Posts by Rattigan350

Not funny, it's just how best communications come from. That way women aren't fawning over them because of their accents like they do with Barr, Loesch and Jackson.

38

What is your favorite EX- JW You Tube site and why???

by Balaamsass2 in

the mrs (third gen) and i have been on this site for a number of years now.

we appreciate simon's efforts to keep this site active and available.

i find a number of pimo jw friends enjoy youtube for some reason.

Rattigan350

None. I hate exjws. I prefer smart JWs that are independent.

11

“Allow me to put my notes aside…” (1975 DO talk)

by wallsofjericho in

jw
friends

i remember years ago hearing an audio recording online of a district overseer talk regarding 1975. he said something along the lines of “allow me to put my notes aside” and then went off about how the end was coming in 1975. does anyone remember this?

or know where i can find a recording of this talk?.

Rattigan350

AT the Dec 2006 Special Assembly Day Bethel Speaker James Rayford said I'm going to put these notes down here for a minute and say something to you.

Do a search on this site for the name Rayford and you will find many posts back then about that.

23

Where is Jehovah

by JohnTron7 in

during the massacre of many witnesses at a kingdom hall in germany the other night, where was jehovah's holy spirit ?

.

Rattigan350

If he protects people like this, then people will serve him for that protection rather than love for him.

However I learned a great lesson when watching Game of Thrones Battle of the Bastards.

When Ramsey was captured, Sansa said she will feed him to his dogs.

Ramsey said his dogs are loyal to him and wouldn't hurt him.

Sansa replied 'You haven't fed them in 7 days'.

No matter how loyal one is, they think of their own survival. If he didn't feed his dogs in a week, they will feed on him. Why would someone be loyal to someone who does not take care of him?

Loyalty is two way street.

17

Interpretation of Acts 15:28,29

by Christianhonest in

what does the mandate to "abstain from blood" mean for jehovah's witnesses freed from the control of the governing body?.

it had previously been understood that the best translation of acts 15: 28-30 was "to abstain from blood.

" however, a careful analysis of the passage shows that the best translation of this passage is "to abstain from (shedding) blood," where the word "pour out," which does not appear in ancient manuscripts and other biblical versions, does.it appears there understood in elliptical form.in the same way it happened in the case of colossians 1: 16-20 where the new world translation of the holy scriptures correctly inserted the word "other" several times, understood there in elliptical form, in the phrase of the original greek "all things ", thus obtaining the correct translation" all (other) things ".even though christianity reaffirms itself in translating this passage as saying that "through him all things were created", because he maintains that jesus is god according to his pagan doctrine of the trinity, multiple biblical passages sustainthe biblical truth that jesus is not jehovah god, but his beloved son that god later used as his creative partner.according to this paul said that "though he existed in the form of god, he did not give consideration to a usurpation, namely, that he should be equal to god, no, rather, he emptied himself and took the form of a slave and he came to be in the likeness of men, more than that, when he was in the manner of a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death, yes, death on a torture stake, for this same reason, also, god he exalted a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above all else, so that in jesus' name every knee of those [who are] in heaven and those who are [over] the earth and those [who are] under the ground, and openly recognize * every tongue that jesus christ is lord for the glory of god the father.

Rattigan350

There is no 'mandate to "abstain from blood" ' in Acts 15:28,29. The apostles and older men were deciding a controversy. They just restated the laws of God that existed once the Mosaic Law was removed.

While some may think that 'abstain from blood' expands the prior law and makes the scope of the law greater; but the Apostles didn't have that authority to expand the law. Abstain is just a word that groups blood with the other two prohibitions. The law in Gen 9:4 remains the same. It is God's law, not the Apostle's law. The apostles can't alter God's law. Jesus never expanded God's laws. The pharisees are the ones that did that. What is written in Acts 21:25 goes beyond what the statute states in Gen 9:4.

I find it odd that it forbids blood, what is sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality. What about murder and theft. Those were actually in the 10 commandments along with adultery and idolatry. But blood was not.

53

1975 on the back burner

by Fisherman in

“1975” still marks 6000 years from the creation of adam in wt calendar.

according to “all scriptures inspired” book, there is a gap between the creation of adam and the creation of eve and her marriage to adam.

it was at that point in time when eve was created that marked the end of the 6th creative day and the beginning of god’s rest, the 7th day as recorded in genesis.

Rattigan350

"strongly indicate that each of the creative days (Genesis, chapter 1) is 7,000 years long. Based on this reasoning, the entire creative week would be 49,000 years long."

I think that the creative days or episodes in our modern vernacular are 24 or 12 hours long with each of these creative episodes covering millions of years.

92

Chance or intelligent design?

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

cofty could you answer how the single cell came about by chance?.

i know the argument for complexity in nature says natural selection over billions of years but this could not explain the complexity of the single cell the building blocks of life?.

Rattigan350

Well, By chance or evolution is not possible.

It's impossible for the end result of plants, animals and humans to have arrived by chance or evolution.

13

For JW lurkers - After Hamburg.................

by BoogerMan in

.......do you still believe the organization's false teaching that romans 6:7 refer to a person's literal death?.

watchtower may 15th 1982, pp.

8,9 - "the bible explains that at death a person is set free or released from any sins he committed.".

Rattigan350

The Bible explains that at death a person is set free or released from any sins he committed." but not inherited sin because Lazarus still was a sinner.

The Bible is right.