a series of 4 videos, explains everything, including what the word about Mary grasping to Jesus means in greek.
This is the video about after the resurrection
i've been reading more and studying about the bible .
it was brought to my notice that out of the four different versions of jesus resurrection they do not back each other up.
instead they contradict each other a lot.
a series of 4 videos, explains everything, including what the word about Mary grasping to Jesus means in greek.
This is the video about after the resurrection
the article is a good summary to show people who are too busy to read the transcript.
the main points are covered, without jackson's waffling... this is my favourite quote:.
jackson also testified that while there havent been any particular discussion among church leadership about apologizing to victims of sexual abuse, its perceivable that they might consider doing so.
The Gb is bringing reproach on God's name.
I wonder how long will God stand them any more....
one of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.
here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.
@ Vidqun
But even if he did hold the rank of angel at one time, that has changed. He has received a promotion and now holds the rank of king.
This is another flaw in jw doctrine - the Bible clearly stated that after the sacrifice and resurrection Jesus was elevated to a higher rank, received a "promotion".
But if Jesus was the first creation of God, in fact a co-creator, since all things were created through him, and after resurrection he turned back to life in heaven a became chef angel, what kind of promotion did he really receive. In jw view he already participated in the creation of the angels, he was already the first being created even before coming to earth.
Also, jw's fail to recognize a very important theme in Paul's letter - the new creation. The idea of new creation, new man, an eternal, indestructible being that never existed before and was new, new created by God and Jesus at the resurrection became the first born of this kind of being. In colossians 1:18 he is also named the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
Strangely, jw's admit that "anointed ones" will be a new creation. But there are so many verses that say the anointed ones will be made similar to or in the image of the resurrected Jesus. (2 cor 3:18, 1 cor 15:42-58, Romans 8:29, Romans 6:5). But still, jw's say Jesus was resurrected as an archangel, while the anointed ones will be a new creation.
This can not be, if Jesus is an angel, anointed ones will also be angels, and here you come in contradiction with Hebrews 2:5 that is analyzed by prof. buzzard in the video above. - the usual circle "logic" of the jw doctrine...
one of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.
here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.
@ jhine
It depends on who you call the church fathers. Do you refer to the apostles or the "fathers of the church" that came after the apostles. If you refer to the apostles, they definitely have seen Jesus for what He was, a man not a God. They were Israelites and they believed in One God.
Jesus himself said the most important law was: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, wthe Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ - this is known of the "shema" and is the creed of the Jewish faith.
What Christianity today is failing is to see that the God of Christians is the same God the Israel has and Jesus is the Messiah that the Jewish people expect. Ask any Jew if they expect the Messiah to be God Himself or an incarnated angel.
As for the word "word" in John ch. 1, I wonder if you consider that "word" also refers to Jesus in the following verse:
Isaiah 55:11 - so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
Jesus was so clear, He referred to Himself as the Son of Man so many times, how much clear could he have been?
He also said He was the Son of God, and CalebInFlorida explained above what this expression means for a person of Jewish faith - a human son of God.
as much as jesus is not the mediator of mankind but the "mediator" (supposedly a legal term), the watchtower has a similar word game with the word "judge".seems like deborah judged in israel, which, for every one of you apostate or worldly scumbags who don't understand word games, does not mean debora was a judge.
you see, deborah was a "judge".why is that?
because she is not listed on a list of 12 judges.
The watchtower has other word games, too:
- the bad angels "took human bodies" before the flood, while Jesus' life was supposedly "transferred" in the womb of Marry
- the presence of Jesus is an invisible "presence"
As a general rule, everything they do not like in the bible, it becomes "invisible", it has a "spiritual fulfillment" (so, invisible) and the words just do not mean what they say, but what the gb say they mean.
one of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.
here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.
Nicolau,
Of course it is all about reality.
If you take the Bible as the foundation of your faith, the reality is in Hebrews 2:5 it clearly says that God did not put angels in charge of the world to come.
Actually all chapter one and part of chapter 2, clearly says that Jesus is not an angel.
So the Bible clearly says that Jesus is not Michael the Archangel. - this is one of the biggest flaws in the jw doctrine.
As for the preexistence of Jesus, yes, indeed, there are verses that could be interpreted as pre human existence. But those verses can also mean a preexistence as the plan of God. There are also verses that can be interpreted as a preexistence of the anointed ones (christians).
How about the verses that clearly talk about eternal fire? We all agree that eternal fire means destruction. Not literal eternal fire.
The same with the preexistence of Jesus, it means preexistence as the plan of god.
some other arguments are my comments above
Some really good arguments are in the video of professor Anthony Buzzard, you can watch it if you didn't do it yet.
one of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.
here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.
@ leaving_quietly
1 Thess 4:16 says "an archangel's voice", not "the archangel's voice", indicating more than one exists.
Daniel 10:13 calls Michael "one of the foremost princes", again, indicating more than one exists.
you are so right!
one of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.
here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.
The jw's talk about the controversies that had to be answered, like: can a perfect human be loyal to God.
If Jesus was an angel before coming to earth, than, that controversy has not really been answered, was it?
Plus, the prophecy from Genesis says the seed of a woman had to destroy satan. If Jesus was an angel, was He really the seed of the woman?
one of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.
here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.
One of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the JW's is that Jesus is Michael the archangel.
Here is what proffessor Anthony Buzzard has to say about this:
after listening to the hearings of the australian royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse, i am no longer content to have simply walked away from the organization.
as a matter of conscience, i do not want my name linked with the organization in any way.
i know this letter has been posted previously, and i thank the author.