Getting into Arguments with JW's... (page 12)

theMadJW

"There is no good reason for the WTS to make a big deal out of understanding the test as being consonant with Jehovah's attitude toward child sacrifice when the actual words do not demand we see him as a sadistic trickster."

Mad: Then, what are you implying? That Abraham was getting carried away? That he WANTED to kill his son? That he MISUNDERSTOOD God? You are just fooling yourself, NAC:

Heb 11: 17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." [c] 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.

You accusation is childish, and only harms yourself.

Jgnat- long time, no see! I "really want to know"! Help me see how deluded I am, and free me from my slavery to the WTBS!

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaha!

Lady Liberty

I would ask them to find proof OUTSIDE the societys literature for the date 607!!! Of course they will probably label you an apostate at that point, as 607 seems to be the "red flag" for total rebellion!! LOL!!

Sincerely,

Lady Liberty

not a captive

MadJ, How are you? I thought you had abandoned the post.

How many times do I have to say--There is no question that Abraham decided at some point that God wanted Isaac dead. But if the test were merely to see IF Abraham would try to kill Isaac then why have the ram around afterward? I repeat:LOOK AT THE WTS OWN TEACHING ON JEPHTHAH'S VOW in the Insight Books. I followed the WT guidelines for study using proper references. They didn't like the conclusion even though it is in harmony with what Jesus has taught and what Jehovah says of himself. I believe that I should witness for God not warp the Truth to conform to fallible books and magazines. The brothers could not toss me out without throwing out the reference materials that informed me--or changing a word in the original text. The Branch told me that they knew the words were not interchangeable. If I was in a rock and a hard place, so were they.

Did Jehovah want to prove that as God he could break all the scriptures and then convince you that he never had broken his own guidelines? That is the version of reality you are advocating along with the WTS.

MadJ, please address these points.

theMadJW

LL- I have already showed you that; but your friends pretend otherwise.

NAC- I come here only when I can; between my self-employment, and helping family and friends unemployed, I have far less time to, layely! Jepthah only shows that all had LEARNED from Abraham's test. Nothing more, nothing less.

"Did Jehovah want to prove that as God he could break all the scriptures and then convince you that he never had broken his own guidelines?"

Mad: By STOPPING Abraham, He showed otherwise. If He HADN'T of, then your 'argument' would have merit. It doesn't.

"That is the version of reality you are advocating along with the WTS."

Mad: Yes, That Abraham was going to slaughter his only son as a SACRIFICE- EXACTLY as Jehovah did with Christ.

not a captive

Jehovah killed Jesus?

not a captive

Wait---I think we may have found common ground! --if that is the point.

The fact that "burnt offerring" as regards a human WAS UNDERSTOOD at the time of Jephthah's promise shows that it was having its reality, its definition established by the test. Please think why the Society acknowledged that it -olah--had no connection in its original root with the action of zebach . They know that the wordshave an affinity in worship. But one describes the slashing and letting of blood--that word is not "burnt offering.

theMadJW

Jehovah 'killed' Jesus by sending him to his death. Abraham was with Issac- until stopped.

ALL sacrifices were (are) an act of worship- Jesus worshipped his God and Father.

Abraham OBEYING his God.

I weary of your fanatisism, NAC, and completely fail to undestand this 'conflict':

1- God commanded Abraham to SACRIFICE (offer up a burnt offering)

2- Animals were never burned ALIVE, but were killed first

3- Abraham obeyed, was about to do the same with his son.

4- Paul wrote it was a prophetic illustration.

Have I MISSED something?

not a captive

MadJ, does the original text mean anything to you? Because in the great critical shreddings that the early books of the Bible have been subject to both over their physical lives and in th critcal land of scholars, this particular account appears to have been left unmolested by ancient editors. If that is so then I would suppose the providence of its ancient words should be given their due. If you think I am a fanatic it is only because I will not give ground when it was who? the WTS that insisted we look at the original intention. Tell me why you change the words in Jehovah's mouth in this case.

theMadJW

Change God's words? You mean all the transaltions are wrong?

God told Abraham to take Issac to the mountain as a gesture of faith- and Abraham became an insane fanatic?

not a captive

You have said it beautifully, MadJ! "God told Abraham to take Isaac to the mountain as a gesture of faith."

There was no way to name this depth of trust, soul-searching, faith and uncertain/certainty of obedience. The outcome would be attached to the word that Jehovah spoke. And that word would not be could not be the word that had a knife slash in it. It is a miracle.

As Paul once said, "we teach what scripture calls: the things that no eye has seen and no ear has heard, things beyond the mind of man, all that God has prepared for those who love him. These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depths of everthing, even the depths of God. After all the depths of a man can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and in the same way the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God." 1 Cor. 2:9-11

Getting into Arguments with JW's...

Share this