders reported they found “irregularities” in Henderson’s story, and confronted him a second time. Henderson admitted molesting the victim “one and one half years ago.” He also admitted “paying restitution for a similar offense” in the early 1970s. The elders decided to remove Henderson as Presiding Overseer and “publicly reproved” him, announcing to the congregation that he had committed a sin, without disclosing the details. Still, they did not go to authorities. But then the victim’s family did. While police were investigating, church officials questioned Henderson yet again. He confessed to molesting other children, including his own son, according to a church document. At that point, Henderson was excommunicated. In the meantime, law enforcement authorities contacted the local elders, who at that point apparently cooperated in the investigation. On December 14, 1994, Henderson was arrested. In 1995, he pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual abuse and was sentenced to four years, four months in prison. By 1998, he was out on parole and, according to church correspondence, attending another Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation. Like Henderson, Alvin Heard was also a member of a Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation in Red Bluff, California and was also excommunicated – “disfellowshipped” – for molesting children.   inkorrekt Senior Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 1117 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 71.33.139.45 Posted on Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 3:36 am:        CONTINUED>>>>>>>> In a deposition filed as part of the recent civil lawsuits, Heard admitted confessing to church elders in the late 1980s that he had molested four more young children. His punishment that time: “private reproval.” In other words, church elders chastised him privately, but never told other members of the congregation, according to the deposition. Again, it appears, the church did not pass the information to police or child welfare authorities. In the 1990s, Heard moved to South Dakota. In his deposition, he said he told church elders there that he had a history of child molestation. They, too, apparently kept his secret. By 2003, Heard had moved to Oregon, where he molested yet again. In January 2004, he was indicted for sexually abusing a five-year-old boy. . In all, the nine settled lawsuits involved 16 victims and eight alleged abusers, all of whom – except Frederick McLean – have been criminally convicted. Among them: Larry Kelley, a television personality and children’s entertainer in Amarillo, Texas; and Timothy Silva, who reportedly taught “adolescent book studies” at a congregation in Woodland, California. The church allegedly knew of Silva’s problem as early as 1987, according to one of the lawsuits, but still allowed him to work with children. Barbara Anderson, a former church member and a vocal critic of the organization on this issue, contends that Jehovah’s Witnesses policies “protect pedophiles rather than protect the children.” Anderson recently compiled documents from the lawsuits on a CD titled “Secrets of Pedophilia in an American Religion.” Anderson says she first focused on the controversy in the early 1990s when she worked at the Watchtower Society headquarters in Brooklyn and was assigned to deal with letters from church members complaining of abuse. While conducting that research, she says she discovered that in its internal proceedings against accused molesters, the church applies a biblically based “two-witness” rule. “They require another witness to the actual molestation,” Anderson says, “which is an impossibility.” Anderson also claims that she discovered the church headquarters kept track of sexual abuse cases in confidential files. The recent lawsuits produced evidence that the headquarters did keep internal records of abuse reports submitted by local congregations. The court filings include a church form called a Child Abuse Telememo. “Just thinking that they had a memo made up, printed up that says ‘Child Abuse Telememo,’” Anderson says, “indicates to me that they were handling this a lot. Because why make up a form for it?” The Telememo appears to be a questionnaire to guide officials at headquarters who receive phone calls from local elders. It includes boxes to check as to whether the alleged incident took place in a “reporting state” – where clergy by law must report suspected abuse – or in a “nonreporting state.” In reporting states, the form instructs officials to advise local elders “to make an anonymous phone report from a neutral location, such as a phone booth.” The church consistently has maintained that it follows all laws on reporting suspected child abuse. Those laws are complex. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 25 states specifically mandate that clergy report suspected abuse; but 21 of those states recognize exemptions for “pastoral communications.” Another 16 states have blanket reporting laws, which cover “any person” and may be interpreted as including clergy; seven of those states also grant pastoral privilege. In its statement to NBC, the Jehovah’s Witnesses said it does “not condone or protect child molesters. Our elders expel unrepentant sinners who commit this crime.” According to the church, “the incidence of this crime among Jehovah’s Witnesses is rare.”

Add Your Message Here Post: -Color- Black Red Green Blue Yellow Purple Orange Cyan Gray White -Font- Arial Courier Symbol Times Verdana -Size- Smallest (-2) Small (-1) Normal Large (+1) Largest (+2) Username: Posting Information: This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here. Password: Options: Enable HTML code in message Automatically activate URLs in message Action: