T
tommy1234
Guest
I kind of agree with Moses Noah, he had a real good point on priest molestation and the comparison with Michael Jackson.
- Status
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I believe that you’re just another deceived dupe of the Jehovah’s Witness cult and don’t know what the heck you’re talkin’ about other than to spout lies and anti-Catholic rhetoric. You’re rejection of Jesus as God in the flesh defines you as non-Christian according the the NT.
Pax vobiscum,
T
tommy4321
Guest
Church Militant:
I am only a JW Bible student cause if I was currently a JW, I would be out pioneering to preach the good news of the Kingdom, because they do not like satan influences on the Interent so you don’t find many here. But reading one like this makes my faith grow stronger to convert.
Some define a sect to mean a group that has broken away from an established religion. Others apply the term to that who follows a leader. The term cult here is used in a derogatory way as JW’s were not an offshoot of any religion and include people from all walks of life that have jobes like you and I. They do not look upon any human, only Jesus as their leader.
A cult is a religion that is said to be unorthodox or that emphasizes devotion according to a ritual. Our group has been a kind loving group of true Christians that really care about us and has helped us with many family matters and we study out of a lovely book, called the Family Happiness Book that ties scriptures into making the family stronger. We do not believe in war or anything that hurts someone else and believe the key to true happiness is a sincere devotion to Jehovah God through Jesus, that was Jesus’ only other commandment other then love the one you may hate.
The standard for what is orthodox should be Gods word and Jehovah Witnesses stick to the Bible very strickly and encourages their members to read it daily, something other facets of religion choose to ignore.
Their worship is a way of life not a ritual, which would be a cult. There are 6,000,000 of them out there and during my 40 years I have checked out a lot of religions and this one has made a HUGE difference in my families life. Lots of love and peace to you, tommy
Found this one in your archives. Does this soul portray true Christian brotherly love and is someone that Catholics want to be like???
I am only a JW Bible student cause if I was currently a JW, I would be out pioneering to preach the good news of the Kingdom, because they do not like satan influences on the Interent so you don’t find many here. But reading one like this makes my faith grow stronger to convert.
Some define a sect to mean a group that has broken away from an established religion. Others apply the term to that who follows a leader. The term cult here is used in a derogatory way as JW’s were not an offshoot of any religion and include people from all walks of life that have jobes like you and I. They do not look upon any human, only Jesus as their leader.
A cult is a religion that is said to be unorthodox or that emphasizes devotion according to a ritual. Our group has been a kind loving group of true Christians that really care about us and has helped us with many family matters and we study out of a lovely book, called the Family Happiness Book that ties scriptures into making the family stronger. We do not believe in war or anything that hurts someone else and believe the key to true happiness is a sincere devotion to Jehovah God through Jesus, that was Jesus’ only other commandment other then love the one you may hate.
The standard for what is orthodox should be Gods word and Jehovah Witnesses stick to the Bible very strickly and encourages their members to read it daily, something other facets of religion choose to ignore.
Their worship is a way of life not a ritual, which would be a cult. There are 6,000,000 of them out there and during my 40 years I have checked out a lot of religions and this one has made a HUGE difference in my families life. Lots of love and peace to you, tommy
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
I was harassed unlawfully and unfairly by a police officer. Does this mean that all police officers are, and in fact that the very police department itself is, wrong, bad, unfair, and unlawful? Of course not.
A lot of Christians absolutely behave wrongly and in ways which are against the teachings of Christ. This doesn’t mean Christianity is.
We have to judge all teachings on their own merits, not on the merits of those who cling to or profess them.
Insofar as Jehovah’s witnesses are concerned, they may well be wonderful people and by most accounts are, but the things they teach are distortions of the truths. The Bible they use is a distortion of God’s Word.
There are hundreds of websites which can point this out to you. In fact, the NWT actually is so problematic that it contradicts itself in very blatant ways. If you want to see how the NWT distorts God’s Word without reading other’s works on the internet (because you don’t trust people or something), compare the NWT to the American Standard Version, which the Watchtower Society used exclusively before they finally compiled their own translation. This Bible was approved and used by the WS, so you should have no arguement with it.
For example, John 1:
“In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (NWT)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (ASV)
The WS added the word “a” before God in the NWT to elminate the idea that Jesus was Jehovah Himself.
In fact, if you read the Greek behind John literally, it says, “God was the Word.” We only make it say, “the word was God” in English because it sounds better that way. It literally says, “God was the Word.”
This is based on many manuscripts. Here is the Textus Receptus:
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
Here is the Westcott-Hort:
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
Here is the Majority Text:
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
Notice that they’re all the same.
A lot of Christians absolutely behave wrongly and in ways which are against the teachings of Christ. This doesn’t mean Christianity is.
We have to judge all teachings on their own merits, not on the merits of those who cling to or profess them.
Insofar as Jehovah’s witnesses are concerned, they may well be wonderful people and by most accounts are, but the things they teach are distortions of the truths. The Bible they use is a distortion of God’s Word.
There are hundreds of websites which can point this out to you. In fact, the NWT actually is so problematic that it contradicts itself in very blatant ways. If you want to see how the NWT distorts God’s Word without reading other’s works on the internet (because you don’t trust people or something), compare the NWT to the American Standard Version, which the Watchtower Society used exclusively before they finally compiled their own translation. This Bible was approved and used by the WS, so you should have no arguement with it.
For example, John 1:
“In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (NWT)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (ASV)
The WS added the word “a” before God in the NWT to elminate the idea that Jesus was Jehovah Himself.
In fact, if you read the Greek behind John literally, it says, “God was the Word.” We only make it say, “the word was God” in English because it sounds better that way. It literally says, “God was the Word.”
This is based on many manuscripts. Here is the Textus Receptus:
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
Here is the Westcott-Hort:
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
Here is the Majority Text:
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
Notice that they’re all the same.
B
boppysbud
Guest
Mosesnoah, Jimmy1243, Jimmy4321, how many user names do you intend to create to get around your suspensions?
I am sorry that you don’t get the fact that the Catholic Christians here are not interested in your proselytzing for the JW cult.
Yes there is a Trinity, God is a Trinity.
And btw, there is no such book in the bible as revelationS, it is revelation.
I am sorry that you don’t get the fact that the Catholic Christians here are not interested in your proselytzing for the JW cult.
Yes there is a Trinity, God is a Trinity.
And btw, there is no such book in the bible as revelationS, it is revelation.
T
tommy4321
Guest
My favorite Bible is the New Jerusalem Bible and read from six different Bibles.
T
tommy4321
Guest
P.S., most of the Jehovah’s Wittness I have spoken with are ok with the New Jerusalem Catholic Bible?
B
boppysbud
Guest
“Jehovah” does not even exist in reality. This is a made up nonsense word made by inserting the vowells from the word Adonai, into the consonants from the word Yahweh, two different words. The word Jehovah did not even exist before the 17th century when it was made up by the producers of the King James bible.
T
tommy4321
Guest
This is a contrasting view section of the site and not all will share the same opinions. The only reason the user name changes because it is the only way I can answer questions and get back in once censored. tommy AKA MosesNoah
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
I agree. I don’t know why you are getting banned, because I haven’t been around. If you want to express contrasting views thats fine, I’d just recommend you not do whatever was getting you kicked off!
B
boppysbud
Guest
Jimmy, you have not been “censored” you have been suspended. This site is privately owned and orgainised and the owners have every right to set up rules for it. Rules which you have consistently broken, which is the reason for your suspension (twice).
T
tommy4321
Guest
Thanks Lazer, I was doing just this stuff, read the post, it was pretty friendly, but still got banned from this post and it took me about three months to finish where I left off. I thought it was because of my contrasting views that were not along with the mainstream of though here. Oh well, have a good night and thanks for been so friendly, tommy AKA MosesNoahI agree. I don’t know why you are getting banned, because I haven’t been around. If you want to express contrasting views thats fine, I’d just recommend you not do whatever was getting you kicked off!
A
At_His_Feet
Guest
Tommy - good to see ya. You said that most Jehovah’s Witnesses you’ve spoken with are “OK with the New Jerusalem Bible.” You also said that the New Jerusalem Bible is your favorite Bible (good choice, IMO). There’s a difference between being “OK” with something and it being your favorite. What do you think would happen in the congregation to an active, baptized Witness if he said that the New Jerusalem Bible was his “favorite”, even above the New World Translation?
T
tommy4321
Guest
At His Feet:
The Jehovah’s Witnesses are fine with the New Jerusalem Bible and it would not make any difference to me what a group of people (men) thought as long as I receive favor in the eyes of the Lord. We quote from the New Jerusalem Bible when the microphone is passed around and nobody has a problem with it, they actually comment what a great translation they think that Bible is and how they like the verses. Thought you knew the JWs did ya???
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
I’m not familiar with the New Jerusalem Bible, but I would imagine they like it for the same reason they liked the ASV: it says Jehovah.
T
tommy4321
Guest
Close, Yahweh. Jesus asked that we show true devotion to his Father. That has been lost in religion.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Is it true devotion to change His Father’s Word, and add the letter “a” to John 1:1?
T
tommy4321
Guest
I think this was OK because John 1 refers to the Word being god (lower case refers to Jesus and upper case refers to the Almighty God). Jesus was with God in the beginning it tells me. Similar to Genesis 3:26 “let “us” make man in our image…” Us refering to two beings, God the almighty and his son the god that created us through Him. See the point, Jesus was with his Father way back then and were seperate beings, that is what the “us” means.Is it true devotion to change His Father’s Word, and add the letter “a” to John 1:1?
I know were you are going with this I think, that the NWT has put back Jehovah’s name, replaced cross with torture stake, replaced church with congregation. However, I read from it knowing that these changes are minor and I support the changes too because the Bible to easy to read and has an excellent word index to locate a scripture your thinking of by word referance.
The cross, a touchy subject perhaps, has become to some an idol and God even said through John in the very last verse of 1John 2:21 “Little children guard yourselves from idols”. Plus demons lurk on idols and God told Moses to let the human race know not to bow down Ex:20 in front of any carved image from the heaven made from bronz, silver and gold. 2 Kings also speaks about the pole near the Altar that was used in early churches and how it was detestable to God. So I am fine with the NWT translation as well as the 1901 American Standard Version that uses Jehovahs name too and the New Jerusalem Bible using Yahwehs name. Those three Bible cuts through most of the lower and upper case usage of Lord and God, which confuses the two seperate beings. take care, tommy
A
At_His_Feet
Guest
Still, Tommy, if someone got up to give the talk at the Kingdom Hall, and used only the New Jerusalem Bible for his scripture citations, would he be giving any more talks after that?
I’m glad you like the New Jerusalem Bible. The scripture citation from **Revelation 1:17 ** that appears on the bottom of all my posts, and from which I take my “forum name” is word for word out of the New Jerusalem Bible. Notice that Jesus does not say in that verse, - “I represent the First and the Last”, or that “I *am like *the First and the Last”, but rather, what he says is “I **am **the First and the Last”. There can be a lot of “In the Middles”, but by definition, how many “First and Last” can there be? Compare this verse with Isaiah 44:6 (I’ll quote it from the New World Translation):
**Isaiah 44:6 **This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, “I am the first and the last, and beside me there is no God”. (NWT)
So Jesus is saying that this verse, about Jehovah, applies to himself. What I can’t understand is, since the New World Translation has cross references, why doesn’t it have a cross reference at Revelation 1:17 to show you that Jesus is quoting from Isaiah 44:6?
Along the same line, take a look at Revelation 2:23 (I’ll quote from the New World Translation; I guess you have access to a New World Translation):
Revelation 2:23 “(Jesus speaking) …so that all the congregations will know that I am he who searches the kidneys and hearts, and I will give to you individually according to your deeds” (NWT)
Compare this with Jeremiah 17:10 from the NWT:
Jeremiah 17:10 I Jehovah, am searching the heart, examining the kidneys, even to give to each one according to his ways, according to the fruitage of his dealings" (NWT)
Notice here again that Jesus does not say that “I am *like *he who searches the kidneys and hearts”, or “I *represent *he who searches the kidneys and hearts, " but rather, " I **am **he who searches the kidneys and hearts…”
So here Jesus is quoting a “Jehovah” verse from Jeremiah 17:10 and applying it to himself. But again, what I can’t understand is, since the New World Translation has cross references, why doesn’t it have a cross reference at Revelation 2:23 to show you that Jesus is quoting from Jeremiah 17:10? If the people who you are depending on to teach you the Bible won’t even supply you with cross references to show you when Jesus is quoting from the Old Testament, that’s not very good is it?
If your New Jerusalem Bible has cross references I ask you to check at Revelation 1:17 and Revelation 2:23, and see if they provide the cross references to the Old Testament verses that are being cited. (Also, don’t you think that it’s pretty interesting that, if a person walks into one of the popular chain bookstores to look for a Bible that has the Divine Name in it, they’re going to walk out with a Catholic Bible?)
I’m glad you like the New Jerusalem Bible. The scripture citation from **Revelation 1:17 ** that appears on the bottom of all my posts, and from which I take my “forum name” is word for word out of the New Jerusalem Bible. Notice that Jesus does not say in that verse, - “I represent the First and the Last”, or that “I *am like *the First and the Last”, but rather, what he says is “I **am **the First and the Last”. There can be a lot of “In the Middles”, but by definition, how many “First and Last” can there be? Compare this verse with Isaiah 44:6 (I’ll quote it from the New World Translation):
**Isaiah 44:6 **This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, “I am the first and the last, and beside me there is no God”. (NWT)
So Jesus is saying that this verse, about Jehovah, applies to himself. What I can’t understand is, since the New World Translation has cross references, why doesn’t it have a cross reference at Revelation 1:17 to show you that Jesus is quoting from Isaiah 44:6?
Along the same line, take a look at Revelation 2:23 (I’ll quote from the New World Translation; I guess you have access to a New World Translation):
Revelation 2:23 “(Jesus speaking) …so that all the congregations will know that I am he who searches the kidneys and hearts, and I will give to you individually according to your deeds” (NWT)
Compare this with Jeremiah 17:10 from the NWT:
Jeremiah 17:10 I Jehovah, am searching the heart, examining the kidneys, even to give to each one according to his ways, according to the fruitage of his dealings" (NWT)
Notice here again that Jesus does not say that “I am *like *he who searches the kidneys and hearts”, or “I *represent *he who searches the kidneys and hearts, " but rather, " I **am **he who searches the kidneys and hearts…”
So here Jesus is quoting a “Jehovah” verse from Jeremiah 17:10 and applying it to himself. But again, what I can’t understand is, since the New World Translation has cross references, why doesn’t it have a cross reference at Revelation 2:23 to show you that Jesus is quoting from Jeremiah 17:10? If the people who you are depending on to teach you the Bible won’t even supply you with cross references to show you when Jesus is quoting from the Old Testament, that’s not very good is it?
If your New Jerusalem Bible has cross references I ask you to check at Revelation 1:17 and Revelation 2:23, and see if they provide the cross references to the Old Testament verses that are being cited. (Also, don’t you think that it’s pretty interesting that, if a person walks into one of the popular chain bookstores to look for a Bible that has the Divine Name in it, they’re going to walk out with a Catholic Bible?)
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Look at what the Greek says.
και…θεος…ην…ο…λογος
and…God…was…the…word
Notice two things. First, God is capitalized in the Greek ( θ ), NOT lowercase as you claim. Secondly. it doesn’t say “the word was god,” or even “the word was God” but it says, “God was the word.” Notice the grammar. In the English translation, “the word was God,” the word “word” is active, but in the original Greek, the word “God” is active. There is simply NO way to translate this as to say anything other than that Jehovah is the word, Jesus Christ.
These changed are NOT minor! They violate God’s very commandment that He is the ONLY God, and turn our Loving God who has made us and given us life into a polytheism, disgracing His name and being.
Being easy to read is important, but is NO excuse for changing the original contents. Take the 9th amendment to the Constitution of the USA:
What if, for the sake of readibility, I changed this to read, “The listing by the Constitution of these rights must not be taken to deny the others the people have.”
The change seems almost insignificant, but my new rephrasing could create major problems. The ammendment is supposed to say that just because the constitution doesn’t list a right it doesn’t mean the people don’t have it. By my wording, however, it could be taken to mean that the list in Bill of Rights doesn’t nullify the rest of the rights listed in the constitution. This simple error could (especially given today’s judicial activisim) end up denying people any right that isn’t specifically mentioned in the constitution.
Furthermore, there are PLENTY of very readable Bibles out there, and most HAVE a concordance in the back and cross references that you can use. This is by no means unique to the NWT! In fact, you can buy, for about $10, a huge concordance which lists every scriptural reference you could imagine and has all the cross references a person could ever use!
- Status