Total Posts:177|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who truly are Jehovah's Witnesses?

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
There is really only one answer to that, and that comes from Hebrews 12:1, where Paul has just finished discussing the most faithful men of old, and calls them "sucha great cloud of witnesses".

Witnesses to whom?

To Jehovah, the God they served and who they bore witness to with their faith in him.

Of course it didn't stop their.

The foremost Witness to Jehovah was his only begotten son who was sent to earth by his father Jehovah, to become incarnate in the specially created flesh of Jesus and suffer and die for us (John 1:14; John 3:16).

He spent 3 1/2 years bearing witness to his father and teaching people in his father's name and his father's spirit so that Isaiah 54:13 could be fulfilled, which he himself quoted at John 6:44, 45 where he quoted that scripture:
"44 No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him, and I will resurrect him on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: "They will all be taught by Jehovah." Everyone who has listened to the Father and has learned comes to me."

In fact he states that is the whole purpose of his father drawing people to him, so he could fulfil that scripture.

And that he did, faithfully and truly for the whole of his ministry, making sure that his followers knew his father's name (John17:6) and thus earning himself the title "faithful and true Witness" as recorded at Revelation 3:14.

So the true Jehovah's Witnesses, whether they were given the name or not, are all those, from Abel on, who have faithfully imitated every one of those faithful ones from Abel down to today.
bulproof
Posts: 25,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 4:39:20 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
About 0.1% of the population of the planet, the stupidest ones.
Their combined IQ fails to reach double figures.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 4:44:34 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
There is really only one answer to that, and that comes from Hebrews 12:1, where Paul has just finished discussing the most faithful men of old, and calls them "sucha great cloud of witnesses".

No one with any sort of education in New Testament history takes serious the idea that Hebrews was written by Paul. The most ridiculous at worst say that the Pastorals are his (though, it is almost as ridiculous an idea that Hebrews is pauline).

Witnesses to whom?

To Jehovah, the God they served and who they bore witness to with their faith in him.

Of course it didn't stop their.

*there

The foremost Witness to Jehovah was his only begotten son who was sent to earth by his father Jehovah, to become incarnate in the specially created flesh of Jesus and suffer and die for us (John 1:14; John 3:16).

He spent 3 1/2 years bearing witness to his father and teaching people in his father's name and his father's spirit so that Isaiah 54:13 could be fulfilled, which he himself quoted at John 6:44, 45 where he quoted that scripture:
"44 No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him, and I will resurrect him on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: "They will all be taught by Jehovah." Everyone who has listened to the Father and has learned comes to me."

In fact he states that is the whole purpose of his father drawing people to him, so he could fulfil that scripture.

And that he did, faithfully and truly for the whole of his ministry, making sure that his followers knew his father's name (John17:6) and thus earning himself the title "faithful and true Witness" as recorded at Revelation 3:14.

So the true Jehovah's Witnesses, whether they were given the name or not, are all those, from Abel on, who have faithfully imitated every one of those faithful ones from Abel down to today.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 4:59:03 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
There is really only one answer to that, and that comes from

.... the 23rd chapter of your imagination. That's where. Nobody cares about your "human reasoning" concerning what you think they do. By your standards, which are pretty low, one could just make up any name he wanted as long as it describes the people.

1. No group of people under the Mosaic law was ever called "Jehovah's Witnesses."
2. No group of people under the Christian dispensation was ever called "Jehovah's Witnesses."
3. Therefore, the name was never authorized by God at any time.

Again, by your standards, the following proper names would be just as correct:

1. The Earth's Salt
2. The World's Light
3. The City on a Hill
4. Men's Light
5. The Candle in the House
6. Baptist, because after all, they baptize people
7. The Catholic Church, because after all, it's universal
8. The Truth Knowers because after all, "Ye shall know the truth"
9. The Seekers and Finders, because after all, "... seek, and ye shall find"
10. The Knockers
11. Christ's Witnesses
12. Jehovah's Witnesses

The twelve proper nouns above, when used as descriptors of followers of Jesus Christ, are simply MADE UP and therefore unauthorized by God. And the last one on the list was simply MADE UP by one Judge Rutherford of 1925 fame.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 7:35:34 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 4:59:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
There is really only one answer to that, and that comes from

.... the 23rd chapter of your imagination. That's where. Nobody cares about your "human reasoning" concerning what you think they do. By your standards, which are pretty low, one could just make up any name he wanted as long as it describes the people.

No Anna it comes from Isaiah 43:10, as well you know, where Jehovah himself calls Israel Jehovah's Witnesses, since as you well know he calls them his (Jehovah's) witnesses.


1. No group of people under the Mosaic law was ever called "Jehovah's Witnesses."

Isaiah 43:10

2. No group of people under the Christian dispensation was ever called "Jehovah's Witnesses."

The Jehovah's were, and they are the only ones under that "dispensation" by the only authority that counts, Christ himself.

They are the only ones that fit the standard for acceptance by him, as detailed at Matthew 7:21-23.

Therefore they are the only ones with his dispensation.

The dispensation of Apostate churches has no value whatever.

3. Therefore, the name was never authorized by God at any time.

It was indeed, and you can deny it all you like I have proved it over and again, that it carries more scriptural authority than "Christian" ever did.

They bear witness to Jehovah, as did all the faithful ones from Abel on down, therefore they are Jehovah's Witnesses whatever you choose to call them.

You have no authority to deny them that authorisation, certainly not the authorisation o scripture which supports them in every way, as you well know.


Again, by your standards, the following proper names would be just as correct:

1. The Earth's Salt
2. The World's Light
3. The City on a Hill
4. Men's Light
5. The Candle in the House
6. Baptist, because after all, they baptize people
7. The Catholic Church, because after all, it's universal
8. The Truth Knowers because after all, "Ye shall know the truth"
9. The Seekers and Finders, because after all, "... seek, and ye shall find"
10. The Knockers
11. Christ's Witnesses
12. Jehovah's Witnesses

The twelve proper nouns above, when used as descriptors of followers of Jesus Christ, are simply MADE UP and therefore unauthorized by God. And the last one on the list was simply MADE UP by one Judge Rutherford of 1925 fame.

That is what you wish to think Anna and you are welcome to think as you will for now, but scripture denies what you claim as it does your entire doctrine.

I can prove it, and frequently do.

They can prove it, and frequently do.

You cannot disprove anything they teach. Not one thing.

I know. Like many others I have tried.

I challenge anyone out there who is interested in truth to do the same. Make them prove their case.

They can and will.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 7:36:49 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 4:52:55 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
Truly.
Who truly are Jehovah's Witnesses ?

All who bear witness to Jehovah's ways and purposes, his promises and his love.

Just like every faithful witness has from Abel onward.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 7:37:46 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 4:39:20 PM, bulproof wrote:
About 0.1% of the population of the planet, the stupidest ones.
Their combined IQ fails to reach double figures.

Lol well mine's 136.

But yes they are a minority just as scripture said they would be.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 8:06:02 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 7:35:34 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/4/2016 4:59:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
There is really only one answer to that, and that comes from

.... the 23rd chapter of your imagination. That's where. Nobody cares about your "human reasoning" concerning what you think they do. By your standards, which are pretty low, one could just make up any name he wanted as long as it describes the people.

No Anna it comes from Isaiah 43:10, as well you know, where Jehovah himself calls Israel Jehovah's Witnesses, since as you well know he calls them his (Jehovah's) witnesses.

Yes, he said that Israel would be His witnesses. So what? Who told you that it is ok to take a common noun applied to Israel, change it to a proper noun, then apply it to followers of Christ? Why didn't Paul and Peter do that?


1. No group of people under the Mosaic law was ever called "Jehovah's Witnesses."

Isaiah 43:10

"Ye shall be my witnesses is far, far different than, "Ye shall wear the name Jehovah's Witnesses." Can you find any evidence of the latter?

2. No group of people under the Christian dispensation was ever called "Jehovah's Witnesses."

The Jehovah's were, and they are the only ones under that "dispensation" by the only authority that counts, Christ himself.

3. Therefore, the name was never authorized by God at any time.

It was indeed, and you can deny it all you like I have proved it over and again,

That's hilarious. You take a common noun applied to ancient Israel, dust it off, turn it into a proper noun, and try to apply it to followers of Jesus Christ. Who told you that it is ok with God for you to do that?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 8:32:38 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 7:35:34 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/4/2016 4:59:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
There is really only one answer to that, and that comes from

.... the 23rd chapter of your imagination. That's where. Nobody cares about your "human reasoning" concerning what you think they do. By your standards, which are pretty low, one could just make up any name he wanted as long as it describes the people.

No Anna it comes from Isaiah 43:10, as well you know, where Jehovah himself calls Israel Jehovah's Witnesses, since as you well know he calls them his (Jehovah's) witnesses.


1. No group of people under the Mosaic law was ever called "Jehovah's Witnesses."

Isaiah 43:10

This gets more and more ridiculous. Isaiah 43: 10 doesn't even authorize ancient Israel to adopt the name "Jehovah's Witnesses". Isaiah 43 is a prophesy of the return of Israel from Babylon. When Israel witnessed the prophesy come to pass, then they would be "my witnesses." That's it: no more and no less.

Apparently no one in ancient Israel viewed Isaiah 43 as you do. That's not surprising. Israel was NEVER known as "Jehovah's Witnesses" - and even if they were, that's no grounds for you to misapply it to yourself.

Alright, you claim the name is authorized as a proper name, a proper noun, for followers of Jesus Christ. Could you tell us:

(1) Exactly when this authorization occurred
(2) Exactly how God went about informing people that the proper noun "Jehovah's Witnesses" is authorized
(3) Exactly where this authorization took place
(4) Exactly why the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" is authorized but the names "The Earth's Salt" and "The World's Light" are no authorized.

Now mark it down, we'll never get answers to all four of those questions.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 1:06:43 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
There is really only one answer to that, and that comes from Hebrews 12:1, where Paul has just finished discussing the most faithful men of old, and calls them "sucha great cloud of witnesses".

Witnesses to whom?

Witnesses to their own actions. Read the context of Heb 11. It is about their actions of faith and what was accomplished. The bible characters not sit back and watch some invisible character do something while they sat there as spectators doing nothing.

To Jehovah, the God they served and who they bore witness to with their faith in him.

Wrong, the actions of the characters bore witness to their faith. The characters never witnessed Jehovah doing anything.
Every single person of the past present and future is a witness of their own actions and their consequences as well as other peoples actions and consequences. No person actually witnesses an invisible entity named Jehovah doing anything.

Of course it didn't stop their.

The foremost Witness to Jehovah was his only begotten son who was sent to earth by his father Jehovah, to become incarnate in the specially created flesh of Jesus and suffer and die for us (John 1:14; John 3:16).

All real physical people come from the natural sexual reproduction process. It takes a male sperm and female egg to make a person. No real person was ever specially created by some supernatural means.
Mythical characters with supernatural powers are created by human imagination.
Don't be so gullible to believe that once upon a time a god made an earthly woman pregnant and a virgin gave birth to a literal "child of god"
GROW UP and try to understand that ALL gods including the bible God are mythical characters who merely personify natural forces and many human attributes.

He spent 3 1/2 years bearing witness to his father and teaching people in his father's name and his father's spirit so that Isaiah 54:13 could be fulfilled, which he himself quoted at John 6:44, 45 where he quoted that scripture:
"44 No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him, and I will resurrect him on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: "They will all be taught by Jehovah." Everyone who has listened to the Father and has learned comes to me."

The last day of what? There is no literal last day in eternity.
The "last day" of your ignorance will be the day you gain understanding.
The last day of your "spiritual sleep" ( death) will be the day you gain enlightenment.
You will never be physically resurrected from your physical grave after you die physically because physical death is the end of your physical body. Your day of physical death is the last day of your physical life.

In fact he states that is the whole purpose of his father drawing people to him, so he could fulfil that scripture.

According to scripture, Jesus fulfilled all scripture and all the prophets before he died in the story.
His purpose was to fulfil all of it. ( Matt 5:17 Luke 24:44)
He FINISHED his work of fulfilling ALL the law and prophets. ( John 17:4 ) That means there is NOTHING left for him to do because IT IS FINISHED.
Therefore any doctrines which imply that Jesus needs to return to Earth to do anything else, is a false doctrine.
Anyone who believes such doctrines is gullible and foolish.

And that he did, faithfully and truly for the whole of his ministry, making sure that his followers knew his father's name (John17:6) and thus earning himself the title "faithful and true Witness" as recorded at Revelation 3:14.

It is irrelevant if the name of God is Jehovah, Zeus, Tom, John, or any other name.
There is no magic in a label.
Doing something " in the name of........" simply means you have an authority or attitude behind you.
For example, if a human kings servants were to do something in the name of the king, it means they have the kings authority, backing and full support as well as instructions to do what the king wants them to do. Whether the kings name is George, Phillip, Harry, Andrew, Edwards, etc irrelevant to the authority.
Therefore to argue about whether the name of any God is Jehovah or Zeus or Jesus or Joshua or Moses or any other name is sheer foolishness and makes absolutely no difference. The same applies to the names or labels of groups. The groups tend to form their own reputations regardless of what labels they stick on themselves.
A fool remains a fool regardless of his name.
Taking the name "X" ( authority ) without any authority does not mean you are a witness or ambassador of the authority. It means you have taken a name in vain. "In vain" meaning without authority. It is an abuse and misuse, of authority. It is living a lie and pretending to have authority which has not been given to you.

So the true Jehovah's Witnesses, whether they were given the name or not, are all those, from Abel on, who have faithfully imitated every one of those faithful ones from Abel down to today.

When real people are given instructions by an authority, there is no need for them to imitate other people. They have a personal choice as to whether to obey or disobey the authority figure. Simple as that. No imitation of anyone else necessary. Imitators are unoriginal copy cats. They are also impersonators, mimics, plagiarists, apes, parrots, etc. They pretend to be something they are not and they obviously cannot think for themselves or do anything original.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 10:48:28 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 8:32:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2016 7:35:34 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/4/2016 4:59:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
There is really only one answer to that, and that comes from

.... the 23rd chapter of your imagination. That's where. Nobody cares about your "human reasoning" concerning what you think they do. By your standards, which are pretty low, one could just make up any name he wanted as long as it describes the people.

No Anna it comes from Isaiah 43:10, as well you know, where Jehovah himself calls Israel Jehovah's Witnesses, since as you well know he calls them his (Jehovah's) witnesses.

No-one says that it does. However the were Jehovah Witnesses in that they were to provide the example to the nations of the benefits of living Jehovah's way and gaining Jehovah's blessing.

It is only humans who demand a name.

It is only humans like you who can become so obsessed by what someone is called.

It is what they do which matters, and the JWs do what all faithful men from Abel to teh Apostles have done.

They glorify God, n whatever name they are given.

Jehovah, eventually, called them Israel.

Then the Israel of God Galatians 6:16

By the time they were at least reasonably trained there came about a pressing need for them to have a name to counter their being called "Russellites, as if they followed a man, not Christ as they do.

They put the matter to Jehovah in prayer and he guided them trough his son and with his spirit to Isaiah 43:10 with the inevitable result.

It is the first God given name they have had since being called the Israel of God, and it serves it's purpose of directing people to the one name in the universe they need to know above all others, Jehovah. (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Romans 10:13).

Of course they also need to know the name of Jesus, because only through his name and his sacrifice can they approach Jehovah, thus fulfilling Acts 4:12
12 Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved."

No other name under heaven indeed, and only one name in heaven that we can only approach through that one nae under heaven.

Thus we need both names, one to plead for salvation from, and one to plead through, as Paul points out in the verses following Romans 10:13.



1. No group of people under the Mosaic law was ever called "Jehovah's Witnesses."

Isaiah 43:10

This gets more and more ridiculous. Isaiah 43: 10 doesn't even authorize ancient Israel to adopt the name "Jehovah's Witnesses". Isaiah 43 is a prophesy of the return of Israel from Babylon. When Israel witnessed the prophesy come to pass, then they would be "my witnesses." That's it: no more and no less.

No Anna that was not the way they were to be his Witnesses. It was by their reliance on Jehovah they were to be his witnesses, as with every servant of his from Abel on down (Hebrews 11:1-12:1).

Again your understanding of scripture lets you down.


Apparently no one in ancient Israel viewed Isaiah 43 as you do. That's not surprising. Israel was NEVER known as "Jehovah's Witnesses" - and even if they were, that's no grounds for you to misapply it to yourself.

That is because they were not inspired to do so. There was no need, they already had a name to mark them out from everyone else, Israel.

Jehovah only changes his servants names for a reason and with a purpose.


Alright, you claim the name is authorized as a proper name, a proper noun, for followers of Jesus Christ. Could you tell us:

(1) Exactly when this authorization occurred
(2) Exactly how God went about informing people that the proper noun "Jehovah's Witnesses" is authorized
(3) Exactly where this authorization took place
(4) Exactly why the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" is authorized but the names "The Earth's Salt" and "The World's Light" are no authorized.

Now mark it down, we'll never get answers to all four of those questions.

I have already explained all the above to you many times over, I see no reason t repeat what you refuse to accept anyway.

However it is Jehovah's own choice who he authorises to do what, not yours as apparently you wish it to be.

You may wish to argue with him over that right. I do not.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 10:56:57 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 10:48:28 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/4/2016 8:32:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2016 7:35:34 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/4/2016 4:59:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Alright, you claim the name is authorized as a proper name, a proper noun, for followers of Jesus Christ. Could you tell us:

(1) Exactly when this authorization occurred
(2) Exactly how God went about informing people that the proper noun "Jehovah's Witnesses" is authorized
(3) Exactly where this authorization took place
(4) Exactly why the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" is authorized but the names "The Earth's Salt" and "The World's Light" are no authorized.

Now mark it down, we'll never get answers to all four of those questions.

I have already explained all the above to you many times over, I see no reason t repeat what you refuse to accept anyway.

However it is Jehovah's own choice who he authorises to do what, not yours as apparently you wish it to be.

Well, He authorizes via His word, i. e. the New Testament. It seems to me that it would be easier for you to just take those four easy questions up there and place the appropriate passage right next to it. Of course, you can't. You never have.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 1:51:44 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 10:56:57 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2016 10:48:28 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/4/2016 8:32:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2016 7:35:34 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/4/2016 4:59:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Alright, you claim the name is authorized as a proper name, a proper noun, for followers of Jesus Christ. Could you tell us:

(1) Exactly when this authorization occurred
(2) Exactly how God went about informing people that the proper noun "Jehovah's Witnesses" is authorized
(3) Exactly where this authorization took place
(4) Exactly why the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" is authorized but the names "The Earth's Salt" and "The World's Light" are no authorized.

Now mark it down, we'll never get answers to all four of those questions.

I have already explained all the above to you many times over, I see no reason t repeat what you refuse to accept anyway.

However it is Jehovah's own choice who he authorises to do what, not yours as apparently you wish it to be.

Well, He authorizes via His word, i. e. the New Testament. It seems to me that it would be easier for you to just take those four easy questions up there and place the appropriate passage right next to it. Of course, you can't. You never have.

No Anna he authorises via his spirit as he always has.

Also his word is not just teh Christian Greek scriptures it is the whole thing from Genesis to Revelation.

Possible the reason for your greatest mistakes is your putting too much stress on the Christian Greek Scriptures and not enough on the Hebrew, both have equal weight.

After all, without the Hebrew Scriptures there would be no Christian Greek Scriptures.

Christ taught from the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Apostles taught from the Hebrew Scriptures,

Before his incarnation as Jesus, the Word passed the Hebrew Scriptures down to Israel's prophets.

Paul commented that the Hebrew Scriptures are all we need to be complete, which means the Christian Greek are an addition to, not a replacement for the Hebrew Scriptures.

Jehovah called the faithful leaders of Israel his witnesses.

Paul echoed that thinking by including every faithful man from Abel on down amongst that great cloud of witnesses.

Even Christ is called the faithful and true witness.

Witnesses to who?

To Jehovah.

It is only physically minded people such as yourself who are obsessed with names, true followers of Christ think that living up to any name is far more important than the name itself.

Hence Peter advised the Brothers and sisters to ignore the fact that they were being called Christian and glorify God (Jehovah) all the same.

Every prophet ever was authorised, not by Jehovah's word, but by his spirit.

Jesus was authorised by Jehovah's spirit, his father's word simply proved that.

The Apostles likewise.

The JWs also.

Scripture only provides evidence of authorisation, and only then if it is handled aright, as the JWs do and you do not.

It is their teachings, their fruits, that prove they are who they claim to be, just as it is your teachings, your fruits that prove you to be the Apostate fraud you are.

The fact that the JWs show the fruits of the spirit, and you do not, also helps in the identification of such ones.

And what is the most important fruit of the spirit?

Some would say love, and it certainly is important, but in fact it is faith, because without the faith, and the works to demonstrate it you can call yourself what you like and it will mean nothing.

Why, because only if your faith is right will you produce the works, and if your faith is right you will not be able to.

Which is why you cannot, because you have no real faith, and what little faith you do have yo put on the wrong things.

Without real faith you cannot love Jehovah properly, on even your fellow humans.
Everyone who has ever been faithful to Jehovah has been a witness for him, no matter what they were called, and the name doesn't matter it is the fact that they truly were Jehovah's Witnesses which counts.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 3:10:20 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
There is really only one answer to that, and that comes from Hebrews 12:1, where Paul has just finished discussing the most faithful men of old, and calls them "sucha great cloud of witnesses".

Witnesses to whom?

To Jehovah, the God they served and who they bore witness to with their faith in him.

Of course it didn't stop their.

The foremost Witness to Jehovah was his only begotten son who was sent to earth by his father Jehovah, to become incarnate in the specially created flesh of Jesus and suffer and die for us (John 1:14; John 3:16).

He spent 3 1/2 years bearing witness to his father and teaching people in his father's name and his father's spirit so that Isaiah 54:13 could be fulfilled, which he himself quoted at John 6:44, 45 where he quoted that scripture:
"44 No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him, and I will resurrect him on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: "They will all be taught by Jehovah." Everyone who has listened to the Father and has learned comes to me."

In fact he states that is the whole purpose of his father drawing people to him, so he could fulfil that scripture.

And that he did, faithfully and truly for the whole of his ministry, making sure that his followers knew his father's name (John17:6) and thus earning himself the title "faithful and true Witness" as recorded at Revelation 3:14.

So the true Jehovah's Witnesses, whether they were given the name or not, are all those, from Abel on, who have faithfully imitated every one of those faithful ones from Abel down to today.

He was given a name. It was YAWH. If Jehovah was his name, they why isn't he responding to the Jehovah's Witnesses who call him by this name and not YHWH or Lord? Why do the Jehovah's Witnesses have 5-10 times higher suicide rates than other groups? Why do the Jehovah's Witnesses have the highest levels of mental illness compared to other groups?
Look what it did to you calling on Jehovah a meaningless word in the English language. The word Jehovah is not even found in the original Hebrew and Greek bibles.

Can someone like you who was diagnosed as mentally retarded and incompetent be trusted to know the difference between a cults doctrines and the scriptures?

You wrote about your mental illness:" I'll never be cured. It is not that kind of problem. It is caused by problems at, and immediately after birth which prevented my brains from developing in certain ways, and therefore have caused permanent brain "damage". Unfortunately, since my Mental Health issues are actually physical problems with a brain that never had the chance to develop properly.
I have, as I have mentioned before, certain Mental Health issues, which have, as it turns out, been lifelong and undiagnosed despite a visit to a Psychiatrist, at my adoptive Father's behest, when I was 15. It was almost a further 35 years before it was finally discovered that I had been working under this problem for all my life."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 4:32:04 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 1:51:44 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/5/2016 10:56:57 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2016 10:48:28 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/4/2016 8:32:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2016 7:35:34 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/4/2016 4:59:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Alright, you claim the name is authorized as a proper name, a proper noun, for followers of Jesus Christ. Could you tell us:

(1) Exactly when this authorization occurred
(2) Exactly how God went about informing people that the proper noun "Jehovah's Witnesses" is authorized
(3) Exactly where this authorization took place
(4) Exactly why the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" is authorized but the names "The Earth's Salt" and "The World's Light" are no authorized.

Now mark it down, we'll never get answers to all four of those questions.

I have already explained all the above to you many times over, I see no reason t repeat what you refuse to accept anyway.

However it is Jehovah's own choice who he authorises to do what, not yours as apparently you wish it to be.

Well, He authorizes via His word, i. e. the New Testament. It seems to me that it would be easier for you to just take those four easy questions up there and place the appropriate passage right next to it. Of course, you can't. You never have.

No Anna he authorises via his spirit as he always has.

I whacked off the rest because you didn't answer a single question. So He authorizes via His spirit? The Spirit operates through the word. All you're saying is: "Lord knows I can't find it in the Bible, so I'll have to claim something outside of the Bible."

Try 'em again:

(1) Exactly when this authorization occurred
(2) Exactly how God went about informing people that the proper noun "Jehovah's Witnesses" is authorized
(3) Exactly where this authorization took place
(4) Exactly why the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" is authorized but the names "The Earth's Salt" and "The World's Light" are not authorized.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 5:52:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

There is really only one answer to that, and that comes from Hebrews 12:1, where Paul has just finished discussing the most faithful men of old, and calls them "such a great cloud of witnesses".

If THAT is the "one answer", then it's pretty pathetic. For one thing, there is not a single example of those "faithful men of old" coming up with the nonsense that the Brooklyn Botchers have concocted in the last 140 years. For another, if we want to know who or what the "Jehovah's Witnesses" are, then the place to go would be the Bible. After all, we find the Pharisees there. We find the Sadducees there. We find the Christians there. Unfortunately, both sacred and profane history utterly fail to record any existence of a sect known as "Jehovah's Witnesses".

Unfortunately, when the dust settles and the smoke clears, you'll have to abandon the Bible entirely in order to find authorization for the name. Yep, you abandon it and run to about 1930 and look to one Judge Rutherford (the man who came up with the 1925 nonsense).

What you need, MadClown, is to be a Christian, and a Christian only - without addition, subtraction, or modification. That way, at least you won't feel an obligation to pervert 1 Pet 4: 16.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 6:19:00 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Judge Rutherford, 1919: "Scriptures definitely fix the fact that there will be a resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other faithful ones of old, and that these will have the first favour, we may expect 1925 to witness the return of these faithful men of Israel from the condition of death , being resurrected and fully restored to perfect humanity and made the visible, legal representatives of the new order of things on earth." - Millions Now Living Will Never Die, p.88

Judge Rutherford, 1920: "there are millions now living who will never die; and if you can keep alive until 1925 you have excellent changes of being one of them. It is an absolute fact, stated in every book of the Bible, foretold by every prophet of the Bible." Kingdom Ministry, October, 1920

Judge Rutherford, 1925: "The year 1926 would therefore begin about October first, 1925. We should, therefore, expect shortly after 1925 to see the awakening of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Melchisedec, Job, Moses, Samuel, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, John the Baptist, and others mentioned in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews." - The Way to Paradise (1925 ed.) pp.224

Judge Rutherford, 1929: "It'd be a grand idea to purchase Beth Sarim, and we'll hold it in trust for David, Samuel, and the other 'princes-to-be of the earth. In the meantime, I'll use it for my residence 'for health reasons'." The house and property were later liquidated in 1948 after Rutherford died (1942).

Judge Rutherford, 1931: Invented a new name, an unheard-of name, in order to distance his few remaining followers from the "Russellites" or "Bible Students" or "Millennial Dawnists" who were ridiculed and shunned for making so many false predictions. He justified the name by running to a descriptor of ancient Israel.

Now comes the MadClown, 85 years later, and claimed there was some "holy spirit influence" in coming up with this name. Well, tell ya what, the old dude didn't have much of that "holy spirit influence" from 1919 through 1929, did he? Why, as late as 1929, this "holy spirit influence" led him to move out to San Diego and live in the "House of the Princes" until they could come and occupy it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 8:06:44 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 6:19:00 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Judge Rutherford, 1919: "Scriptures definitely fix the fact that there will be a resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other faithful ones of old, and that these will have the first favour, we may expect 1925 to witness the return of these faithful men of Israel from the condition of death , being resurrected and fully restored to perfect humanity and made the visible, legal representatives of the new order of things on earth." - Millions Now Living Will Never Die, p.88

So?

It will happen, they just got the timing wrong - again.

Why would such worthy ones not get the resurrection that scripture promises them, and they will certainly be very faith strengthening for those who survive Armageddon, and have a part in cleansing the earth.


Judge Rutherford, 1920: "there are millions now living who will never die; and if you can keep alive until 1925 you have excellent changes of being one of them. It is an absolute fact, stated in every book of the Bible, foretold by every prophet of the Bible." Kingdom Ministry, October, 1920

Very true.

They may fall asleep in death as so many billions have, but they will not enter the second death unless they fail the final test.

One of the things you ignore is that almost invariably when Christ and the Apostles refer to the first, and temporary death they are referring to the first death, the one we know at present.

When they say die, they almost invariably refer to the second death, which some will go straight into if, for instance, like you they have opposed the truth.

But then should your inability to understand that surprise anyone?

Not when your almost complete lack of real faith is taken into account.


Judge Rutherford, 1925: "The year 1926 would therefore begin about October first, 1925. We should, therefore, expect shortly after 1925 to see the awakening of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Melchisedec, Job, Moses, Samuel, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, John the Baptist, and others mentioned in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews." - The Way to Paradise (1925 ed.) pp.224

Again, the facts are correct, the timing is wrong.


Judge Rutherford, 1929: "It'd be a grand idea to purchase Beth Sarim, and we'll hold it in trust for David, Samuel, and the other 'princes-to-be of the earth. In the meantime, I'll use it for my residence 'for health reasons'." The house and property were later liquidated in 1948 after Rutherford died (1942).

Judge Rutherford, 1931: Invented a new name, an unheard-of name, in order to distance his few remaining followers from the "Russellites" or "Bible Students" or "Millennial Dawnists" who were ridiculed and shunned for making so many false predictions. He justified the name by running to a descriptor of ancient Israel.

It is only your belief that he invented it, the fact is that the Governing Body were guided to Isaiah 43:10. The JWs have never been a one man organisation. No -one man is in charge. All are brothers together.


Now comes the MadClown, 85 years later, and claimed there was some "holy spirit influence" in coming up with this name. Well, tell ya what, the old dude didn't have much of that "holy spirit influence" from 1919 through 1929, did he? Why, as late as 1929, this "holy spirit influence" led him to move out to San Diego and live in the "House of the Princes" until they could come and occupy it.

They were still learning weren't they, as John 6:45 points out.

It could not be an instant thing, since there were too many of the seriously wrong attitudes which they shared with such as you when they started. They not only had a lot to learn, but like you that had a lot to unlearn before they could get fully on the right track.

Ever time you post you demonstrate the sort of things they had to unlearn, as you do also.

But yes, of course they had holy spirit guidance, and direction, but it is after all only guidance and direction, no-one is compelled to follow, and it took them a while to learn to.

They would never have been granted the name otherwise, That's why no-one else has ever been allowed to use it as a uniting "label" which is after all, all that a name is.

Has it never crossed your mind how many people have been allowed to call their children Jesus but how few have ever been allowed to call them Jehovah or one of it's other language variation.

Jehovah has always reserved that name to himself and always will.

And no, no-one would dream of calling their child Jehovah. They will never be allowed to. It is a holy name because it describes t's bearer as the one who will make sure that all things happen. It is his name and only those he allows to carry it will be allowed to do so.

Any group who take that name in vain will not prosper, but the JWs do not take that name in vain at all, because they do all they can to live up to it.

You always neglect the most important question of all. Why?, and of course it's negative other side, Why not?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 8:18:46 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 5:52:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

There is really only one answer to that, and that comes from Hebrews 12:1, where Paul has just finished discussing the most faithful men of old, and calls them "such a great cloud of witnesses".

If THAT is the "one answer", then it's pretty pathetic. For one thing, there is not a single example of those "faithful men of old" coming up with the nonsense that the Brooklyn Botchers have concocted in the last 140 years. For another, if we want to know who or what the "Jehovah's Witnesses" are, then the place to go would be the Bible. After all, we find the Pharisees there. We find the Sadducees there. We find the Christians there. Unfortunately, both sacred and profane history utterly fail to record any existence of a sect known as "Jehovah's Witnesses".

The Governing Body do not promote nonsense.

Of course the men of old didn't know what we know now, Proverbs 4:18 remember, Abel's "light" would have been like a feeble candle that far back. He would have had no idea even who the promised "seed" was or how that one would be brought about.

That information was only released a little at a time over the intervening centuries.


Unfortunately, when the dust settles and the smoke clears, you'll have to abandon the Bible entirely in order to find authorization for the name. Yep, you abandon it and run to about 1930 and look to one Judge Rutherford (the man who came up with the 1925 nonsense).

Nope, the Bible is authorisation enough for me, along with my knowledge of the spirit and its working, something you have no idea whatever about.

As far as the Bible goes Isaiah 43:10 is all the authorisation anyone would need, and from Jehovah's own "mouth" also.

However, when you link that to knowledge of the spirit, and pure reason, it is the most appropriate name there ever has been and very necessary in this time of the end.

In fact just by granting the JWs that name, Jehovah has done more to make his own name known than his son was able to do in 3 1/2 years of ministry.


What you need, MadClown, is to be a Christian, and a Christian only - without addition, subtraction, or modification. That way, at least you won't feel an obligation to pervert 1 Pet 4: 16.

No Anna what I need is to follow Christ, and that I do. There is no other way to do so than to bear his father's name in this time of the end.

That is what everyone needs if only they would open up their hearts to Jehovah and Christ and learn

John 6:44, 45
44 No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him, and I will resurrect him on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: "They will all be taught by Jehovah." Everyone who has listened to the Father and has learned comes to me.

It is Jehovah you need to appeal to, in every sense of the word, before he will ever allow you near to the true "version" of his son, and teach you.

But of course, that is yet another scripture you refuse to accept.

Maybe you should start being a "Christian" in the true sense of the word, not the mere label, and not just a fake one as you are at present.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 8:26:17 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 8:06:44 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/5/2016 6:19:00 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Judge Rutherford, 1919: "Scriptures definitely fix the fact that there will be a resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other faithful ones of old, and that these will have the first favour, we may expect 1925 to witness the return of these faithful men of Israel from the condition of death , being resurrected and fully restored to perfect humanity and made the visible, legal representatives of the new order of things on earth." - Millions Now Living Will Never Die, p.88

So?

It will happen, they just got the timing wrong - again.

Then evidently there was a lack of "holy spirit guidance" on the subject.


Judge Rutherford, 1920: "there are millions now living who will never die; and if you can keep alive until 1925 you have excellent changes of being one of them. It is an absolute fact, stated in every book of the Bible, foretold by every prophet of the Bible." Kingdom Ministry, October, 1920

Very true.

They may fall asleep in death as so many billions have, but they will not enter the second death unless they fail the final test.

One of the things you ignore is that almost invariably when Christ and the Apostles refer to the first, and temporary death they are referring to the first death, the one we know at present.

When they say die, they almost invariably refer to the second death, which some will go straight into if, for instance, like you they have opposed the truth.

But then should your inability to understand that surprise anyone?

Not when your almost complete lack of real faith is taken into account.

Thus, "keeping alive 'til '25" had nothing to do with it, as per you. More evidence of a lack of any "direct holy spirit guidance" for Mr. Rutherford.


Judge Rutherford, 1925: "The year 1926 would therefore begin about October first, 1925. We should, therefore, expect shortly after 1925 to see the awakening of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Melchisedec, Job, Moses, Samuel, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, John the Baptist, and others mentioned in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews." - The Way to Paradise (1925 ed.) pp.224

Again, the facts are correct, the timing is wrong.

MORE evidence that whatever spirit was directly guiding Mr. Rutherford, if there was one at all, was anything but holy.


Judge Rutherford, 1929: "It'd be a grand idea to purchase Beth Sarim, and we'll hold it in trust for David, Samuel, and the other 'princes-to-be of the earth. In the meantime, I'll use it for my residence 'for health reasons'." The house and property were later liquidated in 1948 after Rutherford died (1942).

Judge Rutherford, 1931: Invented a new name, an unheard-of name, in order to distance his few remaining followers from the "Russellites" or "Bible Students" or "Millennial Dawnists" who were ridiculed and shunned for making so many false predictions. He justified the name by running to a descriptor of ancient Israel.

It is only your belief that he invented it, the fact is that the Governing Body were guided to Isaiah 43:10.

Guided by whom? Mr. Rutherford? Or what this guidance from the same source that informed them concerning 1925, 1926, and 1929?


Now comes the MadClown, 85 years later, and claimed there was some "holy spirit influence" in coming up with this name. Well, tell ya what, the old dude didn't have much of that "holy spirit influence" from 1919 through 1929, did he? Why, as late as 1929, this "holy spirit influence" led him to move out to San Diego and live in the "House of the Princes" until they could come and occupy it.

They were still learning weren't they, as John 6:45 points out.

Learning that they were not directly guided by the Holy Spirit at all, in any of the cases? If so, that was a good lesson for them.

It could not be an instant thing, since there were too many of the seriously wrong attitudes which they shared with such as you when they started.

Really? Who else shared the 1925 nonsense? Name the person/group.

But yes, of course they had holy spirit guidance, and direction, but it is after all only guidance and direction, no-one is compelled to follow, and it took them a while to learn to.

Oh, so they were directed by "holy spirit" AGAINST the BS concerning 1925, 1926, and Beth Sarim, but they once again simply ignored the Spirit's guidance. LOL @ that.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 8:29:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 8:18:46 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/5/2016 5:52:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

There is really only one answer to that, and that comes from Hebrews 12:1, where Paul has just finished discussing the most faithful men of old, and calls them "such a great cloud of witnesses".

If THAT is the "one answer", then it's pretty pathetic. For one thing, there is not a single example of those "faithful men of old" coming up with the nonsense that the Brooklyn Botchers have concocted in the last 140 years. For another, if we want to know who or what the "Jehovah's Witnesses" are, then the place to go would be the Bible. After all, we find the Pharisees there. We find the Sadducees there. We find the Christians there. Unfortunately, both sacred and profane history utterly fail to record any existence of a sect known as "Jehovah's Witnesses".

The Governing Body do not promote nonsense.

Of course the men of old didn't know what we know now, Proverbs 4:18 remember, Abel's "light" would have been like a feeble candle that far back. He would have had no idea even who the promised "seed" was or how that one would be brought about.

That information was only released a little at a time over the intervening centuries.


Unfortunately, when the dust settles and the smoke clears, you'll have to abandon the Bible entirely in order to find authorization for the name. Yep, you abandon it and run to about 1930 and look to one Judge Rutherford (the man who came up with the 1925 nonsense).

Nope, the Bible is authorisation enough for me, along with my knowledge of the spirit and its working, something you have no idea whatever about.

ALONG WITH? Just take the Bible and Bible alone. Forget these imaginary "along withs". Every pseudoChristian false teacher takes the Bible ... PLUS. At some point, they can't produce the goods from the Bible, and that's where the PLUS comes in. My advice: take the Bible alone, without addition or subtraction and without these wild claims of "along with" and "plus". If you do that, you'll never be a Jehovah's Witness.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 9:08:42 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 4:32:04 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:51:44 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I whacked off the rest because you didn't answer a single question. So He authorizes via His spirit? The Spirit operates through the word. All you're saying is: "Lord knows I can't find it in the Bible, so I'll have to claim something outside of the Bible."

Try 'em again:

(1) Exactly when this authorization occurred
(2) Exactly how God went about informing people that the proper noun "Jehovah's Witnesses" is authorized
(3) Exactly where this authorization took place
(4) Exactly why the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" is authorized but the names "The Earth's Salt" and "The World's Light" are not authorized.

You have had the answers to all those questions many times over, but of course they don;t suit you so you refuse to accept them.

However I will repeat one thing.

Only names which would get Jehovah's name known to those who wish to serve him through his son are acceptable.

The name has to be about what they do, not what they want to be seen as.

The name has to reflect Jehovah's purposes in this time of the end.

There is only one name which will do that, and more, and that is the name he gave his servants - Jehovah's Witnesses.

No Anna, only the name he gave them will do, not any of your third rate substitutes, including the name coined by opposers and adopted by Apostates, the name the Brothers were embarrassed to preach God under in the 1st century and had to be encouraged to continue to do so "Christian".

The origin of that name may well have been "divine" but when you remember that divine need only be a description of the nature of such ones, and that would include Satan and his gang, it guarantees nothing.

The Word is divine, the Angels are divine, even Satan and his demons are divine, which is why every one of them is called a god in scripture.

So a "divine" source means nothing, hence the warning at 1 John 4:1.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 9:15:06 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 8:29:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2016 8:18:46 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/5/2016 5:52:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

There is really only one answer to that, and that comes from Hebrews 12:1, where Paul has just finished discussing the most faithful men of old, and calls them "such a great cloud of witnesses".

If THAT is the "one answer", then it's pretty pathetic. For one thing, there is not a single example of those "faithful men of old" coming up with the nonsense that the Brooklyn Botchers have concocted in the last 140 years. For another, if we want to know who or what the "Jehovah's Witnesses" are, then the place to go would be the Bible. After all, we find the Pharisees there. We find the Sadducees there. We find the Christians there. Unfortunately, both sacred and profane history utterly fail to record any existence of a sect known as "Jehovah's Witnesses".

The Governing Body do not promote nonsense.

Of course the men of old didn't know what we know now, Proverbs 4:18 remember, Abel's "light" would have been like a feeble candle that far back. He would have had no idea even who the promised "seed" was or how that one would be brought about.

That information was only released a little at a time over the intervening centuries.


Unfortunately, when the dust settles and the smoke clears, you'll have to abandon the Bible entirely in order to find authorization for the name. Yep, you abandon it and run to about 1930 and look to one Judge Rutherford (the man who came up with the 1925 nonsense).

Nope, the Bible is authorisation enough for me, along with my knowledge of the spirit and its working, something you have no idea whatever about.

ALONG WITH? Just take the Bible and Bible alone. Forget these imaginary "along withs". Every pseudoChristian false teacher takes the Bible ... PLUS. At some point, they can't produce the goods from the Bible, and that's where the PLUS comes in. My advice: take the Bible alone, without addition or subtraction and without these wild claims of "along with" and "plus". If you do that, you'll never be a Jehovah's Witness.

That statement makes you the biggest hypocrite going considering how little of the Bible you even accept.

After all Anna you don't do it with the Bible alone. No, you lean on the words of men, and the wrong ones at that.

As 1 Corinthians makes very clear you cannot do it with the Bible alone.

Another of the multitude of scriptures you think you know better than.

If it were possible to do it with the Bible alone the Ethiopian Eunuch wold not have needed Philip to be sent to him.

Nor would we need John 6:44,45
44 No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him, and I will resurrect him on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: "They will all be taught by Jehovah." Everyone who has listened to the Father and has learned comes to me.
sedevacantist
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 9:42:41 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

There is really only one answer to that, and that comes from Hebrews 12:1, where Paul has just finished discussing the most faithful men of old, and calls them "sucha great cloud of witnesses".

If you are interpreting this passage as a reference to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, along with its faithful adherents, then you are neglecting the immediate context of the text. This passage is decidedly clear in its reference to the men and women of faith in the Old Testament. Consider the entirety of Hebrews 11, which discusses the faith of Abraham and so many others. That is why Hebrews 12:1 states:
"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and persevere in running the race that lies before us..."

The use of the words "we" and "us" are to contrast them with the "great cloud of witnesses."

Witnesses to whom?

To Jehovah, the God they served and who they bore witness to with their faith in him.

Yet you reject the Biblical teaching of the triune nature of Jehovah, as an adherent to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. How can you claim to be a witness of the very God you do not wholly apprehend?

The foremost Witness to Jehovah was his only begotten son who was sent to earth by his father Jehovah, to become incarnate in the specially created flesh of Jesus and suffer and die for us (John 1:14; John 3:16).

While I can appreciate what you are trying to convey, your use of the terminology displays a woeful misunderstanding of the Bible and doctrine. The foremost witness is indeed Jesus, as he is "the leader and perfecter of faith" (Heb. 12:2). However, Jesus is also Jehovah (Ps. 102:25, 26; Heb. 1:10-12). So to say that Jesus is a witness to Jehovah is antithetical. Jesus is a witness to the Father. Jesus was not sent by Jehovah, he was sent by the Father (Jn. 20:21)
"Reveal to the faithful the wolves which are demolishing the Lord's vineyard."
- Pope Clement XIII, Encyclical Christianae Reipublicae, 1766
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 9:44:58 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 9:08:42 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/5/2016 4:32:04 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:51:44 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I whacked off the rest because you didn't answer a single question. So He authorizes via His spirit? The Spirit operates through the word. All you're saying is: "Lord knows I can't find it in the Bible, so I'll have to claim something outside of the Bible."

Try 'em again:

(1) Exactly when this authorization occurred
(2) Exactly how God went about informing people that the proper noun "Jehovah's Witnesses" is authorized
(3) Exactly where this authorization took place
(4) Exactly why the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" is authorized but the names "The Earth's Salt" and "The World's Light" are not authorized.

You have had the answers to all those questions many times over, but of course they don;t suit you so you refuse to accept them.

However I will repeat one thing.

Only names which would get Jehovah's name known to those who wish to serve him through his son are acceptable.

Do you have a passage for that, or did you just make up the axiom?

The name has to be about what they do, not what they want to be seen as.

Do you have a passage for that, or did you just make up the axiom?

The name has to reflect Jehovah's purposes in this time of the end.

Do you have a passage for that, or did you just make up the axiom?

There is only one name which will do that, and more, and that is the name he gave his servants - Jehovah's Witnesses.

It's tough when you can't find a single passage in the entire Bible to support the idea that God authorized followers of Jesus Christ to call themselves "Jehovah's Witnesses."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 9:47:06 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 9:15:06 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/5/2016 8:29:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2016 8:18:46 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/5/2016 5:52:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

There is really only one answer to that, and that comes from Hebrews 12:1, where Paul has just finished discussing the most faithful men of old, and calls them "such a great cloud of witnesses".

If THAT is the "one answer", then it's pretty pathetic. For one thing, there is not a single example of those "faithful men of old" coming up with the nonsense that the Brooklyn Botchers have concocted in the last 140 years. For another, if we want to know who or what the "Jehovah's Witnesses" are, then the place to go would be the Bible. After all, we find the Pharisees there. We find the Sadducees there. We find the Christians there. Unfortunately, both sacred and profane history utterly fail to record any existence of a sect known as "Jehovah's Witnesses".

The Governing Body do not promote nonsense.

Of course the men of old didn't know what we know now, Proverbs 4:18 remember, Abel's "light" would have been like a feeble candle that far back. He would have had no idea even who the promised "seed" was or how that one would be brought about.

That information was only released a little at a time over the intervening centuries.


Unfortunately, when the dust settles and the smoke clears, you'll have to abandon the Bible entirely in order to find authorization for the name. Yep, you abandon it and run to about 1930 and look to one Judge Rutherford (the man who came up with the 1925 nonsense).

Nope, the Bible is authorisation enough for me, along with my knowledge of the spirit and its working, something you have no idea whatever about.

ALONG WITH? Just take the Bible and Bible alone. Forget these imaginary "along withs". Every pseudoChristian false teacher takes the Bible ... PLUS. At some point, they can't produce the goods from the Bible, and that's where the PLUS comes in. My advice: take the Bible alone, without addition or subtraction and without these wild claims of "along with" and "plus". If you do that, you'll never be a Jehovah's Witness.

That statement makes you the biggest hypocrite going considering how little of the Bible you even accept.

After all Anna you don't do it with the Bible alone. No, you lean on the words of men, and the wrong ones at that.

As 1 Corinthians makes very clear you cannot do it with the Bible alone.

Another of the multitude of scriptures you think you know better than.

If it were possible to do it with the Bible alone the Ethiopian Eunuch wold not have needed Philip to be sent to him.

The Ethiopian eunuch did not possess the New Testament, did he?

You simply prove what I said: if one takes the Bible and the Bible alone as his guide, he'll never be a Jehovah's Witness.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 12:26:05 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 9:15:06 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/5/2016 8:29:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2016 8:18:46 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/5/2016 5:52:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

If it were possible to do it with the Bible alone the Ethiopian Eunuch wold not have needed Philip to be sent to him.

Yeah, he would - because there WAS no completed revelation from God at the time. The new covenant, the new testament was still being revealed, and at the time the revelation was in inspired men such as Philip.

Here's the problem with the JW's.

(1) They believe that inspired revelation from God STOPPED when the last period of the last book was penned in the first century. So far, so good.

(2) Then they believe that inspired revelation from God STAY STOPPED for the next 100, 200, 300, 500, 1,000, 1,500, and 1,800 years. So far, so good.

(3) Where they get lost out in left field is that they decided that inspired revelation CRANKED BACK UP, i. e. the inspired word wasn't good enough any more. That's no different than the Catholics, except that the Catholics are at least consistent. I'd as soon believe the pope of Rome as I had the clowns at the WatchTower. Of course, the truth is that NEITHER are directly influenced by the Holy Spirit or inspired.

So here we have it:

Roman Catholics - the pope of Rome, along with the cardinals and bishops
Seventh-Day Adventists - the visions of their female pope, Ellen White
Christian Scientists - Mary Baker Glover Patterson Eddy
Mormons - their inspired prophet, Joe Smith
Jehovah's Witnesses - the clowns at the WatchTower

Each and every one, without exception, takes the Bible ... PLUS. The Bible doesn't quite cut it for them.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 7:43:00 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 12:26:05 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2016 9:15:06 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/5/2016 8:29:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2016 8:18:46 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/5/2016 5:52:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2016 4:21:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

If it were possible to do it with the Bible alone the Ethiopian Eunuch wold not have needed Philip to be sent to him.

Yeah, he would - because there WAS no completed revelation from God at the time. The new covenant, the new testament was still being revealed, and at the time the revelation was in inspired men such as Philip.

Here's the problem with the JW's.

(1) They believe that inspired revelation from God STOPPED when the last period of the last book was penned in the first century. So far, so good.

Revelation, yes, spirit guiding, no.


(2) Then they believe that inspired revelation from God STAY STOPPED for the next 100, 200, 300, 500, 1,000, 1,500, and 1,800 years. So far, so good.

Revelation, yes, spirit guiding, no.

(3) Where they get lost out in left field is that they decided that inspired revelation CRANKED BACK UP, i. e. the inspired word wasn't good enough any more. That's no different than the Catholics, except that the Catholics are at least consistent. I'd as soon believe the pope of Rome as I had the clowns at the WatchTower. Of course, the truth is that NEITHER are directly influenced by the Holy Spirit or inspired.

Where's the problem, it was revived when it was needed. for almost 1800 years there was no need for it.

The Gentile times were not over, and those who died ignorant were protected by the resurrection.

Inspired revelation simply was not needed until it was time for more details to be released, time for the gathering in of the last of the anointed to rule alongside Christ.

Until the Gentile Times were up, in 1914 according to Daniel 4, there was no need for resurrecting the dead anointed, because it suited Jehovah's plans to keep Satan and his demons occupied taunting himself and the Angels in heaven rather than spending all their time attacking us on earth.

Until that point Christ was still waiting at his father's right hand for his enemies in heaven to but put at his feet, cast down to the earth.

The whole point being that Jehovah did not want the tribulation triggered before he was ready for it, before the time limit for human rule to come to an end.

What would be the point?


So here we have it:

Roman Catholics - the pope of Rome, along with the cardinals and bishops
Seventh-Day Adventists - the visions of their female pope, Ellen White
Christian Scientists - Mary Baker Glover Patterson Eddy
Mormons - their inspired prophet, Joe Smith
Jehovah's Witnesses - the clowns at the WatchTower

Each and every one, without exception, takes the Bible ... PLUS. The Bible doesn't quite cut it for them.

The Jehovah's Witnesses do not deny the Bible, it is their law-book and their guide.

It is you who denies the Bible Anna, which is shy you don;t bother obeying the commands of Christ and Jehovah.

The Bible cuts it 100%, that's why they publish three translations of it.

That's why they constantly use it in their meetings, encouraging all to check up that what they say is truly in there.

No Anna, and the worst of that statement of yours is that I know that you know it is not true, therefore you have to be deliberately lying.

And the stupid part of it is that anyone can check up and see for themselves just how wrong you are, and just how much you are lying.

You really do think very little of the intelligence of your readers don't you Anna, you assume that they don't have the intelligence to check it out for themselves.
bulproof
Posts: 25,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 7:48:50 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 7:43:00 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Until that point Christ was still waiting at his father's right hand for his enemies in heaven to but put at his feet, cast down to the earth.
Now where did those demons of antiquity come from since they were only cast down to earth in the late 19th century?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin