Evacuated

This subject is unlikely to subside. @AnneOMaly has related that "there is a campaign to have the UK JWs' child abuse allegation procedures officially investigated due to failings that have come to light in high profile cases over the past few years." This thread was started. due to publicity around the issue. The Times has reported on the campaign, (although a subscription is required to get the full account). The campaign includes pressure to include the matter in the investigation, currently in the UK, of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse which has commenced hearings despite an extremely shaky start. https://www.iicsa.org.uk/investigations. So with this backdrop, don't miss an enlightening BBC drama looking at a particular series of incidents in Rochdale, UK. This illustrates some context around this disgraceful crime, and provides insight regarding the failings of institutional response, highlighting something of the general social and institutional environment that all, including Jehovah's Witnesses, find themselves within, particularly in the UK. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08r8pvh/three-girls-series-1-episode-1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08r8s12/three-girls-series-1-episode-2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08r8vp5/three-girls-series-1-episode-3 As these are time limited links, the drama is also available on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_V35N7SgUU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gglEX3LdFs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILMaglVyU4c

Not logical. The choice of quote may be inspired and the point made, but inclusion of a quotation does not make the work quoted from inspired. Acts 17:28 is a case in point.

Not quite. I am assuming religionists took it out.

The wording of your original question wasn't clear to me and it reads as if you are referring to any manuscripts prior to extant NT manuscripts. I deduce (hopefully) from your reply that you must mean any NT manuscripts, to which the alternative answer applies:

Assuming I understand this question because it is a little confusing. If you mean evidence of the divine name dating prior to extant manuscripts for the New Testament, then it is so abundant and in the public domain it is not worth reproducing here. If you mean manuscripts of the New Testament earlier than what is extant, then I do not know how this could be possible, and the only answer is: as soon as they are found.

No more than any other clergyman.

True. And many of those have grown up in JW families. Or have brought their wealth, education and position with them. This puts the lie to the claim that JW's experience "total control" or are in some way deprived of education and opportunity etc. But...Did you miss the point of Paul's counsel? Well I thought you would know better than that too. Why should other's suffering be a source of amusement? And the majority (alive in 1968) were likely alive when Armageddon DID NOT break out as some expected....many probably still alive today. The important thing is to be alive AFTER Armageddon has been accomplished is it not? And as no man knows the day and hour of that event..then it is no crime to strive to be ready for it surely? Peter advised us to "look forward to the day of God and speed (hasten) its coming." (2Pet.3:12) And therefore to "make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him."(2Pet.3:14). NIV quotes. Now certainly, and in harmony with the original post, our correct estimation of and appreciation of the role Jesus Christ plays in our salvation is of paramount importance here. So, in answer to the question raised "Do Jehovah's Witnesses Believe in Jesus?" A resounding "Yes!"

@Jay Witness asked: Will people who have committed suicide get a resurrection? Hmmm! ...............................Above my pay grade.

No one is disputing Jesus' divine nature. Compare (1Pet.1:4). Nevertheless, what is "begot" is most definitely,............... "begun".

Well of course Jehovah's Witnesses do not calculate who finally qualify to rule with Christ. Nor any other imperfect human, although their opinion abounds. I am glad we agree on that point. This was a warning in 1969. Probably not one that you were there to consider at the time?? Mind you. it doesn't seem to add much to what Paul said earlier does it? 1 Tim 6:9 (Ooh! Just had a funny feeling when I saw the numbers!!) "But those who are determined to be rich fall into temptation and a snare and many senseless and harmful desires that plunge men into destruction and ruin." But then, maybe you were one who did suffer from date spec? Did you miss an opportunity?

To who? John Fox? Russell Warren? Micah Ong? ........... But .....who is inviting them? Who is selecting them? Who is assisting them in their earthy course? Who is blessing their activity in harmony with His will? Who is the Head of their congregation? Who is judging them to be faithful? Who resurrrects them to heavenly life? Who reveals their actual number? Who stands with them in vision when the number is revealed? Whose names are written on their foreheads at that time? Well, I don't see the names John Fox, Russell Warren, Micah Ong, or indeed any other human name figuring in the answers to the questions above so...............adding up the numbers is best left to those qualified to do so.

That's more like it!

All depends on who is shepherding according to Ezekiel 34:1-6 "The word of Jehovah again came to me, saying: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy, and say to the shepherds, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: “Woe to the shepherds of Israel, who have been feeding themselves! Is it not the flock that the shepherds should feed? 3 You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, and you slaughter the fattest animal, but you do not feed the flock. 4 You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bandaged the injured or brought back the strays or looked for the lost; rather, you have ruled them with harshness and tyranny. 5 So they were scattered because there was no shepherd; they were scattered and became food for every wild beast of the field. 6 My sheep were straying on all the mountains and on every high hill; my sheep were scattered over all the surface of the earth, with no one searching for them or seeking to find them. " Why not read on..............

This video (If you can access) shows what happens at a Jehovah's Witness Bible Study. https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/free-bible-study/video-bible-study/ I don't have a video of a Pentecostal bible study but I did attend one prior to becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses. There was a group present and passages from the Revelation were read. Then I was asked to kneel between the chairs in the aisle way. A friendly man held my left shoulder and spoke quietly in my ear while others were singing. I could not understand what he was saying at the time. I asked him what did the Revelation prophecies mean and I was told that this was a very deep book and these were mysteries that God would reveal in his due time. I only went there once. The Pentecostal people were friendly and quite welcoming, but the experience differed greatly from that with Jehovah's Witnesses where much more individual attention was given. Passages of Scripture were read and explained and I was able to ask questions at length that were answered using other scriptures to compare. This was a long time ago so things may have changed with the Pentecostals although the same basic method is still with the Witnesses as shown in the video.

It might seem a bit of a nit-picking excercise, which is what often comes into my mind when the term "semantics" is applied in a discussion. However, in view of the crucial importance of understanding who Jesus is, and the determined and sustained efforts to distort the scriptural truths, I believe it is necessary to set out definitions as precisely as possible. In this case, the development of understanding relating to Jesus role and nature in Scripture has to be something that takes place in the mind of the enquirer as they discern what the Scripture actually says about him. This may require the de-construction and replacement of mistaken ideas, and also, more importantly, as stated by Jesus himself, involves the operation of God's Holy Spirit. Matt.16:13-17. I suppose one way to illustrate this is to think of shining a light into a dark place. The illumination enables the mind to discern and make sense of what is there already. What must NOT happen in this development is for someone to take concepts from Scripture, and then construct something over, above, and beyond what was originally written, as if the Scripture provided basic elements or building blocks that would then need elaboration and development in order to be understood. This for me is what has taken place since the Scriptures were completed, resulting in the development of concept and vocabulary that bears no relation to what was originally written. Not least in respect of the Trinity doctrine. As Cos pointed out earlier, "the uses of most of the terms were to fend off attacks by those that opposed the Trinity". Necessarily, I would exclude the understanding of some Messianic prophecy from this definition, particularly when fulfillment is not recorded in Scripture. The actual fulfillment of prophesied, future events will always add to the understanding of a prophecy, once realised.

We respect those who have religious beliefs. The beliefs themselves may have to earn respect.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just when you thought the bottom had been reached!!! There is always something worse!!!???? Habbakuk 1:2. How long, O Jehovah, must I cry for help, but you do not hear? How long must I ask for help from violence, but you do not intervene?

I have no delight whatsoever in the fact that persons with the effrontery to have called themselves JWs, former or otherwise, are receiving public attention for these despicable crimes. It is a shameful stain on the reputation of the majority of Witnesses that abhor such behaviour and who work hard to care for their families in the face of unjustified criticism and prejudice. And I feel for those brothers who find themselves faced with the unacceptable face of depravity and sympathise with their inadequacy in dealing with these debauched crimes. We are living in a society capable of such criminality that even our hardened (by experience) judges are moved to tears (Becky Watts). However, I applaud the fact that these person's crimes have have been exposed and that now they will learn the meaning of Rom.13:4 when it says that "it is not without purpose that it [Caesar] bears the sword".

OK I can agree with you there. Thanks for clarifying. I can see that wrestling with the matter certainly amongst some post apostolic era "Christians". (Including some who still appear to be wrestling today!). But not in the writings of those Christians who contributed to the Greek Scriptures.

More than that looking at the use of the word surely. Why "therefore"? The very use of the word "worship" in translation, given it's actual, attested meaning, supplies a perfectly adequate explanation in itself of how differing connotations are necessary depending on the context of the word's usage.

I am no Greek scholar, but I would would hazard a guess that it would be similar to the way in which the English word "worship" contains differences in degree relative to context. And as for the secondary aspect of the meaning of the word "worship" in English, I agree with the ranking. BUT nevertheless this is the English word chosen to render the Greek and is therefore (in the view of the translators) the nearest equivalent in meaning. I haven't seen any convincing argument otherwise .....as of yet anyway.

OK. Then it appears from the cited scriptures (and admittedly above) that the term is NOT applied exclusively to one's relationship with (the) God. (That is, the true God, Jehovah). So is the word which on occasion is translated as "worship" always rendered so? Well it appears so in the King James version. BUT given that, it's use at Matt.18:26 alerts me to the fact that what is meant here cannot be taken at face value. The act of the servant described in this illustration does not have the same motivation as that which Satan the Devil sought from Jesus at Matt 4:9. Also, what does the word mean in English. (And not just the generally accepted meaning). This is interesting. Apart from the obvious, The Cambridge Dictionary: to love, respect, and admire someone or something very much Synonyms are listed as: reverence, revering, worshipping, veneration, venerating, adoration, adoring, -olatry, devotion, praise, thanksgiving, praising, praying to, glorification, glorifying, glory, exaltation, exalting, extolment, extolling, homage, respect, honour, honouring, esteem; And googling the etymology gives us this: Old English weorthscipe ‘worthiness, acknowledgement of worth’ So altogether, it appears the word "worship" in English does not have so precise a meaning as to be limited to a religious act or attitude, and therefore it's meaning seems related to the use of the word in context. When factoring in other associated words such as latreuo, which does have a rather exclusive application at Matt.4:10 (sacred service NWT), I am inclined to agree with the statement in Insight on The Scriptures Vol 2 under "Worship": "Most Hebrew and Greek words that can denote worship can also be applied to acts other than worship. However, the context determines in what way the respective words are to be understood." On that basis, it appears (in my opinion, of course) that the question sequence cited above, albeit "a simple example Trinitarians often beat JWs over the head with" is overly simplistic and, in fact, irrelevant given a wider understanding of the word "worship".

I could not work through this sequence of questions unless it was established, firstly, what is meant by the term "worship"; secondly, which word(s) are translated as "worship" from the Hebrew and Greek; and thirdly, are any of these words applied exclusively to one's relationship with God.