Posts by PSacramento

39

The Last (Lord's) Supper

by PSacramento in

i wanted to ask this question beacuse at the last memorial supper it caught my attention more than it ever did:.

why do some (not just the jw's) believe that judas did not partkae of the lord's supper, the bread and the wine?.

in the synoptic gospels of matt, mark and luke, there is nomention of judas being sent away, indeed in luke jesus says "behold the hand of the betrayer at the table with me".. while in john judas is sent away, he is sent after the supper, though it is not clear if this was the lord's supper since there is no mention of the the partaking of the wine and bread in john.. help would be greatly appreciated.. .

PSacramento

Spike,

The issue is that in John, there is no "lord's supper" per say, the only meal is the one that happens BEFORE the washing of the feet.

Also in Luke he clearly states AFTER the partaking of the bread and wine that "the hand of the betrayer is at the table with me".

To say the Luke's presentation is not in strict chronological order is based on what?

No where in Matt, Mark or Luke is Judas sent away or shown to leave, the only place he is shown to leave is in John and that is AFTER the only meal recorded in John, and after he leaves John does NOT mention any partake of bread and wine at all.

I know you are trying to establish a chronology by sorting out the events in all 4 gosples, but ut seems oyu are doing it to confome to your doctrine and it is NOT what is plainly stated.

163

Is God's name absent in the Christian Scriptures?

by Spike Tassel in

perhaps this article will help you know for yourself: http://www.tetragrammaton.org/godsnameabsent.htm.

PSacramento

cabasilas,

I have been told and read that the people working on the NWT and on the Aid to bible understanding ( renamed insight into the scriptures) used commentaries such as the Barnes one you quoted, quite extensively.

I too use bible commentaries, typiclaly 3 or 4 depending on how "controversial" a passage may be, and I have yet to find one that, in the case of Romana 10;13, says that Paul was referring to God rather than jesus in that passage.

Which makes me wonder, if the translators of the NWT used bible commentaries, as they were suppose to, where did they get the view that "jehovah" shoudl be inserted when the context of the chapter doesn't call for it and no bible commentary states it as such?

62

Which 5 Books Would You Recommend?

by leavingwt in

which 5 books would you recommend?.

there is a wealth of information, just waiting to be shared with persons who have an open mind and a desire to know the truth about the watchtower society.

please list five books (more or less) that you would recommend to new ones.. i hope to discover something new from your lists.

PSacramento

A Question of Conscience by Charles Davis, while Davis was never as high up in the RCC as Ray was in the WT, his views on the RCC parallel Ray's in so m any ways, it is quite interesting to say the least ( A bit of a dry read though).

The Oxford Commentary on the Bible, I think everyone that studies the bible needs a few good commentaries, to say the least, this is a pretty good one.

The Jesus I never knew, by Philip Yancey.

163

Is God's name absent in the Christian Scriptures?

by Spike Tassel in

perhaps this article will help you know for yourself: http://www.tetragrammaton.org/godsnameabsent.htm.

PSacramento

OnTheWayOut,

Well said and in the end, unless proven otherwise, correct.

163

Is God's name absent in the Christian Scriptures?

by Spike Tassel in

perhaps this article will help you know for yourself: http://www.tetragrammaton.org/godsnameabsent.htm.

PSacramento

The argument that YHWH was removed from the NT on purpose doesn't make a lot of sense, it smacks of conspiracy and just not that feesable considering the 1000's of scriptures we have.

Like it has been mentioned before, to accept that is to accept the view that the NT is NOT sacred or inspired.

I don't have issues with insering YHWH into passages from the OT that are prsnt in the NT, if the context calls for it, but to insert it randomly where the term "lord" is violates the rule of translation.

When we translate anythign we must use the source that is closest to the original source and to add to that is, well, unjustifiable without proof and right now, there doesn't seem to be much proof other than possible speculation.

To say that God allowed His Name to be removed in some parts, but kept alive in others and only be inserted randomly, well that is just a tad of a stretch.

A couple of facts we can't deny: Jesus told us to pray to Our Father, when Jesus prayed he used Father and Abba.

Jehovah is NOT the correct name of God or even the correct tranlation or pronunciation of YHWH.

31

Martial Arts - what is the present stance of the WTS

by insearchoftruth in

i have read before that the wts is against the martial arts....i do not have a wts cd, so was wondering if there is any wts literature to support this?.

PSacramento

By the way, that whole thing of MA being created in monestaries is a fable, no proof of that whatsoever.

56

Jehovah explained by WT

by PSacramento in

can anyone confirm what i read on another website that the aid to bible undertsanding, 1971 pages 884-885, admit that the term jehovah is a combination of yhwh and the words adonia and elohim and that scholars generally favour "yahweh" as the correct pronunciation?.

is this correct?.

.

PSacramento

I am aware that on the WT website they admit that they use the term Jehovah basically because it is "the popular" rending of YHWH, even though it is incorrect.

I was NOT aware that was part of the Aid to Bible Understanding.

So, and bare with me on this cause this issue is a tad confusing to me, if the name of God is SO holy, why is it ok to use the incorrect form smple because it is more recognizable?

I think this gives weight to the Jewish view that it is best NOT to say the name of God if you dont; knwo what it is.

When I was at the ROM (Royal Ontario Museum) seeing the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibt, I was there with a group that included a Jewish friend of mine, he is a researcher of ancient Hebrew and he brought his Grand-Uncle, a rabbincal Scholar and when I asked him his views on the pronunciation of YHWH he said," At best we can only speculate and I think God deserves better than Speculation and mispronunciation, don't you"?

I tend to agree.

12

1985 Kingdom Interlinear Translation--PDF!

by Atlantis in

1985 kingdom interlinear translation--pdf bookmarked searchable reduced front cover?

click here: http://www.imagger.com/view/442359_scan-20001.jpg.html download: click the link at the bottom of the next page.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/iqzeiy cheers!

PSacramento

ANy major differences between the two versions?

56

Jehovah explained by WT

by PSacramento in

can anyone confirm what i read on another website that the aid to bible undertsanding, 1971 pages 884-885, admit that the term jehovah is a combination of yhwh and the words adonia and elohim and that scholars generally favour "yahweh" as the correct pronunciation?.

is this correct?.

.

PSacramento

Can anyone confirm what I read on another website that the Aid to Bible Undertsanding, 1971 pages 884-885, admit that the term Jehovah is a combination of YHWH and the words adonia and elohim and that scholars generally favour "Yahweh" as the correct pronunciation?

Is this correct?

43

proof that the NT likely was first written in Hebrew

by Spike Tassel in

http://www.search-the-scriptures.org/hebrew_new_testament.htm.

PSacramento

Cabasilas,

I think that Jesus makes it clear how he wants us to address God when he TELLS us to pary to "Our Father".

Its defines the personal relationship we are to have with God, even if we knew God's name and how to pronunce it ( we don't really, we can speculate) it would be far more impoersonal to say it than to follow Jesus's instructions to call him as Our Father, this is what we are asked/told to do.

Should be good enough for us, no?