Shiwiii

Hey, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, as I'm sure it does, but it does not reflect the majority. That is the false assumption made by the wt. Your opinion that the wt is so discreet, but it is my opinion that they do ask for money. Maybe they do not on an individual level, but on a cong level for sure.

You may not, but you know exactly what I am saying. The wt requires the jws to align and if they do not they are pushed out. I'd rather have questions I cannot answer than answers I cannot question generation - definition? according to whom is the key.

Your experience is not the experience of the majority I have encountered, nor anyone I know. As far as you not wanting to ask them why, well that's up to you. The broad brush that the wt likes to paint against all who do not align with them, has infiltrated the minds of each jw to assume as the wt did. You can disagree, its ok.

You may be confusing tithing and mandatory giving. I have never been to a mormon church/temple, so I can't speak with authority on that particular sect, but the mormon church is hardly what is being referenced when the title "christendom" is used. That was my point.

It's thoughts like these that make me question the devotion to each and every teaching that comes from the wt's mouth as if it WERE from God. Obey or else! Why is there no allowance for personal opinion/understanding? What about all of those folks who thought that it was probably ok to take SOME blood fractions, or organs prior to the change made by the wt? Doesn't really matter now, they're dead.....well you get the point.

nope. Is it a sin to exchange a mortgage(one paid to a bank for a loan) that expires in x number of years to one that is never ending (but paid to the wt), thus fleecing the flock? This is how it should be. It all boils down to you and God, not your payment to men. God doesn't need our money. I have NEVER, EVER seen this. I have been to plenty of Church's worldwide (Baptist, Protestant, non Denominational, Lutheran, Catholic, and the list goes on) and have not come across this even once. If you have, then I suggest you reach out to them and ask them why. I think you may be just regurgitating the propaganda spread by the wt and not really ever experienced this either.

to an extent I agree, but the way John directly attributes this glory to Jesus is implying that Isaiah saw Jesus' glory. I do get where you are coming from though. Kinda like in Revelation 4:11, speaking of glory/honor/power and again in Revelation 5:12. In chapter 4 it is God who is worthy to receive these and in chapter 5 it is the lamb who is.

I see nothing in those verses that state that not all are called to be part of the Priesthood or Christ's bride. This does not support a selection for only a group of men nor does it state when it took/takes place. and again, where is the support for this belief that the remaining anointed are in the wt, if there is a limited number to begin with? If it is solely your belief, that's fine, but it isn't supported by scripture. Maybe its just me, but I do not see these scriptures speaking of Jesus sending anyone. I see the part about the two witnesses of Jesus in Rev 11, but outside of that those other scriptures have almost nothing to do with what you are saying.

So the same can be said the other way around. If they are jw's, then all is good but if not, then it is bad. Not a very convincing argument. Actually that is not true, because the NT writers attributed many quotes from the OT to Jesus sometimes in paraphrase. Lets look at a few verses John 12:27-41. This group of scriptures is speaking of whom? Jesus. Jesus hid from the crowd of people in verse 36 and this was why? To fulfill the word of Isaiah saying that the people would not believe in Him (Jesus). He had performed signs before them, but they still didn't believe. But Isaiah was saying this about Jehovah, right? John attributed this to Jesus. Then we go a little further to verse 39, which says that they could not believe and again quotes Isaiah (6:10). Who could they not believe? Jesus. Why did John say that these things were said because Isaiah saw His glory? John knew Isaiah chapter 6 very well and attributed it to Jesus. The glory he saw was from verse 1 of chapter 6. In the Septuagint it states clearly that Isaiah said "I saw His glory" Also, out of the 237 insertions, 161 of them are a not direct quote and some of those are not even found in the Septuagint.

see previous post about where satan quotes scripture. Also, there are a plethora of scholars who do not, most of which are trained in Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic and Latin. This is because it NEVER occurred in ANY ancient Greek manuscript of the new testament. Again, the Septuagint is the greek old testament, not the new testament. So it is of course likely that it was in the Septuagint because the old testament is where we find YHWH and the like. who can say ANY of it was? There is a reason why the translators remained anonymous, so they didn't get laughed at. This is a classic attempt at humble-bragging by the wt. you're right, why do we need to know if someone if qualified to do anything? I mean it doesn't matter if elders are qualified to counsel people on things that they know nothing about, like PTSD from child sexual abuse, right? It must be a good thing to have a 6 year old questioned by their accuser and other men with whom everyone that child knows bows down to......err does obeisance.

I thought that the wt did't ask for money? Or is it literally about a plate being passed? I noticed that in the past few years, lots and lots of property has been sold in Brooklyn and surrounding areas as well as some kh's. Why this sudden grab for money? In addition to this, we can see in the screen shot above that credit cards are now an option? Really? Whatever happend to what Russell said way back when? Here is a quote from next weeks wt study that quotes yesteryear:  chapter 18 of "God's Kingdom Rules."  “It Will Never Beg nor Petition Men for Support” 7 Brother Russell and his associates refused to imitate the money-raising schemes so common in the churches of Christendom.  In the second issue of the Watch Tower, under the heading “Do You Want ‘ZionÂ’s Watch TowerÂ’?” Russell stated: “‘ZionÂ’s Watch TowerÂ’ has, we believe, JEHOVAH for its backer, and while this is the case it will never beg nor petition men for support. When He.........fails to provide necessary funds, we will understand it to be time to suspend the publication.” Over 130 years later, The Watchtower and the organization that publishes it are still going strong! 8 JehovahÂ’s people do not beg for money. They do not pass collection plates or send out letters of solicitation.  This also reminds me of the relatively recent change in mortgages on hk's. No longer are there mortgages on some property's (kh's), they were paid off by the wt, but they are still required to continue to pay the same amount as they did before, but now pay it to the wt for an indefinite amount of time. Where do they get these funds to pay the "fake" mortgages? regular donations from the locals.  Lastly, what is the rewards program listed in the screen shot above?  Â

Can you show me where I said he was a scholar? You must think two years of Greek is all it takes to become a scholar. So that means, to you anyway, that 'sufficient' and 'scholar' are synonyms. And you were going to guide us through the translations from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English? lol

This is only within your own mind, which is ok. Numerous scholars disagree with you. F Franz was a very educated man, but... According to Raymond Franz, only Fred Franz had "sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self taught In Hebrew." Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1983) Two years of Greek does not compare in the slightest to the Greek scholars who disagree with Franz and the nwt. It really doesn't matter too much, as I'm sure you have convinced yourself otherwise. I'm just not wired that way, I choose to search and see for myself if things are true or not.

wrong, I was asking what did they believe not what language they wrote in or how many languages they played "telephone" in. What I choose not to do it allow you to try and create a convoluted mess to try and distort what is written. You like the nwt because the wt said so. You know as well as I that there was never a true scholar on the translation dept to create the nwt. It has been admitted by the gb as well as proven in court.

This doesn't make much sense to me. So you are suggesting a translation from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English? Now why would you go and do all of that? We already have the Aramaic to Greek and the Hebrew to Greek, so why insert another language into the mix? Not necessary. Don't you think?

I've been looking for this online, is it available? I haven't seen anything that says this. I've tried to look up: Evangelium Secundum Ioannem - Chapter 1 The Gospel According To John nada

the wt has already admitted it, so from the stance of the wt he did and from Gerber himself he said he did, but YOU.....you're not too sure. ok

Like I stated earlier in this thread, even satan uses scripture but is wrong by means of context. So if Gerber received his information from evil sources, then it is not to be trusted as being accurate.

So you must believe that the "man of lawlessness has been revealed already? verses 1-8

distract???? What was the understanding prior to the 1500's? What did the founding fathers understand and write about? Do you mean to tell me that God Himself allowed misunderstanding from 100 ad until the 1500's for the world to be in confusion? Really? Why would God allow ANY misunderstanding? Isn't it your belief that the Word of God is in fact complete? Why does it take a group of men to change the meaning of the Bible from what gods people, ANYONE WILLING TO READ THE BIBLE AND ACCEPT IT, to what the wt says it means?

just a drop of poison won't hurt will it?

Please do not take anything I am about to say as anything more than secondary questions. I appreciate your willingness to answer my questions and being forthright in your responses. So by this comparison, and others in your post, you believe that Jesus' parables are literal but described in a parable for the sake of keeping the true meanings from those who would/will distort them? I find this also interesting. Applying only what they want to apply, instead of the complete picture. Makes me wonder how the R&F eat this up without digging deeper into what is being taught. We are told to question and search to find out if what we are being taught is true and in complete harmony with scripture. Acts 17:11 When? When did Jesus appoint anyone or any group over anything? John was to take care of His mother (John 19:27), Peter was to build the church (Matt 16:18&19), but no mention of a group of men to be appointed over anything. So my question on this part is, when did this take place and what proof is there to support it? agreed interesting application, which I'm sure many jw's would not agreed or atleast wish away into the corn field. Having never been a jw, I can see the parallel, but it can also be applied to the hierarchy of many denominations. So by this logic, is Harold Camping also anointed in your eyes? In Matthew and Luke, Jesus tells us that many will come professing to come in His name and saying look here or look there, He is in the inner rooms and for us NOT to believe them. Why would those people in Matthew 24:24-27 say Jesus would be in the inner rooms? Isn't this because the average person could NOT access the inner rooms to see for themselves? That place was reserved for the priesthood. Wouldn't that be the equivalent of an invisible parousia? Wasn't the same thing done to those who received blood fractions prior to the acceptance of such? A jw must adjust their thinking on a whim, if the gb says so and if they do not........Cathloic excommunication......errr.....dissfellow.........same thing. seems very similar to what it going on today in MANY religions. Making up new "laws" the people have to abide by, dress and appearance, education, adherence to all that we say and deviation is unacceptable, even though we are only human. I do not agree nor disagree here on this point, and the reason why is because this is prophesy and it is best understood after the events take place. On the other hand, it could very well apply to the gb, but that is assuming they once were correct at some point in time. No real solid tie here for me. I somewhat agree that it will come from an unexpected place, but that would be unexpected by those who do not keep watch. I feel we all have the ability to be either the faithful or wicked slave in that particular parable, because it really boils down to are you faithful to Jesus or not? That is exactly what He was saying, because when He comes back, He will reward or punish. Are we not all our brother's keeper? Are we not all told to treat others how we want to be treated? Are we not held accountable for how we teach the little ones? We are all responsible for our part of God's Kingdom, and if we are given just a small piece and do well, we shall be given more based upon our faith. Its not about if we fail, because we WILL, it is about our heart and faith. Moses.....failed, Abraham......failed, David......failed, we ......fail, but it is our hearts God reads. So on your last point I fully agree. Thank you

yes they were and were used in publications as support.

So why did they continue to use the KJV if their idea of the correct translation was not found in it? Either they were wrong then or they are wrong now.

It is not irrelevant. Based upon your statements, you are claiming that Gerber was in harmony with what the wt already assumed. I want to see the proof. If there is no proof, then the wt used Gerber to support what they might have been thinking, but the support is from the occult/spiritism. The teaching is not in harmony with what was actually written in John's gospel. It is only a play of tricks on wording that the wt inserted their influence onto the gospel. Your dismissal of those facts is a part of the actual problem, people seems to think that because the wt says its true, but the fact of the matter is that they use Gerber to insert their doctri you can think so, but I've already given you scripture that shows that satan misleads by use of quoting scripture correctly, but uses it out of context. JUST LIKE THE WT.