TrueTomHarley

It is. You needlessly complicate it by being overly exacting, excessively unforgiving, and too enamored with your own righteousness.
“NAILS OR NAIL, HANDS OR WRISTS, AND OTHER SUCH SCRIPTURES. HOW DO CHRISTIANS KNOW WHAT IS TRUE ?”
They can’t. They need a True Anointed to explain everything. In the meantime, it’s important not to do anything except complain.
Whatever happened to “Exert yourselves vigorously to get in through the narrow door?” (Luke 13:24) He didn’t say wait for the doorman to ease your way in.
 

It is. You needlessly complicate it by being overly exacting, excessively unforgiving, and too enamored with your own righteousness.
“NAILS OR NAIL, HANDS OR WRISTS, AND OTHER SUCH SCRIPTURES. HOW DO CHRISTIANS KNOW WHAT IS TRUE ?”
They can’t. They need a True Anointed to explain everything. In the meantime, it’s important not to do anything except complain.
Whatever happened to “Exert yourselves vigorously to get in through the narrow door?” (Luke 13:24) He didn’t say wait for the doorman to ease your way in.
 

It is. You needlessly complicate it by being overly exacting, excessively unforgiving, and too enamored with your own righteousness.
“NAILS OR NAIL, HANDS OR WRISTS, AND OTHER SUCH SCRIPTURES. HOW DO CHRISTIANS KNOW WHAT IS TRUE ?”
They can’t. They need a True Anointed to explain everything. In the meantime, it’s important not to do anything except complain.
Whatever happened to “Exert yourselves vigorously to get in through the narrow door?” (Luke 13:24) He didn’t say wait for the doorman to ease your way in.
 

You offered 3 scriptures so far, and you could easily find more. For every one of them, there are at least twice as many that refer to Jehovah God the Almighty Father, with the same supposedly "feminine" nouns. You are playing with the kind of Talmudic "wordplay" that Jewish rabbis got caught up in for many centuries. Whether a word ends up being masculine, feminine or neutral in a language is not part of any divine plan or purpose. In general, Hebrew and Greek and German and many other languages that split words into "genders," will tend to treat attributes, concepts, ideas, and qualities as "feminine" more often than as "masculine," but not always.
As a basis for any doctrinal support, this is about as meaningless as saying that a bed or couch is "feminine," just because the Hebrew word is "feminine." Or that a table is "masculine" just because the Hebrew word is "masculine." Or that a lampstand is "feminine." Or that rain, snow, hail and cloud are "masculine." But "rainbow" and "wind" (and therefore also "spirit") is "feminine."
A man's birthright (like the one Jacob wanted to buy from Esau) is "feminine."
Even though a bull is obviously masculine, both male and female cattle (or beasts) are referred to with a feminine noun. That includes the great Behemoth in Job, or when Nebuchadnezzar is referred to:
(Daniel 4:16) Let the heart of a beast (feminine) be given to him. And it's the same "feminine" word for beast used everywhere else, including here:
(Daniel 7:19) . . . the fourth beast (feminine), which was different from all the others; it was extraordinarily fearsome, with iron teeth and copper claws, and it was devouring and crushing, and trampling down what was left with its feet; There was nothing especially "feminine" about Behemoth, or Nebuchadnezzar, or the fearsome fourth beast with iron teeth and copper claws.
And there is nothing especially "feminine" about Jehovah God, even though he is described as the Creator (feminine), and in the Beginning (feminine), and a God of Salvation (feminine), and a God of Jealousy (feminine), and God of Greatness (feminine).
And there is nothing especially "masculine" about the female breast or bosom, and yet the word for a female breast is masculine.
(Ruth 4:16) Na·oʹmi took the child and held him to her bosom [masculine], and she cared for him.
If Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, then he is the firstborn from the viewpoint of the father of all creation; the Creator himself; which would just as easily suggest that Jehovah is feminine. And he isn't.
The Word (masculine) was in the beginning (feminine). But it wasn't just the Word associated with Creation and with the Beginning. What about Genesis 1:1?
(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The beginning is associated with whom? God. The creation is associated with whom? God.
You could do this for 100 other scriptures. Jehovah's qualities are described very similarly to the qualities seen in Jesus.
Think about Hebrew and Greek word genders in about the same way that you would think of German word genders. A common example is the typical set of eating utensils. A spoon is masculine, a fork is feminine, and a knife is neuter (neutral).
der Löffel (the spoon), die Gabel (the fork) das Messer (the knife) Why should a spoon be masculine, a fork feminine, and a knife neuter? ("Neuter" means neutral gender here, not the implication about knives in Galatians 5:12.)

They’ve used a phrase or two in common, that’s all. 
It would be a remarkable change of m.o. if he was BroRando. Changes from CC to BtK to Allen to whoever—the “new” persona is instantly recognizable. BroRando is significantly different.
For one thing, CC was seldom very interested in offering anything. He just was here to shoot people and their ideas down. Say what you will about BroRando, he certainly is interested in offering stuff.

Everybody knows Lava is not a bath soap, it is  a hand soap.

What can I say? Give him another upvote. He’s improving.
Tom, is it an ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ kind of thing?
Well, I wouldn’t go that far.

It's book-hawking time. From Tom Irregardless and Me:
"For years after he stormed out of the congregation, Vic Vomodog would visit hospital transfusion rooms, roll up his sleeve and say: Fill ‘er up! just to show Jehovah’s Witnesses what he thought of them! Finally, he caught something and died. But before he did, he summoned me to his bedside. ‘Come quick, I’m fading fast!’ he pleaded. Throwing caution and counsel to the wind, I rushed to his side. My old friend Vic Vomodog! We used to pull together shoulder to shoulder in the work! How I regretted having cut him off when he’d changed sides. How judgmental I’d been! If only I could have another chance! His pained eyes met mine from his hospital bed. I knew he’d regretted his prior course. With trembling hand, he beckoned me close. I strained to catch his last words:
"There’s two, Tommy. That Watchtower you study? It’s not the same as what the public reads. You’re being indoctrinated, buddy. When are you going to wake up? They’re different.
"Oh, for crying out loud! I rolled my eyes and he died. Of course they’re different! When Stephen Hawking has his science chums over, do you think they crack open their Physics 101 college textbooks?"
….I like how this passage has aged. He used his dying breath to undermine his former religion.

What can I say? Give him another upvote. He’s improving.
Tom, is it an ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ kind of thing?
Well, I wouldn’t go that far.

X

No thank you. Just the look of that page / blog makes me shudder. It would be out of the frying pan and in to the fire. 
I do not believe most things that you write, even though some on here try to link me with you...
We each have our own belief and I know exactly what I'm hoping for.  

By word, no, by root and or expression, yes. If there was no root then it would have been a violation.
The Apostles and a few older men are one of the governing bodies in the church hierarchy, can also be referred to as a Council. It is most likely based on Acts 15 and all references concerning such, primarily verses 2, 4 and 6 within the passage itself whereas a group of older men who lead the Christian Church Congregation as is with settling matters, as well as give council, hence by some they are referred to as a Council or a council of men.
It is rooted with the terms that does not violate the Greek text, mainly towards those who hold religious office within a Church Structure. They can also refer to those who are servants, otherwise known as servants. Stewards are those who are taking the lead, examples being the apostles and other Christian teachers, elders (Presbyteros) and bishops/overseers (Episkopos), as is with servants/ministers/deacons (Diakonous) of whom either holds office and or make up the body. There is also the terms a freeman or a trusted slave/servant. An example of this would be Abraham to Eliezer of Damascus, for Eliezer is the steward of Abraham, and or his servant/slave.
(Titus 1:7 and 1 Corinthians 4:1, 2, as well as connected verses) Abraham and Eliezer - see (Genesis 13:2, 14:14,15:2, 23:17-20, Acts 7:4, 5) In Peter's case (1 Peter 4:10), he points out that Christians, Overseers and others are all stewards of God's undeserved kindness, which is expressed in a variety of ways - being in God's arrangement in which faithful servitude and or stewardship is carried out.
Peter points out to all Christians, overseers and others, that they are stewards of God’s undeserved kindness expressed in various ways, and he shows that each has a sphere, or a place, in God’s arrangement in which he can carry out a faithful stewardship.
So in short, the word itself does have a connection to the Greek expressions noted above, and such terms in various translations do not violate said terms.
The remark "True Anointed" however, it never utter even by expression for both those words are never joined together. Aleipho is often found by itself, be it if translated as Chosen, Anointed, etc. There is never a word tagged along with it that who violates the Greek grammar itself.
Alas, another person who knows about the Constitution on this forums:
 
                                                      
Other then that, the principle itself is pretty much adopted by most in Law concerning judicial actions and or groups in the committee who take action based on decisions, i.e. Chair, Ranking members, vice chair, etc.
The only difference compared to Abrahamic Religious and or early Christianity is that it is only men who hold such office in the church, this is all in accordance with God's Structure of things.
One thing for certain, going back on an old example I used, imperfect men differ from one another, so decisions can vary in some instances, so mistakes can be made, in some cases, mainly if the person within these committees are unequipped to handle certain situations.
 
 

Did he ever.
I recall something was written about “the kingdom of the son of his love” into which believers were transferred into.
”He delivered us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love,” (Colossians 1:13)  
This was written about here, in 1978, (scroll to paragraph 9)
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1978165?q=kingdom+of+the+son+of+his+love&p=par
but I don’t recall it has been discussed much since, maybe because I’ve never heard any brother other than @JW Insider postulate that the kingdom in all its fullness begins in 33CE. It makes no sense at all to me to think we have been in the last days for 1/3 of recorded history, yet there are plenty of verses that speak of Jesus reigning before what we now take as the ‘last days.’ It seemed hard to believe that Jehovah’s organization had never dealt with them. Now I see that they have, but not lately.
Does this ‘kingdom within a kingdom’ (like a Matryoshka doll!) account for these verses? Did JWI address that?
 

Here is an article that warns that the mainstream media better be frank as to the side effects of any vaccine produced by a crash program, because they are significant, as the article below states. The resulting vaccine will still be worth taking, the writer states, but if media doesn’t quit their unabashed cheerleading for it, they provide huge opportunity for ‘anti-vaxxers’ to later say, “Look at what they didn’t tell you.”
https://www.wired.com/story/covid-19-vaccines-with-minor-side-effects-could-still-be-pretty-bad/

I don't know about everyone else, but JW are constantly reminded, that we should love all people, even self declared enemies. And this works (within the bounds of human imperfection) for JW.
 
I think you are mixing several incompatible ideas: You like what you like and you (hopefully🙃) tolerate, what you don't like. So "religious animosity" as a feeling towards other religions cannot be "a display of intolerance": Only if someone starts hateful acts against what he doesn't like, intolerance starts. And while most religions show hateful acts against other religions that they don't like, JW don't go there.
The kind of tolerance that let's other people do their thing without interfering, even if I don't like it. I'm not supposed to have to show support for stuff I don't like, do I?

My bad. Though they are my words, they are meant as an extension of PSomH’s request to JWI. (Sort of an inside joke)
He will beg him for advice,
His reply will be concise,
And he’ll listen very nicely then go off and do precisely what he wants. (which is to tell JWI he’s wrong)

Satan—the great anti-typical hacker!
Nah, I think it just means your computer is a piece of junk, like mine. Mine wheezes like the Tardis—pull the plug & it instantly dies, for the battery died ages ago. The cord must be secured with duct tape because I ripped it out too many times moving and catching it on things. Long ago I learned to compensate for the squirrelly touchpad with keyboard workarounds. And Windows & security software grows exponentially complicated, so that the ‘engine’ is overwhelmed and sporadically & unpredictably moves quite slowly. I have to shut down each application after using it in hopes the entire machine will not freeze up. Sometimes it does anyway, and then it is a hard reboot for me, which may take 15 minutes to find my place again. 
It is not the Devil. (Unless Bill Gates is the Devil, which some people think for other reasons.)
Fortunately, most of what I do, such as right now, I do on my iPad, on which I can leave 20 apps open and 20 webpages with barely a hiccup.
Laptop repairs are too costly. I should just get a new laptop. I will in time. But the Harleys have a long history of not discarding anything until the last tiniest vestige of life has expired in it and I don’t mean to be the first one to break family tradition. Besides, even with cloud storage, there are always some aggravating (if not devastating) hassles in moving from one machine to another.

My bad. Though they are my words, they are meant as an extension of PSomH’s request to JWI. (Sort of an inside joke)
He will beg him for advice,
His reply will be concise,
And he’ll listen very nicely then go off and do precisely what he wants. (which is to tell JWI he’s wrong)

Our cat was never quite the same after spending a few seconds with head inside the dog’s mouth. Later, he auditioned and actually became the moniker for Top Cat O’Malihan, one of my aliases here, employed to mess with astoundingly obnoxious people like Alan F.
Since the dog and cat did not get along (I thought I could keep them out of each other’s sight, but did not reckon on sense of smell), while the dog stayed with us (it was a temporary resident that later became permanent), I brought it to stay with my dad who had dementia. He took it for one of the barn cats that he had grown up with and left bowls of milk for it everywhere, which it did not touch. “Pop!” I grumbled later since I staying with him overnights for a few months before he died, “I want to pour myself a bowl of cereal but I can’t because you’ve poured out all the milk in saucers throughout the house!”

I was.
I did.
He wasn’t.
You’re wrong.
It’s his heart that it never came up into, his center of motivation. It is the furthest thing from what he would ever do. It’s not that he can’t imagine it.
There is division among translators over this verse. Someone want to spend some time looking into this? I’ll take the NWT any day in this case. It dovetails far better with everything else we know of God.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Jeremiah 7%3A31
One translation best captures the “mind” sense with, “I never entertained the thought,” which is not the same as being “surprised.”

My bad. Though they are my words, they are meant as an extension of PSomH’s request to JWI. (Sort of an inside joke)
He will beg him for advice,
His reply will be concise,
And he’ll listen very nicely then go off and do precisely what he wants. (which is to tell JWI he’s wrong)

Our cat was never quite the same after spending a few seconds with head inside the dog’s mouth. Later, he auditioned and actually became the moniker for Top Cat O’Malihan, one of my aliases here, employed to mess with astoundingly obnoxious people like Alan F.
Since the dog and cat did not get along (I thought I could keep them out of each other’s sight, but did not reckon on sense of smell), while the dog stayed with us (it was a temporary resident that later became permanent), I brought it to stay with my dad who had dementia. He took it for one of the barn cats that he had grown up with and left bowls of milk for it everywhere, which it did not touch. “Pop!” I grumbled later since I staying with him overnights for a few months before he died, “I want to pour myself a bowl of cereal but I can’t because you’ve poured out all the milk in saucers throughout the house!”

I was.
I did.
He wasn’t.
You’re wrong.
It’s his heart that it never came up into, his center of motivation. It is the furthest thing from what he would ever do. It’s not that he can’t imagine it.
There is division among translators over this verse. Someone want to spend some time looking into this? I’ll take the NWT any day in this case. It dovetails far better with everything else we know of God.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Jeremiah 7%3A31
One translation best captures the “mind” sense with, “I never entertained the thought,” which is not the same as being “surprised.”