Christ Alone

Joined

• started 71 topics
• posted 1,949 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Christ Alone

• 
  62

  New JW Apologist here

  by Christ Alone in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i was a jw for a lot of years, like many of you.

  i wanted to try an experiment and try out my jw apologist chops.

  since we have such a hard time finding a jw apologist that can argue well, i thought i'd give it a whirl.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Christ Alone

  Sounds like my first thread, jook. I'll start it.
• 
  62

  New JW Apologist here

  by Christ Alone in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i was a jw for a lot of years, like many of you.

  i wanted to try an experiment and try out my jw apologist chops.

  since we have such a hard time finding a jw apologist that can argue well, i thought i'd give it a whirl.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Christ Alone

  I was a JW for a lot of years, like many of you. I wanted to try an experiment and try out my JW apologist chops. Since we have such a hard time finding a JW apologist that can argue well, I thought I'd give it a whirl.

  Obviously this would be a bit differently because you aren't going to convince me that the WT is wrong and help me to leave. But I thought it would be interesting to see how a JW would argue these points accurately.

  Is this a waste of time? I don't think so. I think it could help lurkers to see how the WT argument stacks up against logic and reason.

  If anyone wants to participate in this, what topic should we discuss? I'm open to any of em. Who knows, maybe I still believe in some of them? You'll never know!
• 
  67

  Question?

  by Ethos in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  first of all i'd like to apologize on behalf of my "college dropout" thread.

  i intimated it as a humorous and somewhat true form of sattire.

  i didn't think people here would take it so seriously and literally.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Christ Alone

  If multiple accounts were allowed, I would come back as a JW apologist and use WT reasonings to open up discussions so people could see both sides. I guess I could do it on my current account. But then people would think I was actually a JW, and that makes me nausious to think about...

  Hmmm...might be fun though...And maybe it might get other JW lurkers to contribute to the debate and add their views so a conversation can be started with them too...
• 
  67

  Question?

  by Ethos in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  first of all i'd like to apologize on behalf of my "college dropout" thread.

  i intimated it as a humorous and somewhat true form of sattire.

  i didn't think people here would take it so seriously and literally.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Christ Alone

  I've noticed that Ethos has not really responded to any questions. When he has responded it has been, "I will be posting a thread about this". Other times it has been a simple response that does not address the issues.

  I'm thinking that we may not see much of Ethos...
• 
  15

  Even JW Apologists Are Having Doubts.

  by Bangalore in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  here is a blog article by a active jw who is worried about the recent developments in the wt and its implications.

  looks like even some loyal jw's are waking up.. .

  http://meletivivlon.com/2012/10/31/are-we-nearing-a-tipping-point/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Christ Alone

  I read through several of his posts, and it appears that he is already "out" and trying to slyly convince other JWs. Nearly every post makes a point to contradict what the WT has said on the subject. At least the posts that I read.

  I know several people that have left the WT or been DF'd, but still hold to many of the WTs peculiar teachings (i.e Paradise Earth, Soul Sleep, No Trinity, etc...)

  It appears that this guy is either all the way out, or is a fader that is trying to help others get out.
• 
  67

  Question?

  by Ethos in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  first of all i'd like to apologize on behalf of my "college dropout" thread.

  i intimated it as a humorous and somewhat true form of sattire.

  i didn't think people here would take it so seriously and literally.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Christ Alone

  Back to seriousness, Ethos, I'm not sure of your intent here. Are we supposed to pose our questions and relate how they were used in our discovery about TTATT, and then you will respond to them?

  because this far, I haven't seen you answer anything. Personally, I'd like you to read through my monstrous post (you can skip the end of corse) and have answer each one of those issue line by line.

  what I wrote above is basically my full reason for saying that Jehovah is a man made name, and so just using a name that was created by the Catholic Church, that doesn't make you gods people. There was a divine name that was given by God to believers. If you recall the name was based on Jesus. Acts 11:26 specifically tells us what we are to be called. We are to be called Christians. That name was given to us from God Himself.

  One last thing that I may have posted above: we KNOW the greatest name in existence. This scripture seals the deal as to what name we should focus on:

  "Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:9-11).
• 
  67

  Question?

  by Ethos in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  first of all i'd like to apologize on behalf of my "college dropout" thread.

  i intimated it as a humorous and somewhat true form of sattire.

  i didn't think people here would take it so seriously and literally.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Christ Alone

  Well, being around them did convince me that I am the resurrected King David. I sorta slept through 1925. But I'm here now to bust some heads and take name. Oh yeah, and watch out. I've god a pretty badass sword!
• 
  67

  Question?

  by Ethos in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  first of all i'd like to apologize on behalf of my "college dropout" thread.

  i intimated it as a humorous and somewhat true form of sattire.

  i didn't think people here would take it so seriously and literally.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Christ Alone

  Geez... Pretty soon I'm gonna turn into Lars or templeijah with their overly long rambling schizo posts that contain 12 different font sizes, 8 different font colors, and are not paragraphs... Here comes my downward spiral towards Troll Land. Come one! Come all! See the horrific fall into the pit of dispair of Miiiiiiiisssssster Christ (echo) AaAAAAllllllllooooonnnnneeee!!!!

  I guess this could be an appropriate time to tell everyone that Rutherford was right about 1925. I am King David himself who came back to life to serve as prince over you people. I slept late...you know.... i mean who can pass up a free night in the Gabriel Bedroom in frickin HEAVEN! I'm also sorry that I was resurrected naked. SO I had to stop by one of your malls (is that how you say it) to buy some 21st century clothes. Alas, I was forced to sin as I did have your people's currency. The vendors wife was hot....maybe take her up to the mansions hottub. get rid of her pesky husband. anyone know of some dangerous steel working mills around here? maybe i can get him in there. BUT I believe that I am now dressed in what your culture deems presentable. I chose some

  1980's Unisex Totally 80s Baggy Pants

  Good enough for your new King David? I figure that since you have a temple prophet and a black second coming messiah on this very forum, I should involve myself with their mighty work. So I guess I don't go by Christ Alone anymore. I've pretty well taken care off that strange little bible thumper. Here forth, my subjects shall refer to me as King David Sexy GunDam Syle. So where is this mansion I've been hearing about? Do it Got cable? I'll need enough space for all my concubines to get busy, if you know what i mean. You didn't actually think that I'd show up without them did you?!? These my ladies! "Come on over ladies. It's time to get our most holy drank on!!!! whew!!! so what we doing all up in hear. What changes need to be made? What do I divinely have to lay a smack down on? Maybe start with some lower level annoyances? A couple elder bodies need me to open up a can of righteous indignation on them? It guess you atheists have got to go.but you'll have plenty to go with you. The JWs are going at the same time. They're on the Same bus. A bus to where? I don't know, but you soon will. What out for the bumps going in. It's bumpy. It's mostly people just trying to get out. But don't worry, they won't die. Hearing them under the bus is a little unnerving. P Well im always adding to my concs (what I call my concubines). I'll set up some try outs later this week. Lets see how good you can still work it. The old conc team has been especially good for me,especially after being dead for thousands of years. Might be a bit rusty. We don't want body parts falling off this year. So lets try to get a,few more hot girls on board. alright,we are set. How do we get to Joeys house? Anyone have the address? He's gonna kill me when he realizes how late I am. Maybe I'll just secretly take him out too. No one will argue when I finally take over. What will I accomplish? Plenty of dry towels for everyone.maybe we'll so an iPad drawing or something. Ok, you people take too much of my time. Just take me to Beth Sarim!!!
• 
  67

  Question?

  by Ethos in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  first of all i'd like to apologize on behalf of my "college dropout" thread.

  i intimated it as a humorous and somewhat true form of sattire.

  i didn't think people here would take it so seriously and literally.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Christ Alone

  Following more questions on that forum, I followed with:

  , Most translators tell us the reason for translating it the way they do. Most dont just translate it a certain way and keep silent about why. however, I agree with you that at the very least the OT should say YHWH instead of Lord.
  
  In the NT there is not a single manuscript that ever uses the divine name. Even when quoting the OT, there is not a single piece of manuscript evidence to support inserting YHWH into the text.
  
  As far as the OT, the main reason many translators use LORD is because those are the vowels that were used in the Tetragrammaton. YHWH was combined with the vowels for Adonai in order to create the name Yahweh. The problem is that if they use YHWH, the reader would not naturally know how to pronounce it. On the other hand, if they use Yahweh, that would not be faithful to the actual text. So many translations make the decision to make reference, instead, to Lord God.
  
  
  But again, I agree that translators should include the Tetragrammaton, if for no other reason, than to be absolutely faithful to the text. following even further questions I added: A few things. You said, "Why, do we have to hunt and dig to fine a Bible that has God's name in the 100's of places through out, as it was originally? (6,000) " I thought this was already answered. We do not have the name of God as it was pronounced originally. We only have YHWH. That's it. Yahweh is not even correct. It was CREATED by using the vowels for Adonai (Lord) and inserting them between YHWH. That's it. You can't restore something that is not known. My name is Christ Alone. If the vowels were taken out it would be "Chrstln." Someone then could reinsert the wrong vowels and create the name Cehristelon . Would it be my name to have a man take vowels from another word and insert it into my name? What if someone said, "It is sick and disgusting that people have removed the true name CEHRISTELO. His name is CEHRISTELO!!!" No...that is NOT my name. It would show me that people do NOT know me if they were to call me that. That is what is done by saying "Jehovah" is God's true name and that by not including this spelling and pronunciation of the name in the Bible, it is evil. If we want to be accurate and true to God's name, then yes, it would be appropriate to restore YHWH to the text. However, the reason this isn't done is because without a pronunciation, it can't be read. However, we DO know that God is Lord and God. This CAN be read and is accurate. We also know that God is our Father, and that is how Jesus Himself told us to adress Him. After more comments, I finished with this: This becomes an impass in semantics. However again, the vowels were never removed from Jesus name. So there is no comparison. We CAN know how Jesus name was written and pronounced. As an interesting side point, here is how Jesus name was written in Hebrew script: http://www.bible-history.com/sketches/ancient/jesus-in-hebrew.html
  
  Again, I keep having to say that I have no problem with the name Yahweh or Jehovah. But since the vowels have been removed, the name is man made. Trying to say that Jesus is a man made word too ignores the issue of the missing and then inserted vowels. But apparently that fact is easy to ignore in an attempt to eisegesisly prove an argument. I'm not in any way saying you are doing that, but I'm approaching it in the case of JWs.
  
  Fact: we do know jesus original hebrew name: Yeshuah. The pronunciation you suggest is the pre exilic Hebrew name of Joshua of which Jesus is rendered. According to the Galilean dialect of the day, it was Yeshua. There are a few that suggest Yashua, but here is an interesting article that contests this and shows that this cannot be true:http://www.yashanet.com/library/yeshua_or_yahshua.htm
  
  Fact: we do not know how YHWH was EVER pronounced
  
  Fact: vowels were never lost for any other name other than YHWH
  
  It's fine to say "I don't care how it was pronounced." But if we are going to insist that this pronunciation of YHWH is vital, then we need to be able to back up that claim.
  
  Sister SSL, I think we are arguing over trivialities of words and agree on the main point. I agree that the Fathers name should not be "tossed out". Properly it should be shown in the bible as YHWH. If we want to use the name Yahweh or Jehovah because of our previous history, fine. But we also can't insist, like the WT does that Gods name is Jehovah and we must use that name if we are to have a close relationship with him. We can't say that we are true followers of God because we alone use the name Jehovah. Usually these sorts of statements are flowered with words like, "I represent the name of our great and almighty God Jehovah!!!"
  
  The fact is, Jewish people would never have recognized the name Yahweh or Jehovah. It would be foreign to them. Hebrew Jews today too see that the name is erroneous: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8568-jehovah
  
  This encyclopedia says of "Jehovah": A mispronunciation (introduced by Christian theologians, but almost entirely disregarded by the Jews) of the Hebrew "Yhwh," the (ineffable) name of God (the Tetragrammaton or "Shem ha-Meforash"). This pronunciation is grammatically impossible; it arose through pronouncing the vowels of the "?ere" (marginal reading of the Masorites: = "Adonay") with the consonants of the "ketib" (text-reading: = "Yhwh")—"Adonay" (the Lord) being substituted with one exception wherever Yhwh occurs in the Biblical and liturgical books. "Adonay" presents the vowels "shewa" (the composite under the guttural ? becomes simple under the ?), "?olem," and "?ame?," and these give the reading (= "Jehovah"). Sometimes, when the two names and occur together, the former is pointed with "?atef segol" () under the ? —thus, (="Jehovah")—to indicate that in this combination it is to be pronounced "Elohim" (). These substitutions of "Adonay"and "Elohim" for Yhwh were devised to avoid the profanation of the Ineffable Name (hence is also written , or even , and read "ha-Shem" = "the Name "). The reading "Jehovah" is a comparatively recent invention. The earlier Christian commentators report that the Tetragrammaton was written but not pronounced by the Jews (see Theodoret, "Question. xv. in Ex." [Field, "Hexapla," i. 90, to Ex. vi. 3]; Jerome, "Præfatio Regnorum," and his letter to Marcellus, "Epistola," 136, where he notices that "PIPI" [= ΠIΠI = ] is presented in Greek manuscripts; Origen, see "Hexapla" to Ps. lxxi. 18 and Isa. i. 2; comp. concordance to LXX. by Hatch and Redpath, under ΠIΠI, which occasionally takes the place of the usual κ?ριος, in Philo's Bible quotations; κ?ριος = "Adonay" is the regular translation; see also Aquila). "Jehovah" is generally held to have been the invention of Pope Leo X.'s confessor, Peter Galatin ("De Arcanis Catholicæ Veritatis," 1518, folio xliii.), who was followed in the use of this hybrid form by Fagius (= Büchlein, 1504-49). Drusius (= Van der Driesche, 1550-1616) was the first to ascribe to Peter Galatin the use of "Jehovah," and this view has been taken since his days (comp. Hastings, "Dict. Bible," ii. 199, s.v. "God"; Gesenius-Buhl, "Handwörterb." 1899, p. 311; see Drusius on the tetragrammaton in his "Critici Sacri, i. 2, col. 344). But it seems that even before Galatin the name "Jehovah" had been in common use (see Drusius, l.c. notes to col. 351). It is found in Raymond Martin's "Pugio Fidei." written in 1270 (Paris, 1651, iii., pt. ii., ch. 3, p. 448; comp. T. Prat in "Dictionnaire de la Bible," s.v.). See also Names of God. My final comment was: Just one more interesting side note about the above quote from the Jewish encyclopedia. It credits Pope Leo the 10ths confessor Peter Galatin as popularizing the name. We all know how much the WT hates Catholicism. But their very name and the name they hold most dear has been credited to the Catholics.
  
  My research turned up a bit more of the history BEFORE Galatin. In 1278 a spanish monk, Raymundo Martini, wrote the latin work PUGIO FIDEI (Dagger of faith). In it he used the name of God, spelling it Yohoua. Later printings of this work, dated some centuries later, used the spelling JEHOVA.
  
  Soon after, in 1303, Porchetus de Salvaticis completed a work entitled VICTORIA PORCHETI AVERSUS IMPIOS HEBRAEOS (Porchetus' Victory Against the Ungodly Hebrews). He spells God's name IOHOUAH, IOHOUA and IHOUAH.
  
  Then, in 1518, Petrus Galatinus, a Catholic priest born in the late 1400's, published a work entitled DE ARCANIS CATHOLICAE VERITATIS (Concerning Secrets of the Universal Truth) in which he spelled God's name IEHOUA.
  
  It appears that the Catholics and the Watchtower are inextricably linked...
• 
  67

  Question?

  by Ethos in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  first of all i'd like to apologize on behalf of my "college dropout" thread.

  i intimated it as a humorous and somewhat true form of sattire.

  i didn't think people here would take it so seriously and literally.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Christ Alone

  Ethos, ill answer your question directly. I would like to talk about all of them. But maybe star with what JWs view as vital: The name Jehovah.

  I posted this on another Christian forum, but I'll post it here as well:

  Before I begin I want to say right off that I have NO problem using the name "Jehovah" and have no problem with others using the name.

  As far as I have been able to see, the first use of the modern rendition of the name "Jehovah" took place in 1278 when the monk Raymundo Martini wrote his latin work where he used the spelling "Yohoua". Later printing of his work used the spelling "Jehova". As far as its appearance in the Bible, this took place in 1530 when Tyndale published the first 5 books of the Bible and included the spelling "IEHOUAH" in several verses. As far as the history of YHWH most of us know that the Masorets replaced the vowels of the name YHWH with the vowel signs taken from the Hebrew words "Adonai" (or Lord) or "Elohim" (God). So really, the name "Jehovah" is an artificial name. The Jewish Encyclopedia states that this name is a grammatical impossibility. (See here) The divine name is more correctly "Yahweh", but even this rendition is not accurate to how the name was pronounced. The true pronunciation has been lost in antiquity, due to the fact that the accurate vowels were not retained. The only reason the WT gives for using the name "Jehovah" is because it is popular in English. A friend of mine (Keith Walker) asked the question, "Well then what are JWs called in Hebrew speaking lands? Would they be Yahweh's Witnesses"? He called up Bethel and asked the question. He was told that the names of all Witnesses were based on the English pronunciation of Jehovah. He did some further research and found a Hebrew JW and learned that Hebrew JWs introduce themselves as "Yehovah's Edei". My friend asked him if they have trouble using that pronunciation with other Hebrew Jews, and the Hebrew man said that they did. He said that "Yehovah" is not the recognized usage of God's name and that other Hebrews have never heard of it. To be fair, they also don't use "Yahweh" because they do not feel that this is the accurate name of God either. He added that if people have heard the name "Yehovah", it is ONLY because they have heard of JWs and NOT because they have heard God's name. My friend concluded that this isn't consistent with what the Watchtower says in the divine name brochure. According to the brochure, people should use the name of God in their own language. But this isn't the truth in the organization. They all are forced to use the English translation of a German pronunciation (the sound of the letter "J" is from German), from the Latin rendering of a Hebrew word. In Israel, where the closest pronunciation in their own langauge would be Yahweh, they are forced to use the English translation "Yehovah". All of that being said, let's suspend disbelief and assume that the name "Jehovah" is 100% accurate. This name was how the Hebrews addressed God. It was how God told them to address Him, and they complied. It was the position of a slave addressing his master. But Jesus introduced a whole new concept. For the first time in history, those that accepted Jesus Christ were now given the privilege of addressing God as "Father". This was NOT a Jewish concept. In fact they viewed it as blasphemous. But when Jesus taught us to pray, He didn't tell us to say "Jehovah, in heaven". No, he told us to address God as "Our Father, in heaven". Why is this important? Paul expounded on this. Romans 8:15 says: "For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."" The Jews were slaves. They were required to follow the Law, and in some ways were distant from God because of their position and constant need for animal sacrifice. It would be like an employee today who would have to follow all the laws of the employer and address his employer by his name or title. But we, as Christians, have a far greater privilege. We are now sons and daughters of God. The only one that has the privilege of calling someone "Father" is the child of the Father. I would never call my dad, Barry. His employees do. His friends do. But I have a far greater privilege. I get to call him, Dad or Papa, or Father. We are no longer slaves. We no longer need to address God as "Jehovah", as if we were a slave. We were received as Sons and Daughters. We call Him "Abba" or Papa or Father. Do you see the tremendous privilege here? Insisting on calling God "Jehovah" tends to deny our sonship with Him. If I was to call my dad "Larry", he would view that in some ways as a disrespect. A denying that I have the privilege of calling him "Dad". That brings us back to the place where we were slaves. It brings us back to a time when the Jews did not know God as their Father. Like I said at the beginning, I have no problem with the usage of this name. It is a mistranslation and a rendering in English that is far removed from the original. But if you prefer to use the name, that is great. But we are no longer slaves. We are children of God. And as children, we should value our EXTREME privilege of addressing our great God as "Father".