Posts by Drearyweather

72

JW`s Lie about Christendom hiding the Name Jehovah.or its equivalent Yahweh

by smiddy in

jehovahs witnesses have been outspoken over the years/decades that christendom have been hiding or obscuring or even eliminating gods name jehovah from the general public.. how true is that statement .?.

1. it was a catholic monk of the 13th century that first coined the name jehovah in the english language.. 2.the roman catholic douay version of the bible does have the name jehovah in it.

about the 16th century.

Drearyweather

Jehovahs Witnesses have been outspoken over the years/decades that Christendom have been hiding or obscuring or even eliminating Gods name Jehovah from the general public.

How true is that statement .?

The following are some points that do show that efforts were made to hide the name:

1. In 405 CE Jerome (a Catholic priest and secretary to Pope Damasus I) did not include God’s name in his translation, the Latin Vulgate

2. The Catholic Douay Version, which was based on Latin Vulgate, does not use the divine name

3. You say that the Catholic Monk invented the name Jehovah. Is it? See what the Catholic Encyclopedia says regarding it, under the name 'Jehovah':

Finally, the word is found even in the "Pugio fidei" of Raymund Martin, a work written about 1270 (ed. Paris, 1651, pt. III, dist. ii, cap. iii, p. 448, and Note, p. 745). Probably the introduction of the name Jehovah antedates even R. Martin.

4. A 2008 directive to all Catholic Bishops directs them to not use any form of the Tetragrammaton in their Church services:

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/frequently-asked-questions/upload/name-of-god.pdf

So to make the claim Christendom has been burrying that name is ludicrous since they actually invented it eg: Roman catholics.in the 13th Century.adding vowels to the 4 letters of the tetragrammaton translated in english .

If Catholics 'invented' the name Jehovah, why don't they use it in their Official translations and in their Church services?

72

JW`s Lie about Christendom hiding the Name Jehovah.or its equivalent Yahweh

by smiddy in

jehovahs witnesses have been outspoken over the years/decades that christendom have been hiding or obscuring or even eliminating gods name jehovah from the general public.. how true is that statement .?.

1. it was a catholic monk of the 13th century that first coined the name jehovah in the english language.. 2.the roman catholic douay version of the bible does have the name jehovah in it.

about the 16th century.

Drearyweather

.The Roman Catholic Douay version of the bible does have the name Jehovah in it. About the 16th century. AD

Are you sure that 16th Century Douay has the name Jehovah in it?

7

Romans 4:5

by NJ501 in

romans 4:5new international version (niv).

5 however, to the one who does not work but trusts god who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.. .

i need help to understand this scripture.

Drearyweather

NJ5011

In this scripture, Paul explains the difference between Faith and Works.

If you read the surrounding scriptures, you will see it. When a slave receives wages for his work, the wage is not a gift, but an amount that is due to him by his master.

However, salvation and grace is a gift, not a wage that we receive due to our works. So even though a person may work to back up his faith, the credit for his saving goes to his faith and not the works that he did.

Abraham did lot of works in obedience to God and because of his love for him, like leaving his home and personal luxuries behind, circumcising the male members of his family, readiness to sacrifice Isaac, etc. However, the credit for his righteousness did not go to this works, but to his Faith - Genesis 15:6.

To understand this, take the example of a husband and wife who are celebrating their 50th marriage anniversary. When the husband gifts something expensive to his loving wife, he is not paying her for all the dishes and clothes that she washed, the food that she cooked for the last 50 years, etc. She is not a maid. He gifts her for being faithful and loving throughout the years. Similarly, God gifts us with salvation not because we have worked for him, but because we showed love and faith while doing those works.

7

Miracles and responses—both are not explicable

by venus in

a miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws.

bible reports many such miracles.

interestingly, responses to these reported miracles could be even labeled as a greater miracle which cannot be explained by any known law, logic or experience.

Drearyweather

If there is no ruler in the White House for 40 days, would the American people forget their founding fathers and all the bloodshed in the freedom struggle?

We cannot compare the behavior patterns of the ancient Israelites and the 21st Century Americans. We are discussing about Jews who spent generations in hardship and slavery and then are stranded in a wilderness.

You provide three reasons why people rejecting Jesus. But they do not explain why should anyone prefer a bandit to an altruistic miracle worker.

The reason is simple: Indoctrination.

Matt 27:20: But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.

why should anyone prefer a bandit to an altruistic miracle worker.

What do you think, why did 27,000 foreign people leave their families, friends, governments to join the ISIS? Persuasion? Indoctrination? Delusion?

11

Isn’t concept of sinner itself faulty?

by venus in

a person may sometimes get swelling on his leg and may have limped a few times—but he is never called lame.

similarly, sometimes a person may slip into selfishness and use his free-will to his own harm or to the harm of others—but this does not make him a sinner because the ability to do the contrary (ability choose to commit virtuous act to any extent) too exists in him.

if one’s occasional sinning does not make him a sinner, sin of another person (such as first human couple) can never make others sinners.

Drearyweather

Concept that sin is hereditary is the invention of Paul who openly admits that he was not inspired--2 Cor. 11:17

The concept that sin is hereditary was not 'invented' by Paul. Rather, Paul simply explained what was already known to people from long ago:

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.- Psalms 51:5

11

Isn’t concept of sinner itself faulty?

by venus in

a person may sometimes get swelling on his leg and may have limped a few times—but he is never called lame.

similarly, sometimes a person may slip into selfishness and use his free-will to his own harm or to the harm of others—but this does not make him a sinner because the ability to do the contrary (ability choose to commit virtuous act to any extent) too exists in him.

if one’s occasional sinning does not make him a sinner, sin of another person (such as first human couple) can never make others sinners.

Drearyweather

If sin is an inherited tendency as you believe, how can people at times choose to commit virtuous act?

That's because we have a conscience and the ability to fight sinful tendencies. It's like asking How can a double amputee run and win an Olympics? By his ability to fight all odds and becoming victorious. Remember, Sin did not remove all other good qualities that we already have. It was an addition. Any person with determination can fight wrong thoughts and do good. Our heart is treacherous, but God's love is greater than our hearts.

Sin is not hereditarily passed

Since you are talking about a Biblical concept, allow Romans 5:12 to answer this: Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

7

Miracles and responses—both are not explicable

by venus in

a miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws.

bible reports many such miracles.

interestingly, responses to these reported miracles could be even labeled as a greater miracle which cannot be explained by any known law, logic or experience.

Drearyweather

No, this does not defy logic. What happened can be called different variations of human behavior.

I would see the accounts differently:

1. The response to the parting of the Red sea was not the making of the Golden calf. The song sung by Miriam and the other women and all the Israelites were a response to the Red sea. Exodus 15:1 and 20 says that Moses, the Israelites, Miriam and all the women participated in the song. This victory song was the response to the miracle. And all Israelites participated in singing it.

The event of the golden calf took place later due to the fact that Moses was away for 40 days. And it’s was not the entire Israel’s reaction, but as the account says, 3000 men were killed for this, or, 0.5% of the total Israelite men.

No matter how good you do, you will always have some people who won’t be grateful for you have done, or will forget the favor you do to them. That’s what we call human, thankful today, thankless tomorrow.

2. Many people benefited from the miracles of Jesus, however, long before his death, many of these who benefited from him later left him because of the following reasons:

a. They were interested only in physical miracles and not his teachings (John 6:26)

b. Jesus refused to be their leader (John 6:14, 15)

c. They did not understand Jesus teachings (John 6:66)

These were the ones who wanted Jesus dead. It was not that they suddenly turned against their leader. They had already left following him long before his death.

11

Isn’t concept of sinner itself faulty?

by venus in

a person may sometimes get swelling on his leg and may have limped a few times—but he is never called lame.

similarly, sometimes a person may slip into selfishness and use his free-will to his own harm or to the harm of others—but this does not make him a sinner because the ability to do the contrary (ability choose to commit virtuous act to any extent) too exists in him.

if one’s occasional sinning does not make him a sinner, sin of another person (such as first human couple) can never make others sinners.

Drearyweather

A person may sometimes get swelling on his leg and may have limped a few times—but he is never called lame.

You are right.

Similarly, sometimes a person may slip into selfishness and use his free-will to his own harm or to the harm of others—but this does not make him a sinner because the ability to do the contrary (ability choose to commit virtuous act to any extent) too exists in him.

This ability of doing something contrary to God’s acceptable standard is called Sin (missing the mark). We are called captives to sin, not just because we are sinning, but because we have the tendency to sin. And anything, how matter small, that we do which falls short of the glory of God is called Sin and the person, a sinner.

If one’s occasional sinning does not make him a sinner, sin of another person (such as first human couple) can never make others sinners.

To put it this way, another person’s crime does not make me a criminal. But this is not the case with Sin. Crime is a legal concept applicable only to the perpetrator. However, Sin is not a legal term or a concept; it is an inclination or a condition. According to the law of heredity, a parent organism passes on its physical and personality traits to its progeny. Similarly, Sin got passed on to the offspring of Adam. It was not a simultaneous effect, but a progressive effect.

That means there cannot be something called original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need for God to send one of His children to die for the sins of other children. Interestingly, Jesus himself testifies that God sent him from heaven not to die for any body’s sin. (Mathew 21:33-36)

Adam and Eve did sin and pass on its effect on their progeny- who did not sin or transgress (Romans 5:14). We are not participants of Adams sin, instead, we are the inheritors of Adams sin. We are not Sinners in the way that we deliberately sin. But we are all captives of Sin. Hence the need for ransom.

Even if he is murdered (which is a sin), how can that be a means for atonement of sins of others—sin atoning sin?

I use the term sacrifice, rather than murder. A soldier who dies due to a bullet shot from an enemy can be in a literal sense called as executed or murdered. However, contextually we call it as a sacrifice or martyrdom. Parents who allow their children to join the army very well know that their children face the risk of death in the battlefield. However, we do not call a slain soldiers parent as murderers, neither do we call the soldiers death a murder. We call it a sacrifice or martyrdom. Similarly, I don’t consider Jesus death as a murder. It was a sin for the one who killed Jesus, however in the grand scheme of things Jesus death was a sacrifice. The way a soldiers sacrifice impacts us, similarly is Jesus death (that’s the topic of Ransom). So it is Sacrifice atoning Sin, not Sin atoning Sin.

Besides, murder doesn’t really count if he gets to come back to life three days later.

That’s where the concept of Ransom (and not murder) comes in. It was not - a man killed and then brought back to life. It was - A spirit life from heaven takes a perfect human form, sacrifices it and returns back to its spirit form in heaven

29

What would happen to a JW who respectfully refused to fill out a no blood DPA?

by Island Man in

i know you'll be involuntarily disassociated if you unrepentantly accepted a blood transfusion; and i know you'll be disfellowshipped for apostasy if you openly disagreed with watchtower teaching.

what if you have done none of the above but simply respectfully refused to fill out the dpa without giving any reason for your refusal - so they can't accuse you of openly disagreeing with the no-blood doctrine and df you for apostasy.

they don't know why you're refusing and you're not giving them the reason - and you're being very respectful.. what can they do?.

Drearyweather

Considering that the elders know about this:

1. The Elders will form a committee to determine the JW's attitude.

2. If he remains quiet and refuses to give any reason, he will be considered spiritually weak and will be taken off from any special or all privileges. An announcement will be made to the congregation: "The Elders have handled a matter having to do with Br. ABC. You will be glad to know that spiritual shepherds are endeavoring to render assistance."

3. Till the time he is quiet about his decision, he will remain under restrictions. The day he tells someone in the congregation that he doesn't want to fill the no-blood card, elders can form a JC based on the premise that he is spreading unscriptural teaching, which can be grounds for disfellowshipping OR If he remains quiet but goes ahead and gets a transfusion, his disassociation will be announced to the congregation

28

Concept faithful discreet slave

by inbetween09 in

according to the "new light" the faithful slave class appeared after jesus came 1914 (rather 1918 he inspected the temple) and was bestowed with assigement to provide spiritual food.. there are a number of problems with this new concept:.

how did russel and co found out about certain unique teachings diffferent from mainstream christendom?.

option 1) apparently by himself, as there was no fds at his time.