Evacuated

13 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses

There won't be any of Jehovah's Witnesses after Armageddon. only Jehovah's witnesses, presumably

And as for Abraham and David Splane's chart, I am sure he will be as interested in this as all of us are in Jacob's selective breeding theories. Gen.30:37-43.

3 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

And some very horror punishment came after this FORBIDDEN ACTIVITY

Wow! I am going to check my temperature in the morning....and get a GP appointment for Monday. At least we have a bit more info on disease these days rather than the euphemistic "pestilence". I want to know what I am in for if possible.

8 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If they count they count only male members. Not women and children

Ah well! I wonder if babies count.......?

11 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Prominent Brothers

Yes. I understand the confusion. I'm not sure of your native tongue, but likely you have a separate word for what is meant here. You know that the rather ambiguous language of English has many meanings attached to individual words. We call them "synonyms". Only regular usage helps with finding your way through this linguistic maze.

Anyway, the most appropriate synonym in this case would be (IMHO): "well known".

It makes sense that reporting defection by "well known" (prominent) brothers would be calculated to have the potential to alarm a greater number of faithful adherents than if such negative reporting was focussed on names of individuals that no one had ever heard of. I mean, isn't that why naming and attacking the reputation of members of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is an attractive pastime for those who wish to discourage the morale and activity of Jehovah's Witnesses in general?

Great video. I am sure some is missing, but after extracting the cynical interjections by those two people, (Who are they??? I really don't know who their audience could possibly be??), it still makes for an interesting insight. 48% utilisation for peak times in USA!!! Get a grip you guys, lose some weight!! Get them buildings closed! No wonder we need some unemotional and efficient centralisation of strategy.

By the way, we couldn't merge due to logistical practicalities, but after reducing our KH seating by about 25%, we found meeting ambience improved greatly, and after 6 months we are now having to put seating back in to accomodate newly interested attendees. 

There is something to be said for the principle at John 15:2:

"He takes away every branch in me not bearing fruit, and he cleans every one bearing fruit, so that it may bear more fruit."

1 hour ago, Cos said:

constructing straw man arguments

By way of a general observation, the real straw man argument here being so vigorously opposed and defended is that the Holy Spirit is God's power, which it patently is not.

1 hour ago, Cos said:

“into your hands I commit my spirit” means, in fact, that even though His body died His spirit continued existing.

Purely an interpretation based on personal opinion of the nature of the "spirit" committed. An interpretation and opinion the holder is perfectly entitled to, but nevertheless this does not change the nature of it. It is a false interpretation based on an erroneous understanding of the nature of the "spirit" here.

Yet even given this incorrect basis, there is still no logic in equating the expression "commit my spirit" with the notion of "continued existence".

I can't decide if this is an evidence of blindness or an attempt to blind.

1 hour ago, Anna said:

these elders gave the impression that they knew nothing about how to handle this issue.

These elders, it appears, broke the law.

48 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

They all gave out of their wealth;

Maybe they actually gave out of hers: Luke 20:47.

35 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

you can't understand why child abuse " is such a thorny matter.

There you go! Unfortunately not tired, as I had hoped. 

Misquoting, misleading, blundering blather.... I'm not sure how to suggest a remedy for this kind of penchant for misrepresentation, other than to quote from your own post: " it sets the tone of the remainder of your opinion"

19 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

Thanks for telling us your position on the matter. 

You neither understand nor correctly report my position on this matter and, frankly, appear to demonstrate incompetence in both reading and comprehension by a pathetically shallow response. You're probably tired. No one could exhibit such inability intentionally. 

Fotr the life of me, I cannot see why this issue is such a thorny matter.

If one of Jehovah's Witnesses, even an adult, was assaulted by another, and injured, then regardless of "rules", surely a referral would be made to the medical profession, and to the police for investigation of a criminal act, regardless of witnesses?

Every human institution, including the family, appears to be involved in this whole shoddy business which is clearly not limited to one group. No one appears to be able to get a consistent procedure together to deal with historic or ongoing issues. This is a hands down failure across the board.

4 hours ago, tromboneck said:

I call it good ol' fashioned "false humility"

For some indeed, but for all, it becomes "Self righteousness". That is, making up your own rules and keeping them diligently as a subtitute for doing what Jehovah requires. Rom.10:3: "For because of not knowing the righteousness of God but seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God."

On 7/15/2018 at 12:05 AM, Nicole said:

Does he still endorse kings, presidents?

No. Not human ones. He is going to replace them forcibly. Dan.2:44.

Meantime, a measure of order is sustained. Part of the Devil's deception in promoting independence from Jehovah's sovereignty is to allow some success in human endeavour. (Luke 4:6).

Meantime, the structure of the current system enables the preaching of the good news and all the logistics that go with that work, sometimes in a very constructive manner (Rev.12:15-16).  Jehovah can even intervene if necessary to fulfill that purpose without compromising on the issue of Sovereignty. (Is.60:22). He can also intervene to push things along a little in the executional area once He is satisfied with the outworking of His strategy. (Rev.17:16-17). Additionally, he can intervene to ensure overkill is not a result either. (Comp. Matt. 24:22).

I know it's all a bit difficult for some to get their heads around but Proverbs 28:5 did warn that "Evil men cannot understand justice, but those who seek Jehovah can understand everything." So, keep chipping away. It will all come clear.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Jesus made God's name known by making God known.

Quite true. In fact, that is the most common response I have received from clergymen I have met in ministry when referencing any of the scriptures that speak of Jesus making God's name known.

Another common response it that the name of God refers to the authority of the Creator, in the sense implied by John 17:24 and many other scriptures (as you point out).

I have found theses views easily developed however by mentioning that whilst a law officer's warrant card may well be a sign of authorisation and authority, if it does not include a name to identify the individual, and also a signature of authorisation from one suitably qualified, then it carries little weight.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

To be consistent, then, some of the references to the "name of Jehovah" in both OT and NT cannot simply mean the term "Jehovah" or another variation of it.

Absolutely. And, as the sons of Sceva learned, similar reasoning could be applied to the name of Jesus.

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

unpronounceable due to lack of vowels

Probably better for me to have said "unpronounceable correctly". I have met several that assert the lack of knowing the correct vowels to be a reason for this, particularly clergymen and more studious evangelical supporters. (united by some sort of "deity of Christ" persuasion).

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But it would be good to lay out the evidence that this is true

Evidence for the timing of the prohibition is of interest I agree, and regarding the use of vowel pointing, hence my question to which @indagator replied.

However, the scriptural notion that Jesus would have been familiar with the appropriate pronunciation and use of His Father's name, and accustomed to using it accordingly, doesn't actually require evidence other than the statement made by the inspired apostle at John 1:19: "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him"
and his recording of the report made by Jesus in prayer at John 17:26 : "I have made your name known to them and will make it known, so that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them."

This for me is an even more fundamental factor than the secondary support provided by the absence of a scriptural record of controversy over the matter. I suppose the basic premise for me is that 'Jesus did use the Divine name correctly in the 1st Century, and no one fussed over the matter.'

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

it could be understood why such a superstition arose.

Yes I agree with this. Whilst the obscuring and removal of God'name from His own word smacks of Satanic intrigue and conspiracy, I can quite easily accept that some involved in this would have become so quite innocently and even with good motive. After all, "Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness" 2Cor.11:14-15. Paul's sympathy for such ones was expressed at Rom.10:1: "I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God; but not according to accurate knowledge".

4 hours ago, indagator said:

I hope this helps.

Quite a technical slant to this for me, nevertheless very useful.

My interest (seemingly confirmed) is around the fact that vowel pointing as such was/is not required to read  Biblical Hebrew.

For me this has a relevance to the OP in that the use of the divine name, held by some to be unpronounceable due to lack of vowels, would seem to not be limited at all by that poposition.

From a purely unacademic standpoint, the lack of a scripturally recorded controversy over the pronunciation and use of God's name by Jesus and his immediate disciples appears to argue strongly for the fact that they used it with relative impunity. There is no scripturally recorded censure for their use of the name in the face of other petty criticisms of their conduct (albeit major violations of Pharisaic and scribal tradition). However there is every indication that Jesus did use it extensively. Added of course is the fact that there would be no mystery at all to Jesus of the fact that God's name existed, should be used, and of course had a correct pronunciation.This would seem to indicate that a complete prohibition on speaking it at all post dates this period.

Edit: Just noticed and upvoted your separate posting on this issue.

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

the process of "eclipsing" the Divine Name can be dated to as early as 300 BCE

What is the earliest non-theoretical date for the existence of vowel pointing in the Hebrew Scripture text? By earliest, I mean something for which there is sound evidence, not a theory based on what Jesus meant by "one jot or one tittle" (KJV Matt.5:18).

3 hours ago, Jack Ryan said:

Makes no sense to me.

Probably got it wrong then?

Maybe there's still hope for those who are just killed.

Did you know that Adonai (Lord) used of Jesus in Psalm 110:1 is also used of the Father in Exodus 23:17, Deuteronomy 10:17, Joshua 3:11?

 And Abraham: Genesis 18:12; Esau: Genesis 32:4; Joseph: Genesis 42:10; Boaz: Ruth 2:13 Saul: 1Samuel 4:28 An angel: Daniel 10:16 and many more. As Paul said, there are "many lords" .

Good job "the LORD" who said to "my lord" has given His name in scripture so we do not have to rely on just the capitals. Although, like the scribes, (as shown below Is. 3:16) many still  have problems deciding on this matter don't they?

Anyway,  the Catholic Living Bible seems to have got it right...this time:

On 7/10/2018 at 1:45 AM, Jesus.defender said:

Dont answer a question with a question.

Pardon? You just did.

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If "Truth" never goes out, then WT org would never changed previous or past "The Truths" -  doctrines, teachings, instructions, views.

Don't be silly. "Truth" is not the sole province of any human.

isn't this from the Awake?

Presumably he was arrested immediately?

On 6/25/2018 at 7:51 AM, Jesus.defender said:

I can post links to MANY videos proving the trinity. 

You're in the wrong job if you could do that my friend. No one alive, or dead, can prove the trinity, and never has.

This subject has been done to death mate, whatever you think death is???