Posts by Spike Tassel

154

two witness ruling ?

by KAYTEE in

jw
friends

if a paedophile commits a crime against a junior there has to be, according to the watchtower two witnesses for action to be taken.. if one party of a marriage commits adultery, does there have to be the same, (two witnesses) before action is taken?.

if not........................ kt.

.

Spike Tassel

I don't believe in "luck". I do believe in putting suggestions out there, hoping that we can each progress the issues that matter how we each can.

75

Ok have you ever been asked this question in regards to Isaiah 43:10 ?

by StoneWall in

how could god have always existed since it plainly says near the end of that verse before me there was no god formed?.

here is the quote from the nwt and i also looked it up on numerous other translations and they all used the word before.. .

isaiah 43:10. you are my witnesses, is the utterance of jehovah, even my servant whom i have chosen, in order that you may.

Spike Tassel

Regarding "true" in "one true God", I take it to mean "ultimate source of truth". In that case, it would be false to claim that Jesus or any other "god" is the "ultimate source of truth".

168

Supreme Court Blood Case - WTS LOSES

by skeeter1 in

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2009scc30/2009scc30.html.

supreme court of canada.

wts loses!.

Spike Tassel

Isaac and I differ as to whether the Bible comments on blood transfusions. On that, we're clear.

TD and I differ as to what we each accept as sound reason and logic. On that, we're clear.

39

The Last (Lord's) Supper

by PSacramento in

i wanted to ask this question beacuse at the last memorial supper it caught my attention more than it ever did:.

why do some (not just the jw's) believe that judas did not partkae of the lord's supper, the bread and the wine?.

in the synoptic gospels of matt, mark and luke, there is nomention of judas being sent away, indeed in luke jesus says "behold the hand of the betrayer at the table with me".. while in john judas is sent away, he is sent after the supper, though it is not clear if this was the lord's supper since there is no mention of the the partaking of the wine and bread in john.. help would be greatly appreciated.. .

Spike Tassel

There are obviously various ways in which these passages have been understood. May the reader use spiritual discernment, I suggest.

54

Romans 10:13

by PSacramento in

we all know that the passage from paul's letter to romans, romans 10:13 says:.

"all those who call on the name of the lord will be saved".. now, in the nwt they translate that as jehovah instead of the word "lord", because this is a quote from joel 2:32 and in the ot the tetragrammaton yhwh is used, which the nwt translates as "jehovah" (not only the nwt does that, the asv,yng and dby, do it also in regards to joel).. however, of the 16 translations i have seen, all translate that passage in romans as lords and all the commentaries i have read so far, point to view that paul was applying that passage to jesus, being his name that is salvation.. commentaries by james, fausset and brown, by matthew henry and by barnes, to name only 3.. comments?.

Spike Tassel

I beg to differ with PSacramento as to "which is not the case with Romans 10:13". The meaning of Jesus' name as well as Isaiah 43:11 must still be factored in correctly, I suggest.

43

Jesus's Divinity

by PSacramento in

just to confrim, do jw's believe that jesus is divine?.

not that jesus is god, which they obviously don't believe, but that jesus is divine, with the divien qualities of his father?.

also, do jw's beleive or agree that, in the new covenant, jesus has the primary role that was god's in the old covenant?.

Spike Tassel

Jesus may be known to Isaac as God (etc.), but not to me, in my honest opinion. Isaac agreed that I have a legitimate right to view John 17:3,6 as I do.

56

Jehovah explained by WT

by PSacramento in

can anyone confirm what i read on another website that the aid to bible undertsanding, 1971 pages 884-885, admit that the term jehovah is a combination of yhwh and the words adonia and elohim and that scholars generally favour "yahweh" as the correct pronunciation?.

is this correct?.

.

Spike Tassel

"Insight on the Scriptures" has completely replaced "Aid to Bible Understanding", which I remember even being ordered to be removed from one's library due to apostate influence found therein. In the article entitled JEHOVAH, under the heading "Correct Pronunciation of the Divine Name." it reads as follows:—

"Jehovah" is the best known English pronunciation of the divine name, although "Yahweh" is favored by most Hebrew scholars. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts present the name in the form of four consonants, commonly called the Tetragrammaton (from Greek te·tra-, meaning "four," and gram´ma, "letter"). These four letters (written from right to left) are [HFHI, I here substitute according to the actual evolution of the Roman letters] and may be transliterated into English as YHWH (or, JHVH).

The Hebrew consonants of the name are therefore known. The question is, Which vowels are to be combined with those consonants? Vowel points did not come into use in Hebrew until the second half of the first millenium C.E. (See HEBREW, II [Hebrew Alphabet and Script].) Furthermore, because of a religious superstitution that had begun centuries earlier, the vowel pointing found in Hebrew manuscripts does not provide the key for determining which vowels should appear in the divine name.

To me, this reference stands on its own merits, without further comment from me at this time.

54

Romans 10:13

by PSacramento in

we all know that the passage from paul's letter to romans, romans 10:13 says:.

"all those who call on the name of the lord will be saved".. now, in the nwt they translate that as jehovah instead of the word "lord", because this is a quote from joel 2:32 and in the ot the tetragrammaton yhwh is used, which the nwt translates as "jehovah" (not only the nwt does that, the asv,yng and dby, do it also in regards to joel).. however, of the 16 translations i have seen, all translate that passage in romans as lords and all the commentaries i have read so far, point to view that paul was applying that passage to jesus, being his name that is salvation.. commentaries by james, fausset and brown, by matthew henry and by barnes, to name only 3.. comments?.

Spike Tassel

We haven't got to the "originals" of the NT, for one. Secondly, we are to pray to God, in the name of Jesus, as other Scriptures bear out.

43

Jesus's Divinity

by PSacramento in

just to confrim, do jw's believe that jesus is divine?.

not that jesus is god, which they obviously don't believe, but that jesus is divine, with the divien qualities of his father?.

also, do jw's beleive or agree that, in the new covenant, jesus has the primary role that was god's in the old covenant?.

Spike Tassel

I have discussed all of this on other "Topics" so will refrain from restating myself here.

43

Jesus's Divinity

by PSacramento in

just to confrim, do jw's believe that jesus is divine?.

not that jesus is god, which they obviously don't believe, but that jesus is divine, with the divien qualities of his father?.

also, do jw's beleive or agree that, in the new covenant, jesus has the primary role that was god's in the old covenant?.

Spike Tassel

Actually, when it says "everything", it logically means "every other thing", since Jesus later subjects himself to the God he prayed to at John 17. Also, John 17:3,6 are still true and cannot be denied. Even Isaac has admitted what I'm saying, on a different "Topic".