If Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult which is the true organization God is using to proclaim his invitation internationally?

Well said. Test EVERY inspired expression.

Fine reasonable questions, Jehovah has blessed no one with instant enlightenment. All learning is progressive, like fitting jigsaw puzzle pieces together, over and over until the picture finally comes into correct focus, that's the purpose of my threads.
"Always be rejoicing. 17 Pray incessantly. 18 In connection with everything give thanks. For this is the will of God in union with Christ Jesus respecting YOU. 19 Do not put out the fire of the spirit. 20 Do not treat prophesyings with contempt. 21 Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine. 22 Abstain from every form of wickedness.' 1thes5:16

"Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible. For this reason the Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovah’s visible organization in mind.” (The Watchtower, October 1, 1967, page 587)

“Jehovah God has also provided his visible organization, his “faithful and discreet slave,” made up of spirit anointed ones, to help Christians in all nations to understand and apply properly the Bible in their lives. Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do.” (The Watchtower,  December 1, 1981, page 27)

“We have the opportunity to show love for our brothers who take the lead in the congregation or in connection with Jehovah’s visible organization worldwide. This includes being loyal to “the faithful and discreet slave.” (Matthew 24:45-47) Let us face the fact that no matter how much Bible reading we have done, we would never have learned the truth on our own.” (The Watchtower, December 1, 1990, page 19)

“All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that the “greatly diversified wisdom of God” can become known only through Jehovah’s channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave.” (The Watchtower, October 1, 1994, page 8)

These 'anointed ones' are the 'John Class'  (the faithful descreet slave) some them work for The WatchTower Society as interpreters of thier scriptures,  writers of thier doctrine and publications.

   Being cautious as serpents, yet appearing gentle as doves they are skillfully taught to slither around the truth as representatives of the WatchTower Society.

The congregation (the 'Jonadab Class' ) are forbidden from interaction with such as us on this forum.
These aren't the typical JW's here.

This is a current events in the news forum, a great place to extend Jehovah's invitation day and night, around the world, providing bible education to people in unapproachable times and places like forbidden lands, gated communities, high rise security buildings, etc. I don't know how many different people have read my lessons here but in eight years it's over half million clicks.
"And many false prophets will arise and mislead many; 12 and because of the increasing of lawlessness the love of the greater number will cool off. 13 But he that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved. 14 And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come." Mt24;11

Anyone having no interest in starting over and making global garden of Eden after Armageddon really has no need to read or reply to my threads.

"‘Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to render to each one as his work is. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. 14 Happy are those who wash their robes, that the authority [to go] to the trees of life may be theirs and that they may gain entrance into the city by its gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and those who practice spiritism and the fornicators and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone liking and carrying on a lie.’ Rv22;12

Last Edited by DGN on 07/10/2016 12:32 AM

20 Do not treat prophesyings with contempt.

WOW

1914 -end of the world?

1921 end of the world?

1925 end of the world?

1975 end of the world?

1994 and on and on and on ......

What date did Jehovah cite for Armageddon?

Jehovah's witness did...

Jehovah's Witness well know the miraculous gifts were only given to the apostles and expired 2,000 years ago. Ask anyone for the date of Armageddon.

Last Edited by DGN on 07/10/2016 01:16 AM

The rcc is a works based attempt to appease The Most High God that offers Grace!

Grace ALONE!!!

One does not need the rcc - Mary IS NOT a co-redeemer

"Of what benefit is it, my brothers, if a certain one says he has faith but he does not have works? That faith cannot save him, can it? 15 If a brother or a sister is in a naked state and lacking the food sufficient for the day, 16 yet a certain one of YOU says to them: “Go in peace, keep warm and well fed,” but YOU do not give them the necessities for [their] body, of what benefit is it? 17 Thus, too, faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself.' Ja2:14

not so:

[link to www.jwfacts.com]

"The fact that fifty-four years of the period called the "last days" have already gone by is highly significant. It means that only a few years, at most, remain before the corrupt system of things dominating the earth is destroyed by God." Awake! 1968 Oct 8 p.13

"Many schools now have student counselors who encourage one to pursue higher education after high school, to pursue a career with a future in this system of things. Do not be influenced by them. Do not let them "brainwash" you with the Devil's propaganda to get ahead, to make something of yourself in this world. This world has very little time left! Any "future" this world offers is no future!
Watchtower 1969 Mar 15 p.171


This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that "concerning that day and hour nobody knows ,

The August 15 issue of the 1968 Watchtower

< 50 %

[link to www.jwfacts.com]

"Millions now living will never die!" was exclaimed by Rutherford in a series of public lectures starting 1918. This was related to his prophecy that the earthly resurrection would commence 1925, with the return to life of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...

The failure of the 1914 predictions and death of Russell in 1916 left his followers in disarray. After legalistic wrangling1 Rutherford became next President of Watchtower....

"Millions Now Living Will Never Die!" introduced Rutherford's prediction that the earthly resurrection was to begin in 1925, starting with the faithful men of old, men such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Between 1918 and 1925, Watchtower promoted the earthly resurrection would commence in 1925.
"Seventy jubilees of fifty years each would be a total of 3500 years. That period of time beginning 1575 before A.D. 1 of necessity would end in the fall of the year 1925, at which time the type ends and the great antitype must begin. What, then, should we expect to take place? The chief thing to be restored is the human race to life;

< 50%

yea, so lots of false prophecies....

I can show you my faith by my works, which are the result of His Grace that was given freely to me!

I've been reaching out to JW's for a couple of decades, however, I'm finding it absolutely fascinating that only recently have the JW's begun to respond with an open mind towards critical thinking and truly LISTENING, and EVEN taking literature from me...which, as DGN knows full well, is *anathema* to the watchtower!

Did business with a JW last week and he gave me his card so we could talk further about The True Jesus Christ - I don't think the Jesus/Michael lie is setting well with him!

I also wondered if the elderly life long volunteers that got hacked off at the ankles at bethel bothered him too?

I'm running into JW's that are tired of being squeezed by a man made organization!

want to talk about Julius Mantey DGN?

Yoooohoooo...dgn?

Mantey? Want to talk about Mantey?

Well, it's getting late and I gotta hit the rack, but, before I go, lemme just post a letter from Julius Mantey.

Mantey certainly did not appreciate the watchtower twisting and perverting his work.

You can find this letter here: [link to www.forananswer.org]

The Letter of Dr. Julius Mantey to the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society

In Response to a Letter from the WTB&TS to CARIS

On the Use of the Dana Mantey Greek Grammar

(An excerpt from the letter to CARIS may be found here)
July 11, 1974

Dear Sirs:

I have a copy of your letter addressed to Caris in Santa Ana, California, and I am writing to express my disagreement with statements made in that letter, as well as in quotations you have made from the Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar.

(1) Your statement: "their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1." There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation in John 1:1.

A. We had no "rule" to argue in support of the trinity.

B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language.

C. You quotation from p. 148 (3) was a paragraph under the heading: "With the subject in a Copulative Sentence." Two examples occur here to illustrate that "the article points out the subject in these examples." But we made no statement in this paragraph about the predicate except that, "as it stands the other persons of the trinity may be implied ;in theos." And isn't that the opposite of what your translation "a god" infers? You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article, theos signifies divine essence...'theos en ho logos' emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature." Our interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and TED: "What God was, the Word was"; and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," which you quoted in you letter to Caris.

(2) Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering.

(3) Your quotation of Colwell's rule is inadequate because it quotes only a part of his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article."

(4) Prof. Harner, Vol 92:1 in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell's research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject. He found this true in 53 passages in the Gospel of John and 8 in the Gospel of Mark. Both scholars wrote that when indefiniteness was intended that gospel writers regularly placed the predicate noun after the verb, and both Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John 1:1 is not indefinite and should not be translated "a god." Watchtower writers appear to be the only ones advocating such a translation now. The evidence appears to be 99% against them.

(5) Your statement in your letter that the sacred text itself should guide one and "not just someone's rule book." We agree with you. But our study proves that Jehovah's Witnesses do the opposite of that whenever the "sacred text" differs with their heretical beliefs. For example the translation of kolasis as cutting off when punishment is the only meaning cited in the lexicons for it. The mistranslation of ego eimi as "I have been" in John 8:58, the addition of "for all time" in Heb. 9:27 when nothing in the Greek New Testament support is. The attempt to belittle Christ by mistranslating arche tes kriseos "beginning of the creation" when he is magnified as the "creator of all things" (John 1:2) and as "equal with God" (Phil. 2:6) before he humbled himself and lived a human body on earth. Your quotation of "The father is greater than I am, (John 14:28) to prove that Jesus was not equal to God overlooks the fact stated in Phil 2:6-8. When Jesus said that he was still in his voluntary state of humiliation. That state ended when he ascended to heaven. Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after "today" in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, even in the Greek in your KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say) - "Today you will be with me in Paradise." 2 Cor 5:8, "to be out of the body and at home with the Lord."

These passages teach that the redeemed go immediately to heaven after death, which does not agree with your teachings that death ends all life until the resurrection. (Ps. 23:6 and Heb 1:10)

The above are only a few examples of Watchtower mistranslations and perversions of God's Word.

In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also that you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this time on.

Also that you publicly and immediately apologize in the Watchtower magazine, since my words had no relevance to the absence of the article before theos in John 1:1. And please write to Caris and state that you misused and misquoted my "rule."

On the page before the Preface in the grammar are these words: "All rights reserved - no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher."

If you have such permission, please send me a photo-copy of it.

If you do not heed these requests you will suffer the consequences.

Regretfully yours,

Julius R. Mantey

dgn, celestial maidan...the watchtower, are completely devoid of intellectual integrity!

You don't need the RCC? So did the RCC invent both the Christ and triune God-image you're a slave of? Laughable.

Thread: Christian objections to the theology of Jehovah's Witnesses

And Jesus taught a gospel of deeds too btw, as does the OT. You're do-nothing perversion wasn't invented until the 16th century after his earthly ministry.

Meanwhile;
"And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, every one who is found written down in the book. 2 And there will be many of those asleep in the ground of dust who will wake up, these to indefinitely lasting life and those to reproaches [and] to indefinitely lasting abhorrence.
3 “And the ones having insight will shine like the brightness of the expanse; and those who are bringing the many to righteousness, like the stars to time indefinite, even forever.
4 “And as for you, O Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book, until the time of [the] end. Many will rove about, and the [true] knowledge will become abundant.” Da12

Last Edited by DGN on 07/10/2016 10:13 AM

What do you think of Mantey's letter dgn?

Mantey certainly did not appreciate the watchtower twisting and perverting his work.

You can find this letter here: [link to www.forananswer.org]

The Letter of Dr. Julius Mantey to the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society

In Response to a Letter from the WTB&TS to CARIS

On the Use of the Dana Mantey Greek Grammar

(An excerpt from the letter to CARIS may be found here)
July 11, 1974

Dear Sirs:

I have a copy of your letter addressed to Caris in Santa Ana, California, and I am writing to express my disagreement with statements made in that letter, as well as in quotations you have made from the Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar.

(1) Your statement: "their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1." There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation in John 1:1.

A. We had no "rule" to argue in support of the trinity.

B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language.

C. You quotation from p. 148 (3) was a paragraph under the heading: "With the subject in a Copulative Sentence." Two examples occur here to illustrate that "the article points out the subject in these examples." But we made no statement in this paragraph about the predicate except that, "as it stands the other persons of the trinity may be implied ;in theos." And isn't that the opposite of what your translation "a god" infers? You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article, theos signifies divine essence...'theos en ho logos' emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature." Our interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and TED: "What God was, the Word was"; and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," which you quoted in you letter to Caris.

(2) Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering.

(3) Your quotation of Colwell's rule is inadequate because it quotes only a part of his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article."

(4) Prof. Harner, Vol 92:1 in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell's research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject. He found this true in 53 passages in the Gospel of John and 8 in the Gospel of Mark. Both scholars wrote that when indefiniteness was intended that gospel writers regularly placed the predicate noun after the verb, and both Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John 1:1 is not indefinite and should not be translated "a god." Watchtower writers appear to be the only ones advocating such a translation now. The evidence appears to be 99% against them.

(5) Your statement in your letter that the sacred text itself should guide one and "not just someone's rule book." We agree with you. But our study proves that Jehovah's Witnesses do the opposite of that whenever the "sacred text" differs with their heretical beliefs. For example the translation of kolasis as cutting off when punishment is the only meaning cited in the lexicons for it. The mistranslation of ego eimi as "I have been" in John 8:58, the addition of "for all time" in Heb. 9:27 when nothing in the Greek New Testament support is. The attempt to belittle Christ by mistranslating arche tes kriseos "beginning of the creation" when he is magnified as the "creator of all things" (John 1:2) and as "equal with God" (Phil. 2:6) before he humbled himself and lived a human body on earth. Your quotation of "The father is greater than I am, (John 14:28) to prove that Jesus was not equal to God overlooks the fact stated in Phil 2:6-8. When Jesus said that he was still in his voluntary state of humiliation. That state ended when he ascended to heaven. Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after "today" in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, even in the Greek in your KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say) - "Today you will be with me in Paradise." 2 Cor 5:8, "to be out of the body and at home with the Lord."

These passages teach that the redeemed go immediately to heaven after death, which does not agree with your teachings that death ends all life until the resurrection. (Ps. 23:6 and Heb 1:10)

The above are only a few examples of Watchtower mistranslations and perversions of God's Word.

In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also that you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this time on.

Also that you publicly and immediately apologize in the Watchtower magazine, since my words had no relevance to the absence of the article before theos in John 1:1. And please write to Caris and state that you misused and misquoted my "rule."

On the page before the Preface in the grammar are these words: "All rights reserved - no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher."

If you have such permission, please send me a photo-copy of it.

If you do not heed these requests you will suffer the consequences.

Regretfully yours,

Julius R. Mantey

It seems you've not carefully read my posts

Do you have a link showing the countries your organization is preaching in?

Are you avoiding dgn?

Link: [link to www.forananswer.org]
The Letter of Dr. Julius Mantey to the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society
In Response to a Letter from the WTB&TS to CARIS
On the Use of the Dana Mantey Greek Grammar
(An excerpt from the letter to CARIS may be found here)

July 11, 1974
Dear Sirs:
I have a copy of your letter addressed to Caris in Santa Ana, California, and I am writing to express my disagreement with statements made in that letter, as well as in quotations you have made from the Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar.
(1) Your statement: "their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1." There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation in John 1:1.
A. We had no "rule" to argue in support of the trinity.
B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language.
C. You quotation from p. 148 (3) was a paragraph under the heading: "With the subject in a Copulative Sentence." Two examples occur here to illustrate that "the article points out the subject in these examples." But we made no statement in this paragraph about the predicate except that, "as it stands the other persons of the trinity may be implied ;in theos." And isn't that the opposite of what your translation "a god" infers? You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article, theos signifies divine essence...'theos en ho logos' emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature." Our interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and TED: "What God was, the Word was"; and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," which you quoted in you letter to Caris.
(2) Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering.
(3) Your quotation of Colwell's rule is inadequate because it quotes only a part of his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article."
(4) Prof. Harner, Vol 92:1 in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell's research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject. He found this true in 53 passages in the Gospel of John and 8 in the Gospel of Mark. Both scholars wrote that when indefiniteness was intended that gospel writers regularly placed the predicate noun after the verb, and both Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John 1:1 is not indefinite and should not be translated "a god." Watchtower writers appear to be the only ones advocating such a translation now. The evidence appears to be 99% against them.
(5) Your statement in your letter that the sacred text itself should guide one and "not just someone's rule book." We agree with you. But our study proves that Jehovah's Witnesses do the opposite of that whenever the "sacred text" differs with their heretical beliefs. For example the translation of kolasis as cutting off when punishment is the only meaning cited in the lexicons for it. The mistranslation of ego eimi as "I have been" in John 8:58, the addition of "for all time" in Heb. 9:27 when nothing in the Greek New Testament support is. The attempt to belittle Christ by mistranslating arche tes kriseos "beginning of the creation" when he is magnified as the "creator of all things" (John 1:2) and as "equal with God" (Phil. 2:6) before he humbled himself and lived a human body on earth. Your quotation of "The father is greater than I am, (John 14:28) to prove that Jesus was not equal to God overlooks the fact stated in Phil 2:6-8. When Jesus said that he was still in his voluntary state of humiliation. That state ended when he ascended to heaven. Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after "today" in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, even in the Greek in your KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say) - "Today you will be with me in Paradise." 2 Cor 5:8, "to be out of the body and at home with the Lord."
These passages teach that the redeemed go immediately to heaven after death, which does not agree with your teachings that death ends all life until the resurrection. (Ps. 23:6 and Heb 1:10)
The above are only a few examples of Watchtower mistranslations and perversions of God's Word.
In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also that you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this time on.
Also that you publicly and immediately apologize in the Watchtower magazine, since my words had no relevance to the absence of the article before theos in John 1:1. And please write to Caris and state that you misused and misquoted my "rule."
On the page before the Preface in the grammar are these words: "All rights reserved - no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher."
If you have such permission, please send me a photo-copy of it.
If you do not heed these requests you will suffer the consequences.
Regretfully yours,
Julius R. Mantey

God the Trinity has no organization. God the Trinity is the creating living beings/forces of the entire massive huge creation and it is creating MIND and it doesn't make organizations on earth. There are 5.6 TRILLION planets bearing Intelligent life. SOME DAY THERE WILL BE INTELLIGENCE ON THISI WORLD WHEN RELIGIONS THAT ARE MADE BY THE DARK FORCES GO OUT OF POWER.

MANKIND IN GENERAL is NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH to PUT THEM OUT OF POWER. Man is a blind sheeple.. most of them including you OP.

You do not know REALITY OP you still chase a false movie.

Your ignorance of God around here is just as bad as DGN's and the others.

This is a sample of Jehovah's kingdom to come and everyone's invited;
"And the wolf will actually reside for a while with the male lamb, and with the kid the leopard itself will lie down, and the calf and the maned young lion and the well-fed animal all together; and a mere little boy will be leader over them. 7 And the cow and the bear themselves will feed; together their young ones will lie down. And even the lion will eat straw just like the bull. 8 And the sucking child will certainly play upon the hole of the cobra; and upon the light aperture of a poisonous snake will a weaned child actually put his own hand. 9 They will not do any harm or cause any ruin in all my holy mountain; because the earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters are covering the very sea." Isa11:6

Ok thanks for the briefing.

Don't worry, I've read posts before, and I know your stance. JW's adding an indefinite article in John 1:1 won't change the fact that Jesus isn't YHWH, and won't negate John 17:3 either. And there's no definite article in John 1:1 either, meaning a lower g would suffice just fine to make the distinction.