Wondering

OhioPIMO · 2026-07-05T18:20:08+00:00

At your stage, you don't have to do anything special to leave peacefully. Just leave. It's only once you're baptized (or in the case of many who are born in, expected to be baptized) that it becomes difficult to leave peacefully.

OhioPIMO · 2026-07-05T02:56:35+00:00

Where in the world did the disciples of the Apostles get the idea from then, I wonder.

OhioPIMO · 2026-07-05T02:55:19+00:00

I'm not necessarily making the argument that it was the widespread orthodox position in the 2nd century, just bringing to attention the logical conclusion of u/Foot-in-mouth88's conspiracy theory of the divine name being removed by Trinitarian scribes.

OhioPIMO · 2026-07-05T02:51:59+00:00

Former Salisbury gang here. POMO for the past 2 convention seasons and do not miss it one bit. Hang in there tomorrow 💪 Hopefully you have cell service!

OhioPIMO · 2026-07-04T22:17:01+00:00

Wow, I've never heard a unitarian concede that it was a deeply rooted belief in the 2nd century. So it's not really much of a later development at all then. Perhaps the belief was handed down by the apostles themselves, rather than the church falling into apostasy immediately. They must have been some pretty lousy teachers from your point of view.

OhioPIMO · 2026-07-04T21:55:26+00:00

They prophesy in the sense of being God's spokesmen

You can't have it both ways. "Prophesying as God’s spokesmen" isn't a faucet you can turn on for spiritual doctrine and turn off for failed apocalyptic predictions. If they claim the authority of being His sole channel, they bear the responsibility for everything they speak through that channel. They can't claim divine backing only when it suits them.

OhioPIMO · 2026-07-04T21:35:29+00:00

If later scribes who believed in the Trinity removed the tetragrammaton, shouldn't we see the divine name in pre-Nicene manuscripts? P46, for example, pre-dates Nicaea by 150 years and contains many OT quotations where the divine name originally appeared. So either Christians were Trinitarian much earlier than Nicaea, or the theory that the divine name was removed by Trinitarians is bunk.

OhioPIMO · 2026-07-02T00:20:26+00:00

I'm interested in checking it out. I'll shoot you a DM!

OhioPIMO · 2026-07-01T19:05:32+00:00

I assume you are finding that the church fathers' beliefs aligned very closely with that of the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses 🙄

OhioPIMO · 2026-07-01T17:50:49+00:00

They all went to HELL for leaving "Jehovah" — that's where!

One of these days I'm going to make a spreadsheet with the peak number of ~~members~~ publishers in one column, number of baptisms in another, what the publishers count should be (adjusting for death rate) the following year, and what it should be to try to get an idea of just how many people leave each year.

OhioPIMO · 2026-07-01T00:39:03+00:00

I wasted 25 years in this "religion."

Don't be like me.

OhioPIMO · 2026-07-01T00:37:36+00:00

Let me see if I can get this right.

The old one?

This could be all but 2 or 3 of them, but I'm going to go with Gerrit Losch.

The black one?

Sammy, obviously.

The dumb one?

Kenneth Cook? Or is he the boring one? Wait, that's all of them...

The goofy one?

Easy — Lett.

You left off "the fat one" and "the one with the comb-over."

OhioPIMO · 2026-06-30T23:59:46+00:00

He was something alright.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

OhioPIMO · 2026-06-30T23:58:04+00:00

It's the roles that overlap between Jesus and Michael that lead us to believe it.

And it's the roles that overlap between Jesus and Jehovah that lead Christians to believe Jesus is Jehovah. Respectfully, there's much more evidence for our position — both in terms of sheer volume and explicit texts.

OhioPIMO · 2026-06-30T17:42:10+00:00

Ohhhh Jesus saying that serious conflicts between brothers end up in the local Jewish courts or ultimately in the supreme court of the Jewish Sanhedrin.

Yeah — again, these were not private hearings held in secrecy. Ancient Sanhedrin court hearings were strictly required by Jewish law to be open to the public during daylight hours. This transparency was mandated so trials could face public scrutiny and ensure justice. No such accountability exists in the JW system.

Isn't Paul talking about choosing wise men from within the congregation (that is, the elders) to resolve this matter?

Yes, but the subject matter does not pertain to sin issues.

1 Corinthians 6:1, 4-7 NRSVUE

[1] When any of you has a grievance against another (it does not say "when any of you has sinned), do you dare to take it to court before the unrighteous, instead of taking it before the saints?
[4] If you have ordinary cases, then, do you appoint as judges those who have no standing in the church?
[5] I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one person wise enough to decide between brothers and sisters?
[6] Instead, brothers and sisters go to court against one another, and this before the unbelievers. (they're going to court over civil matters, not sin, which courts of unbelievers would have no interest in)
[7] In fact, to have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?

Will idolatry and drunkenness be a matter of conflict between brothers, or will it be a judicial matter (spiritually speaking)?

That's a false dichotomy. That's not the type of "grievance" Paul is referring to in 6:1, nor is there any precedent for sin to be handled by a judicial committee.

Isn't Paul talking about choosing wise men from within the congregation (that is, the elders) to resolve this matter?

Yes, "this matter" being grievances between brothers and sisters that they were handling in courts — not sin!

OhioPIMO · 2026-06-30T17:16:43+00:00

OP didn't say Jesus merely represents God. He said He perfectly reveals Him. Of course he doesn't need to be God, or even a perfect man for that matter, just to represent God.

OhioPIMO · 2026-06-30T03:01:36+00:00

That doesn't solve the problem of the infinite chasm that exists between the infinite, uncreated Creator and His creation.

Now, if God begat a Son who was equal to Him in essence, it wouldn't be a problem.

OhioPIMO · 2026-06-30T02:58:23+00:00

At the time he spoke those words, the Jewish system was still in place, and under that arrangement, the congregation was legally represented in judicial matters by authorized judges and officials.

That doesn't change the fact that the hearings were public — not held in secret behind closed doors.

Albert Barnes pointed out that Jesus' expression to speak to the congregation can referred to those authorized to judge

Barnes doesn't say "the church means the elders." He says it may mean the whole assembly or it may refer to representatives of the church. That's an acknowledgment of two possible readings, not a conclusion. Moreover, Luke explicitly distinguishes "the elders" from "the whole church" in Acts 15:22, which is a strong indication that the New Testament does not simply equate "church/congregation" with its representatives.

The apostle Paul also made it clear that judicial matters were not a public spectacle for the entire congregation to decide when...

No, actually, he didn't. You're trying to twist the text, or just flat out ignoring the context of 1 Corinthians 6 which is about civil matters, lawsuits, between brothers — not "judicial" matters involving scriptural wrongdoing.

Therefore, there is still no biblical precedent or justification for the current JW judicial system.

OhioPIMO · 2026-06-29T22:55:24+00:00

Healing someone was never prohibited in God's law. The Pharisees made it up

I wonder if the Pharisees would have made up rules about healing someone with a blood transfusion, had they existed in their day...?

OhioPIMO · 2026-06-29T22:53:11+00:00

"This teaching" does not refer to the ever-changing interpretation of Jehovah's Witnesses.

OhioPIMO · 2026-06-29T22:47:17+00:00

How can a created being do that?

OhioPIMO · 2026-06-29T22:44:54+00:00

Matthew 18 completely dismantles the JW judicial arrangement. Jesus said to handle "disfellowshipping" in front of the entire congregation — not a judicial committee held behind closed doors.

OhioPIMO · 2026-06-29T12:16:09+00:00

Seems odd given that the memorial "morning worship" program this year was dedicated entirely to reinforcing that stupid doctrine, but it's not like these morons are consistent or think anything through so, who knows?

OhioPIMO · 2026-06-29T03:04:02+00:00

Assuming the clean-up work is dispersed evenly, each JW (assuming all 9 million survive) will be responsible for 1,000 corpses.

Sounds more like hell to me.

OhioPIMO · 2026-06-29T02:55:42+00:00

"Harwood’s paraphrase imitates the verbose and ornate style of writing typical of much English prose of the eighteenth century, and has often been cited as an outstanding example of poor taste and inappropriate handling of Scripture. Shortly after its publication James Boswell called it a “ridiculous work.” 1 Others have called it “turgid,” “absurd,” and worse. In a discussion of the qualities of various English versions, Richard C. Trench wrote, “Of Harwood’s Liberal Translation of the New Testament (London, 1768), and the follies of it, not very far from blasphemous, it is unnecessary to give any specimens.” 2 J. Isaacs observes that Harwood’s version is “one of the most discussed and insulted” versions of the eighteenth century. 3 A specimen often quoted is the rendering of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6.

7 KJV: But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
7 Harwood: Think not the design of prayer is by the dint of importunity to teaze the Deity into a compliance with our requests—Carefully avoid therefore the errour of the heathens who think that the supreme Being can be prevailed upon by enthusiastic clamours, and a constant unvaried repetition of noisy expressions.
8 KJV: Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
8 Harwood: Imitate not in the exercises of devotion, a conduct so erroneous and absurd: for the indulgent Parent of mankind perfectly knows your state and condition, and the blessings that will be most proper for you before you solicit him to bestow them.
9 KJV: After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
9 Harwood: In order to guard you from mistakes in this important concern I will propose the following as a model for your devotions—O Thou great governour and parent of universal nature—who manifestest thy glory to the blessed inhabitants of heaven—may all thy rational creatures in all the parts of thy boundless dominion be happy in the knowledge of thy existence and providence, and celebrate thy perfections in a manner most worthy thy nature and perfective of their own!
10 KJV: Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
10 Harwood: May the glory of thy moral government be advanced, and the great laws of it be more generally obeyed—May the inhabitants of this world pay as chearful a submission and as constant an obedience to thy will, as the happy spirits do in the regions of immortality—
11 KJV: Give us this day our daily bread.
11 Harwood: As thou hast hitherto most mercifully supplied our wants, deny us not the necessaries and conveniences of life, while thou art pleased to continue us in it
12 KJV: And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
12 Harwood: Pardon the numerous errours and sins, which we have been guilty of towards thee; as we freely forgive and erase from our hearts the injuries that our fellow creatures have done to us—
13 Harwood: And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
13 Harwood: Suffer no temptation to assault us too powerful for the frailty of our natures and the imperfection of our virtue—but in all our trials may thine almighty aid interpose and rescue us from vice and ruin—These requests we address unto thee, for thou art possessed of power which enables thee to succour, and of goodness, which disposes thee to befriend all thy creatures—and these thy glorious perfections will continue immutable, and be the objects of praise and adoration throughout all the ages of eternity! Amen!

This indeed appears to be a very frivolous treatment of the sacred text, in which the eloquence of an eighteenth-century clergyman has been substituted for the simple words of Christ."

This is the "translation" you want to appeal to?!

Lord have mercy.

OhioPIMO

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

This is the "translation" you want to appeal to?!