I'm a Jehovah's Witness Ask me anything
>>16527072Will I be assigned a free gf if I join your apocalyptic cult?
>>16527084No, joining Jehovah's Witnesses doesn't guarantee you a "free" girlfriend. Finding a partner is something you'll have to do yourself.
Can I smoke weed if I join?
>>16527110Jehovah's Witnesses teach equality among all races and ethnicities, so we reject racism, including any negative stereotypes or discrimination against black people.
>>16527121No, Jehovah's Witnesses do not condone the use of marijuana or any other recreational drugs. We adhere to a strict code of conduct that prohibits the use of mind-altering substances.
>>16527125I'm sorry, but that language and sentiment are not appropriate or respectful. It's important to treat all individuals with dignity and respect, regardless of their race or ethnicity. Let's keep the conversation respectful and free from derogatory language.
>>16527128If you say so. So do you guys see any problem with African and African american christian culture, like high criminality, rape, assault, robbery, or are they equal to whites in your eyes?
What did you Witness
>>16527072Do you know someone named Lara? If you do can I see her tits?
>>16527134High criminality in Africa can be influenced by a combination of social, cultural economic, and political factors.>>16527136Jehovah is the personal name of God, as found in the Bible. (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18) A witness is a person who proclaims views or truths of which he is convinced. Thus, our name Jehovah’s Witnesses designates us as a group of Christians who proclaim the truth about Jehovah, the Creator of all things. (Revelation 4:11) I witness to others by the way I live my life and by sharing with them what I've learned from the Bible.—Isaiah 43:10-12; 1 Peter 2:12
>>16527072When will the other religions realize how wrong they are?
>>16527122cringe
>>16527189wtf I love JWs now
>>16527185Neither in Exodus nor Psalms does it say Jehova in any iteration of the Bible aside from the King James version. All other translations have it as Lord.
>>16527242JW use their own translation of the Bible that is objectively more accurate than other translations
>>16527242
how do I get a JW tradwife (white)
>>16527072What's the policy on anal?
>>16527270Anal isn't allowed, or any sex that isn't penis in the vagina. Contraception is allowed though as long as it isn't abortive.
>>16527247No, it isn't https://www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html and the objective truth is that Jesus Christ is God.
>>16527072When’s the end of the world coming according to your latest predictions?
>>16527072I ask you to become catholic
>>16527285>While New World Translation defenders might succeed in showing that John 1:1 can be translated as they have doneEven that article admits that it's a potentially valid translation.
>>16527295Picking and choosing what you like and ignoring the rest of the article... Last sentence in the article:>The New World Translation is a perversion, not a version, of the Bible
>>16527304They're only saying that because of their trinitarian bias, however even in their own article they're forced to admit they cannot completely discount that rendering of John 1:1. JWs use evidence from other scriptures that support the idea that Jesus is not God ("The father is greater than I"), while it seems Trinitarianism rests on this one dubiously translated verse.
>>16527304Also you should read the actual justification for it so you have both sides of the argument instead of just mindlessly believing one sidehttps://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/bible-verses/john-1-1/
>>16527311>There is a good reason why theos has no definite article in John 1:1 and why the New World Translation rendering is in error. There are three general rules we need to understand to see why.>1. In Greek, word order does not determine word usage like it does in English. In English, a sentence is structured according to word order: Subject - Verb - Object. Thus, "Harry called the dog" is not equivalent to "the dog called Harry." But in Greek, a word’s function is determined by the case ending found attached to the word’s root. There are two case endings for the root theo: one is -s (theos), the other is -n (theon). The -s ending normally identifies a noun as being the subject of a sentence, while the -n ending normally identifies a noun as the direct object.>2. When a noun functions as a predicate nominative (in English, a noun that follows a being verb such as "is"), its case ending must match the noun’s case that it renames, so that the reader will know which noun it is defining. Therefore, theo must take the -s ending because it is renaming logos. Therefore, John 1:1 transliterates to "kai theos en ho logos." Is theos the subject, or is logos? Both have the -s ending. The answer is found in the next rule.>3. In cases where two nouns appear, and both take the same case ending, the author will often add the definite article to the word that is the subject in order to avoid confusion. John put the definite article on logos (“the Word”) instead of on theos. So, logos is the subject, and theos is the predicate nominative. In English, this results in John 1:1 being read as "and the Word was God" (instead of "and God was the word").
>>16527072How's the brain rot treating ya?
>>16527308https://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html>The Trinity is one God existing in three Persons. Understand that this is not in any way suggesting three Gods. Keep in mind when studying this subject that the word “Trinity” is not found in Scripture. This is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune God—three coexistent, co-eternal Persons who are God. Of real importance is that the concept represented by the word “Trinity” does exist in Scripture. The following is what God’s Word says about the Trinity:>1) There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5).2) The Trinity consists of three Persons (Genesis 1:1, 26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for “us” is used. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun “us” are plural forms, definitely referring in the Hebrew language to more than two. While this is not an explicit argument for the Trinity, it does denote the aspect of plurality in God. The Hebrew word for "God," "Elohim," definitely allows for the Trinity.>In Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1, the Son is speaking while making reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Compare Isaiah 61:1 to Luke 4:14-19 to see that it is the Son speaking. Matthew 3:16-17 describes the event of Jesus’ baptism. Seen in this passage is God the Holy Spirit descending on God the Son while God the Father proclaims His pleasure in the Son. Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are other examples of passages that present three distinct Persons in the Trinity.
>>16527308>>16527323>3) The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages. In the Old Testament, “LORD” is distinguished from “Lord” (Genesis 19:24; Hosea 1:4). The LORD has a Son (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2-4). The Spirit is distinguished from the “LORD” (Numbers 27:18) and from “God” (Psalm 51:10-12). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9). In the New Testament, Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17). This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also the other instances when Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No. He spoke to another Person in the Trinity—the Father.>4) Each member of the Trinity is God. The Father is God (John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2). The Son is God (John 1:1, 14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20). The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16).>5) There is subordination within the Trinity. Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship and does not deny the deity of any Person of the Trinity. This is simply something our finite minds cannot understand concerning the infinite God. Concerning the Son see Luke 22:42, John 5:36, John 20:21, and 1 John 4:14. Concerning the Holy Spirit see John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, and especially John 16:13-14.
>>16527323This is really just stretching words to their limit, by trying to define "God" as a title rather than a particular being. Trinitarians also have to do the same with the fact that Jesus is specifically stated as being "begotten" implying he was created by trying to claim that by begotten he actually meant something completely different to the actual meaning of the word. Same kind of logic people used to try and define men as being able to become women.
>>16527326Do all major theological debates return to trannies?
>>16527317>While many Bible translators render the verse this way, others see the need to render it differently. In the original-language text, the two occurrences of “God” (Greek, the·osʹ) at John 1:1 are grammatically different. In the first occurrence, the word “God” is preceded by the Greek definite article, while the article does not appear before the second occurrence. Many scholars note that the absence of the definite article before the second the·osʹ is significant. For example, The Translator’s New Testament says regarding this absence of the article: “In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means ‘The Word was divine.’” b Other scholars c and Bible translations point to this same distinction.—See “ John 1:1 From Additional Translations.”
>>16527329It's a valid comparative critique of how trinitarians try to change the meaning of words to suit their theology.
Do you ride dick?
This is Snake, I've successfully sneaked into the thread.https://youtu.be/oXKyMBsvst0?si=yd18Ij6vaIac7yNQ
>>16527308>>16527323>>16527325>6) The individual members of the Trinity have different tasks. The Father is the ultimate source or cause of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11); divine revelation (Revelation 1:1); salvation (John 3:16-17); and Jesus’ human works (John 5:17; 14:10). The Father initiates all of these things.>The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works: the creation and maintenance of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17); divine revelation (John 1:1, 16:12-15; Matthew 11:27; Revelation 1:1); and salvation (2 Corinthians 5:19; Matthew 1:21; John 4:42). The Father does all these things through the Son, who functions as His agent.>The Holy Spirit is the means by whom the Father does the following works: creation and maintenance of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalm 104:30); divine revelation (John 16:12-15; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21); salvation (John 3:6; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2); and Jesus’ works (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 10:38). Thus, the Father does all these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.>>16527326https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=KJV|reference=Matt-Rev|text=begotten*&options=VLHGUμονογενής (monogenēs) 'unique' (G3439) is used in John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18 for Jesus' God nature that He shares with the Father and means>μονο-γενής, ές,>Epic dialect and Ionic dialect μουνο-, (γένος) the only member of a kin or kind:which is not the same as γεννάω (gennaō) 'to beget' (G1080) which is used for creation which is used for Jesus' human nature and being newly created as a believer, meaning>to become the father of; to bear, give birth to; (passive) to be conceived, born beget
>>16527346Colonel, there's a Jehova Wiccan spewing words without end, from a website and a book no less.
>>16527346>>6) The individual members of the Trinity have different tasks. The Father is the ultimate source or cause of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11); divine revelation (Revelation 1:1); salvation (John 3:16-17); and Jesus’ human works (John 5:17; 14:10). The Father initiates all of these things.>>The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works: the creation and maintenance of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17); divine revelation (John 1:1, 16:12-15; Matthew 11:27; Revelation 1:1); and salvation (2 Corinthians 5:19; Matthew 1:21; John 4:42). The Father does all these things through the Son, who functions as His agent.>>The Holy Spirit is the means by whom the Father does the following works: creation and maintenance of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalm 104:30); divine revelation (John 16:12-15; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21); salvation (John 3:6; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2); and Jesus’ works (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 10:38). Thus, the Father does all these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.This implies three gods who do different things, not one God. A God by nature of the term can only be one individual.
>>16527348Refuting the false doctrines of the JW cult, what's the issue?
>>16527348That guy isn't a JW.
>>16527353>>16527354False doctrines?I Will use the second controller
>>16527351No, it doesn't imply that. God is one in essence and three in persons. It's already mentioned how in the Hebrew אֱלֹהִים (e.lo.him) 'God' (H0430G) is plural yet the verb, e.g. in Genesis 1:1 is singular בָּרָא (ba.ra) 'to create' (H1254A) but sometimes like verse 26 "נַֽעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ" in the plural, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"
bump
Say what you will, but the jew are interfacing with memes. All these drawings and cartoons... the power of mental Gear.In case anyone is paying attention, the problem, not just jw, but with the whole religious emporium is that it's a doctrinal meses that DEMANDS perfection, without being clear in the instructions manual.This is why there are so many splinter groups, like jw.Be perfect as your father is perfect.He who keeps on sinning is of the devil.These two verses prove it's useless to even try.
>>16527333>>16527317Because>>3. In cases where two nouns appear, and both take the same case ending, the author will often add the definite article to the word that is the subject in order to avoid confusion. John put the definite article on logos (“the Word”) instead of on theos. So, logos is the subject, and theos is the predicate nominative. In English, this results in John 1:1 being read as "and the Word was God" (instead of "and God was the word"). Divine is θεῖος (theios) 'divine' (G2304) not θεός (theos) 'God' (G2316)
>>16527333Also https://biblehub.com/parallel/john/1-1.htm in regards to the translationsNew International VersionIn the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.New Living TranslationIn the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.English Standard VersionIn the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Berean Study BibleIn the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.New American Standard BibleIn the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.NASB 1995In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.NASB 1977In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Amplified BibleIn the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.Christian Standard BibleIn the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Holman Christian Standard BibleIn the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Contemporary English VersionIn the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.Good News TranslationIn the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.GOD'S WORD® TranslationIn the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.International Standard VersionIn the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.NET BibleIn the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.
>>16527285>>16527304The New World Translation is based on up-to-date scholarly research and the most reliable ancient manuscripts. In contrast, the King James Version of 1611 was based on manuscripts that were often less accurate and not as old as those used in producing the New World Translation.>>16527293The Roman Catholic Church teaches many doctrines that are in disagreement with what the Bible declares. These include apostolic succession, worship of saints, prayer to Mary, the papacy, infant baptism, transubstantiation, plenary indulgences, the sacramental system, and purgatory. None of these teachings have any solid foundation in the clear teaching of Scripture. These concepts are based on Catholic tradition, not the Word of God. In fact, they all clearly contradict Biblical principles.>>16527288Jesus said: “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matthew 24:36, 42) He added that the timing of the end would be unexpected, “at an hour that you do not think to be it.”—Matthew 24:44.
>>16527377Other variations of rendering, both in translation or paraphrase, John 1:1c also exist:1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)1864: "the LOGOS was God" – A New Emphatic Version (right hand column)1864: "and a god was the Word" – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)1867: "and the Son was of God" – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)1885: "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)1911: "and [a] God was the word" – The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, by George William Horner.[13]1924: "the Logos was divine" – The Bible: James Moffatt Translation, by James Moffatt.[14]1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.[15]1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.[16]1956: "And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" – The Wuest Expanded Translation[17]1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);>>16527363The God of the Bible is never described as being part of a Trinity. Note these Bible passages: “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.”—Deuteronomy 6:4.“God is only one.”—Galatians 3:20.
>>16527423>“Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.”—Deuteronomy 6:4.>“God is only one.”—Galatians 3:20.These two verses use "one" as to say that there is none other like God, nobody is His equal, not that He is a single unit. They say "God is alone".
>>16527419This video made me leave the Jehova's Witnesses.Perhaps it will help you.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIDQwhaeXBs
>>16527429Thousands of times throughout the Bible, God is spoken of as one person. When he speaks, it is as one undivided individual. The Bible could not be any clearer on this! As God states: “I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory.” (Isaiah 42:8) “I am Jehovah your God . . . You shall have no gods except me.”—Exodus 20:2, 3>>16527439This video made me revert to Jehovah's Witnesses.Perhaps it will help you. https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/?appLanguage=E&item=pub-jwbvs_201507_2_VIDEO
>>16527439https://youtube.com/watch?v=dF5McOdEWz0>>16527448Sigh, ignoring evidence over and over in this thread refuting the JW cult arguments, and yet you haven't refuted any of mine. May the deception that has taken hold of you be removed in the mighty name and power of Jesus Christ
what your services like? I know you dont have sacraments, or mass, or healings and miracle sessions. do pastors\preachers exist? or just a room with people studying the Bible according to JW guidelines?
>>16527448The Trinity can be found all throughout the Old Testament. The Angel of YHWH is the Son (He is the one that stopped Abraham from killing Isaac, who rescued Hagar and Ishmael and swore to make him into a great nation, who quarreled with Jacob, who encountered Balaam on his way to Balak, who stold Joshua how to take Jericho, who spoke to Samson's parents)The Spirit of God is in the very beginning of Genesis.
>>16527448>https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/?appLanguage=E&item=pub-jwbvs_201507_2_VIDEOJust finished it.Sorry, it didn't work.
>>16527461You are welcome to attend a seevice of you want to find out for yourselfYou can find an adress near your location in this linkhttps://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/meetings/>>16527460?
>>16527465Angels are created beings.>>16527467You are simply resisting the Holy Spirit’s attempts to draw you to faith in Jehovah. Stephen, a ministerial servant in the early church, told those who were about to murder him, “You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!” (Acts 7:51). The apostle Paul made a similar statement to a group of gospel rejecters in Acts 28:23-27.
>>16527474Read this, and keep in mind that the "angel of YHWH" in this passage is God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity.Judges 13:1-25>There was a certain man of Zorah, of the tribe of the Danites, whose name was Manoah. And his wife was barren and had no children. And the angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, “Behold, you are barren and have not borne children, but you shall conceive and bear a son. Therefore be careful and drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, for behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb, and he shall begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines.” Then the woman came and told her husband, “A man of God came to me, and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome. I did not ask him where he was from, and he did not tell me his name, but he said to me, ‘Behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. So then drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.’”(1/2)
>>16527474>>16527483>Then Manoah prayed to the LORD and said, “O Lord, please let the man of God whom you sent come again to us and teach us what we are to do with the child who will be born.” And God listened to the voice of Manoah, and the angel of God came again to the woman as she sat in the field. But Manoah her husband was not with her. So the woman ran quickly and told her husband, “Behold, the man who came to me the other day has appeared to me.” And Manoah arose and went after his wife and came to the man and said to him, “Are you the man who spoke to this woman?” And he said, “I am.” And Manoah said, “Now when your words come true, what is to be the child’s manner of life, and what is his mission?” And the angel of the LORD said to Manoah, “Of all that I said to the woman let her be careful. She may not eat of anything that comes from the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, or eat any unclean thing. All that I commanded her let her observe.”>Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, “Please let us detain you and prepare a young goat for you.” And the angel of the LORD said to Manoah, “If you detain me, I will not eat of your food. But if you prepare a burnt offering, then offer it to the LORD.” (For Manoah did not know that he was the angel of the LORD.) And Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, “What is your name, so that, when your words come true, we may honor you?” And the angel of the LORD said to him, “Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?” So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering, and offered it on the rock to the LORD, to the one who works wonders, and Manoah and his wife were watching. And when the flame went up toward heaven from the altar, the angel of the LORD went up in the flame of the altar. Now Manoah and his wife were watching, and they fell on their faces to the ground.(2/3)
>>16527474>>16527483>>16527485>The angel of the LORD appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD. And Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, for we have seen God.” But his wife said to him, “If the LORD had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering at our hands, or shown us all these things, or now announced to us such things as these.” And the woman bore a son and called his name Samson. And the young man grew, and the LORD blessed him. And the Spirit of the LORD began to stir him in Mahaneh-dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol.(3/3)
>>16527474>You are simply resisting the Holy Spirit’s attempts to draw you to faith in Jehovah.Quite the contrary anon, I've accepted the Holy Spirit fully into my heart, which is why I've joined His one true Church, the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church.
>>16527492The one true Church is the one spiritual Church, not the corrupt earthly institution known as the Roman Catholic Church with its false religion known as Catholicism, a perversion of Christianity https://youtube.com/@ChristianVideoVault/search?query=catholic
>>16527483>>16527485>>16527486It's true in the Hebrew scriptures angels may come in the Name and authority of Jehovah, and an angel may even speak in the first person as Jehovah, but this is an example of what is called AGENCY or SHALIAH.In Jewish law, a shaliaḥ is a LEGAL AGENT. In practice, "the shaliaḥ for a person is as this person himself."Accordingly, a shaliaḥ performs an act of legal significance for the benefit of the sender, as opposed to him or herself.So this is in a legal sense, not an ontological sense.The angel or angels that came in Jehovah's Name were not literally Jehovah (the Father) but his legal agents.>>16527498The True religion would be primarily known for it's love toward all (John 13:34,35; 1 John 3:10-12; 4:7, 8). This would include their enemies (Matthew 5:44-48; Romans 12:17-20; 1 Peter 2:21-23; 3:8- 9).It would not participate in or condone war (2 Corinthians 10:3,4; Isaiah 2:4).Apply this basic evidence to what happened in both world wars and current conflicts. People of the same religions met on battlefields and slaughtered one another because of nationalistic differences. Each side claimed to be Christian, and each side was supported by its clergy, who claimed that God was on their side.The definition of a "Christian" is "one who does what Christ would do" (1 Peter 2:21). That slaughter of "Christian" by "Christian" is rotten fruitage. It is a denial of any claim to being the true Church (cf. Matthew 26:52). No Christian would continue to associate with these religions (Revelation 18:4).What is the historical record of Catholics and Protestants regarding warfare?Jehovah’s Witnesses have never participated in warfare!
>>16527505>The angel or angels that came in Jehovah's Name were not literally Jehovah (the Father) but his legal agents.Why did Samson's father say that they had seen God?>And Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, for we have seen God.”
>>16527505>>16527509Also why would an angel follow Jewish rules for legal agents? And why would YHWH send an angel rather than speak to them directly like He does so many other times in the Old Testamet? Also you're making it your claims unfalisiable, you're saying that even if the Angel of YHWH said explicitly "I'm YHWH, I am God", you'd just dismiss it, thus making it impossible for us to prove the Trinity to you.
>>16527509Because this is how agency or shaliah works:"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself. Therefore, any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle."- The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder---GRB Murray (in _Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel_ ) cites the Jewish halachic law as follows: "One sent is as he who sent him."He then adds: "The messenger [the SHALIACH] is thereby granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who sent him. This is more remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times, the messenger was commonly a slave" (Murray 18).
>>16527513>Because this is how agency or shaliah works:Can you show me a source pointing Judges 13:1-25 as an example of shaliah?
>>16527512Aside from the three recorded instances when God’s own voice was heard while his Son was on the earth, Jehovah has always used angels to transmit His messages. (Matthew 3:17; 17:5; John 12:28)
>>16527518>Aside from the three recorded instances when God’s own voice was heard while his Son was on the earthThey are two different Persons, remember?>Jehovah has always used angels to transmit His messages.Not always, there's tons of instances of God speaking to people directly.
>>16527516Manoah says to his wife: “We shall positively die, because it is God that we have seen.” Although he did not actually see Jehovah God, Manoah felt that way because he had seen the materialized personal spokesman for God.
>>16527520>because it is God that we have seen.”>Although he did not actually see Jehovah Godlol.
>>16527519Jesus is not God, but has a divine origin in heaven, a created being, having been known as "the power of God and the wisdom of God", (Proverbs 8:12; 22-31; 1 Colossians 1:24) through whom God made all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:15, 16).
>>16527520>Manoah felt that way because he had seen the materialized personal spokesman for God.Where does it say that in the text?You're a Jehova's witness, right? So how about you "witness" all the hoops and mental gymnastics that you have to go through to deny what the text explicitly says. Whereas I just have to take the text at face vaule and present it to you.
To anyone discussing with that JW, remember Titus 3:10-11 and act accordingly by the Holy Spirit: "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."
>>16527526Shaliah
>>16527525>Jesus is not God, >I and the Father are one.John 10:30.>That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.John 5:23Jesus requires His followers to honor Him as they honor the Father.
>>16527530Show me textual evidence proving that Judges 13:1-25 is an instance of shaliah.
>>16527529After the death of the apostles, the Church embarked on a "Great Apostasy", diverging from the original teachings of Jesus on several major points.In the 1870s, Charles Taze Russell and his associates formed a Bible study group in Pennsylvania, developing teachings that they considered to be a revival of the great truths taught by Jesus and the Apostles.Both the Great Apostasy and the Bible Students' subsequent restoration of original Christianity were a fulfilment of Jesus' parable of the wheat and the weeds at Matthew 13:24-30,36-43.>>16527533>John 10:30.When Jesus said, "I and the Father are one," he did not mean that they were actually "one substance", or "one God", or co-equal and co-eternal.Rather, Jesus meant that he and the Father have a "unity of purpose", as the context indicates that Jesus was saying that they were "one" in pastoral work. The point being that the Father and the Son were united in the divine work of saving the 'sheep'.>John 5:23The Greek word translated here “just as” is καθώς (kathos). I may be also be translated as “in the same degree as”, or “exactly as”, but it is not the only way to understand it.For example, the same writer, John, used the word καθώς is verses such as John 20:21:Then Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you (AMP).And in 1 John 4:17:By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, we also are in this world (NASB).The first verse does not mean that the disciples are sent from heaven to earth as divine persons to give their lives as a ransom for humanking. καθώς here does not imply exact correspondence.And the second verse does not mean that Jesus’ disciples are coequal with the Son.In both cases, there is a specific point of comparison.>>16527535It's obvious
>>16527549>When Jesus said, "I and the Father are one," he did not mean that they were actually "one substance", or "one God", or co-equal and co-eternal.>Rather, Jesus meant that he and the Father have a "unity of purpose", as the context indicates that Jesus was saying that they were "one" in pastoral work. The point being that the Father and the Son were united in the divine work of saving the 'sheep'.How do you know? How do you know that He did not mean that they are of one substance?>The Greek word translated here “just as” is καθώς (kathos). I may be also be translated as “in the same degree as”, or “exactly as”So then you are forced to admit that my intrepretation is at the very least possible, and should accept it as valid.>It's obviousLOL
>>16527072What did you do on your last birthday?
>>16527551>How do you know? See John 17:21 wherein Jesus prayed regarding his disciples: "That they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they may be in us," adding "that they may be one even as we are one".The same Greek word (hen) for "one" throughout John 17 indicates that Jesus did not expect for his followers to literally become a single Being, or "one in substance", with each other, or with God, and therefore that Jesus also did not expect his hearers to think that he and God the Father were one entity either.> admit that my intrepretation is at the very least possible, To a Samaritan woman, Jesus described the type of worship that individuals must give to God. Their worship must be based on spirit and truth. Indeed, “the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him.” (John 4:23, 24) Yes, reverent adoration should be expressed ONLY to THE FATHER. To render worship to anyone or anything else would be IDOLATRY, which is condemned in both the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures.—Exodus 20:4, 5; Galatians 5:19, 20.
>>16527554idk
>>16527560>The same Greek word (hen) for "one" throughout John 17What other word could He have used? Of course He used the same word.>Yes, reverent adoration should be expressed ONLY to THE FATHER.He commands His followers to honor Him like they honor the Father, just like you have proved. Also Thomas worships Him and calls Him "My Lord and my God", and Christ doesn't rebuke him.>To render worship to anyone or anything else would be IDOLATRYWell Jesus is God, so we're not worshipping anything but God.Charles Taze Russell was a failed prophet and a heretic, he is in Hell.
>>16527072What are the material benefits of joinin your religion? Surely there must be some
>>16527526>So how about you "witness" all the hoops and mental gymnastics that you have to go through to deny what the text explicitly says.Very ironic to say this considering the mental hoops trinitarian have to jump through to justify Jesus being God but also begotten.
Why me a Jew should convert?
>>16527647>justify Jesus being God but also begottenWe simply read what He says, He says He is one with God, as well as the Son of God.
>>16527649Honestly Jews today are better of converting to literally ANY other religion besides their own.
>>16527653He says that man and wife are one flesh, do you interpret that as men and women combining literally into a giant blob of flesh?
>>16527660>He says that man and wife are one fleshThey become that, literally, in their children, the blood and flesh of both becomes one.
>>16527672That still doesn't help you since the child is still considered separate from the mother and father. They don't become one literal entity. Similarly Jesus is one with his Father in the sense of their shared familial purpose. They don't all become one entity.
>>16527728>That still doesn't help you since the child is still considered separate from the mother and father.That has no bearing on their flesh becoming one. That is an objectively correct statement.>They don't become one literal entity.You can argue that they did, in their child.>Similarly Jesus is one with his Father in the sense of their shared familial purpose.You do not know that this is what He meant.
>>16527752>That has no bearing on their flesh becoming one. That is an objectively correct statement.Except it isn't since their flesh doesn't literally become one even if you take that view, sperm and eggs aren't flesh.>You can argue that they did, in their child.Their child is not literally part of them, it is a product they produced, i.e a created son (like Jesus).>You do not know that this is what He meant.A lot of the bible is implied through the context and by drawing comparisons to other similar statements, like the one about man and wife being one in their sense of unified familial purpose and not literally become a single entity.
>>16527752Oh and good luck finding any statements that would imply the holy spirit is coequal to the father, there literally aren't any.
>>16527769>Except it isn't since their flesh doesn't literally become oneYes they literally do lol.>Their child is not literally part of themIt's their literal flesh and blood.>A lot of the bible is implied through the context and by drawing comparisons to other similar statements"The Bible inteprets the Bible" is a colossaly stupid method of exegesis.>>16527772>Acts 28:25 - And disagreeing among themselves, they departed after Paul had made one statement: “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet:This verse says Isaiah received his revelation from the Holy Spirit, and Isaiah says that they came from God. Paul is attributing Isaiah's prophesy to the Holy Spirit.>Hebrews 3:7 - Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, “Today, if you hear his voice,Here the Holy Spirit is attributed Psalm 95, which talks about God.>Corinthinas 2:10-11: For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.Here it compares the Spirit of God and God as being he same as you and your spirit are the same.
>>16527072Why do you hate birthdays
>>16527806>Yes they literally do lol.No they don't, all people in a family are separate people, the baby itself doesn't even necessarily share the exact same genetic expression. They're all individuals but sharing in a unified family. A "God" is an individual, not a group of individuals. >It's their literal flesh and blood.It isn't though, it's a separate being with its own flesh and blood that acts and thinks independently.>"The Bible inteprets the Bible" is a colossaly stupid method of exegesis.That isn't even what I said. You're complaining about inconsistency yet will interpret Jesus and the Father literally being physically one, but don't apply this to families who're clearly separate entities.>This verse says Isaiah received his revelation from the Holy SpiritHoly Spirit being Gods power, which he uses to deliver revelation to his Apostles, not an actual person in and of itself.>Here it compares the Spirit of God and God as being he same as you and your spirit are the same.Yes in the same way that the person and the persons body are of the same person, but the body without the person is not the person. The holy spirit can be thought of as Gods actual force which he acts though, in the same way a person acts through their body.
>>16527823>>"The Bible inteprets the Bible" is a colossaly stupid method of exegesis.>That isn't even what I said. You're complaining about inconsistency yet will interpret Jesus and the Father literally being physically one,No? They're not physically one, they're of the same substance.>>This verse says Isaiah received his revelation from the Holy Spirit>Holy Spirit being Gods powerWhere does it say that? Also are you then saying that God's power is separate from Him? Meaning that you could have a powerless God?
>>16527072Any cute women?
So why should I worship Jehova instead of any Lovecraftian God?Thing is, Lovecraft didnt make it up, it was dreams, many people believe that he tapped into real deities because you can actual perform some rites (some real simple) and feel their energies.
>>16527185>Jehovah is the personal name of God, as found in the Bible. (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18) A witness is a person who proclaims views or truths of which he is convinced.Then why do the NT manuscripts use the rabbinical God/Lord avoidance speech conventions?
>>16527908Here's a very brief summary of the credibility of the Bible:https://youtube.com/watch?v=LD_g4I07KY8I also suggest giving the Bible a listen https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyH3jcNYnj_v5rBldhpk1dJZ5OFhOzcdl and maybe a read https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=KJV|reference=Matt.1&options=VHGU and hovering/clicking any term you might not understand like 'Word' in John 1. Also some channels I can recommend uncovering the l*ciferian society that we live in and the fulfillment of Bible prophecies arehttps://youtube.com/@theghettogospelteam/videoshttps://youtube.com/@Nephtali1981/videos ( I also recommend this documentary https://youtube.com/watch?v=YdSTQLh_I_4 )https://youtube.com/@treysmithnutshell/videoshttps://youtube.com/@ChristianVideoVault/videosBut first and foremost, invite Jesus Christ into your life (or ask the God that is the Creator of this reality to lead you to the answer of whether or not Jesus Christ is God), I can testify of several supernatural encounters with Him. I also suggest this site:https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/and this articlehttps://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.htmlfor making salvation very clear. If you have ant questions, feel free to ask
>>16527924Jehovah doesn't appear in the Greek, so any placement of it in the NT isn't based on the original text like the OT with Elohim and YHVH in the Hebrew.
>>16527952I am the only ones that Will come.Behold my Mark
>>16527971And
Is this definition correct?
>>16527072Congratulations on successfully divorcing yourselves from the entirety of Christian history and managing to misinterpret almost every key verse in the Bible, especially anything to do with the New Testament or the Trinity (which you deny). How does it feel to know that the only "denominations" even close to your level of delusional are Mormons and Unitarians?
>>16528574I've never understood why were Unitarians always part of Christianity and considered Christians, as opposed to these new Age religions that also reject the trinity
>>16528586I'm not even sure myself. People need to accept that if you don't believe in the Trinity you're just not a Christian at all. At that point just go be a Muslim for all I care. As a matter of fact that's the whole main issue that Muslims have with Christians anyway is the Trinity and Jesus worship. So if you don't believe in the Trinity or the equality that Jesus has with God and the Holy Spirit you are missing a key part of Christianity and may as well convert to Islam.
>>16527072I'm not religious, but JW.org is the most amazing language learning resource I've ever seen. Is there a large community of polyglots within the Jehovah's Witnesses?
>>16527957Exactly.So apparently the apostles and scribes that created the NT didnt get the memo about the true name of God being super-duper important.
>>16530385The name of God is mentioned, Jesus Christ. 1 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"inspiration = θεόπνευστος (theopneustos) 'God-breathed' (G2315) meaning God-breathed, inspired by God, referring to a communication from deitydivinely inspired, 2Tim. 3:16* There's a reason why the Holy Spirit didn't inspire the authors to use YHVH (which doesn't e.g. get used in the Greek Septuagint, if a word like that exists).
>>165306632 Timothy 3:16*
>>16527878They’re all grumpy if the girls who go to the church near me are anything to go by. The Jehovah’s witnesses that I went to school with would always cry on their birthdays because their parents would forbid them from celebrating it. We had quite a few of them in my class so we cancelled bringing in birthday cakes for our classmates because it would upset those retards
>>16527072What is the most common argument that the critics of your beliefe make?
>>16527185>personal name of GodIs this the same as the concept of gnosis?
>>16527242Your personal semantics are YOUR LORD. Love the LORD, your God judgement, withball of your heart and soul. And also, lobe your neighbor as you love YOUR SELF. The LORD is one.Now, go and testify to the truth of which you have seen and defined. Do not argue semantics, but instead, remember what we are all working for. Also, we stand on the shoulders of giants, so honor the work of all the ancestors who came before you. Their code was selected by natural law, and it is a sentence from the mouth of God.
>>16527084Yes. The pretty girls are reserved for the cult leaders though so the leftovers will be ugly and possibly old.
>>16527072Is picrel you? Are you from pakistan?
>>16530663Yes, God, and God-derived terms are used.Not Jehovah(which btw, would have meant we wouldn't have the discussion about pronunciation, because having it in an alphabet, instead of a Hebrew abjad without vocals, means it would have been clear).There are literally no NT scrolls with Jehovah.The Watchtower gives some bullshit explanation about how they existed, but some rabbi burned all the scrolls that did contain them.But in that case, one can reasonably state that we can't trust anything in the Bible.Who knows what else was irrevocably lost, that that dude burned?Maybe it's some lost book(s) of the New Testament, or mentions about reincarnation, or Mohammed, or aliens, or whatever.JWs trying to be special about the Tetragrammaton and Sola Scriptura accidentally means they declared the Bible to be corrupted.
>>16527072Hey. You have unanswered questions.
