brandnew5 hours ago
Does it cost more than sophias ice cream
LOL!!! :)
johnamos
JoinedPosts by johnamos
-
112
Geoffrey Jackson's Golden Apple watch INVESTIGATED
by C0ntr013r ini went through the original footage to get a good look at the watch.. from these pictures we can probably say that it is a apple watch and that it has a golden color.
the color on the pin is black, and the band is white, grey, silvery or beige.. .
the pin is in the exact place for it to be a apple watch.. only apple watch edition have the gold color.
-
-
johnamos
-
29
Jesus is not Michael the Archangel here is why
by paradisebeauty inone of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.
here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.
-
-
johnamos
Vidqun, I was thinking the same thing in regards to the following:
Caleb, I'm really struggling with your logic here.
Caleb
then the same logic would mean that you believe that Jesus is also the Almighty since Jesus has the control of and uses “God’s trumpet.
really, does “with the sound of God’s trumpet,” equate him with God? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? I am sure as God’s designated king, he, that is God, would allow him to use his (God’s) trumpet on occasion.
______________________________
1 Corinthians 51 Look! I tell YOU a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep [in death], but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Thessalonians 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 shall always be with [the] Lord.
Mark 26 And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory. Matthew 31 And he will send forth 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.
-
81
Do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body is the "faithful slave"?
by Marvin Shilmer inthis question is known to be posed by jws to other jws as an acid test of loyalty.
i'm not the first to notice what i'm about to point out and comment accordingly, but today i felt compelled to add a short article on my blog highlighting the new language that governing body member geoffrey jackson supplies as a response.
a person who honestly hesitates to respond with a robust "yes!
-
-
johnamos
No argument from me on the fact that in what you wrote, you have reiterated in your answer, that of what GJ actually said.
However, in your answer you do not show the context of what GJ actually was saying, so using what you have written out as a response to answer the said question on if one believes that the GB are the F&DS, your answer combines two separate statements and you are trying to make the context fit to one set question.
If you asked and said:
When asked Do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body is the "faithful slave"? I recommend replying with:
I agree with Governing Body member Geoffrey Jackson. The Governing Body views itself as trying to fulfill the role of the biblical 'faithful slave,'That would be the true context of GJ reply in regards your set question.
To use the reply you have written out and to be fair in regards to the context you would have to had in your question something in regards to God’s spokespeople on earth.
Example:
If you asked and said:
When asked Do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body are God’s spokespeople on earth. I recommend replying with:
I agree with Governing Body member Geoffrey Jackson. It would be presumptuous to say the Governing Body is the only spokesperson that God is using.That would be the true context of GJ reply in regards this set question.
-
81
Do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body is the "faithful slave"?
by Marvin Shilmer inthis question is known to be posed by jws to other jws as an acid test of loyalty.
i'm not the first to notice what i'm about to point out and comment accordingly, but today i felt compelled to add a short article on my blog highlighting the new language that governing body member geoffrey jackson supplies as a response.
a person who honestly hesitates to respond with a robust "yes!
-
-
johnamos
Oh...I see, you know what I believe! Got it!
It is of no relevance of what I believe…whenit comes to talking about what a particular group of people believes and whatbook this group is reading that they claim to base their beliefs on.
My commentary is on what is actually written andwhat was actually said.
-
81
Do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body is the "faithful slave"?
by Marvin Shilmer inthis question is known to be posed by jws to other jws as an acid test of loyalty.
i'm not the first to notice what i'm about to point out and comment accordingly, but today i felt compelled to add a short article on my blog highlighting the new language that governing body member geoffrey jackson supplies as a response.
a person who honestly hesitates to respond with a robust "yes!
-
-
-
81
Do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body is the "faithful slave"?
by Marvin Shilmer inthis question is known to be posed by jws to other jws as an acid test of loyalty.
i'm not the first to notice what i'm about to point out and comment accordingly, but today i felt compelled to add a short article on my blog highlighting the new language that governing body member geoffrey jackson supplies as a response.
a person who honestly hesitates to respond with a robust "yes!
-
-
johnamos
In Jackson’s statement he identified that he and the other 6 members that make up the GB are the f&ds of matt 24:45 and did not use presumptuous in connection with that claim.
In Jackson’s statement in regards to God’s spokespeople on earth, he identified that YES he and the other 6 members that make up the GB are God’s spokespeople on earth, BUT went on to say that they (the GB) ARE NOT the ONLY ones of God’s spokespeople on earth, but that God’s has many spokespeople on earth…basically JW’s as a whole based on speaking to people about the bible(God’s word) and Jehovah God himself, i.e. God’s spokespeople on earth
He used presumptuous in regards to any claim in saying that ONLY THEY (the GB) speak about God and the Bible,i.e. God’s spokespeople on earth,
The run down is this…
Jackson states the GB are ALL anointed (the 7 members) and they ALONE are the f&ds and are God’s spokespeople on earth.
Jackson states that there are many more anointed ones (heavenly hope) but they are NOT part of the f&ds but they too are God’s spokespeople on earth.
Jackson states that there are many that are NOT anointed (earthly hope), and they are NOT part of the f&ds but they too are God’s spokespeople on earth.
So he says it is presumptuous to say that they (the GB) alone are ONLY God’s spokespeople on earth…but he is in no way saying that it is presumptuous for he and the other 6 members to claim to be the f&ds, while claiming that no others are unless you are one of the GB members.
[Luke 19:40 But in reply he said: “I tell YOU, If these remained silent, the stones would cry out.”]
[Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU. And, look! I am with YOU all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”]
[John 17:3 This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.]
-
81
Do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body is the "faithful slave"?
by Marvin Shilmer inthis question is known to be posed by jws to other jws as an acid test of loyalty.
i'm not the first to notice what i'm about to point out and comment accordingly, but today i felt compelled to add a short article on my blog highlighting the new language that governing body member geoffrey jackson supplies as a response.
a person who honestly hesitates to respond with a robust "yes!
-
-
johnamos
That is correct, nevertheless according to those verses there still is a ‘slave class’ that is doing the feeding until that future time arrives, which the GB claim to be that ‘slave class’ presently.
Here is a better view of how to understand those verses and also on what is truly the case of being ‘presumptuous’:
The ‘faithful slave/s’ are only distinguished to be so when the master comes to settle accounts with his slaves. Before such time they are all just considered to be ‘slaves’ carrying out the work of their ‘master’. At no time prior to the master coming to settle accounts with his slaves should the slaves themselves refer to themselves as being ‘faithful slaves’ (That’s for the master to determine when he arrives.) but to the contrary, the slaves are said to say of themselves that they “are good-for-nothing slaves” during the time they are carrying out their assigned work.
Please consider the following:
[Luke 17:10 So YOU, also, when YOU have done all the things assigned to YOU, say, ‘We are good-for-nothing slaves. What we have done is what we ought to have done.’”]
[Matthew 25:14 “For it is just as when a man, about to travel abroad, summoned slaves of his and committed to them his belongings.
19 “After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. 20So the one that had received five talents came forward and brought five additional talents, saying, ‘Master, you committed five talents to me; see, I gained five talents more.’
21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’
22 Next the one that had received the two talents came forward and said, ‘Master, you committed to me two talents; see, I gained two talents more.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’
24 “Finally the one that had received the one talent came forward and said, ‘Master, I knew you to be an exacting man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you did not winnow. 25So I grew afraid and went off and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ 26In reply his master said to him, ‘Wicked and sluggish slave, you knew, did you, that I reaped where I did not sow and gathered where I did not winnow?]
As can be seen is that it is not determined as to the faithfulness or not of the slaves until the master arrives. It is very presumptuous for any so-called slaves to make the claim of themselves as already being ‘the faithful slaves’ before the master has even arrived.
The master does not originally appoint or give the slaves their assigned work based on having judged them for their faithfulness. The master actually judges the slaves when he arrives based upon how the salves handled the assigned work…the master will then determine as to the faithfulness of the salves. It is at that point that the salves will be judged as to being faithful or not and will be appointed over all the master’s belongings/over many things, due to them being found faithful over few things/assigned work/given food at the proper time to domestics.
The following in verse 45 is not stating that an already found ‘faithful slave’ is who is first appointed. It is asking the question of whom the ‘faithful slave’ is/or will end up being. Verse 46 answers the question stating that when the master arrives and finds 'the slave' faithfully doing his assigned work then that slave will be appointed over all the master’s belongings/over many things.
[Matthew 24:45“Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. 47 Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings.]
Compare with Matthew 25:14-26 again. No talents were given to faithful slaves, nor given to wicked sluggish/evil slaves, the talents were given to “slaves” whom based on what they did with those talents were judged to be found ‘good and faithful’ or ‘wicked and sluggish’ and it is those slaves that were found to be ‘good and faithful’ that will be appointed over many things/over the master’s belongings. -
81
Do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body is the "faithful slave"?
by Marvin Shilmer inthis question is known to be posed by jws to other jws as an acid test of loyalty.
i'm not the first to notice what i'm about to point out and comment accordingly, but today i felt compelled to add a short article on my blog highlighting the new language that governing body member geoffrey jackson supplies as a response.
a person who honestly hesitates to respond with a robust "yes!
-
-
johnamos
Jackson was very careful with his words and y’all are readings them the way you want to and not the way they were actually spoken.
He made it clear that he and the other 6 members of the GB do believe and claim to be ‘the faithful slave’ of the verses in Matt…and in regards to being asked if the GB see themselves as be God’s spokespeople on earth…he said it would be presumptuous to claim that they believe that they are the only ones.
He is not saying that the GB does not feel that they are God’s spokespeople on earth…he’s clear that they (the GB) feel they are and the word ‘presumptuous’ is not used in regards with him claiming that the GB are God’s spokespeople on earth and the word ‘presumptuous’ is not used in regards to him making the claim that they (the GB) are ‘the faithful slave’…. ‘Presumptuous’ is used in regards to saying that they (the GB) are not the ONLY ones that God is using as spokespeople on earth…meaning that elders, etc…and r&f are also God’s spokespeople on earth when it comes to talking about the bible to others.Something that I found interesting is oppostate writing this:
Guardians Of Doctrine (G.O.D.)
GJ did say that the GB were 'Guardians Of Doctrine'
-
43
We are not thinking folks. What is the best way to get JW's to check out the events in Australia.
by James Mixon intell our jw family members, door knockers, and stand sitters that you were very impressed.
by the branch overseer and other elders in australia, they gave a fine witness.. so what will happen, they will tell their friends the brothers in australia gave a fine.
witness.
-
-
johnamos
or
everyone should send an email to the above US CNN and tell them to cover the ARC...after all the headquarters of JW's is here in US.
-
39
Billy's comments to the RC #1 - "We always require at least two witnesses... except for when we don't."
by Billy the Ex-Bethelite ini'm still trying to catch up on the rc broadcast posted to youtube, and i haven't been able to keep up with everything discussed here about it.
however, there have been a few points that i wish i could submit.
repeatedly it has been stated that unless there is a confession, jcs can only act on testimony if it is corroborated by two or more witnesses to the wrongdoing.
-
-
johnamos
This was the situation that was used in my wife and I getting married. She wrote a letter based on what her unbelieving mate said to her while they were split up and based on the letter and the divorce being finalized, she was free to marry me. That was ten years ago for us. Think about all the child abuse cases in the passed 10 years that were said not to have had a 2nd witness so hey nothing we can do about it at this time…in fact think about all the child abuse cases in the passed 38 years that were said not to have had a 2nd witness so hey nothing we can do about it at this time…
[10-1-77 WT
Questions from Readers
• My unbelieving husband admitted to me that he has another woman. Is his admission sufficient ground for a Scriptural divorce?
In some cases if a Christian’s unbelieving mate admits to committing immorality, that would provide a Scriptural basis for a divorce, which, in turn, would free the innocent Christian for remarriage if desired.
Jehovah God’s law to the ancient nation of Israel made provision for divorce on various grounds. (Deut. 24:1, 2) Adultery, homosexuality and bestiality were bases for ending a marriage; the guilty person was to be executed. (Deut. 22:22-24; Lev. 18:22, 23) However, the Law set forth this important requirement: “At the mouth of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one dying should be put to death. He will not be put to death at the mouth of one witness.” (Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Num. 35:30) Being a “lover of righteousness and justice,” Jehovah required that such matters be determined on the basis of proof, of witnesses, not merely suspicion. (Ps. 33:5) This, of course, was stated as regards applying the death penalty, not as regards a divorce action.
Another situation dealt with in the Law also illustrates the importance of proof. What was a man to do if he suspected that his wife had committed adultery but she denied it and there were no witnesses? God’s law outlined a step that could be taken, but it was a drastic one that could have lasting effects for the wife if she was guilty or for the husband if she was innocent. She could be brought before the priest and made to share in a prescribed procedure involving drinking some special water. If she was guilty, she would experience the divine punishment of her ‘thigh falling away,’ apparently meaning that her sexual parts would atrophy and she would lose her ability to conceive. (Num. 5:12-31) Evidently in such cases the adulterous wife, though receiving this extraordinary punishment from God, because she denied guilt and there were not the required two witnesses, was not executed.
What is the situation today in the Christian congregation? Is it possible to obtain substantial testimony as to the grounds for a Scriptural divorce?
Jesus himself stated that for his followers the only ground for divorce, such as would free a person for remarriage, is if one’s mate commits porneia, gross sexual immorality. (Matt. 19:9) Would there be sufficient ground for divorce if a Christian wife merely suspected that her husband was guilty of adultery? No, for the Christian Greek Scriptures carry forward the principle of a matter’s being established by two or three witnesses, as a balanced sense of justice requires. (John 8:17, 18; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28) So, if a wife merely suspected her husband of adultery, but he denied it and there were no witnesses to confirm it, she would not have sufficient basis for establishing with the Christian congregation that she had a right to divorce him and thus be free to remarry.
In some cases, though, an unbelieving mate admits to being immoral. A husband, for instance, might even boast of it to his wife as a taunt to hurt her. She might choose to overlook his waywardness. But what if she feels she cannot or should not? Is his confession enough proof?
In this situation it is not as if he professes innocence or adamantly denies being guilty of adultery. Rather, he admits it to her, though for the sake of his reputation he might not be willing to own up to it in a court of law or before other persons. What can the wife do?
Since she is part of the clean Christian congregation, she should realize the importance of handling the matter properly so that, after divorcing him, if she later remarried there would be no question about her keeping ‘the marriage bed without defilement.’ (Heb. 13:4) To that end she could give the elders representing the congregation a letter outlining her situation, stating that her unbelieving husband confessed to her that he had committed immorality. And she could state that in accord with Matthew 19:9 she wishes to put him away, obtaining a legal divorce and thus ending the marriage Scripturally and legally.
The elders would consider whether there is any known reason to conclude other than that the unbelieving mate had been immoral. If not, they could accept her signed statement.
‘But,’ someone might say, ‘is it not possible to submit a deceptive, untruthful statement, saying that her husband confessed immorality when he actually never said that?’ Actually, it would be gross deception for anyone to try that. David once prayed: “You have examined my heart, you have made inspection by night, you have refined me; you will discover that I have not schemed.” (Ps. 17:3) Conversely, Jehovah is well aware when someone does scheme and He will make sure that the person does not lastingly succeed. Hence, if a Christian woman goes on record as stating that her husband has admitted immorality, Jehovah knows the facts. As the Bible says: “There is not a creation that is not manifest to his sight, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him with whom we have an accounting.”—Heb. 4:13; Prov. 5:21; Jer. 16:17.
So if there is no reason to doubt the wife’s statement, the congregation elders can leave the matter between her and Jehovah. In that case she would have to bear before God the responsibility as to the actuality of her husband’s immoral course, which would be the Scriptural basis for ending the marriage even if the legal divorce were obtained on some other ground.]