by Godlyman 349 Replies latest watchtower bible
Vanderhoven7
So will your organization baptize those Christians who don't believe in 1914, 1918 and 1919?
--
Christians submitting to baptism would most likely endorse such teaching as it is well-founded biblically so i cannot envisage this becoming an issue.
scholarJW
sjw. The instructions by the resurrected J.C. were to baptize in the name of the 3, not in recognition of a "spirit directed organisation", that has shown it is not directed by sprit of truth. ( see superior authorities 1929 to 1960s)
Scholar
How does that 1914 make sense? Maybe you can help me with this questions.
Luke 21:
However, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. 21 Then let those in Ju·deʹa begin fleeing to the mountains, let those in the midst of her leave, and let those in the countryside not enter into her, 22 because these are days for meting out justice in order that all the things written may be fulfilled. 23 Woe to the pregnant women and those nursing a baby in those days! For there will be great distress on the land and wrath against this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled"
From that context, how does Jerusalem come to represent seat of davidic line of rulers? Is the context not clearly referring to literal Jerusalem?
2. Who said that the seat of davidic rulership was vacant as at first century? Was Jesus not born a king through David line? Did Jesus not make a triumphant entry into Jerusalem as the king of the Jews? Did Nathanael, and even the Jewish rulers not place on his stake, "Jesus, king of the Jews"? (John 12:15,16; Isaiah 9;5,6) Zech 9:9 didn't present the matter as king designate. There king was coming into Jerusalem.
When declaration to lift the turban was made at Ezek 21:26, the bible didn't say " let seven times pass over it". That phrase was picked up from another prophecy meant for Nebuchadnezzar. That is entirely different context. That of Nebuchadnezzar fulfilled on Nebuchadnezzar. The bible book of Daniel told us the prophecy and stated how it was fulfilled. done and dusted.
Another problem is giving the seven times a different reckoning. On what basis actually? How does adding up different biblical context make any sense?
3. We go to revelation 12.
This chapter is used to prove how the kingdom was born. The child is said to be God's kingdom. A government.
First. Rev 12:17 says that the dragon went to persecute "the remaining ones" of the woman's offspring.
If the remaining ones of her offspring are persons, how then is the child the woman delivered not also refer to a person, but a government?
Secondly, verse 10 says "now have come to pass... the kingdom"
Did you notice that it was after the war in heaven that the point was made that it was now, that the kingdom came into being?
So the kingdom should come into being after Satan was ousted, not before.
We move to Rev 11.
The GB made a smart move there. Rev 11:15 is said to fulfill in 1914, but why is it that verse 18 was moved to the future? Russell and others who studied that Revelation knew that those verses should come together, that's why they thought that the kingdom will come in 1914. But since it didn't come, the verses were detached and given different times of fulfillment. That's wrong.
As for Parousia, it will take time to explain how my personal study gave a different understanding of that scripture. In a nutshell, Jesus answered the question of the sign of his presence at Matt 24:29,30- "the sign of the son of man". probably that heavenly phenomenon mentioned in verse 29 will be the physical evidence that the son of man has come. that's the sign requested at Matt 24:3. This his coming/presence would cover a period of resurrection and rapture before the actual destruction of the wicked.
All that Jesus said about nation fighting against nations, food shortages etc was not part of his presence. He was telling them what will occur before his presence. His presence is the end. The end is associated with when Jesus come for judgment and eventual destruction. In other words, conclusion of the system of things. That visible evidence will show that he is NEAR at the door. (Matt 24:33). Jesus didn't now say "the end is not yet" because that was the end. Don't let the word "end" make you think of immediate destruction.
To help you get the point, run a study on "presence", "manifest*", "Reve*lation", "trumpet", "conclusion", "end".
Yes. The basic requirement for salvation is faith is Jesus. That is basic. God doesn't expect those He uses to understand all his word for He to save them. No. If that were so, no single soul from WT will be saved because from day one, they had always had false doctrine, even now.
GB keep making that claim, "correct doctrine = salvation." But that's not true, even John the Baptist didn't understand all the scripture had to say about his work nor that of Christ.
Jesus Christ told the criminal at his right, that he will be with him in paradise. Why? His works, better understanding of bible? No. Just faith in Jesus.
Jesus also declared some sinners in his time as forgiving. It means that if God kingdom were to come at that time, those persons he forgave their sins will enter as righteous persons.
So since Jesus is the judge, you can't know whom he will allow into the kingdom. The Pharisees were so much attached to rules rules rules like the GB, shutting the kingdom of heaven, and disfellowshiping people because of their rules.
Even making complicated requirements for baptism. I mean, seriously? Did Jesus require long hours of study before people were baptized? I bet you that no army officer would ever be baptized today, but Cornelius was a high ranking military officer who got baptized. No need for days or months of return visits and bible study. what about the Jailer? And after the baptism, he didn't need hours of brainwashing, to wash off teachings of Judaism. Like WT would want to wash off Christendom teachings, some of which are even correct. Too over righteous to a fault. And God never even tell any of them divinely, that he has appointed them. I wonder how the Org would have been had they received a seconds of supernatural appearance!
No matter how bad Catholic or Eastern Orthodox had been, you do not have any right to establish your own church unless you were told divinely to do so (assuming they were the remaining link to the first church). You can choose to be bible students to study and learn God's word, but do not establish another religion. If God is tired, He will divinely appoint you. Then you have your authority. The Jews were very bad, but God didn't reject them. If any had formed another nation then, God won't approve it.
I mean, one need to be careful, and many churches are just like that. If one is tired, stay in your house, read your bible and practice it. Worship of God is in spirit and truth. Don't form a religion.
Scholar: "Christians submitting to baptism would most likely endorse such teaching as it is well-founded biblically so i cannot envisage this becoming an issue."
Way to answer without answering. I wonder why.
waton
''sjw. The instructions by the resurrected J.C. were to baptize in the name of the 3, not in recognition of a "spirit directed organisation", that has shown it is not directed by sprit of truth.''
Scripture does NOT support such doctrine anywhere.
I always find it an amazing coincidence that people who register next to each other in the database are also then so interested in the same cookie religiot shit and want to reply to each other's topics, and using an open proxy to hide their location.
Gee, you might almost believe that Linda14 and Godlyman are one in the same nutty person ...
It's too bad that they didn't agree to accept the 586BC date. Imagine- they first use the 607BC date and come up with 1914 and BAM! World War 1! Then they recognize the error and go with 586BC and BAM! the early 1930s and the rise of Hitler! They could then say that God was cleverly showing them when the events leading to the crowning of Jesus in 1935 began.
They would not have had to come up with that overlapping generations crap for at least another few years from now. Missed opportunity!
@scholar
Re. Baptism Criteria
"I cannot envisage this becoming an issue."
Regardless of what you think, would your organization baptize Christians who don't believe in 1914, 1918 and 1919?
Vanderhoven7
---
Regardless of what you think, would your organization baptize Christians who don't believe in 1914, 1918 and 1919?
--
If my opinion is unsatisfactory then perhaps you can ask the Organization for an appropriate response.
scholar JW
