Shiwiii

14 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Interesting .... I think drug dealing, because it enslaves people, is ALSO a crime against humanity.

Why yes it is, but the major difference is that the crime of doing drugs is against yourself. Is there fallout that effects others? sure, but ultimately it is the user who is damaged and chose to do that to themselves. Children do not chose to be abused. 

14 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I have decided that I WOULD take the dead drug dealers money, as found treasure ... much the same as if I had found a hoard of Nazi gold, ingots made from the teeth of concentration camp victims.

I would take it as well, but now that you throw in the teeth thing.......uuurrrrrr....uuuhhhh. 

18 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

much like the Society's position that they will not turn JW child sex abusers over to the police unless legally REQUIRED to do so.

I don't think the two are even remotely related. One scenario has children abused and a crime against humanity, while the other is like you said.....no crime....well not one that anyone alive could be prosecuted with. 

18 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Question 1.) Did the Cowboy STEAL the money ... ?

Nope, found it. Now there IS a law about finding money and what to do about it that I can dig up if you'd like, but we all know that it is the fool who would actually follow that law. Some laws are only there to benefit the gov't/organization. 

18 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Question 2.) Does he have a moral responsibility to return it to the people who were going to buy the drugs ... ?

No way of knowing who those people are. 

18 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Question 3.) What would YOU do?

hmmmmmm, how much money are we talking? Let me think..............drug deals don't involve small amounts of cash, so I'd say it would be enough to raise ANY kind of red flag if you kept it for yourself. I think it would be fun to sit there, think about my mates and divide up the bounty by that number. Place each bounty in separate locations and far enough away from each other so no one would be seen by each other. Send a letter in my hand, and speak things in it that assured it was genuine telling them to go get it. If I ever saw them again, it would be a campfire story kind of tale, but you know how money changes things. What they chose to do with it, I'd be fine with......after all their my mates! The remaining, my portion, I'd try and continue my current lifestyle of being a member of normal society. 

18 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

EXTRA CREDIT:  Was it immoral for the Cowboy to deliberately destroy the drug dealers' property?

Dead folks do not own anything, it is up to the heirs to figure out what to do with the dead folks stuff. Then that also leaves us with the answer to Question #2. 

18 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It was necessary for the first to take a crash course. Besides, what was Jesus saying other that he would be resurrected?

Crash course? please explain this crash course and why it does not apply today, but instead a requirement for a year long study is needed? 

18 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

As for the second, he was already part of a people with a dedication to God. Diligently reading Isaiah, he just needed a few tweaks to bring him up to speed. He didn't have centuries of apostate teaching he had to undo.

If he was already a part, then why did he say that he had no understanding of what he was reading? He had no idea who Isaiah was talking about. Surely if he were part of God's people, then he would have known something. Didn't the Jews have an idea that Isaiah was talking about the Messiah? Was this man a Jew? Besides all of this, what was the one thing......not some man made list of requirements or questions......one thing that this man needed from Philip?

On 6/4/2017 at 6:28 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

but even that they cannot do without a solid year of study behind them.

Just because this is a controversial section and this point made gave me a thought.

Did that thief beside Jesus study for a year? Or how about the eunuch that Philip baptized? 

My question is about who the wt says Gog and Magog is in Ezekiel and what the historical beliefs of the society were and what the thought is today. A brief account of what the wt thought and around what time they thought it:

Russia - June 1880

A Demon prince - 1932

Satan's Field Marshall - 1934

A spiritual ruler but not a demon prince - 1953

Satan - 1954

A Coalition of nations - 2015

Why, if God was/is leading this organization, did it take until 2015 for the wt to arrive at the same position that the rest of Christianity has believed for years?

Why would God allow the org to be in the dark, so to speak, about this for so long?

Why did God reveal this to the rest of Christianity first?

Did the wt provide spiritual food at the proper time and what was the food in the 1940's? Was it accurate knowledge?

5 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40704990

Even the highly regarded BBC cannot resist the  temptation to indulge in gutter-press standard reporting when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses.

This report on the Jehovah's Witnesses disfellowshipping process is rather misleading. It associates the disfellowshipping action with totally unrelated experiences and leaves the impression that this action is taken: 
1. when a person leaves an abusive relationship 
2: when a person does not attend the annual memorial celebration of Christ's death.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Even the most inexperienced researcher could easily find out the circumstances leading to this serious and scriptural measure by looking at https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/.
It is unlikely that the interviewees would reveal the real reason for their disfellowshipping which would probably cause personal embarrassment, and there is no way that the official organisation would comment or reveal the details of an individual case.
 

While I agree with you to an extent, I also disagree. The point you made about the abusive relationship and skipping the memorial is true for the most part. I would also not expect that type of reaction to those instances. I think the point being made is not actually WHY one is disfellowshippped, but rather the unnecessary reaction by ALL once one is DF'd, even to the extent of family. I've heard of instances of one getting DF'd  for silly reasons, but yet the reaction is the same. The punishment, in my opinion, does not fit the crime. To God, sin is sin and it has only ONE consequence unless you have Jesus' covering. Us as humans are not God and that is also why there are degrees of consequences when breaking the laws of men. To have to live like you have no family because that family is holding to what the gb says instead of the compassion Jesus had, is cruel. 

9 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Is Tartarus like Limbo?

 

I don't believe so. The reason why is, in a limbo state one is sitting and waiting with no idea of direction. I liken limbo and purgatory as the same and I don't subscribe to that idea. 

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If both terms can mean destruction, I can't tell if you distinguish in the same way between Hades and Gehenna. Naturally, I think it makes a lot of sense that Revelation shows Death and Hades thrown into a "Gehenna" (lake of fire), which is a fitting symbolism for the final destruction of Death and the Grave, through resurrection and the potential of eternal life, where the only type of death that remains is total destruction, a second death.  When I first noticed that the 2013 Revised NWT was going to begin translating "Ha'des" as "Grave," I quickly rushed over to Matthew 10:28 to see if Gehenna might appear as "Destruction" with a capital "D."

With this in mind, some have translated Matt 23:15 with

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. -- NKJV

If this term "Gehenna" had become "Destruction" the verse could have read: "you make him twice as much a son of Destruction as yourselves" and then it would match the idea of persons like Judas and a person like the Antichrist.

(John 17:12) 12 When I was with them, I used to watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me; and I have protected them, and not one of them is destroyed except the son of destruction, so that the scripture might be fulfilled.

(2 Thessalonians 2:3) 3 Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction.

It would mesh well with other Biblical references.

(Revelation 9:11) 11 They have over them a king, the angel of the abyss. In Hebrew his name is A·badʹdon [Destruction], but in Greek he has the name A·polʹlyon [Destroyer].

(Matthew 10:28) . . .fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Ge·henʹna.

Do you believe that the "torment" is only at the time of facing destruction? You mention 2 Peter where the word is Tartarus a word known from Greek mythology, and already used in the OT LXX (e.g., Job) a prison of darkness for the lesser gods/spirits. These spirit creatures are said to be alive and waiting in prison for the judgment. Do you believe that the "spirit" of humans who await resurrection also include those who will be resurrected to judgment? If so, do you think those spirits can be in a kind of "torment" while waiting, or do they possibly feel the "torment" after Hades is destroyed?

The torment is self inflicted, a disappointment in one's own self to the extent of torment. So this is not God administering torment, but the person themselves in their frustration of seeing the impending result of their actions while here on Earth (2 Cor 5:10). This, I'm sure, will lead us into another direction in this conversation, but I'll try to stay on point.  Those that await resurrection to righteousness are not found in this same place.....(topic is on hell) lol. Those awaiting the second death will remain "in chains", "in outer darkness" until the day of judgement, and until then they will self impose torment. Think of the most inhuman thing man can do to another man, isolation, it fosters insanity/madness. 

Destruction, is an interesting word choice I think. Our English language is really difficult at times. The second death in my opinion would be the "destruction" and that too would fit equally in your association above. The problem is that something cannot be destroyed twice, or it was never destroyed in the first place. So the term destruction substituted for hell, while it works, it doesn't convey the actual meaning. So I think that is why there are other descriptions of hell in scripture (Matt 22:13, Matt 25:30) that speak about a continual place until an appointed time. It is only temporary until it is cast in the lake of fire, but leading up to that time it is continuous. Now some will come and say that those verses are not speaking of hell....ok....I believe they are by means of context. 

2 hours ago, Brother Rando said:

 

 

How do you even take this guy seriously? eggs? eggs are supposed to make someone not believe in the trinity because he  demonstrates he can throw one between his legs? 

2 minutes ago, Brother Rando said:

 The same Catholic monk transliterated Iesous to Jesus, I don't hear you complaining about the name of Jesus.

I'm not the one complaining about a name anyway. I'm just saying that NO ONE knows what God's name given to the Jews was spelled or pronounced. So being so adamant on the use of "Jehovah" and inserting it into scripture where it is never found, is ridiculous. 

5 minutes ago, Brother Rando said:

Me giving you the answers.......

you have yet to give any, only side topics and strawman arguments. 

24 minutes ago, tromboneck said:

Scwinn: Are you a muslim?

nope

Who's glory in the Gospel of John verses 36-41 speak about? John was attributing the quote from Isaiah to Jesus. 

36 While you have the light, exercise
faith in the light, so that
you may become sons of light.”
Jesus said these things and
went off and hid from them.
37 Although he had performed
so many signs before them, they
were not putting faith in him,
38 so that the word of Isaiah the
prophet might be fulfilled, who

said: “Jehovah, who has put
faith in the thing heard from
us? And as for the arm of Jehovah,
to whom has it been
revealed?” 39 The reason why
they were not able to believe is
that again Isaiah said: 40“He
has blinded their eyes and has
made their hearts hard, so
that they would not see with
their eyes and understand with
their hearts and turn around
and I heal them.”41 Isaiah
said these things because he saw
his glory, and he spoke about
him.

Look closely at the cross references in your nwt and who John was speaking about. Also, take a look at the Greek Septuagint where it says at Isaiah 6:1-5 that Isaiah saw God's glory. How is this possible without Isaiah dying and why is John attributing this to Jesus?

1 hour ago, Brother Rando said:

When the translators made copies of the quote, it was altered in the New Testament to strike out God's Name and any name that might have God's Name in it.

What name should it be, because "Jehovah" is a created name by the Catholics?

Why should it be inserted?

Why should it be inserted in places that are not quotes? 

1 hour ago, Brother Rando said:

And for those with some insight you can see Isaiah's Name was also changed to Esaias.  Isaiah means 'Salvation of Jehovah' and they could not have that now could they?

Really? Are you serious? 

Raymund Martini, a Catholic monk, created the name Jehovah in the 12th century which is admitted by wt publications.

Rev 5:13 "And I heard every creature which is in heaven and on the earth, and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, saying, “Blessing and honor and glory and power be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever!”

Who gets that glory in Isaiah?

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Apparently B.Rando has a style that doesn't lend itself to the kind of discussion I expected either. But it's not often anymore that I meet people who believe in a "literal" hell where a person's soul can be kept eternally tortured. Can you explain your own position on hell.

This is something I tell me children each and every day: "everyone is different and each has different opinions/looks/manners/etc." 

Sure, here is a brief description on how I see hell. Jesus spoke of Hell/Gehenna in the following verses,

Matt 5:22-30, Matt 10:28, Matt 11:23, Matt 16:18, Matt 18:9, Matt 23:15&3, Mark 9:43&45&47, Luke 10:15, Luke 12:5, Luke 16:23

When Jesus spoke of hell, He spoke about a place most of the time. It was a place of destruction and also an attitude or character flaw. The attitude portion is what He was speaking about in Matt23:15, saying that the Pharisees and hypocrites convert someone into their way of thinking or character and it makes them even more deceived than they themselves because the hypocrites already know the truth but yet stray away and draw others as well. As for a specific place? Well, I’m not really concerned if there is or is not a specific place under the earth or whatever. However, it is a place, a place in time. When Jesus spoke of being cast into hell without an eye or hand, it wasn’t about being tormented day and night forever with two eyes or hands, it was more about the time when hell and death are destroyed ( Rev 20) and Jesus wants NO ONE to have that fate.

There are other verses which speak of hell and I think they elaborate a bit further on the explanation of hell. For instance in Rev 20, when death and hell are cast into the lake of fire. Is it tangible? Is it figurative? It is both? In Rev verse 13 speaks of those who are in hell being delivered up for judgement. So are they contained in some place? Peter in his second letter said that hell was a place of darkness with the capacity to hold those there in reserve until judgement. I do believe hell is a place and the torment is not inflicted by God, but by those persons themselves for winding up facing destruction at the second death and having to wait until that judgment.

1 hour ago, Brother Rando said:

Claiming Jesus spoke about Hell when the doctrine of hell was invented after the fact is simply an untruth.  Now if you claim you have such a scripture either put it up or please move on. I gave you plenty of opportunities.  Because you have been caught in a lie, you now refuse to quote a scripture knowing the scripture itself will expose your lies.  Still waiting Shiwiii

 

I think we are done here, I gave to you a list that I posted on the first page and quoted myself just moments ago, and you still cannot contribute to a intellectual discussion. 

Good day

I think you've stepped off the deep end. It appears that you are reading into what I write much more than what is actually presented and basing an argument on that. It is called creating a strawman argument.  

If you would like to continue this discussion, lets do that without the unnecessary strawman. I'm not interested in going to the org website. You provide the proof. I asked what did Jesus say about hell? Plenty of scriptures have been presented, but you have refused to engage in a real discussion. 

23 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Matt 5:29-30, Matt 10:28, Matt 11:23, Matt 16:18, Matt 18:9, Matt 23:33, Mark 9:43-47, Luke 10:15, Luke 12:5

 pick one and lets discuss. 

As a side note, We have discussed issues like this before. Allexperts or Askexperts? I can't remember exactly what it was called. I apologize if that wasn't you, but I distinctly remember the same name and pattern of discussion.

6 minutes ago, Brother Rando said:

The Dead Sea Scrolls proof that God's Name was used in the Greek Scriptures. It was the Hebrew Tetragrammaton which I already alluded to and provided proof. 

Again, you keep repeating something that has NOTHING to do with the insertion of YHWH into the NEW Testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the OT. 

8 minutes ago, Brother Rando said:

 YAWH is the Latinized version of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton.   You do realize that the Name 'Jesus' is absent from both the Hebrew and Greek Languages.  If you want curse the English Language then by all means stop using the English Language.

What part of this has anything to do with what we are talking about? Regardless of what  Hebrew, Greek or Latin words or letters  are for the name of God, it still is not found in any of the historical Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that we have today. 

That darn English, I curse you, you language of English people. There, now I made your statement have some sort of purpose. 

12 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

And they found a way to insert God's name a few more times. What's not to like about that?

Its unbiblical, that's what not to like about it. 

16 hours ago, Brother Rando said:

Just like "hell' is a lie

Yet again, no supporting evidence to prove your claim

14 hours ago, Brother Rando said:

I aware that there is no "J" In Hebrew or Greek.  So are you claiming there is No Jehovah, No Jesus, No Jews, No Jerusalem?  Should we remove the book of Jude from the Greek or remove the book of Job from the Hebrew??    Jesus is not in the Hebrew or Greek scriptures. Where do you think you will end up thinking this way.  Do you really think you will be rewarded??   There's no 'J' in the latin Language either.  But there is a 'J' in our language when other languages are transliterated. What are you going to do reject the english language?  

Now look, you've got yourself all worked up over a side topic and NO ONE said anything about the letter j. If you reread my post it is a name for a group of papers which the wt tries to use to support YHWH being inserted into the NT. 

57 minutes ago, Birdie said:

In his book, Truth in Translation, a scholar whom we are happy to quote, Jason Beduhn, specifically states that the "insertion" of Jehovah into the Christian Greek Scriptures is simply not translation.

In the appendix of that same book under "Jehovah", Mr. Beduhn states that there is no justification of inserting "Jehovah" in the New Testament. He even goes as far to state that the wt uses the J papers/letters inappropriately as support for their insertion, when the J papers are just another translation. 

"Having concluded that the NWT is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available, I would be remiss if I did not mention one peculiarity of this translation that by most conventions of translation would be considered an inaccuracy, however little this inaccuracy changes the meaning of most of the verses where it appears. I am referring to the use of "Jehovah" in the NWT New Testament. "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh" or some other reconstruction of the divine name consisting of the four consonants YHWH) is the personal name of God used more than six thousand times in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament. But the name never appears in any Greek manuscript of any book of the New Testament. So, to introduce the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament, as the NWT does two-hundred-thirty-seven times, is not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy: adherence to the original Greek text. (p. 169)"

9 minutes ago, Brother Rando said:

The Dead Sea scroll is a fragment of the Greek Septuagint.  It contain the Hebrew tetragram because the Hebrews did not want to transliterate God's Name, so the Hebrew tetragram was placed in the Greek.  https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/study-bible/appendix-a/tetragrammaton-divine-name/

Again, you are referring to the Old Testament which does nothing to support the insertion of YHWH into the New Testament! 

http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/

3 minutes ago, Brother Rando said:

When Jesus read from the book of Isaiah

Old Testament 

3 minutes ago, Brother Rando said:

The Septuagint is in Greek.  Right??   

but what you are doing is creating a strawman argument. The Tetragrammaton is NEVER found in the ancient Greek New Testament manuscripts. 

Just now, Brother Rando said:

I do but I will address that in another question about it.  Meanwhile, do your own research how the Apostles baptized followers.

If you do then you have somehow managed to keep this from the rest of the world which would carry with it plenty of skepticism.