i have several jw family members.
i have been shunned many years now.
i was not baptized, but i was indoctrinated as a child.
Someone teach me how to quote on here?
To me, both statements are saying the same thing. If Adam's sin is what condemned humanity, then Jesus's sacrifice is what saved it. By balancing the scales to negate the cost of Adam's sin, he has given humanity a path for the expiation of their own.
22 For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.
i was listening to a youtube where a pastor relates his experience of attending a jw memorial.
he said something that was profound to me.. "how do you have a memorial for someone alive?".
they use this phrase all the time, even printing thousands and thousands of invitations to invite everyone to join them in doing this.. i googled that phrase to see what other christian church's use this phrase and was astounded to see that at least the first two pages of results are in relation to jw's only..
2146. zikkaron
Definition: memorial, remembrance
[23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night on which he was going to be betrayed took a loaf, 24 and after giving thanks, he broke it and said: “This means my body, which is in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” 25 He did the same with the cup also, after they had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood. Keep doing this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he comes.]
[6 You must care for it until the 14th day of this month, and the whole congregation of the assembly of Israel must slaughter it at twilight. 7 They must take some of the blood and splash it on the two doorposts and the upper part of the doorway of the houses in which they eat it.8 “‘They must eat the meat on this night. They should roast it over the fire and eat it along with unleavened bread and bitter greens. 9 Do not eat any of it raw or boiled, cooked in water, but roast it over the fire, its head together with its shanks and its inner parts. 10 You must not save any of it until morning, but any of it left over until morning you should burn with fire. 11 And this is how you should eat it, with your belt fastened, sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you should eat it in a hurry. It is Jehovah’s Passover. 12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt on this night and strike every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from man to beast; and I will execute judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am Jehovah. 13 The blood will serve as your sign on the houses where you are; and I will see the blood and pass over you, and the plague will not come on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt. 14 “‘This day will serve as a memorial for you, and you must celebrate it as a festival to Jehovah throughout your generations. As a lasting statute, you should celebrate it]
.........jehovah.. the bible's foundation name - (1 corinthians 3:11) "for no one can lay any other foundation than what is laid, which is jesus christ.".
the org's chosen name for christians - "jehovah's witnesses.".
jehovah's chosen name for christians - acts 11:26 - "...the disciples were by divine providence called christians.".
How does knowing and using the Hebrew name of God and His Son matter or help?
I wasn't claiming anything in regard to it helping or not, just making the point about the Latin form doesn't glorify the name of God, that it is the Hebrew form that does.
But as far as knowing/using, it always matters/is helpful to use a name to identify who is being spoken to/about.
.........jehovah.. the bible's foundation name - (1 corinthians 3:11) "for no one can lay any other foundation than what is laid, which is jesus christ.".
the org's chosen name for christians - "jehovah's witnesses.".
jehovah's chosen name for christians - acts 11:26 - "...the disciples were by divine providence called christians.".
Every use of the name Jesus glorifies his God Jehovah.
Actually, the use of that name does not glorify his God. The use of that name is meant to keep hiding the name of God. Any who wanted to glorify God would use the name that was actually given to use.
יהושע - Jehoshua
[ 43 I have come in the name of my Father, but you do not receive me.]
things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
Tell that to Jeffro for he has a vested interest in 607 BCE being incorrect!!!
scholar JW
He is right in it being incorrect. The WTS by their pointing to recent events and WW3, etc... shows that it is wrong and pointless to debate 607/587. They used 607 to get to 1914 because WW1 occurred then. Using 587 didn't work so they added 20 magical years. But now if peace is being taking away because of recent events and world war with nuclear weapons is on the horizon with the GT to follow then all that was said about WW1 timeframe was not the case.
hello all.. i need a quick answer, and also a solid reference in the literature, please.. if a jw marries an unbeliever, there is reproof, it's frowned upon, it's disloyal, there will be loss of privileges, etc, but there's no other more serious consequences.
but, in a scenario where two people are free to marry, but one is a baptized jw and the other is disfellowshipped / disassociated, what are the consequences?.
thanks for your help.. r..
but one is a baptized JW and the other is disfellowshipped / disassociated, what are the consequences?
Thanks for your help.
R.
Maybe this might be helpful?
(Sorry about calling you "Shirley")
things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
Pathetic well describes you in your inability or refusal to simply provide a single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE
What is the relevance of 607 now being that the WTS are no longer pointing to WW1 as the point the horsemen started their ride?
They have moved that up to recent events and are pointing to WW3 looming around the corner that will lead to the GT and then Armageddon.
It is on their main page right now.
Funny how you just skip over my post on page 5.
things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
Further, your blogs on the website do not contain a single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE. So, where is it?
Who gives a rat's ass about your beloved WTS 607, I have just showed that they have thrown that all out with what they recently showed on their website.
Noticed NOTHING about WW1, 1914, BTG mentioned, instead they say that recent events are what are taking peace from the earth, and they will lead to world war and GT and Armageddon. They even admit the use of nuclear weapons being used.
I actually agree with them on that. This is the first time they are actually correct. But they are only correct this time because it is happening before all to see for themselves. It's not like they had the insight on this beforehand.
The point being though is that pointing to the recent events and a future world war and connecting Rev 6 to it, completely nullifies WW1/1914.
_______________
[KEEP ON THE WATCH!
Is World War Inevitable?—What Does the Bible Say?
During the past 30 years, many people have felt that the international order was stable and even improving. However, that view is being challenged by recent events.
Does the Bible say anything about the international instability that we are seeing today? Will it lead to world war?
The Bible foretold current events:
The Bible did not foretell any specific war that we are seeing today. However, it did foretell the rampant warfare that is marking our time and is taking “peace away from the earth.”—Revelation 6:4.
The book of Daniel foretold that “in the time of the end,” competing world powers would engage in a “pushing,” or struggle for dominance. That struggle would involve projecting great military power and spending vast “treasures,” or financial resources.—Daniel 11:40, 42, 43.
A war that is coming:
The Bible indicates that the world situation will get worse before it gets better. Jesus foretold that “there would be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning.” (Matthew 24:21) That “great tribulation” will culminate in a war called Armageddon, which is described as “the war of the great day of God the Almighty.”—Revelation 16:14, 16. However, Armageddon will save mankind, not destroy it. By means of that war, God will bring an end to human rulership, which has caused so many destructive wars.]
things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
My money is on another change to 1914. This year felt like table-setting in preparation for it.
They have already shifted away just as recent as 1/21/24.
They used to say that WW1 in 1914 is when the horsemen started his ride to take peace away from the earth. Now they say that the Bible didn't mention any 'specific' war that we are seeing today but the warfare that is marking our time (recent events) is taking 'peace away from the earth' and will lead to world war. And that will lead to the GT, which will lead too and end with Armageddon.
i know that a lot of historical names have claimed to be a god.
but, jesus arguably claimed to be god.
scripture says he's the creator.
Allah is not referring to a separate God than Jehovah. Allah is Arabic for the word God, just like Elohim is in Hebrew.
