elderwho, why on earth would an Apostle of the Lord use an apostate practice to substantiate his resurrection argument? Imagine Christ visiting us today saying, "Of course you're gonna resurrect! Why would the Egyptians have picked their brains out of their noses and boxed up all of their organs if they weren't gonna resurrect? C'mon, dude!" It's so convenient for people to say, "Oh, well, he doesn't say if it is a valid practice or not, so we have to take what we know from other scriptures to try to deduce his intentions in this one instance." There are many, many instances of vicarious ordinances in non-canonical books, but if you want me to stick to the Catholic compilation of scriptures (funny how much JWs loathe Catholicism, and yet their first love is the offspring of the "Mother Church" - the Bible) then there is one; but it only takes one. There's only one scripture that says God is spirit, and yet, say God has a body and the whole world is foaming at the mouth for your irreverent blasphemy. None of the organizations in the Bible used purely scripture as a basis for their faiths, and yet so many chant the sola-scriptura litany as the only true form of worship. The fact of the matter is there is not enough information in the Bible to organize and run a church. So many inferences and assumptions have to be made. How to you run tithing? Oh, don't know, do you.? You have to guess. "Well, Christ said this and that, so it must mean that we should do this and that, right?" Pitiful. That's exactly why the Scribes, Pharisees, Saduccees, Essenes, Herodians, Zealots and every other Jewish sect were condemned by Christ. They all denied the actuality of a living prophet and asserted the transcending authority of the Holy Scriptures. The problem with that is that a living prophet can say, "No, you fool, it's YOU I'm talking about," but the scriptures can't. That's why Christ chided the Scribes. They said had they lived in the ties of the prophets they would not have killed them, but the Lord said, "No, you're worse than they were." It's the same thing that happens today, and it is the reason that so many are trapped in a cage of religious zeal and intolerance. I don't get all my information from the Bible; I trust continued revelation and living prophets. That's biblical.
Posts by dan
-
108Ressurection question
by Sookie ini'm hoping someone can help me out.
based upon the belief that death acquits a person of sin, do jws believe that all those (jws and non-jws) who die before armageddon arrives will be ressurected?
just for my reference, can someone show me where this can be found in the bible?
-
-
-
96
Do Jehovah's Witnesses Have the Only True Religion
by Theocrat inwhether you're a doubter or another agitator, just look at what the bible says: .
1- jesus started one true christian religion.
after the christian arrangement had been established for some time, the apostle paul under inspiration further showed at ephesians 4:4, 5 that there must be just one body, or group, of true worshipers of god.
-
-
dan
Y'know, I would have to agree with most of the points made on the very first post of this thread. My problem lies in that Jehovah was Christ's name before He came to earth; it wasn't God the Father's name. My second problem is that the Bible also speaks of Apostles, prophets, deacons, teachers, priests, revelation, priesthood, scripture and about a thousand other principles that just don't exist in the JW organization. Sure, they can rationalize it all away, but isn't that what got the scribes and Pharisees in so much trouble? They tried to pervert scripture to back up their own apostate doctrines. Sounds awfully familiar.
-
62
Even if a God did exist, there are no absolutes
by logansrun inthere is no objective standard for right and wrong even if a god did exist.
god's morality is nothing more than an opinion backed up by absolute power.
might does not make right.
-
-
dan
Y'know, Pyrrho would probably be disgusted with how far skepticism has come. It's a pretty useless branch of philosophy, and it just leads to uselessness in society. God exists. His will is what runs our universe. It's not arbitrary. You probably just don't want any responsibility. Most of this whining sounds like someone is p*ssed at the world because he can't get the 12:00 to stop blinking on his VCR. If you have such a huge problem with authority, start with your parents; and when you fix them then you can move on to your elementary school teachers, but don't start with God. You're not gonna win.
I got some other phrases for ya:
I feel, therefore I exist. - Thomas Jefferson
I rebel, therefore I am. - Albert Camus
I ought, therefore I can. - Immanuel Kant
I want, therefore I am. - Leo Tolstoy
Sometimes I think: and sometimes I am. - Paul Valery
I labor, therefore I am a man. - Max Stirner
-
101
Atheist/Agnostics..you'r e in good company
by badwillie infamous people who were also atheists:.
simon bolivar, revolutionary of venezuela.
abraham lincoln, president.
-
-
dan
Hey, what are the chances of shuffling a random deck of cards once and having all the cards fall into perfect order? This'll help prove the existence of God.
-
58
The resurrection of the flesh of Jesus Christ
by hooberus inthe church has traditionally held to the resurrection of the flesh of jesus christ:.
ignatius (who according to ancient sources was a disciple of the apostle john).
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/anf-01/anf01-21.htm .
-
-
dan
Here's the funny thing about "spirits" in the New Testament. Some translations say "God is a Spirit," while others say, "God is Spirit." The thing is, that word "a" doesn't exist in Greek. Anytime it says "a spirit" in the NT I could translate it as just "spirit," and there's not a linguist in the world that could tell me I was wrong. So, that very same book of John says that anything born OF the Spirit IS spirit (or a spirit, depending on what side of the bed you woke up on). If we can be born of the spirit, then we can be spirits, and we can have flesh and blood. Again, there is a dualistic eaning to almost all the important words in the Bible. I'm not contradicting myself. Now, look through your whole Bible and jot down all the times the phrase "flesh and blood" appears, then go do the same for "flesh and bones." You'll find that flesh and bones are always mentioned with a perfected being (such as a resurrected being). Flesh and blood mean humans. Blood does not run through our veins after the resurrection, but spirit does. "Quickened by the spirit," I believe the scripture states. Blood brings us life, but it is mortal life. Christ was resurrected with a body of flesh and bones. God the Father has a body of flesh and bones. We will ALL be resurrected with a body of flesh and bones. Any other interpretations are just rationalizations in an effort to squeeze the scriptures into a pre-conceived doctrine. Like Jesus would lie to his disciples. "Look I have flesh and bones. Sike!" The trinity is easy to understand if you don't think of the trinity in a Catholic way. Think of it as the Godhead. Elohim is plural (no it does not refer to the plurality of his majesties and powers), and there are three members in the Godhead. Each is a seperate and distinct individual; the Father and Son possess bodies, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit. They are united in perfection and will. They are all perfect, so they all make the same perfect decisions and think the same perfect thoughts, so they can be called "one." That is why Christ prayed that we all become one even as they are one (united in purpose, deed and will). Think of the Colorado Avalanche. How many are they? Well, they're one team, but they're made up of many different people. The Godhead is the same; one entity moving towards one goal, but seperate individuals compromising the whole.
-
32
Contradiction or new light ?
by Motema Bolingo inin the wt dated 1st of april 2004, last page, there is an article entitled "should we invoke the angels ?
" (sorry, it is my own translation, because i have the magazine in french).. the article specifies that "the bible reveals only the name of two faithfull angels : mikael and daniel.".
in the next paragraph, the society declares "that angels are not intercessors who bring our prayers before god's throne.
-
-
dan
Michael is actually the pre-mortal Adam; Jehovah is the pre-mortal Christ. Don't worry, I'm ready for ya.
-
20
Is WTS wrong Christianity flawed?
by XQsThaiPoes ini notice the most qouted parts by the wts is the ot and the epistles .
all there rules are reinforcements of what is already there.
infact the letters to the early congregations are very watchtowerish.
-
-
dan
I think you may believe that you are too smart to be a JW, but the truth may be that you (think you) are too smart to have faith. Faith has a lot to do with not knowing everything, but still believing. I'm not a JW, but I know that truth is out there, and I know I am exposed to the fullness of it, even though I may not understand it all. Funny thing about borrowing things fom other religions: can you name a common practice among the covenant people (mentioned throughout the Old Testament) that was borrowed (by God) from a pagan people? Tick, tock, tick, tock. Let's see how smart you really are.
-
108
Ressurection question
by Sookie ini'm hoping someone can help me out.
based upon the belief that death acquits a person of sin, do jws believe that all those (jws and non-jws) who die before armageddon arrives will be ressurected?
just for my reference, can someone show me where this can be found in the bible?
-
-
dan
What about him? Read I Corinthians 15:29. That's the whole point of my post. Making all these absolute statements about the Gospel bars many people from accepting scripture at face value. That's why so many people these days interpret the scriptures in so any different ways; they interpret scripture to meet the needs of their doctrine, not the other way around. Baptism is an absolute must. Even the Son of God, the only perfect man to ever walk the earth HAD to be baptized, so who are we tack stipulations on to the practice. Paul makes it clear that baptisms were performed for the dead during his ministry, and they were valid. The question you really need to ask is, Why did they stop? Find me an answer for that and I'll show you when the Great Apostasy began. Apostasy, that's another principle of the Gospel that many have conveniently rationalized right out of the scriptures. The gathering of Israel-another one. No one can seem to make it make sense in the arena of their beliefs, so they rationalize it away: Oh, it's a spiritual gathering, it's not literal. Yeah, whatever, dude. The Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be the only "organization" on earth that lives up to the teachings of the Bible, but more often than not I see rationalizations for not living up to the teachings of the Bible. Truth is not found by making a huge conglomeration of scriptural manuscripts and picking out all the translations that justify one's particular beliefs. Pilate asked, "What is truth?" Truth is the knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they will be. Comparing the thousands of different existing manuscripts of the Bible to try to find a way to make everything fit together without any contradictions isn't truth, it's trying to force truth in to our tiny little preconceived box of human truth. Truth is getting on your knees with a broken heart and a contrite spirit and begging God to let you participate in His truth. It's humility and it's faith. It's about being able to say, "I don't know. But I know it's true." If you think you have an answer for everything then you are obviously in error. We cannot comprehend all truth. To do so would be to arrogate omniscience to the human mind; an utterly blasphemous thing to do. Accepting without necessarily understanding is the definition of faith. So many people these days say, "Show me and I'll believe," but God says, "Believe and I'll show you." Guess who's gonna win that standoff. Sorry about the roundabout answer to your question, but someone will one day be baptized in his behalf (if it hasn't already happened) and he will be able to enjoy all of the blessings of the Gospel that you and I hopefully enjoy today.
-
108
Ressurection question
by Sookie ini'm hoping someone can help me out.
based upon the belief that death acquits a person of sin, do jws believe that all those (jws and non-jws) who die before armageddon arrives will be ressurected?
just for my reference, can someone show me where this can be found in the bible?
-
-
dan
Why does death have to be a penalty? Can't it just be a consequence? Is it not true that only through death can we be resurrected and be made perfect? Does not the scripture in Psalms say that precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints? Paul tells the story of a seed sprouting into a flower, and he compares it to death and resurrection. Is the destruction of the seed really a punishment?
Some say that Adam brought about death through sin; but Adam didn't sin until after death entered the world. Y'know, the Bible never calls what Adam did a "sin." The Bible calls it a transgression in every instance. Can you sin in ignorance? Sin is knowing the difference between right and wrong, and acting contrary to that knowledge. The tree was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam didn't know the difference between good and evil, and was therefore unable to commit sin. What he did was transgress a law. I'll give an example of that. Is driving 30 mph a sin? No, intrinsically it is not a sin. If the speed limit is 25, then it is a transgression. Is eating fruit a sin? No, but if God says, "Don't eat the fruit," then it is a transgression to eat it. Adam could not sin, he could only transgress. Please don't call it sin.
And what did he transgress? The lesser of two contradicting commandments. What was the first commandment ever given man? To multiply and replanish the earth. what was the second? Don't eat the fruit. Adam and Eve never would have been able to have kids had they not eaten the fruit. They would have failed to keep their first commandment had they kept the second. So many think of Adam as rebelling against God and bringing down upon us all the wrath of a just God. This is wrong. Adam made a conscious decision to obey the greater commandment.
Why do we die? So we can ressurect. Why do we resurrect? So we can become more like God. Can we really become like Him? It's a commandment to become perfect like Him. Readers of the New Testament have to learn to distinguish between many subtle differences in the texts. What does "death" mean in the NT? It can mean two things. It can mean physical death and it can mean spiritual death. What does "law" mean in the NT? Well, it can refer to either the Law of Moses or the law of the Gospel. Many confuse themselves when trying to figure out the role of grace in our salvation when they read about "law." What does "God" mean in the NT? It can refer to God the Father, and it can refer to God, the Son. No, they are not the same person, but they are both part of the Godhead, and the title "God" can apply to each of them. "The wages of sin is death." This refers to spiritual death. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." This refers to the law of Moses. "To them gave he power to become the sons of God." This is referring to God the Son. We are already sons of God the Father.
Back to death. Is baptism necessary for salvation? Yes, of course. What of those that die without ever having come to the knowledge of the actuality of the ressurection and the Gospel? What of their salvation? Eternal damnation? "He that believes and is baptized will be saved." Must they be baptized? Paul speaks of baptism for the dead, and many "apocryphal" books speak of other vicarious ordinances provided for fallen comrades. What say the JWs? "Oh, it's tranlsated wrong." The word translated "for" in the KJV has a few different meanings, apparently. #1 - "for" #2 - "in behalf of" #3 - "for the sake of." All three of these interpretations support the doctrine of baptism for the dead, and yet the JWs aren't satisfied. This interpretation obviously conflicts with their doctrine, so they claim that a word is missing. #3 could mean something else if we tacked the word "being" on to it. None of the other translations mean anything with that word, but the English phrase has two meanings if we throw another word on there (no other language on earth supports this theory). Conclusion? Oh, that must be the real meaning of the passage.
So, what about those that die without knowledge of their responsibilities? Someone once told me they would be baptized after the resurrection. So, the price of sin is paid, the resurrection accomplished, but the sign of death and resurrection will be applied once more only to satisfy an administrative requirement? Doesn't sound right to me.
We are not here as some residual punishment for a rebellious act our cohorting parents concocted in an effort to one up God. Some say Satan's first lie was that they would not die, but that they would become as God. Satan tells half-truths. Half of his statement is correct. Read the rest of the Genesis account. "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." Why didn't they want him to live forever? Not as a punishment, but as an act of mercy. If they lived forever they could never return to live with God. Death is God's merciful plan for bringing us back to Him. We are here only to prepare us to go back with Him.
-
44
What Is YOUR Concept of "God"?
by minimus inis he/she "real"?
are you now unsure of "god's" existence?
do you ever pray to "god", anymore??
-
-
dan
My concept of God is the one the Bible paints. I think of Him as an all-knowing, all-powerful, loving Father in Heaven. He knows each and every one of us better than we know ourselves, and He has sent us here to gain experiences that will help us to become more like Him. Like all Fathers, he recognizes that we have weaknesses, and he lets us pass through trials so we can grow and progress. He has more in store for us than we could ever dream, and He wants each and every one of us to reach our full potential, but that's up to us. His love for us is unconditional. That means there is nothing we can do to make Him stop loving us. He will love everyone for all eternity, even though some of us disobey Him and must reap the consequences of our actions. He doesn't like the fact that some of us suffer, but there's no other way to teach us some principles. No father wants to see his children suffer, but sometimes he realizes that they must reap what they themselves sow. I think of Him as the perfect Dad, the perfect Coach, the perfect Psychologist, and, yes, even the perfect Husband. If he's literally our father in Heaven (as the Bible asserts he is, hundreds of times), then there must be a Mother in Heaven. Why doesn't the Bible say anything about her? Think about how much His name is spoken in vain and in hate. If you were the universe's perfect husband would you want your wife to go through all that, or would you protect her from it? Isn't it funny how the Bible says Adam is the son of God? It says Christ was thought to be the son of Joseph, distinguishing between actual geneology and supposed geneology; and it says in the same list that Adam is the son of God, not distinguishing at all. Isn't it ironic...Don't you think?