Posts by reslight2

163

The Trinity

by The Quiet One in

i have a question, primarily for trinitarians, but anyone's more than welcome to comment.

what scriptural basis is there for believing in the trinity?

i can understand some having the view that jesus/jehovah both can be worshipped, and the view that jesus should be, but where in the bible is the holy spirit worshipped?

When one adds to the scriptures that Jesus is Yahweh, this does not dispell confusion; indeed it causes confusion. The Bible is very simply and straighforward without adding the confusion of a dogma that would make Jesus into being the God of Jesus. Indeed, not only does the idea that Jesus is Yahweh add confusion to the Bible, it would be in contradiction to the very Biblical basis of the redemption that comes through Jesus.

http://godandson.reslight.net/archives/45.html

Was it not Yahweh, the unipersonal God of the Old Testament, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who raised Jesus up as a prophet like Moses, and who anointed Jesus, making Jesus to be both Christ (anointed one) and Lord? -- Exodus 3:14,15; Deuteronomy 18:15-22; Isaiah 61:1; Acts 2:36; 3:13-26; Hebrews 1:1,2.

In Acts 2:36, is Jesus identified as the God of the Old Testament? Does "God" there not mean the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as shown in Acts 3:13-26? In Acts 3:13-26, is Jesus identified as the God of the Old Testament; does not "God" in those verse refer to one person who is not Jesus, but rather as the unipersonal God of the Old Testament who raised Jesus as the prophet like Moses? In Hebrews 1:1,2, does it not say that just as the God of the Old Testament spoke through prophets, so the God of the Old Testament speaks to us through His son? Jesus is not identified as the God of the Old Testament, but rather he is identified as the Son who is sent by the God of the Old Testament, who speaks for the God of the Old Testament, and who tells us of the unipersonal God of the Old Testament. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19 ; Matthew 22:32 ; 23:39 ; Mark 11:9 , 10 ; 12:26 ; Luke 13:35 ; 20:37 ; John 3:2 , 17 , 32-35 ; 4:34 ; 5:19 , 30 , 36 , 43 ; 6:57 ; 7:16 , 28 ; 8:26 , 28 , 38 ; 10:25 ; 12:49 , 50 ; 14:10 ; 15:15 ; 17:8 , 26 ; 20:17 ; Acts 2:22 , 34-36 ; 3:13-26 ; 5:30 ; Romans 15:6 ; 2 Corinthians 1:3 ; 8:6 ; 11:31 ; Colossians 1:3 , 15 ; 2:9-12 ; Hebrews 1:1-3 ; Revelation 1:1 .

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.

Who is "God" that no one has seen? Is it three persons? Or is not one person, who is the God and Father of Jesus? Should it not be obvious that in saying that Jesus came to declare "him" -- that is God -- that John was using the word "God", not of Jesus, of the One whom Jesus came to declare, that is, the God and Father of Jesus? Jesus came to declare the unipersonal God of the Old Testament; he did not come to declare himself as being the God of the Old Testament.

http://godandson.reslight.net/archives/1272.html

163

The Trinity

by The Quiet One in

i have a question, primarily for trinitarians, but anyone's more than welcome to comment.

what scriptural basis is there for believing in the trinity?

i can understand some having the view that jesus/jehovah both can be worshipped, and the view that jesus should be, but where in the bible is the holy spirit worshipped?

reslight2

Jesus, in his original begettal, was indeed of the same "nature" as his Father, that is spirit, with the gloryof a spiritual body. This does not mean that there are two who have the glory or nature of being the Most High. Jesus will never have the nature of being the Most High. He will always the son of the Most High, but he will never be the Most High, nor will he ever be equal to the Most High, of whom he is the son. Jesus will never possess the glory or nature of being the Most High that only belongs to the Most High. -- Isaiah 42:8; 48:11; Luke 1:32; 1 Corinthians 15:27,28.

163

The Trinity

by The Quiet One in

i have a question, primarily for trinitarians, but anyone's more than welcome to comment.

what scriptural basis is there for believing in the trinity?

i can understand some having the view that jesus/jehovah both can be worshipped, and the view that jesus should be, but where in the bible is the holy spirit worshipped?

reslight2

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Isn't it written in your law, 'I said, you are gods [mighty ones}?'

John 10:35 If he called them gods [mighty ones], to whom the word [Logos] of God came (and the Scripture can't be broken),

John 10: 36 Do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God?

A "son" designates one who has been brought forth into existence by a "Father". This thought does indeed contradict the trinity doctrine, so that the trinitarian has to redefine both what it means to be generated (begotten) as well as what it means to be son, and this they do only in regard Jesus as being the Son of God. This is done through human imagination being added to and read into the scriptures.

In the expression "Son of God", the word "God" designates only one person as that "God" -- the Might, and that is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. (Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3) Jesus is not the Son of three persons, nor is he the son of himself (as many oneness believers seem to believe). Jesus is indeed the son of the One who is not himself, the One whom Jesus declared to be "the only true God" (the only true Might). (John 17:1,3) Aside from Yahweh, there is no might (Hebrew transliterated ELOHIM, a form of EL, meaning strength, might, power). (Isaiah 44:6; 45:5) Any might, any power, in the universe, depends on Yahweh as the source of that might, power, including the might and power that Yahweh has given to His son.

163

The Trinity

by The Quiet One in

i have a question, primarily for trinitarians, but anyone's more than welcome to comment.

what scriptural basis is there for believing in the trinity?

i can understand some having the view that jesus/jehovah both can be worshipped, and the view that jesus should be, but where in the bible is the holy spirit worshipped?

reslight2

bob1999 stated:

Russell taught until sometime about 1906 that 1914 would be the END of armegeddon.

Actually, it was in 1904 that Russell rejected Barbour's conclusion that Armageddon was to end in 1914. From 1904 on up to 1914, Russell was expecting that Armageddon was to begin, not end, in 1914. From October of 1914 until his death, Russell continued to believe that Armageddon had begun in 1914. Russell's view of Armageddon, however, was not at all the same as that held by the JWs. Brother Russell believed that Armageddon would "make ready and prepare mankind... for the blessing and uplifting of all families of the earth." -- What Pastor Russell Said, Question 555:4 (1910).
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/QB/qb.asp?xRef=Q555:7#Q555:7.

160

I'm new here..... Studying with the Witnesses

by PenelopePaige in

jw
friends

hi- i just wanted to say that i have been checking the website out for a few weeks and have read some horror stories and some sad ones.

but i have been studying with witnessess for about six months and can't help but feel that they're completely sincere and maybe even, the true religion.

i love the watchtower and awake and to me, none of that seems crazy.

reslight2

Also, their founder, Charles Taze Russell, was into pyramidology..in fact, that is where he arrived at the date 1914. Look up his name on the internet and you will see that he is buried inside a pyramid shaped tomb!

It is good that one look into the history of the JWs, but unfortunately, much that you may find on many websites will mislead you; most JWs, having little knowledge of the history of the Watch Tower in the days of Russell, when presented by many things on websites may be easily deceived by such presentations. Many things have been distorted, misrepresented, quoted out of context, misquoted, etc., all to make things appear other than the actual facts.

Charles Taze Russell actually did not believe in the Jehovah's Witnesses! He preached against such sectarian authoritarianism. Additionally, his main message was almost the opposite of that preached by the JWs, espectially regarding Armageddon, the ransom for all, the parable of the sheep and goats, etc. It is, therefore, incorrect to think that Russel founded that which he did not believe in, and that which he preached against.

See:

A List of Links regarding the claim that Russell was the founder of the JWs:

http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=484

Lists of links regarding Russell and Jehovah's Witnesses:

http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=32

http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=32&paged=2

Charles Taze Russell believed that the Great Pyramid is God's Stone Witness in Egypt, if that is what is meant he was "into" pyramidology. Many use the expression "into" and use the word pyramidology to make it appear that Russell "into" some form of spiritism, demonic occulitism, astrology etc., when he was not.

For links regarding Russell and the Great Pyramid, see:
http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=14

Russell, however, did not arrive at the date 1914 from the Great Pyramid, although the Great Pyramid confirms that date. In 1876, Russell accepted Barbour's conclusion that the Gentile Times were to end in 1914 -- Barbour arrived at that date, however, from the Bible; God's Stone Witness only confirms that date. The Biblical study of the Great Pyramid as done by Barbour, Russell, and the Edgars, however, has nothing to do with any kind of demonic spiritism, astrology, occult practices, pyramid power, pyramid incantations, etc. To me, the evidence is overwhelming that the Great Pyramid is indeed God's Stone Witness in Egypt. It is not, however, a matter that Russell tried force others to believe -- Russell, unlike the JW leadership -- allowed others to form their own conclusions without condemning the brother or sister for doing so.
http://gp.reslight.net

Go to the Rosemont Cemetery in Pittsburg, and you will see that Russell is NOT buried in a pyramid shaped tomb. Rutherford did have a pyramid monument built several years after Russell died, but that monument is not a tomb. No one is buried there. Nevertheless, it is not the fact that Russell is not buried in that monument that is important. What is important is that those who make such statements are (1) misrepresenting the facts to serve further misrpresentation by (2) implying something sinister by means of their false claim that Russell is buried in or under a pyramid. The most I could say that could possibly be wrong about that monument is that was an extravagant use of funds that could possibly have been used to better advantage, if the funds had been actually used to further the glad tidings of great joy.

Here, however, is a picture of Russell's grave:

The most I could find that would possibly be wrong about the gravestone is that Russell never claimed to be the Laodicean Messenger -- that claim was made by Rutherford and others.

http://ctrussell.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/ctr-gravestone/

9

Did the Watchtower organization originate as a result of a tax cut?

by slimboyfat in

in 1879 the the postal service act in the united states granted the right for magazines to be sent at second class rate.

as a public service, lowering the price on this kind of commercial mail can be viewed as a tax cut or a state subsidy encouraging this form of commercial enterprise.

if that was the intention it produced results, because it prompted a boom in mail order magazine subscriptions in the late nineteenth century.

reslight2

The question ignores the history of what was happening in Russell's life at that time. Russell would have continued to support the Herald and would have never started the Watch Tower magazine had not Barbour took the Herald into such views that Russell decided no longer support The Herald. If the Act came to existence in 1879, then Russell was supporting the Herald long before there was such an Act.

See the Supplement to the first issue of the Watch Tower:

http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=346

See also the Prospectus in the first issue:

http://mostholyfaith.com/bible/reprints/Z1879JUL.asp#Z1:32

20

Recent Letter to Witness Friends and Family

by sabastious in

haven't sent this yet: might not, but i think it would help people here:.

to all my family members and friends of the jehovahs witnesses.

for the past year and a half i have been deeply immersing myself in the community which you refer to as the apostates: the ex jehovahs witness community.

reslight2

Or that Pastor Russell predicted the end of the world for 1914 and then when it didn’t come called Christ’s “invisible return”?

I agree that most of the JWs know very little about Charles Taze Russell, and often many things are being said by Jehovah's Witnesses as well as by others about Russell that are not true.

Russell was not expecting the end of the world in 1914, and when what he was not expecting didn't come, Russell did not call it Christ's invisible return. From 1904 onward, Russell was expecting that the time of trouble was to begin in 1914; he most definitely was not expecting the "end of the world" in 1914, and he stated such.

Russell did not say anything at all about an invisible return of Jesus in 1914; indeed, he never said anything at all Christ returning in 1914 at all, invisible or visible.

In 1876, two years after 1874, Russell accepted Barbour's conclusion that Christ had already returned in 1874; he never changed from the belief. He died in 1916 still believing that Christ had returned in 1874.

Russell also believed that his expectation that the time of trouble was to begin in 1914 had come true; he died in 1916 still believing that the Gentile Times had ended in 1914, and the time of trouble had begun in 1914. He did not change from that belief, not did he have any reason to do so.

I have a prepared a collection of quotes from Russell regarding his expectations regarding 1914, if any wish to examine them:

http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=40

Regarding Russell's change of viewpoint in 1904:

http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=692

52

Camping tells all tonight!!

by moshe in

jw
friends

yes, the dates are correct, proofs are correct and judgment day came on may 21- but it was an invisible spiritual judgment- the end of the world is still coming on oct 21. harold egbert camping has just explained the truth to the world 5 minutes ago..

reslight2

I just noticed another place where I left out the word "not":

I stated:

who claim to be Christian, but who are at heart Christian

This should have been

who claim to be Christian, but who are at heart not Christian

52

Camping tells all tonight!!

by moshe in

jw
friends

yes, the dates are correct, proofs are correct and judgment day came on may 21- but it was an invisible spiritual judgment- the end of the world is still coming on oct 21. harold egbert camping has just explained the truth to the world 5 minutes ago..

reslight2

I stated earlier:

I do not know of anyone who was claiming that Christ would return in 1874.

This should have read:

I do not know of anyone who was claiming that Christ would return in 1914.

52

Camping tells all tonight!!

by moshe in

jw
friends

yes, the dates are correct, proofs are correct and judgment day came on may 21- but it was an invisible spiritual judgment- the end of the world is still coming on oct 21. harold egbert camping has just explained the truth to the world 5 minutes ago..

reslight2

I am presenting the following as presented by Barbara Anderson; the great change of 1923 did, in effect, change the whole viewpoint of Armageddon, since before, there was no thought of anyone who had not been englightened as being eternally destroyed.

-----------------

1. The earliest belief of Russell and associates—1879 onward

Zion’s Watch Tower, September 1881, p. 269, par. 5, 6:

A thousand years of such ruling and teaching! ... This thousand years is the time during which all the nations are gathered before the judgment seat of Christ. It is their judgment day—one thousand years.[6] During all that time, God’s truth, as a two-edged sword, will be quietly, … doing a separating work, dividing the sheep from the goats. Matt. XXV, 31-46.

This article originally appeared in the September 1879 Zion’s Watch Tower, p. 34, and was expanded in Sept.1881.

Zion’s Watch Tower, March 15, 1905, p. 3528, par. 6:

The Lord refers to this other flock of sheep, and explicitly tells us about the gathering of those sheep to his favor under him as the great Shepherd. He definitely fixes the time and shows that the parable of the sheep and goats belongs not to the present age but to the Millennial age…

The Watch Tower, February 15, 1914, p. 5406, par. 7:

One parable at least tells about the future work of the kingdom, after the Church is completed and sits with Christ in his throne. This is the parable of the Sheep and the Goats… [par. 10] This dividing of the world, the Gentiles, will progress for a thousand years, and eventually will make a most complete separation…

2. 1923—Change

In the October 15, 1923 issue of The Watch Tower, p. 308, par. 18, 21, the second president of the Watch Tower Society, Joseph F. Rutherford wrote:

(18) Our Lord’s throne, or judgment-seat, mentioned in the parable does not seem to be that of the Millennial throne which will deal with the living and the dead during his reign, but seem clearly to be the throne of court established to judge the things existing at the time of or during his second presence and before the beginning of restoration. (21) …that this judgment of the unrighteous things spoken of by St. Jude takes place prior to the beginning of the Millennial age judgment, which shall be in righteousness. Acts 17:31

Repetition for emphasis: Rutherford applied the judgment of everlasting destruction for goat-like people before the Millennium began and during Christ’s invisible presence, which was thought to have begun in 1874.

According to that same Watch Tower,the messageand how people react to that message about the day of God’s vengeance preached by God’s earthly representatives separates goat-like people from sheep-like people only in Christendom and not dividing or separating the gentile world as Russell taught.

But it is the duty of the church, as representing the Lord on earth, to proclaim the day of his vengeance against Satan’s unrighteous system and to call upon the people to separate themselves from the unclean thing and come apart and recognize and acknowledge allegiance to the King of kings and Lord of lords (p. 314, par. 61).

His [Jesus] words concerning the separating of one from another in this parable do not seem to relate to a general separation of the nations, but rather to the separation of the two general classes composing the nations of Christendom, one symbolized by goats and the other by sheep.(p. 310, par. 30).