₦airaland Forum

Too bad . . .

Perrito4u never returned . . .

The Jehovah's Witnesses have a serious potential recruit. . .

And after he legally signs his rights away - definitely without knowing what he was signing - he'd have blocked all avenues for redress . . .
.

Chris: you've done Perrito a lot of good.

The website: www.freeminds.org/ referenced in your post is an invaluable source for JW-related material.

This link: http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/doctrine.htm deals with Watchtower Doctrines.

You'll see that Mormons have certain practices similar to the JWs; this isn't strange, since they're both high control groups.

Other wacky stuff could be found at this link: http://www.seanet.com/~raines/papers.html

Some items from here:

The Watchtower's Nazis Conflicts: A History of Watchtower Cowardliness and Witness Perseverance

The Watchtower's Half-Century Crusade Against the Germ Theory

Jehovah's Witnesses, Blacks and Discrimination,

Why Jehovah's Witnesses Have Mental Problems,

Aluminum: Satan's Metal and Killer of Millions? The Watchtower's Incredible Crusade Against Aluminum

Very much related to this cognitive dissonance phenomenon is that after a Christian has enabled a JW to see gross flaws in the Watchtower facade, the JW often becomes more adamant about his waning beliefs.  It is very common to confront a JW with overwhelming arguments against their organization, only to have the JW come back a week later and say, "I'm glad I talked to you, as it gave me an opportunity to bolster my faith.  Now I am more convinced than ever I am right."

The above, from the article you posted, is brilliance. ambrose Bierce gave a witty, succint description, but memory isn't serving right now.
.

N1answer:
Of course Jehovah's Witnesses are the only true religion!

Of course, they're not

2 - Now, can someone tell me which other religion is more united and friendly then JW's? I don't think so,
All the other religions havent got a problem to go on war and kill themselfs! don't matter what the background is, language or religion they are, they just simply kill, JW's never go to war, besides, we all know hundreds of JW's if not thousands of them, got killed in the 2nd world war for not going to war in Germany. That was in 1914 and that was when Jesus cleaned the heavens and the devil (satan) and the evil angels (demons) were sent to earth knowing that they have little time. So satan made this war knowing that he could make JW's suffer on this war. JW's never got involved in the war, they were prisioners and most of them got killed.

Conscientious Objectors were well known, even in 1st World War (I see you mentioned the 2nd World War). To kickstart your education about conscienious objectores, visit this link: http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/cos/st_co_wwone.html ; you'll see information from a British perspective; ther're other credible open sources.

Some Quakers were conscientious objectors in WW1; does that mean they're of the true religion? See:

In all, more than 6,312 conscientious objectors were arrested; 5,970 were court-martialled and sent to prison, where they endured privations both mental and physical (819 spent over two years in prison). At least 73 COs died because of the harsh treatment they received; a number suffered long-term physical or mental illness.

1,330 'absolutists' refused to do any kind of alternative war work, but never won exemption for this principled stand. Some agreed to join the Home Office Scheme, but later changed their minds and went back to prison.

Prisons in those days were still run on inhumane systems inherited from the 19th century.

Could you guess how many of these were Jehovah's Witnesses?

Members of the Historic Peace Church (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Churches) object to violence too.

The stance of JWs is commendable; but it is not unique to them.

3 - JW's show love for everyone, do the other religions show love to everyone? Why do they show love to everyone? Because JW's follow Jesus example because he is perfect, and we all know Jesus was kind and showed love to everyone.

Depends on how you define "love"; did Jesus show love to the guys wheeling and dealing and selling in God's temple? You could answer "Yes"; you could answer "No" and justify either. Other Christians show love too; you could ask; may be your Church is different? (That's before you joined JWs?).

But, tell me: is it loving that the JW organisation is a "paradise for pedophiles"?

Is it loving that if a child is sexually molested, JW elders cannot handle the matter even if ther're separate events involving the same person unless there're 2 witnesses to each act? Tell me, what rapist calls two people to come witness the act?

Is it loving that JWs fight victims of child molestation by JW elders 'to the finish', using the money donated by their members to silence the victims, knowing that the victims who have sought held in the courts are financially unable to carry on such legal cases?

Is it loving that after paying out tens of millions of United State Dollars last year to settle Child molestation cases after several years of denial, the JW organisation refuses to apologise and admit guilt?

Apparently, you neglect the matters relating to the children, and brag about your righteousness and doctrines; is this how Christianity should be?
.

On the other thread mentioned three or four posts ago, we read a comment from Perrito4u, who's "studying" the bible with Jehovah's Witnesses:

Well Nimshi this is what I saw when I visited them. . . They didn't even ask me for money. Not like the Pentecostal ( don't even ask ).

We will return to this theme of assessing JW by first, 2nd, and/or 3rd impressions. But, let's start somewhere:

He wrote that the JWs "didn't even ask [him] for money", and hinted that that was unlike the Pentecostal Churches. The statement is correct; it is also misleading.

One of the ways JWs impress new recruits and potential recruits is by this issue of donations. Because JWs do not collect the traditional tithe, they tout themsleves as being non-money/donation oriented. But, first question to ask: the 'church' (JWs call this Kingdom Hall; henceforth, KH) you attended, was it built for completely free? Is all the maintenance free? For one thing, JWs try to reduce costs by using their members to execute projects; so rather than paying for services, they encourage their members to give their time and resources, which the mostly good, mostly honest, mostly kind, and mostly humble rank-and-file memebrs do with happiness; yet, is everything free?

As usual, let's apply basic sense, first. Here're hints:

Perrito:

1) ask your JW handlers how much it costs to maintain the Kingdom Hall (I'm assuming you're in Nigeria) you're attending in a year; an estimate should be fine.

2) If you attend a "standard" design KH, ask how much of the "mortgage" paid to the Society is still outstanding; it's not called mortgage, but they're regular payments for amounts owed on those nice Kingdom Halls. If the nice KH isn't owing any money, ask for an estimate of how much it took to pay it all off.

2) Ask them how much it costs to maintain the Nigeria Branch Office in a year; if they know what they're doing, they should have an estimate. In addition, ask how much it took to build the Nigeria Branch Office.

3) Then ask them how these costs are met. Where does the money come from? JWs I know are mainly honest, so they don't print currency. Where's the money coming from?

If you do your part, then I could also commit to do my best to find credible estimates for 1) and 2); and we could then disuss 3).

Because you're not paying now does not mean you won't pay at sometime.

Because they don't ask for tithes doesn't imply you won't pay more than tithes.
.

Chris: frankly, you haven't heard a tithe of it; no kidding.

After the Internet (= easy information access) got to mainland Europe, the growth of the JW religion slowed down really much. JWs are growing mainly in places where information isn't easy to come by. One other thing that has hurt them is that when it comes to the sexual molestation of children, the Catholic church is even more decent than they are. This is a bleak assessment; but it is true. Even I could prove it.

But I'll prefer to do it when Perrito our friend - who thinks he has found the one true Christian religion in the Jehovah's Witnesses - returns.
.

Chrisbenogor:
Elders manual? This is creepy,
Did the bible say anything about transfusion?

Chris: Yes, they have an "Elder's Manual". When you read this stuff, you'll be more than amazed. The Catholic church has got nothing on these guys when it comes to procedural punishment for "sins". Rank-and-file members (these are called "Publishers" are not allowed to have a copy of this; women are also not allowed to have a copy; only the "elders" (this is a title, and says little about the age of its bearer) are allowed to own one; the copy isn't actually theirs though, it belongs to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society; so they are instructed to return the copy when the cease to be an "elder". Here is the text of the 'warning' on one of the first pages of the book; note the part about no copies to be made:

[center]Distribution restriction:

A copy of this textbook is issued to each appointed elder, and he may retain it as long as he continues to serve as an elder in any congregation. At such time as he should cease to serve in that capacity, his copy of the book must be handed over to the Congregation Service Committee, since this publication is congregation property. No copies are to be made of any part of this publication. [/center]

For more informtion (and a copy of this book), visit: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_Elders'_manual:_Pay_Attention_to_Yourselves_and_All_the_Flock_(1991)

If you would like to read comments made by others (for an against) regarding having this book on the Internet, see this link: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_Elders%27_manual:_Pay_Attention_to_Yourselves_and_All_the_Flock_%281991%29

There's part of the comments there that I should want to highlight:

"This IS a cult composed of very nice genuine people in the rank and file and led by what I would call very insular, deluded sociopaths who have a minimal view of the value of human life in view of their peculiar pre-apocalypic religious doctrines."

Note the underlined part. The rank-and-file members are usually nice people; very caring and loving; but they are themselves victims; some by immutable circumstances, others by misinformed choice; let's hope our own Perrito will soon not become a statistic in this rank.

The Internet has wrought a heavy havoc on the JW religion.
.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=188667.msg3033093#msg3033093 date=1225743621]@Nimshi,

First, I should rather be thankful to you guys for helping me reconsider my thoughts about paradise. Whatever were my previous thoughts, it was refreshing to be stirred to once again go back and see if they were quite well established.[/quote]It is refreshing to read this fruit of discussion. This is one reason I do like discussion: there's the potential to correct things (like I did much earlier on this board), to reevaluate/reevaluate things (as you've done), to dig into things (as Chris has done), to expose things (as Perrito is doing with help about JW doctrines).

As regards your answers to Perrito4u, I thought the part in blue was brilliant. I have read it through several times over and used it to check every single verse on the subject in my study note. If there was something therein that would have aroused my attention, I sure would have raised it.

When I received the part in blue, I knew there was nothing to add, and that dilution will be unworthy; so, I'll pass your commendation on (I already have).

Thank you!

Perrito4u wrote:

You know alot about JW's,  are you disfellowship or something?

Perrito: I see you've resorted to the regular JW tactic of attempting to demonise someone who as much as questions your beliefs. You asked: ", are you disfellowship (sic) or something?". First off, I must commend you for writing even the obvious, viz: "You know alot about JW's. . . "; if that admission was meant as a complement, then it is acknowledged.

Now, for the benefit of the others following this discussion (and yourself, since you're - by your own words - only 4 months or so into the JW world), I will write a few things about disfellowshipping amongst JWs.

JWs will "disfellowship" (or excommunicate) members who have defaulted in some way. The problem? Default could take any number of forms. As expected, they will disfellowship members who commit a number of sins. The regular, for which many JWs are disfellowshipped yearly - up to about 40,000 - is "fornication", or "porneia"; the definition of porneia in JW-land includes a number of sexual acts; "adultery" is a subset of porneia too. But you could be disfellowshipped for a whole lot of other things: if you disagree with JW doctrine and let it be known that you do not agree, you could be disfellowshipped; the absolute most heinous scriptural/spiritual crime a JW could commit is to express the thought that (s)he does not believe the Governing Body (that's the group of men in Brooklyn, New York, see above) are not God's Channel for dissemination of truth to the earth. This is taken as a denial of the presence of God's Government on earth; any JW who holds this view and does not recant and show repentance will be disfellowshipped.

The same goes for open disagreement with any number of well-known JW doctrines: you celebrate Christmas, you'll be disfellowshipped (henceforth, DF); you celebrate someone else's or your own birthday, you'll be DF'd; you celebrate Easter? You're DF'd. If you're a JW and you now say you don't want to be a JW anymore? You'll be DF'd. [This is one reason I was asking Perrito to think carefully about what he's getting into; in JW world, there's a very thin margin for thinking things through youself and expressing your opinion; opinion is allowed only if it agrees with the opinion of the GB]. We'll return to this DF theme if this discussion expands. But the worst is yet to come:

The "worst" includes what being DF'd means: once you're DF'd, no JW (anywhere on planet earth) is allowed to talk to you [JW "elders" may from time to time, perhaps once in a year, be allowed to talk to you with the aim of bringing you back to the fold if you're ready to face the consequences]. No JW will be allowed to talk to you, including members of your family (if you're not a minor). If you do business with other JWs and are dependent on them, your livelihood may become jeopardised. This draconian JW policy has broken many homes. [If your JW friend accepts a blood transfusion and is DF'd, then you cannot be a friend anymore with the fellow if you're also a JW; you could be DF'd for having a conversation with the fellow]. Essentially, being DF'd amongst JWs means you will be shunned; they wouldn't greet you, nor associate with you, no matter the reason for which you were DF'd; you're spiritually dead to JWs, and for all intents, also physically "dead".

You may now have realised why accusing someone of being Disfellowshipped is a first step to getting the fellow 'hanged'. Perrito: it appears you're unaware, but I don't discuss my religion (or lack of it) on this board. What that has meant is that I have been said to be a Christian, a Muslim, a fake Muslim, a Shia Muslim, an unfaithful Christian, and recently, an Atheist; you've sugegsted another: not just one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but a Disfellowshipped Jehovah's Witness. I welcome you to the Club of those not paying attention to what matters but speculating on a poster's religion.

I suspect your JW handlers advanced this 'explanation'; this is no surprise. JWs regularly prey on people who don't understand much of their doctrines and their practice of "Christianity"; the informed fellow is their nightmare, and the way they explain this away is to suggest that the person must have been disfellowshipped, which would be why they know so much about JWs; this is one reason JWs decree that their members must not talk to people who have left the religion. My position has been that the recruitment drive of JWs works because there's uneven information and knowledge; you're proving it to be correct.
.

Perrito4u:
And If you can, don't bring up religion, lets talk about the Bible not religion. I have no idea what religion all of you are and it doesn't really interests me. I came here to have conversations about the Bible, not religion.

You claim you want to talk about the bible; is it also a coincidence that your take on the bible mirrors the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses? You claim to be talking about the bible; yet, that's only what JWs told you. Why have you refused to tell the book you're "studying" with JWs? For one, I'm certain that the book - which is the basic textbook you're using in your "study" - isn't the bible; it is a book about the bible written by Jehovah's Witnesses, specifically, written by the Writing Department in Brooklyn, under the direction of the Governing Body* of Jehovah's Witnesses. Which of the JW brochures have you read? List them, eh. It appears you're interested in, and have an affinity for bible discourse; but because your knowledge is yet limited, you're a prime recruit for JWs: already, you've been thoroughly impressed, and are already toeing the party line in a few short months. It is because JWs attempt to becloud the issues concerning their practice of Chritianity that they continually tell potential recruits that they're only talking about the bible; yet the "textbook" for bible study isn't primarily the bible, but books written by the relevant department as directed by the Governing Body in Brooklyn. So much about discussing the bible.

*Governing Body: this is the name given to the 12 or so wise men who're the top decision makers in spiritual matters in the JW organisation. They are all part of the group of 144,000 who will eventually go to live forever in heaven; JWs call them the anointed class; in fact, JWs believe that this group cosntitutes (part of) God's visible government on earth, and that the men are part of God's Faithful and Discreet Slave. To keep this government going, they meet weekly in Brooklynn New York. And no, I'm not kidding; this is it; you can't make all this up.
.

Pilgrim.1: I must thank you for your post #84 above in respose to Perrito4u; it is encouraging to know that I'm not the only one feeling he's attempting to weave through and not giving as much as he's been receiving.

I have a question for you, Pilgrim.1, and it is a brief one: is the answer to Perrito4u's question clear from the text of my post in blue? If yes, fine; if not, please let me know why not. I quoted that explanation because I thought it was eloquent and, more importantly, to the point; Perrito4u denies this, so I'll like to have another's opinion. Thank you.

Perrito4u:
Nimshi you can't give me a straight answer cause you know I'm right. Your actually trying to avoid the question. All you talk about is JW's, but you try to avoid the Bible. You know alot about JW's, are you disfellowship or something? I'm not wasting my time here anymore, I can't have Bible conversations with Chris or Pilgrim about the Bible without you jumping in and bringing up religion and bringing up other topics. Just remember you could not answer me the question,

First, I don't think you're right; so it's very much presumptuous of you to say that I know you're right; I don't think you are. I'll address the rest of the part I have highlighted in bold below:

You have accused me of not using the bible; I tell you, that's either because I've been addressing issues of common sense, and/or because I have - admittedly - been lazy. But, the Bible I'm happy to talk about. Fortunately, there are several translations. The 'Jehovah's Witness bible' is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT for short); have you bought a copy yet, or have your handlers been gracious to hand you one? Could you consult it and let's discuss the following bible verse:

1) I John 5:7

;-)

Ok; I know that's unfair because the Jehovah's Witness Bible has a peculiar take on this scripture. ;-) Of course, there's a perfect explanation for why this is so. This is partly a reason you'll have to stow away your other bible translations and only use the officially approved Jehovah's Witness translation. Your JW handlers will of course be happy to "perfectly explain" why this verse is so in the NWT. But you'll have a harder time with informed "householders*".

Now, seriosuly, I'll take the rest of your loaded post in subsequent posts.

*Householder: JW buzz word; this is what JWs call people they meet at home when they go knocking from door-to-door.
.

You apparently didn't read the whole of the post; the answer to your question is clear from there. You expected a "Yes" or "No" answer; you should know - as JWs do well to pretty know - that seldom are complex issues resolved by "yes" or "no"; read the post with your JW bible "study" mind. You're yet to answer the simplest questions about your 4-month bible "study" with JWs:

Perrito4u:
1) Which book are you "studying" with JWs at the moment?
2) Are you studying with and "elder", a "pioneer", a "publisher", or an "elder-pioneer"?

Why haven't you answered? I could tell you why this is important to the question fo this thread and the subject of the other thread. But you aren'te giving anywhere near as much as I have. Read the response to Luke 23:43 and JWs interpretation of it, eh. And, if you insist on "Yes" or "No", I could give you several "Yes"/"No" types that your JW handlers will back off quickly from. For instance:

1) Does the bible mention organ transplants?
2) Or, even simpler: does the bible mention anything about smoking?
3) Or, does the bible mention anything about having an "Elder's Manual"? (I bet you don't know about this JW book; only Elders have it, and you won't lay your hand on one even if you're a Ministerial Servant.)
4) Is there anywhere where the bible mentions to do Wathctower Study?

Justice couldn't be done to these questions by "Yes"/"No", one reason being that these aren't those sort of questions. If you're able to read the text in blue in my last post, we could have a further discussion on this topic; if not, then discussion has about ended on that topic along that path.

And, let's go step by step: give direct answers to the questions I have asked on this thread prior to your last question; that'll be fairness. Setting the agenda as the study conductor does in the JW sessions appears to be rubbing off, eh. And, er, we're talking about the JW religion (that trick about "religion is a snare and a racket" got tossed years ago); JWs peddle their religion as the one true religion, so, what're you about saying "let's talk about the bible, not religion"? And, which bible? The New World Translation?

Meanwhile: you appear to have disappeared from this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-4050.96.html ; there's stuff there needing your attention.
.

A sad, mad, maddening, crazy crime.

The murder of an already abused child.

Animals, these people.

Nothing more to write; beyond words; beyond outrage.
.

Perrito4u: Did you attend the Watchtower Study today?

How did you find the "study" article?
.

Perrito4u:
Now let me ask you what I asked Nimshi:

Did Jesus go to paradise "Today", meaning the same day? If Yes, then what bible reference do you have to support that? So we can understand what Jesus really meant since we not using any commas. They were added in translation.

Perrito4u: I'll attempt a response your question; the bulk of my response will be to show why the JW interpretation of Luke 23:43 is self-serving to JW theology, and the attempt of the Governing Body of JWs to impose meanings convenient to their interpretation of scripture on the text. I don't claim to have the correct answer to the interpretation of Luke 23:43, but I can say - without being pretentious - that the JW interpretation could be shown to be faulty. Below, from an old friend who has done the good work of responding to this as well as anyone with his understanding of JW theology would.

Notes for clarification

"Society" below refers to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, that is, one of the legal bodies representing Jehovah's Witnesses. The JWs use "Society" to mean the leaders of the JW organisation; this group (exclusively men) are also called the "Governing Body" (GB), or the core of the "Faithful and Discreet Slave Class (FDS). These are all JW buzz-words; so it is enough to know that "Society", GB, FDS all refer to those who determine the doctrine of Jehovahs Witnesses.

"
Part of the confusion for individual Jehovah's Witnesses stems from the fact that according to Watchtower doctrine, the paradise spoken of by Jesus at Luke 23:43 refers, not to heaven, but to an earthly paradise, to be established during Christ's millennial reign. Christ, so says the Society, could not have promised the man paradise that very day, since the paradise refers to a future time and place. (Hence, the NWT rendering of Luke 23:43.) The Society offers nothing other than their dogmatic claim that such is the case.

The Greek word translated "paradise" at Luke 23:43 is paradeisos, and it is used only three times in the New Testament. It consistently refers to heaven, not an earthly paradise as the Watchtower Society dogmatically states. Consider:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows. And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows--was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. --2 Corinthians 12:2-4
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. --Revelation 2:7
If we allow scripture to translate scripture, there is no reason to doubt that paradeisos at Luke 23:43 refers to heaven, as it does in each of the other NT occurrences. And, as noted, the Society has offered no evidence to the contrary. But what about the fact that Jesus went to the tomb for three days? How is this to be reconciled with Jesus' promise to the evildoer that they would be together in paradise that very day?

Again, it is Watchtower doctrine - not scripture - that clouds the issue. The Watchtower Society denies that Jesus and mankind in general possess an immaterial spirit element; therefore, according to the Society, the fact that Jesus' body was placed in the tomb for three days precludes any possibility of His having gone to heaven. But such a position contradicts Jesus' own words at Luke 23:46:

Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.
Compare the prayer of Stephen recorded at Acts 7:59:

While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

Both Jesus and Stephen confirmed the existence of the incorporeal spirit element of man. Both expected their spirit to leave their body at the moment of death and return to God, as taught in scripture:

and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. --Ecclesiastes 12:7

There is not a shred of evidence to support the Society's claim with regard to Luke 23:43. In the name of all that is logical, how can one honestly accept the Society's dogmatic position on Luke 23:43 in view of the facts? The burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of the Watchtower Society. They have offered nothing other than the obvious: that the scholarly translation of Luke 23:43 conflicts with their doctrines, and therefore must be a mistranslation. We see the Watchtower Society once again conforming their scripture to their doctrine rather than their doctrine to scripture.

"
Perrito4u:
1) Which book are you "studying" with JWs at the moment?
2) Are you studying with and "elder", a "pioneer", a "publisher", or an "elder-pioneer"?
.

Cayon:
@nimshi

Cayon, dear? Were you going to write sth to Nimshi?

.

Cayon has asked a good question.

Does anyone know why?

Your claims and posts show you're not reading with good attention; the value of making posts for your benefit is in quite srious doubt. But I'll about oblige you if there's good reason to; here:

Have you read SV?

.

I don't post for your benefit (alone); either you contribute to the discussion when you wish, or not. I will not be held hostage by your sense of entitlement to demand that I provide an opinion/position before you air yours; such bad manners aren't allowed in decent discourse.

Write yours, or stay away; and staying away is only a click away.
.

First off: I refer you to a recent discussion and mukina's comments about my religion or lack of it. I will not keep returning to that theme.

I went through some of the material on the link you gave; the information there do not answer the questions. And mucf of the opinion is based on authority. If you have specific things to share based on the opinion in the piece and questions on this thread, post it. I do not subscribe to all of Qaradawi's views; I will be circumspect of his views even, considering his position on the use of violence. Of course, his position on violence will no invalidate his opinion on Islamic Banking, but one major point - perhaps you missed it - about Islamic Banking is that in practice, it does not work in a modern system. Efforts to rename interest as "profit" and 'limited joint ownership' schemes don't erase the fact. Which is the reason why the speaker made the insightful statement about his car and payment by installment.
.

You're right; downright funny.

And the question from congoshine is insightful. Awaiting the answer, too.
.

Reports show the book isn't almost available in the UK; stores aren't placing the books where buyers could find them - that's if they have the book at all. The threats may appear to be working; total sales right now appear to be about 3,000, with 45,000 already shipped abroad. There are serious concerns about the quality of the work (see the Prologue attached in my last post). Clearly, this writer is no Rushdie, and the controversy surrounding the book may not be enough to push its sales. In any case, it'll be sth to get to read the book - if there'll be time; the reviews have been mixed.
.

Perrito4u: bumping this to the top, since it appears you've returned.
.

Chris: brilliant work; no condescension.

Below, I offer additional comments to help in understanding JW teaching, and on the fundamental result of your comment about Jesus and the consistency of interpreting Luke 23:42. . .

The rendering Chris offers is the one most supported by scholars; but no amount of reasoning or proof will make any JW agree with you. The reason is hidden in Perrito4u's words: "I think the Bible doesn't contradicts itself", which, properly read, means: "I think the bible cannot contradict the Jehovah's Witness interpretation". JWs will reposition clauses, and remove (completely) from their translation of the bible anything they think could contradict their theology.

Why would a JW (and, most likely P[b]errito4u[/b], since he's about one of JWs) not agree regardless of the evidence? Here:

Correctly placing the comma - as Chris suggests - will destroy at least two of the JWs' doctrines:
1) Jehovah's Witnesses believe that most humans will not go to heaven (hence, the criminal will not go to heaven)
2) Jehovah's Witnesses believe that that humans do not possess a "spirit" (as in body, spirit, soul); they also believe that humans do not posses a soul.¨

The above are fundamental and non-negotiable for JWs.

A note on Chris' post: Jesus is reported to have used the expression "I tell you the truth" or "Truly I tell you today" at least 70 times, and nowhere - as Chris correctly shows - is the JW version translated as they presented it.

Note the quote from Perrito4u:

Other translators have also seen the difficulty involving the comma in this scripture. The Riverside New Testament avoided the problem by not putting in a comma at all, rendering it: "I tell you truly to-day you will be with me in Paradise." On the other hand, The New Testament by George M. Lamsa renders it: "Truly I say to you today, You will be with me in Paradise." Also The Emphasised Bible by Joseph B. Rotherham reads: "Verily I say unto thee this day: With me shalt thou be in Paradise."

The two translations mentioned above are the only two known translations that agree with the JW translation. The one by George Lamsa "is not a translation of the Greek New Testament at all, but rather a translation of the Syriac (Aramaic) Peshitta.". Perrito4u: ask your JW handlers about this.

Perrito4u: you're still not citing your references. This should be easy since you appear to be using the Watchtower CD ROM. And, is your favourite translation the New World Translation? Citing the references is important; and it should be easy for you to do.

Your arguments are consistent with what JWs teach. The punctuation in the scripture under discussion was adopted by JWs because it appears consistent with the rest of JW theology, viz: paradise will be established here on planet earth; Jesus will be the ruler of the new 'system of things', but ruling from heaven; the criminal will be with Jesus in the sense that the criminal will be ressurected after Armageddon and will be part of the "new earth"; a spin-off of the above is that the administration of the new Earth will be presided over by the JWs, who will welcome the faithful who have died; this is one fo the reasons the JW leaders purchased  placed "Beth Sarim", for example, to welcome people like Abraham, Devid, etc etc who JW say will not be in heaven, but will be part of a paradise earth, since heaven is open for only 144,000 humans who must have died after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. . .

pilgrim.1: regarding Hell and Hades: to JWs these two are interchangeable. The trick, however, is in understanding what they mean. Hell, or Hades or Sheol is the "common grave of mankind"; it is not a fiery place, but is a place of "inactivity". In the Hebrew Scriptures (OT), Sheol is the word used. Therefore, in JW theology:

Hell = Hades = Sheol = 'common grave of mankind"; again: Hades is Greek, Sheol is Hebrew.

The above is important:

JWs believe that Jesus went to Hell, and that happened during the parts of three days for which he was dead. They cite Acts 2:31 to support this:

31Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ,[a] that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.

The above is from the NIV. The KJ version uses "hell" in place of "grave"

But to make it all appear consistent, JWs explain that Luke 16:19-31 isn't literal; thus the "fire" in hell is not literal, but symbolises total "destruction", just like fire consumes (a little kid asked about the ashes; but I don't know JWs response to that; perhaps Perrito4u could help. . .)

Perrito4u: which Jehovah's Witness book are you currently "studying" with Jehovah's Witnesses? And, on what page are you in the book?
.

Waiting . . .
.

The poster you referenced cited a committee including Sheik Yusuf al Qaradawi as authority. Do you always endorse the view of Sheik Yusuf al Qaradawi? Or is there sth specific about my questions above that you'd like to share here? Don't do a copy/paste of all of the fellow's post, just of what's relevant. There's a inherent weakness is arguing exclusiveyl or excessively from authority.
.

What do you think of Karen Estes' opinion?

I'll respond to any thread/topic if there's any worthy response and when I find the time to.
.

Women are not supposed to cut their hair, you know.

Why not?

Is this statement absolute?

I asked specific, unambiguous questions. Here, again:

Nimshi:
So, you interpret this to mean that Jews and Christians cannot be friends or helpers to a Muslim, ever??

Do you??

The same question goes for those who have expressed support for your position: are you people saying that the above quotation means that there can be no coorperation and dealings between Muslims on the one hand and Chritstians and Jews on the other?

You should either answer or stop whinning.
.

samba123:
Nimshi

With the aim of defending Salman Rushdie books, I have no reason to be doubtful your disposition about this issues anymore it clear to me now where you stand for that matter

What do you wish to be clear about? If you're specific, that could offer one the opportunity to choose to respond to you or not; as things stand, the ambiguity makes it impossible to respond to you.

It'll be difficult for me to endorse all of a writer's opinion; it will also be difficult for me to disagree with all of a writer's opinion; things aren't ever always as simple as that. I believe I understand what Rushdie attempted to do in SV; the approach is not inconsistent with much else he's written. But to be clear (since I'm being copiously quoted about it), my statement "no where have I endorsed Rushdie's views" does not necessarily imply that I wouldn't endorse any, many or much of Rushdie's views; quite the contrary as my openinig words in this paragraph show. But ifwe do get specific, then one's position may be clear, for whatever it's worth.
.

Perrito4u: nice you returned!

Which of the JW books are you quoting or copy/pasting from? Do a favour by citing the references clearly.

The JW argument for punctuation in the words of Jesus to the criminal is quite clear, even if flawed as argued by others.

Please cite your references clearly; I guess you have the JW CDROM with all the information, so that shouldn't be difficult.
.

How about the verses from the Koran that warns against making a compromise with these people.
O ye who believe! Take not friends or helpers among the Jews and Christians, he who taketh them for friends is indeed one of them. Allah loveth not wrong doing folk.

So, you interpret this to mean that Jews and Christians cannot be friends or helpers to a Muslim, ever??

Do you??

The same question goes for those who have expressed support for your position: are you people saying that the above quotation means that there can be no coorperation and dealings between Muslims on the one hand and Chritstians and Jews on the other??
.