A Question for Jehovah's Witnesses

[RR144]

In every translation on earth, the teachings of Jesus back the JW teachers-0 doubt. Israelite true God worship history = the Abrahamic God= a single being God=YHWH(Jehovah) that backs them as well. They are Matt 24:45--The rest on earth are these-2Cor 11:12-15--using altered translations by satans will, wicked men had Gods name removed where God willed it to be because he wants it there. The false teachers condemned the JW,s for putting Gods name back.
As well in the Greek lexicons at John 1:1-the Greek word for God( capitol G) ends in a v, The Greek word for god( small g) ends in a g--The word was called the Greek word ending in g. The true God in the 2nd line ends in v.
The trinity scholars know its fact yet say nothing-Why? Because billions of dollars would be lost yearly, hundreds of religions would be exposed as false religions, and 2 billion humans suing them for stealing their $$ because they know the truth about John 1:1.

you have no comment on my initial post? or the video? On what Geoffry Jackson had to say?

 

[marks]

So say men. I say God has always made his name known and always will.

What does that mean? That you don't care this is a name made up by men about 1500 years ago or so?

God has in fact given us His Name, Jesus. Or more specifically, ιησους, pronounced "yay-soos", transliterated Jesus, back when the "J" was pronounced like "Y". This Name we know, and we know how to say it. We know it because God revealed it to us in His Word.

It's Jesus! :)

Much love!

 

[marks]

In the Greek lexicons. in the 2nd line the true God is called a Greek word that ends in v=God--The Logos is called the Greek word that ends in g=god. 100% proof that is how that gets translated = 2Cor 4:4--Satan= the god of this system of things called the Greek word that ends in g=god and the true God called the Greek word that ends in v=God. These are facts.

Do you know what I mean when I say, "the lexical form" of a word? This is the basic root form of a word.

Ho Theos is the lexical form, and means, God. Ho is an article, not always translated, but belongs with the noun. Depending on the context ho theos may be translated either "God" or "the God", with or without the capital, as there is no capitalization in the original.

Ton Theon, as you see at the end of verse two, is the same word, with the same meaning, but is in the "accusative" form. This means that it's receiving the action of the verb.

In English, we show this by word position. "I threw the ball." "The ball" appears after the verb, so we know it receives the action. I threw something, it was the ball that was thrown.

In Koine Greek, instead of using word position to show this, they used word spelling, which allowed them to put the word in any part of the sentence they wanted to. Often Koine Greek writers would put their most important parts first for emphasis.

If I were wanting you to know first and foremost that the ball was thrown, I could say "The ball I threw." In English, this reads like a sentence fragment, because we rely on word order, but in Koine Greek, it's a perfectly good sentence. The "on" ending, "ton theon" lets us know this.

Are you with me so far?

What I'm saying here is that ton theon and ho theos are the same word, only, one has the different ending to show it's receiving the action of the verb. It's purely for grammatical syntax, not to alter the word meaning beyond that.

In this case, John wrote, the Word was toward God, and God was the Word. In that first instance, "God" receives the action of the Word being towards, so, ton theon, while in the second case no such distinction is needed, so, ho theos.

What you called a "g" is the ending form of sigma, our "s".

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

There is not one single statement from either God or his son that says Jesus is Yahweh.....not one.

So, simple ...

Now, If man were to dictate to God how He should write His book

Such a pivot from what was said. No acknowledgment that what @Aunty Jane wrote is true.

You just go right to Ad Homenim, some sort of psycho babble about anyone dictating to anyone AS IF that has anything to do with her fact based observation. Typical.

 

[marks]

So, simple ...


Such a pivot from what was said. No acknowledgment that what @Aunty Jane wrote is true.

You just go right to Ad Homenim, some sort of psycho babble about anyone dictating to anyone AS IF that has anything to do with her fact based observation. Typical.

I don't think you really understand some of the things I write.

There is not one single statement in the Bible, not one, that says Jesus is not God. Not one!

What is the significance of that?

Isn't it more significant to look at what IS written? Instead of coming up with things that aren't stated, and making a case from that?

I think you've picked up a cognitive bias against me, personally. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. But I'm seeing a trend here. I write something to someone, you pick up on it, and I find it coming back to me with a little twist, and an accusation.

I think we are due for a break, so here goes.

Much love!

 

[Jack]

There is not one single statement from either God or his son that says Jesus is Yahweh.....not one.

NWT John 20 Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God".

 

[Wrangler]

There is not one single statement in the Bible, not one, that says Jesus is not God. Not one!

Your basic problem is dismissing logic. The person making the positive claim has the burden of proof.

Consider the logic of the hypothesis.

H0. X is true.​

Ha. X is not true.​

IF the null hypothesis, H0, cannot be demonstrated to be true, THEN, H0 is rejected and the alternative hypothesis, Ha, is accepted.

The reverse is not logical. The reverse has a name, the fallacy is known as Appeal to Ignorance. There is not evidence against the proposition, so accept the other proposition.

 

[Wrangler]

NWT John 20 Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God".

Yea, "my" not "the". See the difference?

 

[Jack]

Yea, "my" not "the". See the difference?

Thomas knew Jesus personally and was taught by Jesus. Jesus would have rebuked Thomas severely if Thomas was wrong!

Is Jesus your Savior?

 

[Wrangler]

Thomas knew Jesus personally and was taught by Jesus. Jesus would have rebuked Thomas severely if Thomas was wrong!

Is Jesus your Savior?

Not an answer to my question.

 

[APAK]

In every translation on earth, the teachings of Jesus back the JW teachers-0 doubt. Israelite true God worship history = the Abrahamic God= a single being God=YHWH(Jehovah) that backs them as well. They are Matt 24:45--The rest on earth are these-2Cor 11:12-15--using altered translations by satans will, wicked men had Gods name removed where God willed it to be because he wants it there. The false teachers condemned the JW,s for putting Gods name back.
As well in the Greek lexicons at John 1:1-the Greek word for God( capitol G) ends in a v, The Greek word for god( small g) ends in a g--The word was called the Greek word ending in g. The true God in the 2nd line ends in v.
The trinity scholars know its fact yet say nothing-Why? Because billions of dollars would be lost yearly, hundreds of religions would be exposed as false religions, and 2 billion humans suing them for stealing their $$ because they know the truth about John 1:1.

Not that I agree with your John 1:1 explanation you briefly gave here, I do like the reality you bring home though, that $$$xxx keep their lie of John 1:1 and even 14 alive.

 

[Jack]

Not an answer to my question.

My question is more important. Is Jesus your Savior? A true Christian would say "YES! Jesus is my Savior"! Why can't you?

 

[Wrangler]

My question is more important.

Indeed. Humility is the spirit not this doctrinal hubris.

 

[marks]

There are two questions I've not seen answered . . .

How many Gods do the Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge? Is the Father the True God, while Jesus is a false god? A demi-god? What? How many gods do you have?

The other,

Zechariah 14:3-5 KJV
3) Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4) And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5) And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

Who is it that will stand on the Mount of Olives?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Not that I agree with your John 1:1 explanation you briefly gave here, I do like the reality you bring home though, that $$$xxx keep their lie of John 1:1 and even 14 alive.

Rather, we present our sincere belief. Impugn however you will, that's up to you, but it doesn't make you correct, only impudent.

Much love!

 

[Jack]

Indeed. Humility is the spirit not this doctrinal hubris.

Clearly you're saying Jesus is not your Savior!

 

[Wrangler]

Clearly you're saying Jesus is not your Savior!

Pretend like I answered our inflammatory statement and distracting question to your immense satisfaction. Now, what is the answer to my question?

 

[APAK]

Rather, we present our sincere belief. Impugn however you will, that's up to you, but it doesn't make you correct, only impudent.

Much love!

Sorry you feel so personally hurt by my comment marks. I must have hit a deep nerve. You might need some time to recover.

No, the reality of what I said cannot be easily dismissed, regardless of how I responded and what is your opinion of this subject.

It has to be seriously considered....here's a version of this religious beast then and today...hold on to your seat...

Can you just imagine that if one day someone or several people or groups, got together, those of influence in the Trinitarian sphere and stated that the Trinitarian view of Jesus as the word, as in John 1 is a bold-faced lie. That Jesus was in fact a genuine human person, and could never be God Almighty. And it was made into a lie, into an exaggerated and different version of the real Christ, never God under any circumstances.

And that this lie was developed, carefully and patiently in the background, perpetrated and chosen centuries ago to compromise with the pagans of that time as they worshipped many gods, and in particular triad gods. And that this also caused the emerging Catholic church to become the undisputable world dominant power and authority of orthodoxy of the Christian religion. And that is was then too late to correct this grave error or even try, as over the centuries the world of religious Christianity built lucrative and political power centric empires of both RCC and Protestant platforms upon this lie, to control the masses and deceive them for their own benefit.

And today, these economic-political-religious empires as in once accord, became one mindless beast of greed and wealth never truly was its mission to bring souls to the Father via his true Son; eventhough a few, a very small percentage slid by and became 'saved.' - even under our dominant rule, the masters of human spirit manipulation and mind control.

It is a plan that would be of the evil one himself and it worked....and still works today.

 

[marks]

Sorry you feel so personally hurt by my comment marks.

There's some presumption! Wow!

The fact that you engage in a certain behavior, and the fact that I say something about it, does not equal into "feel so personally hurt".

I can with the same validity tell you I'm sorry you've become so deranged by my comments. It's just not real.

It's just you dipping into my emotional treasure chest to come up with a way to invalidate my statement, as if I'm just what, knee-jerking because I feel so hurt inside?

I ascribe trinitarian teaching to sincere belief, and you ascribe it to money-grubbing. I called you on that, and you deflect to what you call "my feelings". Which is really your construct, which has nothing to do with what I am feeling.

Totally invalid. Pure deflection.

Much love!

 

[Keiw]

Name our Bibles that are errors and Satanic!

Everyone with Gods name removed in over 7000 spots. They still have a lot of truth but many errors as well. Like the Greek Lexicons prove 100% the word did not get capitol G God in the last line at John 1:1.