leaving_quietly
JoinedTopics Started by leaving_quietly
-
7
For Bethelites & Gileadites Only
by The Searcher in"who really is the faithful and discreet slave".... (matt.
when discussing john 1:1 with trinitarians, we always refer to the original greek, and inform them that the verse speaks of the word being 'a' god, not 'the' god, because the definite article 'ho' is not used in his case.
when discussing john 1:1 with trinitarians, we always refer to the original greek, and inform them that the verse speaks of the word being 'a' god, not 'the' god, because the definite article 'ho' is not used in his case.
-
8
Contradiction in last week's study article
by leaving_quietly in6/15/12 p.15 par 5 footnote: "although the components of the dual world power have existed since the 18th century, john describes it as it would appear at the start of the lord's day.
in fact, the fulfillment of the visions recorded in revelation takes place during "the lord's day.
" (rev.
-
3
Ex 7:1 ponderings
by leaving_quietly inif god could make moses god (capital g, hebrew elohim) to pharoah, what prevents him from making jesus god to all humans?.
my point is: the concept of the father is god and the son is god is not a big stretch in light of ex 7:1, when god made moses god to one human.
jesus, being greater than moses, could easily be made god to all humans, and it would seem to fit the scriptures better, especially when considering john 14:28 and 1 cor 15:26,27, and, dare i say, john 1:1 as understood by most people.
-
29
STOP MAKING CRAP UP!
by Sheep2slaughter ini had to start this thread in light of today's watchtower study.
in paragraph 14,15 they mention the grounds for separation.
no scriptures are sighted but i am well aware of the support they usually use.. i am so sick of the watchtower making crap up!
-
30
What brought you here?
by leaving_quietly infolks here all have one thing in common: they are somehow associated with jws, either were one, are married to one, have a relative who is one, has a romantic interest in one, are are currently one.
perhaps you are not one, but something about jws bugs you enough to have found this forum, and read it and contribute to it.
what brought you here?
-
19
WT Q&A Study Method
by leaving_quietly infor years, i've never understood why we read a paragraph, ask a question, and then recite what we just read in the paragraph, and at the wt study, it's an hour long period of severe boredom because, well, how many times can we recite the same stuff over and over?
even new ones who come in have been baffled at this method of teaching.
i have a theory, though.. however, i just read the "what is sacred service?
-
8
Statement "from heaven"
by leaving_quietly inthere was a post on here about a month ago about the dc speaker saying the statement was made that 'we are in the last day of the last days' and how we could count on it because it was in the outline and how the gb feels strongly about it.
well, apparently this is confirmed, because our speaker today was samuel herd, one of the gb members, and he prefaced it with: 'we got this statement from heaven'.
then he said something about not imagining coming up with the statement himeself.
-
12
WT Study for 6-17-12
by Bobcat ini did not see a thread on the 6-17-12 wt study article, so i thought i'd put this here.. .
this is just a thought on unquoted references that sheds a little "light" on why they are not sourced.. in paragraph 4 of the lesson it says: 'as one reference work states, it is "the sum total of the interior man.
"' it is referring to what the bible means when it speaks of the figurative heart.
-
2
More news reporting abuse case
by snare&racket inhttp://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_20867873/jehovahs-witnesses-must-pay-20-million-fremont-sex?refresh=no.
.
.
-
29
Planning an Escape: Truth Triumphs Over Lies!
by 00DAD inoften during wt/book studies and/or public talks i would be following along and note little discrepancies and inconsistencies.
perhaps it was a scripture that didn't really support the point being asserted in the paragraph or maybe it was an illustration that sounded good but wasn't completely parallel or maybe it was a line of reasoning that wasn't as conclusive or solid as the speaker/elder/co/wt publication made it out to be.
or maybe it was the excessive use of weasel words like, "evidently," "perhaps," "must have" and so on.