BroRando

3 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

I will not be drawn out on this issue. I do not want some one to use it as an excuse to remove me from here. 

My point about those two early Christians was that they disagreed, went seperate ways, but still forgave each other. 

Indeed Christians can break and some do. However having left the JW Org I feel spiritually stronger because i have to 'go it alone' as far as people are concerned. My faith in God through Christ is stronger and that is what matters to me. 

Have a good day.

Was Judas Iscariot forgiven? Nope!

8 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

But that is basically straight from God's word. It doesn't take a genius to understand that.

Once again, this is written in God's word. So it seems he read the Bible.  Bibles were available in English from the 1550's if my research is correct. 

• Isaac Newton’s Search for God
• NEWTON WRESTLES WITH THE TRINITY DOCTRINE
• WHY NEWTON REJECTED THE TRINITY

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1977284?q=isacc+newton&p=doc

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

You give up when someone checks you. I refute because you refuse to understand what is mentioned, and you do not adhere to context, this goes back to you not knowing what a man girdled up actually met, likewise with anything pertaining to Strong's.

For a man who seeks God, perhaps take your head out of the jar of which your former faith is, and actually do the research; when you asked about "Core Teachings of Christianity", the answer to that was of total seriousness.

That being said, that comment of yours can easily be reverse uno-carded back to you with one link. So thread carefully - and clearly with everything and anything you uttered, is in the deck in question.

That being said, Jesus was a sympathetic person, he does not shift himself, likewise to those who express the same towards him, willing to listen. They do not shift like the sea after a few moments - Hebrews 4:15.

We're not talking about inspiration. We are talking about opinions and facts here, and you are only repeating yourself.

Let's take Jehovah's Witnesses out of the equation - How did you confuse, and or not discern the difference Traditions of Men vs. Christian Traditions? Someone who understands context, and all facts pertaining to Scripture would easily be able to discern what is what, and why this is, and how something has come to be.

Clearly if one has the spirit, they would not go on a tangent of something that can be discerned quickly.

JB, we all read what Rando has said. I merely pointed out that others, even modern day Bible Students mentioned that year in relations to events. Noticed you left that part out.

SM -  it isn't too far-fetched because although not anything pertaining to God's Day, there are those who hold an expectation of something that is to take place in 2034, series of events

So much so both Reslite and JWI were mentioned, as is cited - which you could have easily skipped to that and read it.

Now, you are now confusing the events concerning fulfillment in connection with the Christ with God's Day. If you read what Reslite and JWI mentioned, you would not interject with your own assumption - as stated, going upon your own opinions can be dangerous, in this case, damaging towards you.

Examples below:

JWI - However, there were a few months between November 1913 and July 1914 when Russell admitted that he was questioning his own expectations about 1914, and he even suggested that perhaps things could just go on for another century, and he wondered what people might think of all these predictions "100 years from now" (which would be 2014). Another time he mentioned what things might still be like if the time of trouble went on for 120 years (which would bring one to 2034).... Russell did not really think anything specific was supposed to happen in either 2014 or 2034. Russell gave no specific significance to those periods except to make the point that he no longer had as much confidence in the 1914 date.

Reslite - Nevertheless, when viewed from God’s standpoint, we are still “shortly after” 1914. Although Russell himself did not think the time of trouble would be this long, he did allow that it could be. Some Bible Students believe that it is possible that the time allotted for this period is 120 years (1914+120=2034), but that these days will be “cut short” some time before they are allowed to reach their end.

That being said, you quoting Mark 13:32 (rf. Matt. 24:36, Mark 13:31, Acts 1:7), this is concerning God's Day, for if you forgot, it is in regards to Armageddon.

In Rando's case, the 120 year is in connection with Genesis 6:3-4, concerning Noah's Day into the 1914 notation held by JWs.

Do you hold on to that statement boldly? Because all your remarks, claims, assumptions and the like including reactions can be cited.

If that was the case, that sympathetic counsel from before would have stuck instead of you going around it as, showing that fact that it met nothing.

You are woefully incorrect, for not too long ago a meme made made you react in this manner. All the other things, even the citation from the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) resulted in you making a similar claim as to what you said in regards to the meme.

For if none of such were true, I would not make such a statement.

All I need is a quote and a link, as with the other remark.

That isn't assertiveness. Being assertive is finding the right balance between passivity and aggression. It means having a strong sense of oneself and your value, and acknowledging that one deserve to get what they sought after, achieving. If you were true to your own words, as stated before a meme would not cause you to react in that manner, an assertive person would simply brush it off, and not shut himself away from something so minor and meaningless.

This isn't a judgement, it is clear discernment. If someone reacts in such a manner, and in their choice of words, it shows, thus all remarks in this regard is true.

I haven't chosen to "hound you" I corrected you on a few Strong's then you added tacked on all the other stuff, knowing that I'd respond to it, as seen on page 5. It is already known by you how I am with Strong's.

It isn't about Tom or Arauna. It is about the FACTS. I mentioned them because you are always intertwined with them in nearly all discussion, even for the period of absence.

Going back to page 1 regarding Noah's Day, you claim of assertiveness is pretty much null too due to you even mentioning Arauna when it was not necessary to do so, and this was not the first time, you do this with others.

Your issue is, you want everything to be as so, no one to show factual information and to accept as is. Truthers do not run with that mindset, mainly to those who relentlessly defend Scripture and core teachings and practices of the apostolic church, as is, with calling out those who speak misconception of someone or something.

Discernment tells a different story, hence why I uphold 1 John 4:1. Jesus always wants his followers to be truthful. It is problematic to answer to falsehood and professing it, likewise to go about things deemed unproven, such as you not really knowing what the term Tradition of Men is, and equating it to something else. More so, you being a former Jehovah's Witness, who do not even know as to how your own operate in a setting where people of different backgrounds and culture react to someone who isn't like them.

That being said, do the research and look into all sources of information in regards to what Rando is talking about. If you did your DD, you find this - Watchtower 2003 December 15 pp.14-19 Our Watchfulness Takes On Greater Urgency [https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2003923]

Regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses, this is where the viewpoint originated from concerning events; warning signs of the End Times, according to them.

EDIT:

Ah yes there it is, the reaction. latter is null, which was proven once again.

Warned of “Things Not Yet Beheld”

6. What did Jehovah determine to do in Noah’s day?

⁶ In Noah’s day, Jehovah declared: “My spirit shall not act toward man indefinitely in that he is also flesh. Accordingly his days shall amount to a hundred and twenty years.” (Genesis 6:3) The issuance of this divine decree in 2490 B.C.E. marked the beginning of the end for that ungodly world. Just think what that meant for those then living! Only 120 years more and Jehovah would bring “the deluge of waters upon the earth to bring to ruin all flesh in which the force of life is active from under the heavens.”—Genesis 6:17.

[https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2003923]

1914 marks the beginning of the end for this ungodly world.  Only 120 years more and the end for Satan's System of things will start dissolving!  

It's Spiritual... 

2 Peter 3:10 But Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, but the elements being intensely hot will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be exposed.

Unbelievers are not allowed to SEE... turn around!  "You are going the Wrong Way"  Quote taken from the movie, Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. 😀

26 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

NO ONE KNOWS THE DAY OR THE HOUR.

What question was Jesus answering?   “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?”

You still don't know the sign?  Now that's funny.  I imagine you as a blind man trying to turn on the light switch when the light is already on....  I Love It!

Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.

Yet the time limit was already embedded in prophecy in the Book of Daniel...  1914

Jesus goes on and says... For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be.  For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the Presence of the Son of man will be.

hehehe.. he is blind and stumbling around bumping into things, he then curses other people because he is blind....  it's an allotment of time.  Give him the answers and he would still fail the test.  This is  grrrreat!!!   That's why it doesn't matter if Satan has the answers... HE CAN'T SEE....

It's Spiritual....  2034 will come and go and those outside our inner rooms will be dying the second death of everlasting destruction... that is Armageddon!  Destroyed as with Fire... but they will still complain to their end....  😖

Most people think the Word of God is God because the deny that God has a Chief Messenger. Looking up the meaning of Names can be helpful.

Michael -- Who is godlike or Who is like God?
Immanuel -- With us is God?

The one who conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out from it anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the New Jerusalem that descends out of heaven from my God, and my own new name. (Revelation 3:12)

I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you on the Way and to bring you into the place that I have prepared. Pay attention to him, and obey his voice. Do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions, because my name is in him. (Exodus 23:20-21)

Jesus -- Jehovah is Salvation

Also looking up other translations can give one a clearer view:

• 1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago
•  
• 1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
•  
• 1975 "and a god (or divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany
•  
• 1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin

23 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Yes, Jesus made it clear that he is God's Son, and to God, he acknowledged Jesus is his beloved Son. All this is true, but the latter believes Jesus and God are one in the same, not only due to the teachings of the Trinity itself, but the errors and forgeries in the Bible that pushes a reader to not recognize the distinction between the two.

That being said, the verse you cited, Mark 10:18, is used by Trinitarians to justify their view of equating the Son to the Most High which is against what us Non-Trinitarians believe, as is our Subordinationist counterparts of old. Trinitarians see in this verse that Jesus himself is still God; being good. They resort to ignoring as well as nullify Jesus' words. If each of us tell them what Jesus is really saying here, not only they'll rush John 1:1, but they will make the claim that we are saying Jesus is not good. In their minds, Trinitarians are suggesting that the issue is about moral goodness. Trinitarians act as though that Jesus is coyly suggesting that he himself is that "good God", however, the passage is not about whether we say Jesus is good or not, but rather, it is about what Jesus himself has said.

And regarding what he said, Jesus recognizes that God holds the highest of standard of what it means to be good, being the fact, God can make the determination of what is good and bad. And Jesus being humble leaves the determination of setting the standard to his Father and God and we can see this in his Word, of which Jesus proclaims.

They fail to see what was mentioned here, that no one would say such a thing to someone else unless they wanted to correct them and point out that their words were misdirected.

That being said, this is why research and taking in context of core teachings is vital. Because to the unexpected, The Trinitarian Troop can easily sway people into the opposing Teaching of what is true.

This bring us back to John 1:1 and its rendering. To be consistent with other Feminine Nouns  the second theos is speaking about the Word's qualitative sense. 

An Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible commentary notes: "This second theos could also be translated 'divine' as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos". The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father."

Really, truth be known. John 1:1 is giving witness to God's Chief Messenger his Foremost Messenger and that he is divine.  Beginning Messenger when translated means Archangel.

It was Michael whom was the one to be given a New Name in Philippians 2:6-11 and that Name is Jesus to the Glory of God the Father. 😀

On 8/2/2021 at 12:05 PM, JW Insider said:

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

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

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

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

 

Jesus even admitted of coming from the gods whom the word of God came! 

Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’?  If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? (John 10:34-36)

41 minutes ago, Witness said:

From what I see, your governing leaders have decided that they are good without hearing so, from Jesus Christ and the Father.  However, according to Jesus, this arrangement is not acceptable to him or to the Father.  “But you are not to be like this!” Luke 22:26

7 “Stop judginga that you may not be judged;b ²  for with the judgment you are judging, you will be judged,c and with the measure that you are measuring out, they will measure out to you.

17 hours ago, Witness said:

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

Who made the following statement?  Jesus Christ or Almighty God?  Jesus said to him: “Why do you call ME good? Nobody is good except one, God.” (Mark 10:18)

Jesus said to him: “Why do you call ME good? Nobody is good except one, God.” (Mark 10:18)

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Most of the time - this.

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

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

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

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

6 hours ago, Witness said:

2 Tim 3:16,17  🙂

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

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

58 minutes ago, Witness said:

The Father is the God of Truth (Isa 65:16)

 Truth is the Word of God (Ps 119:160)

 Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life”. John 14:6

“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”  John 17:17

 Jesus is the Word of God – the “Logos”. He represented God, speaking the Word of God to the nation of Israel.  When God’s word reached the prophets and the kings, it was Jesus representing God as the Word/Logos. 

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”

Throwing the letter “a” in this scripture removes the entire spiritual meaning of the union, the oneness of truth, in God and His Son.

“I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of^[a] your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.”  John 17:11

“I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one” John 17:22

 

 

 

To the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ceʹaz write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God: (Rev 3:14)

I am the root and the offspring of David and the bright morning star. (Rev 22:16)

To learn more about Jesus Christ pre-human history Read Proverbs 8.

38 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

I know the truth hurts you but, 

A. There is no lava bath. The dead are conscious of nothing at all. 

B. You are just a fraud pretending to serve God but you condemn others, which Jesus said you should not do. 

Quite funny as you started out here sounding so 'good', but now it's obvious that you are just someone else under a different AKA. 

You now know what it means to have your sins Retained.... 

John 20:23

If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you retain those of anyone, they are retained.”

3 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

As people would say about me, it seems that you are looking for perfection. I know that you are not, and neither am I.

But S. M. 'the facts' are different to different people. 

You seem to love this word. But once again it means different things to different people. Many of us here could easily quote past teachings of the Watchtower / JW Org, which were misinformation.  You yourself belong to a different 'religion' which may give some 'misinformation' according to JWs.

Because if your religion and the Watchtower/JW religion taught exactly the same then they would be one religion. 

And you will give me some examples ?  You know what I follow do you ? 

S. M. There is a difference with, the idea of agreeing with someone, as opposed to following them. 

Two or more people can agree on a few things, it does not mean they are following each other. 

It's a bit like cars driving along the same road. Maybe they are all going to the same town but for different reasons. They are not just thoughtlessly following each other. 

Doesn't the JW Org do exactly that. They start adding traditions of men as burdens to Christians. 

They have their own form of baptism which is not the way Jesus instructed.  

 

They judge people in secret and they hide certain types of people within the Organisation, hence the immorality in the Org.  

Somebody is scorned and gnashing their teeth as they make the trip to the lava bath.

16 minutes ago, BroRando said:

If you weren't so blinded by your unjust hatred. You could have looked up the Greek word for nails and SEEN that it actually means NAIL in singular.

Strong's Concordance

hélos: a nail

Original Word: ἧλος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: hélos
Phonetic Spelling: (hay'-los)
Definition: a nail
Usage: a nail.

8 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

 Next he said to Thomas: “Put your finger here, and see my hands,

When Jesus said HANDS he meant hands. 

And do you think Thomas didn't know how Jesus was killed ?

Thomas said HANDS which is plural and NAILS  which is plural.  Not ONE nail through the wrists. 

The Watchtower were /are just looking for ways to pretend to be different and trying to pretend they are clever. 

But instead the Watchtower tell lies and deceive people. I'm sure there is a scripture about false prophets producing signs and wonders. Each and every lie the GB / Org tell is just more blasphemy, and they will pay the price. 

If you weren't so blinded by your unjust hatred. You could have looked up the Greek word for nails and SEEN that it actually means NAIL in singular.

26 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

I sent a letter to the London Bethel concerning this and they basically told me to mind my own business and not to bother them. A horrible reply from so called 'brothers' in London.

The reason I sent the letter was concerning that Watchtower picture ( on the right ) which is totally wrong. 

John 20 :  NWT.

²⁴  But Thomas, one of the Twelve, who was called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. ²⁵  So the other disciples were telling him: “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will never believe it.” ²⁶  Well, eight days later his disciples were again indoors, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and he stood in their midst and said: “May you have peace.” ²⁷  Next he said to Thomas: “Put your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and stick it into my side, and stop doubting but believe.”

It seems that Watchtower writers / artists and the GB, DO NOT KNOW HANDS FROM WRISTS, AND DO NOT KNOW PLURAL FROM SINGULAR. 

And when I wrote to London Bethel they did not want to know either. 

Handcuffs that bind the Hands.  Notice the area that is actually Bound?

Which method of execution is accurate and true? A or B?

In order for the following prophecy to be fulfilled, “He is guarding all his bones; Not one of them has been broken.” (Psalm 34:20) Which method of death is accurate and true?

Driving a nail through the hand would of broken bones. And if the nail should be placed between the fingers, the flesh would easily tear under the weight. But if a nail was driven through his flesh between the bones that surrounded the nail, not only would the prophecy be fulfilled but it would attach the body to the stauros.

Broken bones would have hasten his death and the torture would have been cut short. Jesus was already beaten, tortured, and flogged to the point of exhaustion that a bystander was compelled into service to carry his torture stake.

See X-ray...

3 hours ago, Arauna said:

Saw a headline today - UN working with BIG Tech to make list of all those who they deem to be enemies of the NWO, their goals and moral values.

What moral values? 

 

The United Nations, it is riddled with man-made organizations that suck the life out of nations while transferring wealth to others. It stores up foodstuffs to drive up prices while humanity and children starve to death. All the while, rodents like rats and mice feast and pass on deadly plagues. The disgusting thing is certainly disgusting in its fight against the Lamb.

15 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

 

Um, I think this might be what @Arauna calls 'lumping scriptures together'.

And I think Mr Rambo is clutching at straws here. He's still stuck fast to 1914 and the 120 years = 2034. 

This seems to have already happened to JWs in Russia and a few other places.  

You seem to lack the urgency that 2034 is only 13 years away.  In the essence of time... it is here... 

Can we expect Jehovah's Day to begin after the sealing process ends? Yes, we can. Matter of fact, the scriptures counsel us to Keep in Expectation of it! We read: “The vision is yet for the appointed time, and it keeps panting on to the end, and it will not tell a lie. Even if it should delay, keep in expectation of it; for it will without fail come true. It will not be late.” (Habakkuk 2:3) What does this tell us? Jehovah's Day will not be late, we may not recognize it at first. After all, the flesh melting off the bones and eyeballs dropping out of the eye sockets is figurative speech as to what happens to someone who has been pitched into Gehenna or the fiery furnace. They die the second death without knowing it, an everlasting death of destruction. Oh... they will become hostile and vindictive, for Jesus states, 'that is where there weeping and gnashing of teeth will be.'  Read more...

1. Proclamation of “Peace and security!”
2. Nations attack and destroy “Babylon the Great”
3. Attack on Jehovah’s people
4. War of Armageddon
5. Satan and his demons are abyssed