Getting into Arguments with JW's... (page 5)

mindmelda

How do you get to 1919?

Some sort of numerology formula, as I recall, figured from the average number of peanuts in Judge Rutherfords morning bowel movements.

Well, it might as well be since he pulled it out of his ASS, since there's nothing about it in the Bible. Oh, the "well done" part is there, but not the 1919 bit.

not a captive

MadJW,

Here is what Bethel and the elders wouldn't/ couldn't deal with: My Book of Bible Stories and other literature renders Genesis 22 thus: Abraham...kill your son and offer him up as a sacrifice."

This is not what the Bible says.

It was not what Jehovah meant either.

shopaholic

ForbiddenFruit, to fade from JWs you're going to eventually have to fade from your JW friends, too. It is extremely important to make new friendships ASAP.

Very true. I did it the other way around...not a good idea. But I also got questioned by my JW friends as they saw me fading away. I simply put the question back on them. I've found its usually an indication of what they would do if they left. When I first told a JW friend about my doubts, I did not hear from hear from her for several weeks. Then out of the blue she called and ask if I had anything to talk to the elders about so I played like I did not know what she was talking about. Then finally she came out and asked if I had slept with anyone. I had not and asked why would she think that of all things. Her response was "Why wouldn't you, you don't have anything to stop you." Then I told her, it sounds like she was speaking for herself.

Anyway, don't allow yourself get into debates with JWs. Remind them that "Jehovah" gives people a choice and you decided to choose differently than they did. Actually even that is too much conversation. Change the subject or something. More importantly start building a friendships or social circles outside of the JWs.

theMadJW

NAC- I don't understand.

Didn't God ASK that?

Gen 22:2- Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you."

not a captive

No, He didn't.

The NWT of the Bible says what virtually every translation says: "Take, please your son, your only son whom you so love, Isaac, and make a trip to the land of Moriah and there offer him up as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall designate to you."

Words matter. The word Jehovah used was not zebach a word that has the completely deadly meaning: kill,slaughter.

Why not?

Cold Steel

MadJW says: "Several different questions here."

1. Angels are sometimes termed spirits; that which is spirit is invisible and powerful. …

True, but John says: “ Beloved, now are we the sons of God….” (1 Jhn 3:2), so humans also are equated as the offspring of God.

2. The demons as such were not created by God. The first to make himself one was Satan the Devil, who became the ruler of other angelic sons of God who also made themselves demons. (Mt 12:24, 26) In Noah’s day disobedient angels materialized, married women, fathered a hybrid generation known as Nephilim….

If God created all things, logic dictates that He would also be the One who created the spirits who were evil, including Satan. The story you relate is almost certainly a legend, or myth. Certainly, the scriptures nowhere teach that spirits can materialize bodies. In fact, Jesus asked his disciples to “handle me and see,” for “a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.” That wouldn’t make sense if spirits could manufacture a body at will, because what would it be proving? And why would God have placed the instinct of procreation within such spirits? If you’re saying you believe that angelic spirits can turn themselves into humans, I see nothing in the scriptures to back that up. In fact, if they had that power, why wouldn’t they create bodies and have sex with themselves? (Certainly they could have materialized bodies superior to those of women living in that day and age!)

3. (2 Peter 2:4) Certainly if God did not hold back from punishing the angels that sinned, but, by throwing them into Tartarus, delivered them to pits of dense darkness to be reserved for judgment.

The only “angels that sinned” we have a record of is when Satan and his angels rebelled against God. There is no other account. But there were many people living in the days of Noah who most likely had never had God’s word preached to them. Peter says that Jesus was preaching to the spirits of those who were “dead” — thus they were spirits of humans who had sinned during those days and had been killed in the flood. Jesus told the thief on the cross, “…this day shalt thou be with me in Paradise” (literally, the “king’s park”). This was not heaven, but a realm of spirits that included those who had perished in the flood. If this is not true, why would Jesus spend three days preaching to angels he was just going to throw “into Tartarus”?

4. Jesus’ spirit [was] entrusted into his father’s hand was thus…God was being called upon to guard, or care for, that one’s life-force.

That’s a pretty far stretch, in my opinion. You’re using the word “entrust” which infers a commitment. But “commend” or “commit” also means, “To represent as worthy, qualified, or desirable; recommend, or to express approval of; praise.” In other words, Jesus was committing his spirit into the hands of his Father, as we all must do ultimately. It’s not so much as “guarding” one’s life force, but in freely giving of it.

not a captive

MadJ, The question "Why not?" asks why Jehovah's test of Abraham references two related words in framing the request. Those words are "offer" and "burnt offering" instead of "sacrifice".The Hebrew is alah and olah.

Sorry if that "Why not ?" was unclear. I do not want to be unnecessarily tedious in exploring this important matter of God's integrity but if I am too short in a comment I may not be sufficiently clear. You will no doubt tell me if I am over the line one way or the other.

Maeve

theMadJW

NAC, it's a pleasure to meet you!

Not to "argue" , but to test what you think---- isn't a "burnt offering " a sacrifice?

Hb 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." 19- Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.

not a captive

Madj, Don't worry. I'm don't consider your question argumentative. To answer:

Hebrews 11:17 only lets us know what was on Abraham's mind when he heard the words of test: he tried to slay Isaac.

But I realized it didn't address Jehovah's mind. I could not see that it proved that Jehovah had violated his own character in order to elicit such an act of faith.

I wondered if this event didn't have a lot of unresolved matters to explore. Such as: we often have to live by faith instead of by understanding. Abraham by faith attempted to offer his son. But I reasoned that perhaps humans have a hard time understanding a loving God because we have no actions and therefore no words that adequately express his intentions toward us. We are moral idiots or at least babies. And God is having to teach us his higher ways using our base words. The test needed a more respectful consideration--of Jehovah's holy love.

So, no questionAbraham's attempt to kill the beloved son of promise DID show perfect faith in God

But if killing is what Jehovah had asked his friend to do then Jehovah had violated all that he himself had called holy.

So when I looked at Hebrews again I saw it only reflects Abraham's faith. But I cannot conclude that killing was Jehovah's command.

I began to examine the assumptions we bring to the story and why Abraham's own recounting of it NEVER introduced any Hebrew expressions that unequivocally demanded a slaughter.

So I wondered what a burnt offering was supposed to be?

Maeve

Getting into Arguments with JW's...

Share this