Patiently waiting for Truth

But if that were true today there would not be so many man made rules.
In fact if it had been true then, the Superior Authorities scripture would not have been misused to control the congregation. 
Oh how those 'sheep' must have been so easily misled by those wolves. And still are today by 8 wolves. 

Oh Dimmy dimwit. Do I frighten you ? Do i upset you ? That you cannot stop mentioning me. Even though you say you will ignore me  you cannot stop mentioning me. 
To anyone that wishes to know why Dimmy keeps mentioning this : - 
I used the term 'Greek Scriptures' instead of using the term 'New Testament'
It is because those writings were written in Greek. Although I have read that Matthew was originally in Hebrew.
Dimmy seems to prefer the words 'New Testament' which is her choice. But she does seem upset about it.   
 

But if that were true today there would not be so many man made rules.
In fact if it had been true then, the Superior Authorities scripture would not have been misused to control the congregation. 
Oh how those 'sheep' must have been so easily misled by those wolves. And still are today by 8 wolves. 

That is what I remember, too. In fact, that's in the Proclaimers book:
*** jv chap. 15 p. 220 Development of the Organization Structure ***
At a convention in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1941, shortly before his death, he spoke about the matter of leadership, saying: “I want to let any strangers here know what you think about a man being your leader, so they won’t be forgetting. Every time something rises up and starts to grow, they say there is some man a leader who has a great following. If there is any person in this audience who thinks that I, this man standing here, is the leader of Jehovah’s witnesses, say Yes.” The response was an impressive silence, broken only by an emphatic “No” from several in the audience.

I vaguely recall it too. Yes, I think the wording might be wrong. If memory serves (it may not) I think he was saying something to the effect, ‘Does anyone here thing Joseph F Rutherford is the leader of Jehovah’s Witnesses?’ to which the reply was a loud, NO.  The point being that nobody present misunderstood that Christ was the actual leader of the congregation.

Now this is all very interesting because JWs on here try to lump all ex-JWs together as apostates or something else. 
BUT IF Rutherford was a completely 'independant individual', and if Russell stated that  AN ORGANISATION WAS NOT NECESSARY. And if Dmitar states that all Bible Students were separate individuals, and / or, all congregations were 'self run and self ruled', then it seems that pre JW organisation it was possible to serve God through Christ, without joining a 'religion'. 
So from what date did a person 'have to be' a baptised JW to be saved ? When did this form of control take over ? 
And most importantly, can a person be an independant true Christian now ?  That would not stop Christians from gathering together, it would simply mean that no one is 'in control of other people conscience'. 

And Rutherford was not JW as you stated before.
 
2 hours ago, Dmitar said: However, Rutherford himself spoke out loud in an assembly in 1941 stating he was NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and the assembly cheerfully agreed.
What was Rutherford religious pedigree? Bible Student, I guess. ... or just lawyer of his deceased boss who established WT, Mr Russell?  

I'm only asking about how or why Rutherford would say he was NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses in 1941.
Your report about it said:
 

Whose theology was accepted by Jesus and YHVH in 1919? The theology of Bible students or theology of Jehovah's Witnesses that, officially, not existed in 1919?

Okay, thank you. When you read the articles correctly. Are you one of those Jehovah Witness giving out a bad report about it? I will not engage in your quarrel. 

That sounds like it should have been at the St. Louis assembly. Where does Rutherford say he was NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses?

If this scheme is correct, schisms are a normal occurrence in the lives of these Christians. Even more, it started in the 1st century!
The question of schism does not affect the facts set forth before. Try something else, please.  

There is a world-famous aria from "Norma".  It was very easy for me but I refused to sing it because it had religious connections. Today, I think, I was too strict.  Most people do not know the context and just listen to the music because it is absolutely beautiful.  On the other hand, I sang "queen of the Night"  and knew the opera was an allegory of the free masons.... but this was ok to me.   Just shows a little knowledge can be dangerous.
I think music is a personal choice. 
 

I know a few far worse rogues around here! And they are the ones who are the loudest in their negativity - for sure!

Dude is making prophecy on behalf of the governing body, is it/he one of the governing body or just a loose screw in the cog of the society?

I am far from the fanatical jw's you guys are.

I don't like the idea of banning anyone. In fact, most of "Dmitar's" divisive and contentious interference in discussions is already the direct result of his having been banned several times in the past.
He was already banned under one of the original sets of names he used here (Allen Smith) and this made him so angry that he has continually come back with alternate names. Many of those names/accounts have also been banned. I stopped counting after about 40 of his alternate names. A few of his alternate names have rarely been used except to up-vote his own accounts and down-vote members who he doesn't like or who have exposed him in any way. Most of those names are still available to him because they have never been banned.
It's one of the reasons I never recommend banning anyone. If his "Dmitar" account were banned, his usual practice is to start a new account, or re-activate one or more of these other accounts and come back even more contentiously and with more hostility. For bringing up this idea, you, @Matthew9969, could then expect 40 or 50 down-votes on things you have said in the past, and to have most of your future posts "stalked" for down-votes and probably anything he can think of that will cause strife and dissension. If you don't respond in the exasperated manner he expects, you can count on several weeks of false attacks claiming that you did react inappropriately.
He puts a lot more energy into his posts than most people realize. Because of exposing him again here, he will likely do what he usually does: display a lot of egotism, envy, hostility, jealousy, fits of anger, stirring up trouble, divisions, etc. When he notices that his own anger might be a giveaway of his personality, he will begin to accuse others almost randomly of many of the same things he has been exposed for doing. In fact, almost comically, this means that if he has been exposed for "projection," he will then begin accusing others of projection, too. For anything that he has been rightfully accused of, he will hold a longstanding grudge and make sure he accuses his exposers with the same words.
So, what I'm trying to say is that banning just doesn't work. It just results in more and more projection, blame-shifting, and passive aggressive hostility, which has often blown up into real abusive hostility, which then gets him banned and then he starts the cycle all over again.  

Getting rid of all those you do not like? We have to deal with your kinda OCD every time you open you mouth..  Surely you can deal with someone who is very similar to yourself?

I'd just put him on ignore. I've already got a lot of people on ignore. Occasionally I'll see what barking madness they're up to, but I'm not into banning people.

It's impossible to have a logical discussion anymore due to this jack ass. Can the mods please send it a warning or ban it?

Good point, not to mention that the English language does contain the letter "J".  It's called transliteration.  Then to choose to continue names that point and give witness to Jehovah like Joel, John, and Jesus, shows one is lacking understanding.  If Joel, John, and Jesus are true then so is JEHOVAH.
 
Everything we spoken about is in this video in detail. 
https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/StudioTalks/pub-jwban_201506_1_VIDEO

The way I understand, your bad report is you believe the name Jehovah is wrong, which is wrong in itself. The correct way to view the Hebrew language is with its proper linguistic orientation. Therefore, it makes no difference under the Hebrew language if you use either or. Under the reconstruction of the Hebrew lettering to modern times, Jehovah is the most appropriate use of his name. The Jewish nation made the adjustment, that the German reformers used to translate it to English.
However, I see where you get your bad report from, Pearl Doxsey.

Neither the Hebrew nor the Greek language contains the letter 'J'.   So who you claim one name is false and the other is not, is not being consistent.
You have no problem quoting the Hebrew Book of Joel which means "Jehovah is God". You have no problem quoting the Greek Book of John which means "Jehovah Has Shown Favor" These show you to be nothing more than a mere hypocrite. "Hypocrite! First remove the rafter from your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to remove the straw from your brother’s eye." Matthew 7:5

I had to go back through the comment to understand why you said,
I can only guess it's because I told @BroRando...
I am sure he knew that I was referring to a recent post of his on John 1:1, as well my providing a link to a Bible on the JW website using "Yahweh" and not the word, "Jehovah".   But anyway, what you provided will help him understand why I stated:
Within your post, it says, "Incidentally, the name "Jehovah" is a modern invention, an English hybrid based on the four Hebrew letters as transliterated into German, JHVH, with the individually transliterated Hebrew vowel-points of "Adonai", e-o-a.)
I've been saying that this name, "Jehovah", is a hybrid and not the true accurate name of God.  That is why I posted the video, which explains it also.  So, I should thank you for the additional information.
Thank you.

Same question.


Unless you're a linguistic scholar. Not someone like @Patiently waiting for Truth that likes to use the phrase Geek Scripture as though It's supposed to mean something entirely different.