SDA background... makes a bit of sense now.
"I don't really see it as a conversion," he told The New Yorker in 2008. "It's like Morpheus and Neo in The Matrix."
Guess he took the wrong pill?
leaving_quietly
JoinedPosts by leaving_quietly
-
12
people magazine- prince as a JW
by All for show indunno if anyone saw this yet.
the comments are full of jw apologists.
http://www.people.com/article/prince-jehovahs-witness-conversion-history.
-
-
leaving_quietly
-
55
Just wondering who on this board has a spouse that is fully in and your awake?
by goingthruthemotions ini am just curious who on this board is in the same situation has i am?
a spouse that is fully brain doogled in and you are awake to ttatt.. without going into serious detail and no names are given.
i would like to possible talk with one of you all, it's just so helpful to communicate with someone in the same situation as me.. i am located in the southwest united states..
-
-
leaving_quietly
Missed this thread. I'm in this situation. Wife a fully-in JW and refuses to even listen to one word I have to say about anything biblical or spiritual. It's a taboo subject in the home. I haven't been in service for a year now, nor to meetings since last November, save a couple of special occasions.
My path to learning TTATT started because of a bad marriage. The marriage still isn't good. Me being fully awake hasn't helped at all, but instead has really exacerbated the situation. At the moment, we've settled into a kind of uneasy truce, meaning that she can say whatever she wants about her experiences at the KH or in service, or whatever, but I can say nothing. That's what we call "compromise". That pretty much sums up "compromise" in my entire marriage. I compromise. She doesn't. End of story.
Ok, I'm gonna shut up now. Getting pissed off writing this.
-
20
I have tried really hard to be worldly, for ten years, tried to get worldly friends, and get back with family.
by Sledracer ini am so bad at being worldly, it's not like i gave it a good try, we are just not good at it my husband and i, i see him light up as he has started to read the bible again.
i'm good at being a witness, i am accepted, and hold the same beliefs, i have tried to find somewhere else, if there is a place, why hav'n't jehovah and the angels directed me to it?
thank you for all the loving posts, some of them have been just what i needed.
-
-
leaving_quietly
So many who leave one religion feel they need to replace it with another. You asked, "if there is a place, why haven't Jehovah and the angels directed me to it?" JWs will often say, "where else would we go?" alluding to what Peter said to Jesus. However, Peter didn't say WHERE. He said, "WHOM." "Lord, whom shall we go away to?" (John 6:68). Even Jesus didn't say to go somewhere. He said, "All those whom the Father gives me will come to me, and I will never drive away the one who comes to me" (John 6:37) and "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever puts faith in me, just as the scripture has said: ‘From deep within him streams of living water will flow." (John 7:37, 38) and "Come to me, all you who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh you." (Matt 11:28)
-
4
Elders School Question .....
by tresdecu inare there current elders schools happening around the country or are they at the point of requiring elders to go back to mecca (aka new york)?.
and a more specific question: is it possible there is a school this next week in the seattle area?
(just curious, it has to do with one of my in laws who's an elder out there).
-
-
leaving_quietly
Possibly. An elder in our cong is at school all week this week. Don't know where though. Don't care, either. Yes, in the Seattle area. -
15
Is it true: the memorial will stop after the last anointed have passed away?
by FinchAndWeston ini heard that the memorial will stop after the last anointed have passed away ... is this information true/false?
just curious.
it's secondhand.
-
-
leaving_quietly
Let's answer this from a biblical perspective.
First, not all the anointed will pass away, so that disproves the statement.
Look! I tell you a sacred secret: We will not all fall asleep in death, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we will be changed - 1 Cor 15:51,52
When, then, will the memorial stop? Perhaps this is what this verse is referring to. Not 100% sure.
For whenever you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he comes. - 1 Cor 11:26
Now, that said, when the Lord comes, what does he do?
Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity. - Matt 24:29-31
And...
For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we will always be with the Lord. - 1 Thess 4:15-17
But, will the memorial actually stop? That's somewhat debatable. I have no clear answer on it, other than Christ's own words:
As they continued eating, Jesus took a loaf, and after saying a blessing, he broke it, and giving it to the disciples, he said: “Take, eat. This means my body.” 27 And taking a cup, he offered thanks and gave it to them, saying: “Drink out of it, all of you, 28 for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins. 29 But I say to you: I will by no means drink again any of this product of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in the Kingdom of my Father.” - Matt 26:26-29
-
19
A New Watchtower trade name: Hudson Valley
by Gorbatchov inwatchtower and trading business is a never ending combination, now under the new name of hudson valley, selling their building machines online: .
http://used-tools-equipment.com.
-
-
leaving_quietly
Nice headline pic on the site. The Hudson Valley is really pretty in the autumn season.
-
83
if you had the slightest of doubt about leaving leaving the watchtower org. go to to jwsurvey.org NOW!
by nowwhat? inand we are suposed to trust these guys with our lives?
!
-
-
leaving_quietly
Here I see a blatant misuse of donated funds. They had to shell out money for their entry, then BUY the trophies! By my estimation, this would have been at least as much money as our congregation pledged to donate in one month for KH construction work.
-
9
Does John 6:52-58 state that not only the anointed can partake?
by MrsR-Awaken inso i read a comment on youtube of someone stating that john 6:53-58 woke him up.
the nwt says .
so jesus said to them: “most truly i say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves.+54 whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and i will resurrect+ him on the last day;55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.56 whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and i in union with him.+ 57 just as the living father sent me and i live because of the father, so also the one who feeds on me will live because of me.+ 58 this is the bread that came down from heaven.
-
-
leaving_quietly
Having researched this many times over the last three years, the answer is simple. Christ said no such thing.
Two things to think about:
1. Who was he talking to here? The anointed? Nope. None of them were anointed at this point in time.
2. When the evening meal was instituted, were the apostles anointed? Nope. That didn't happen until later in Jerusalem.
Go back to verse 53:
So Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves."
WTBTS applies the "you have no life in yourselves" portion of this verse to BOTH the anointed and the great crowd (their definition of such). But, note that Christ said "unless". There is no "except if you're not of the anointed" here (or anywhere else for that matter.)
Go back to verse 51:
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and for a fact, the bread that I will give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world.
There's so much in these few verses to indicate that partaking is for everyone. In fact, there's no a single verse in the Bible that limits who can partake. Not one.
Note these words, too, at Luke 6:46: "“Why, then, do you call me ‘Lord! Lord!’ but do not do the things I say?"
Food for thought.
-
47
Help finding a video of GB member saying that Jehovah may not really be God's name
by mamacita29 inhi everyone i'm at work and need to show this video to a jw.
i saw it a few weeks ago i think it was geoffry jackson who said that jehovah may or may not be gods real name but we use it anyways.
can someone help me find that video?
-
-
leaving_quietly
So who can claim that the YHVH never appeared in the original writing of the New Testament at least in every place where Old Testament Scripture are quoted? And who can claim that the YHWH was not in additional places in the New Testament and not just where Old Testament Scripture are quoted?
No one can. At the same time, no one can claim it was there, either. That's kind of the point, isn't it? Neither side can prove, beyond doubt, their claim. Of course, now we're getting into the topic of whether the NT should have YHWH in it or not. Based on other people's research, none of the ~5000 extant manuscripts of the NT had YHWH in it. You'd think at least one would, but none do, according to multiple people who have researched this topic. (The shortened form of God's name did appear, as you mentioned. I believe it was twice in Revelation, but I could be wrong about that.) The Greek Septuagint is a Greek translation of the OT, as it was written in the 2nd or 3rd Century BCE. There is some evidence that the Septuagint did indeed contain the tetragrammaton. See here and here.
Personally, I'm not entirely sure what to think of the entire debate of whether the tetragrammaton should or should not be in the NT. It SEEMS reasonable that where the OT is quoted, it should be there. But, what of the places where it is NOT quoted? One of the major criticisms of the NWT is this exact point. Of the 237 places in the NWT where Jehovah is inserted, according to this write-up, only 112 are actual quotations from the OT. That entire site appears to be devoted to exploring the use of the tetragrammaton in the scriptures, with special focus on the NWT.
All this said, I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove.
Is the English translation of God's name Jehovah? Yes. Is that in dispute. I don't think so. Is it the closest pronunciation? No. Are there closer, more probable pronunciations? Yes. Does anyone know the real pronunciation? No. Is this worth getting worked up over and dividing into two camps? Not in my opinion.
The real issue, as I and others have stated, is that since there really are closer, more probably pronunciations, and since JWs have taken it upon themselves to restore Gods name in their bible, and since they are quite vehement about the use of God's name, then why choose the one that is simply a translation instead of a closer, more probable explanation, simply because it's "widely accepted?" Considering that most of their doctrines and practices are not widely accepted, this particular choice makes little sense. I have personally even heard JWs (my own mother, even) deride others who prefer Yahweh over Jehovah. Given that Yahweh is one of the closer pronunciations, that makes very little sense to me, either.
My take on it is this: call God by the name you're comfortable with if it's acceptable. Just don't push the idea that your way is the only way. (By "your", I mean, in general, not specifically you, johnamos.)
-
47
Help finding a video of GB member saying that Jehovah may not really be God's name
by mamacita29 inhi everyone i'm at work and need to show this video to a jw.
i saw it a few weeks ago i think it was geoffry jackson who said that jehovah may or may not be gods real name but we use it anyways.
can someone help me find that video?
-
-
leaving_quietly
He said: the exact pro·nun·ci·a·tion is not known. Pro·nun·ci·a·tion. Let's all say it together now. The exact pronunciation of God's name is not known. It never has been. No one in history ever said it was. Jehovah's Witnesses never said they knew. Never. Did you guys even study when you were witnesses?
You are correct. I, for one, am not arguing that point.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It has everything to do with Jehovah's Witnesses, since they make such a big deal out of it, and since they have boasted about restoring God's name to the Bible nearly 7000 times. I find it hypocritical (maybe that's a bit harsh... how about ironic) that they go to such great lengths to restore the name, but then only use a translation of it. Other names they don't translate to English. They transliterate many names, such as Methuselah, Lamech, Gomer, etc. Why not transliterate God's name? Per the appendix in the NWT, the transliteration would end up being Yahweh as the closest on agreed on by most scholars. Why not that?
Some you you have let your hatred rot your brain out from reality, history, and common sense.
I have no hatred in this matter. I'm just enjoying the discussion on the opposite side of this argument. I personally use the name Jehovah because it's familiar and because it is better known among people who I socialize with on occasion. I would prefer Yahveh, to be honest, but I'm not hung up on it.
Jehovah is the English translation of YHWH.
No one is arguing that. There is an bit of an irony here. We, as English speaking people, don't call people from Mexico named Miguel Michael or Juan John or Jose Joe. We call them Miguel and Juan and Jose. This is respect for their given names. Wouldn't God deserve the same respect? Shouldn't we use the name that is closest in the original language?
Before the 20th Century all Christians of every faith used Jehovah as the English name for God. It isn't a witness thing!
This is news to me. You're saying in 1899, all denominations of Christianity used "Jehovah"? Then in 1900, they suddenly stopped? I hadn't heard that before. Learn something new every day.