Posts by aChristian

25

Jehovah Witness Pastors Has A Sheep ...Arrested

by D wiltshire in

jw
friends

jehovah witness pastors has a sheep in their care arrested.. hi my name is david wiltshire and i have suffered horribly from the hand of my pastors.

because i know longer believe the jehovahs witnesses are the only true religion i was disfellowshipped from all jehovahs witnesses i cant even come over their houses any more, they refuse to return my greetings.. the worst torture that they have put on me is that my little grand daughter, who i used to give horsy back rides to cant even be allowed so visit with me for fear both she and her parents could be disfellowshipped.

the watchpower teaches that you cant fellowship with disfellowshipped persons, so they are good jehovah witnesses and obey the watchpower.. some say the jehovah witness religion is a mind control cult.

aChristian

Dave,

You wrote: People were telling her what I was saying to others about things.

What issues caused you to part ways with the Watchtower to begin with? I asked you this before and you referred me to a thread in which you posted your DF appeal letter. But in it you really didn't discuss specific issues that you had disagreements with the Watchtower on. Were your issues mainly doctrinal (like the FDS, the deity of Christ, the two classes, blood and various legalisms), procedural issues (such as the use of disfellowshipping and compulsory door knocking and turning in of time), or personal such as the way certain people in the congregation treated others?

25

Jehovah Witness Pastors Has A Sheep ...Arrested

by D wiltshire in

jw
friends

jehovah witness pastors has a sheep in their care arrested.. hi my name is david wiltshire and i have suffered horribly from the hand of my pastors.

because i know longer believe the jehovahs witnesses are the only true religion i was disfellowshipped from all jehovahs witnesses i cant even come over their houses any more, they refuse to return my greetings.. the worst torture that they have put on me is that my little grand daughter, who i used to give horsy back rides to cant even be allowed so visit with me for fear both she and her parents could be disfellowshipped.

the watchpower teaches that you cant fellowship with disfellowshipped persons, so they are good jehovah witnesses and obey the watchpower.. some say the jehovah witness religion is a mind control cult.

aChristian

Dave,

Maybe you can point out to your family what is said on the Watchtower's official website. Maybe print a full colr copy out and send it to them. In the Frequently Asked Questions section, it says that "Disfellowshipping does not severe family ties." You can highlight that portion. : )

After reading that they will either then have to start treating you in the way most children treat their Father or recognize the Watchtower Society to be the liars which they are, which may help accomplish the same thing.

Mike

66

Arrested for going kingdumb and dumber hall!

by D wiltshire in

arrested for going kingdumb hall!.

last night (3/21) the mountain view (ca) police arrested me.. this happened as i was attending the sunnyvale congregation service meeting.. i was dfd last july and was told by the elders the conditions for reinstatement were meeting attendance, repentance along with not speaking to anyone or anyone speaking to me (shunning at its finest).

(btw, i was dfd for apostasy).

aChristian

Dave,

You mentioned you were DF for apostasy. Maybe you've told me this before. But I can't remember. People our age, the memory starts to go. You know, bro? What doctines did you disgree with that got you in trouble?

Mike

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

aChristian

Joseph,

What do you mean it is off screen? It comes to the top of the screen anytime it is posted to. I always view this board in its "active" mode by hitting the "active" button at the top. I think that is the most common way to view the board. As I told you I have a policy not to patronize threads which you start just to bash the Bible. If you want to carry on this conversation we can do so in this thread.

Faithful,

Your comment about the Dove, the olive branch and Noah all being "staged" by God to picture Christ at his baptism and our own salvations through baptism may be dead on.

If you want to argue with Joe in another thread be my guest. As I told him, I boycott threads started by known Bible bashers. His "off screen" excuse makes no sense to me.

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

aChristian

Joseph,

I have made it a policy to never enter a thread which you start for the sole purpose of bashing the Bible. So any further conversations we have on this subject will have to take place in this thread which was started by a man I have long respected. Besides, I would rather give new readers the opportunity to read the various aspects of this subject matter which we have already discussed. I have the feeling that you would not, because you have in my opinion, and that of others who have weighed in on the progress of our debate, not fared well in it so far.

You wrote: You’re running away because you cannot answer the hard questions. Prove me wrong, and begin by explaining away the dove problem, if you can. ... According to aChristian, the flood was local. Well, if that's true then Noah must have known it was local, too. But, that seems not to be possible, for Noah sent a dove to see if the waters had receded from the land. As proof that the waters had receded, Noah would receive an olive leaf. ... But, what would that prove? Noah--according to the local flood theory--would have known the flood was local, and that therefore there was unflooded land just outside the flooded "land of Noah," wouldn't he? Thus, receiving the olive leaf would prove nothing if the flood was local. If the dove returned with a leaf, why wouldn't Noah just assume that the dove had flown outside the boundaries of the "land of Noah," if it were really true that Noah--and the Genesis writer--thought the flood was local? aChristian doesn't imagine that the dove knew it was only supposed to fly to the boundaries of the "land of Noah," does he?

There are a few possible answers to your questions. I'll offer a couple which I consider to be quite likely.

One is that Noah did not know that the flood was local. Most advocates of a local Noah's flood believe that it was a very large flood which flooded most of Mesopotamia. The ark may have been surrounded by water which stretched 50 miles or more in all directions. Much farther than Noah could see from the top of the ark, giving Noah the idea that the entire earth, if he even understood the concept of "the entire earth," had been flooded.

The next possibility is that Noah did not believe that the flood covered the entire planet but believed the flood was a very large one, covering too much ground for a dove to fly nonstop to the flood's original extremity. With this thought in mind, Noah sent out the dove. For Noah then would have believed that if the dove returned, that would mean that the flood waters had not yet receded far enough for the dove to find a landing place within its flight range. And Noah then would have believed that if the dove returned with some vegetation from a previously submerged tree top, that would mean that the flood waters had receded enough to expose the tops of some trees within the doves flight range, but not enough to provide the dove with a comfortable landing place away from the ark within its flight range. And Noah would have believed that if the dove did not return at all, that would mean that the flood waters had receded far enough for the dove to have found a new home within its flight range.

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

aChristian

Joseph,

The creation story in Gen. 1:1,2,9,10 clearly tells us that "in the beginning" the earth was completely covered with water and that God then caused "dry ground" to rise from that global ocean and the "waters" to drain from earth's newly rising land masses into "seas." Scientists tell us that mountains were born at that time. But you say that since the creation story does not specifically mention the word "mountains," but only describes land masses rising from a global ocean, that the writer of Psalms 104:5-9 must have been blending together the creation story and the flood story which does mention mountains.

This is an assumption that is in total conflict with the context of Ps. 104:5 and 6. For verse 5 tells us when the events in verses 6-9 took place. It tells us they all took place at the time God "set the earth on its foundations." This was obviously "In the beginning." (Gen. 1:1)

Thus we can only understand, as all Bible commentaries tell us, that Ps. 104:6-9 refers to events described in the first chapter of Genesis, not to events described in the 6th, 7th and 8th chapters of Genesis. I believe that your assumption here is a very poor one. For you admit that the Psalmist had Genesis 1 in mind when he wrote Ps. 104:5-9, which refers to the earth originally being covered with water, and to the original formation of earth's land masses. You also admit that scientists now tell us that mountains were formed at the time the waters of earth's global ocean first began to recede from its newly forming continents. Yet you say that, even though the writer of Genesis somehow understood this part of the history of ancient earth, the writer of Ps. 104:5-9 could not have understood any additional details about those same events, such as the fact that God made the mountains at the same time He made the rest of earth's land masses. A Bible reader who flips a few chapters back and reads Ps. 90:1,2 will probably disagree with you. For there the Psalmist clearly connects the time when "the mountains were born" with the time God "brought forth the earth and the world."

Your make a similar assumption concerning the words of Ps. 104:9 which refers to waters which will "never again" "cover the earth." You say the Psalmist must have had the waters of Noah's flood in mind, because similar words are used in the Genesis flood account but not in the Genesis creation account. But in making this assumption you miss the connection between Ps. 104:5 and 104:9. In 104:5 the Psalmist had already said that the way God had made the earth to begin with would stand forever. This then, in his mind, must have included God's removing earth's global sea from it's land masses when He formed continents and mountains. The Psalmist was in this passage, as all Bible commentaries tell us, referring back to Gen.1:1,2,9,10. There we are told how God cleared the land of water to form our continents. And since the Psalmist tells us in verse 5 that the way God made things in the beginning would remain forever, he is able to assure us in verse 9 that God would never allow the land masses He had cleared of water to again be covered with water.

The passage of scripture you use to prove that the Bible teaches that a global flood occurred actually says that God would have never allowed such a thing to happen!

The assumptions you made to connect Ps. 104:5-9 with the Genesis flood and to disconnect it from the creation story contained in Gen. 1 were extremely tenuous. If I had made the same kind of assumptions to support one of my arguments you would have jumped all over me.

Joseph, I get the idea that you enjoy debating. I don't. Though I am always willing to defend God and His word against serious challenges. But I don't see any here. I have taken everything you have thrown at me on this subject. And it doesn't appear you have anything left. That being the case, I'm going to bow out of this discussion for a while and find something more productive to do. Maybe you can bait Faithful into getting back into it.

Gweedo,

I think your take on things is fair and understandable. As I've said before, I think your heart is in the right place. Thanks for a good discussion.

34

The Bible is a Deck of Cards

by IslandWoman in

there are a variety of playing cards and a variety of games to play with them.. the bible's canon was selected with as much care and selfish intent as the makers of playing cards have when choosing their particular design or theme.. the "hebrew" canon was decided by a nation comdemned by jesus.

they picked the design.. the "christian greek" canon was decided by men who had left the teachings of the christ.

they also picked the design.. the whole thing is a sad joke.

aChristian

"Larsguy" the "Messiah" has done it again. He has hijacked a thread which had nothing to do with himself and turned it into a thread all about himself. So, off we go again.

One of "Larsguy's" favorite "proof texts" that Christ would return as a sinful man, is "the second wave offering being with leaven." (Lev.23:17)

As I have said, I and others have pointed out to "Lars" many times before how the symbolism in this passage of scripture are widely understood by Christian Bible scholars. However, no matter how many times we point this out to "Lars" it seems to go in one ear and out the other and he again posts the same foolishness about how "the second wave offering with leaven" proves Jesus would return as "a sinful man." So I know this will have no impact on "Lars" since it never has had any other time he has been explained these things. But just in case anyone else here is interested I will here explain how the symbolisms contained in '"the second wave offering with leaven" are understood by nearly all Christian Bible commentators except "Lars."

To begin with, wave offerings were just that, offerings. Things which were offered up to God. Things which were sacrificed. Things which people gave up. They were not things that God sent down to man. They were things which people gave up to God. So, for "Lars" to say that the two wave offerings were meant to picture God sending mankind His Son, at the time of His first advent and at the time of His second advent, makes no sense.

What does make sense is to understand that the first wave offering without leaven was meant to picture, not Christ's coming but His going. It makes sense to understand that the first wave offering was meant to picture the sinless human life which Jesus Christ offered up to God in payment for our sins, before He ascended to heaven. Remember, Jesus Himself said that no human being had ascended into heaven prior to His own ascension to heaven. (John 3:13) Jesus was the first person to ascend to heaven. After ascending to heaven Jesus appeared before God and presented Him with the value of the sacrifice He had just made. (Heb. 9:11,12,24) Thus, Jesus' sacrificial death and subsequent ascension to heaven were well pictured by the first wave offering without leaven.

But what about the second wave offering with leaven? What did that picture? Most Christian commentators tell us that it prefigured the lives of the saints, many of whom have died martyrs deaths. That God acknowledges the sacrifices many of His servants have made is shown by the fact that their souls are shown in Revelation crying out to God from "under the altar," since their blood had been symbolically shed on that altar. (Rev. 6:9,10)

The Bible tells us that there are two resurrections yet to come. We are told that the first of those resurrections is made up of all of God's faithful servants. At that time God will acknowledge the sacrifices all of them have made to Him. So then, if the sacrifice of Christ's sinless life was pictured by the first wave offering without leaven, then it certainly makes good sense to understand that the sacrifices of the sinful lives of God's servants, who are all resurrected following Christ's own resurrection, were pictured by the second wave offering, the one with leaven.

Of course, good sense is something false Christs like "Larsguy" are always sorely lacking.

Another of Larsguy's favorite "proof texts" that Jesus would return as a sinful man is Zechariah 3 which tell s us about a time when the High Priest Joshua wore dirty robes. Larsguy says this too pictures that Jesus would return as a sinful man. It does not. The common sense understanding of this passage of scripture has also been presented to Larsguy, AKA "Crazy Larry," many times. But again, it goes in one ear and out the other.

However, in this case Larsguy is partially correct. Zech. 3 does contain strong messianic elements. However, all of Zech. 3's messianic elements pertain to Christ's first coming, not to His second. The High Priest Joshua's wearing dirty clothes pointed to the time when Jesus, in order to "justify many," would "bear the sin of many" and be "numbered with the transgressors." (Isaiah 53:11,12) This, of course, took place when Jesus Christ "bore our sins in his body on the tree." (1 Peter 2:24) As we know, very shortly thereafter Christ was "given all power in heaven and on earth" by his Father (Matt. 28:18), just as Zechariah's dirty clothes were immediately replaced with rich clothing and royal headwear. (Zech. 3:4,5)

The rest of Crazy Larry's twistings of the scriptures are so far off base they do not require comment.

34

The Bible is a Deck of Cards

by IslandWoman in

there are a variety of playing cards and a variety of games to play with them.. the bible's canon was selected with as much care and selfish intent as the makers of playing cards have when choosing their particular design or theme.. the "hebrew" canon was decided by a nation comdemned by jesus.

they picked the design.. the "christian greek" canon was decided by men who had left the teachings of the christ.

they also picked the design.. the whole thing is a sad joke.

aChristian

Pete,

You asked: What is proof something did not occure? This is not logic or scientific.

I am well aware of that fact. I was responding to a somewhat surprising statement made to the contrary by FD. He wrote, "If an unbeliever proves definitively that something you believe cannot possibly be true ..." I was the one who pointed out to him, as you have to me, that what he suggested is not possible.

You wrote: The proof you would have to have that these events occurred in the life of Jesus would have be very weighty. More than the need to believe.

You seem to be assuming that I have not based my beliefs on strong evidence, that I have based them on only a "need to believe." You are mistaken.

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

aChristian

Gweedo,

As you have already said, you would not believe in God if Jesus Christ Himself appeared right in front of you and allowed you to examine the holes in His hands and in His side, as He allowed Thomas to do. So then, why are you so interested in understanding how every passage of scripture should be understood. After all, you believe the Bible is entirely the work of a bunch of not too bright men and nothing more. Aren't you just doing as Joseph does, trying to find what you think might be inconsistencies and contradictions in either the Bible, my understanding of the Bible or both, in order to make either the Bible, my understanding of the Bible or both look foolish?

You referred to several passages of Genesis in which the Hebrew word 'eres is used. You asked when that word should be understood to mean "the land," in the sense of a limited geographical area occupied by a particular group of people, and when it should be understood as meaning "the earth," in the sense of our entire planet. On the small chance that your questions might have been sincere, I'll answer them briefly. Of course, in doing so, I can only give you my opinion. For no one can say for certain in all cases when 'eres should be understood the first way and when it should be understood the second way. In many cases the context makes this matter absolutely clear in one way or the other. In other cases, such as in the passages you have cited, there exists some disagreement between various Bible scholars on this matter.

The fact of the matter is that Bible scholars and Bible translators are sometimes not sure when 'erers in a particular passage, such as those you cited, should be translated as "the land" and when it should be translated as "the earth." In fact, the translators of the New American Standard Bible were so confused over this issue when translating the Bible's flood account contained in Genesis chapters 6, 7 and 8, that they there translated 'eres several times as "the land" and several times as "the earth," going back and forth between the two in the story of Noah's flood. This should certainly show you that even the world's foremost Bible scholars and experts in the ancient Hebrew language cannot now answer the questions you posed to me with any degree of certainty. So, as I said, I can only give you my opinion.

You asked about Gen. 1:22, 28. I would translate 'eres in these two verses as "the earth," as in our entire planet. You asked about Gen. 8:17 and 9:1,18,19. I would translate 'eres in these four verses as "the land," as in the limited geographical area Noah and his immediate descendants lived in. I would spend more time telling you why I believe this way, but I suspect I would only be giving you more to criticize.

5

IsThe "Slave Class" Biblical?

by stevieb1 in

i'm currently involved in an in-depth study of the wt society's doctrine of the "faithful and discreet slave" of matthew 24:45-47 and hope to present my research to an inquiring jw elder.

i am trying to counter some of the claims made in the following reference:- insight on the scriptures vol 1, pp.

805-806. here is a quote from p.806 which adequately describes the society's understanding of the "slave class" .

aChristian

Notice that Christ asked, "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed (past tense) over his domestics (those in his household), to give them their food at the proper time?" These words clearly apply to an appointment Christ had already then made. For Christ had appointed all of his followers to care for the needs of their fellow Christians.

Then Jesus said, "Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to you, He will appoint him over all his belongings." That these words apply to a time when Christ would appoint faithful Christians over far more than just his household also seems clear. When Christ returns he will appoint Christians over "all his belongings." No longer will they be in charge of just his household belongings.

The Watchtower Society maintains and asks us to believe that Jehovah's Witnesses now make up all in Christ's household, all his "domestics." That is hard for many to believe. But the Watchtower organization then goes much further. For it maintains that Christ already has fulfilled the second part of this illustration. They tell us Christ already has returned and "on arriving" he appointed the Watchtower Society "over all his belongings." But in order for us to believe this we have to believe that Jehovah's Witnesses not only make up all of Christ's household, but also now make up all that belongs to Christ. But how can this be? The Bible tells us that Christ now has authority over more than just Jehovah's Witnesses. In fact, it tells us that after Christ's resurrection he was given "all authority" "in heaven and on earth." Has Christ given all of this authority to the Watchtower Society? Evidently not. For if they now had the power to do so they could, for instance, order the French government to leave them alone.

The Watchtower Society claims that Christ has already returned. And it claims to be "the faithful and discreet slave" after the time of Christ's return. But if this were a correct understanding of Jesus' illustration the Watchtower Society would now have control of far more than the lives of Jehovah's Witnesses. They would have control of "all his belongings" which would include control of everything, "in heaven and on earth." Since they do not, it is clear that Jesus was not referring to the Watchtower Society when he spoke of "the faithful and discreet slave" whom he will appoint "over all his belongings" at the time of his return.

Another important aspect of this subject matter to discuss with JWs, in fact more important than the precious one, is this: How does the Watchtower Society or anyone else actually know that Christ ever made any such appointment? How did the men who run the Watchtower Society find out he had done so? Did Christ tell them he did so while appearing to them in a dream or vision? Did he send an angel to deliver this news to them? If he did not, how did they find out that Christ had appointed them to be his "Faithful and Discreet Slave" and thereafter act as his sole channel for distributing Bible truth on the earth?

Many Jehovah's Witnesses are likely to answer this question by saying, "His appointment seems obvious. After all, look at how much better Jehovah's Witnesses understand the Bible than other so-called Christian sects. Look at our preaching. Who else preaches like we do? Look at the love we have among ourselves." However, even if all these things are true, do they really prove that Jesus Christ ever made such an appointment? After all, every Christian sect believes their group has the most truth and believes their group is the one most approved by Jesus Christ.

If Jesus himself never actually told the men who run the Watchtower Society that he was then declaring them to be faithful, and that he was then appointing them over all his belongings, was it right for them to tell the world that Christ himself had done those things? Since Jesus Christ himself made no such announcement, the men who ran the Society in 1919 had no way of being certain that Christ had ever really made such an appointment. And, neither do the men who run the Society today.

The parable of the faithful and discreet slave informs us that when Christ returns he himself will judge which of his servants have faithfully taken good care of all he entrusted to them. With this in mind, is it the place of Christ's slaves to proclaim themselves to be faithful? No, it is not. Christ said he will judge his slaves. For a slave to judge himself as faithful and then tell all the world that Christ himself made that judgment is a very presumptuous thing to do. And God assures us in His Word that, "I shall actually cause the pride of the presumptuous ones to cease." (Isaiah 13:11 NWT)