Posts by Hellrider

29

HUGE QUESTION!

by stillAwitness in

i been meaning to figure out the ansewr to this question for like 3 weeks now but been too afraid of course to ask anyone in the congreagtion since my questions tend to be more questionable than a simple inquiry.

anyways a young girl in my hall was announced as "no longer being one of jehovah's wittnesses."??

weird.

Hellrider

In light of the new procedure (not saying that he/she is DFed or DAd, just "so and so is no longer a member of our club bla bla"), and the fact that she is still attending, she was probably DFed.

84

Is Michael the Archangel really Jesus?

by twinkletoes in

for years i have believed what the wt says about michael the archangel really being another name for jesus christ.

but now i am reading lots of other non-witness books, i am beginning to question this teaching.. has anyone done any research on this particular subject.. your comments would be appreciated.

twink.

Hellrider

Thank you, Narkissos, I think that makes it clearer, especially when taken into consideration Leolaias comments about Thessalonians "The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet". The "archangels voice" isn`t necessarily attributed to Christ, and the archangel isn`t even necessarily Michael. Especially since Michael isn`t even the archangel of war and punishment, that would probably be Uriel or Raguel instead.

JosephMalik, I don`t understand that at all. I understand that the Word created the world of mankind, not necessarily all the other things. I also understand that men (like the prophets, and men like that) will turn into angels/heavenly beings, and rule over the angels. But: Jesus is not one of these, is he? The Bible says he was sent to mankind, from his Father in heaven. He was originally a heavenly being, but then became man, then a heavenly being again. And if you claim that Michael isn`t the word, then this being that was sent to earth, wouldn`t be "His only begotten Son", that is, the first being God created, would it?

1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. 1:2 The Word was with God in the beginning. 1:3 All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created

My point is: IF Jesus is "the only begotten son", then he would be the first being that God created, wouldn`t he? And if the Word was the first thing God created (this verse would indicate that it was), and the Word created everything else (all "things"...wouldn`t that include stars, planets etc, things that when this was written, only were tiny "things" in the sky in the night anyway), then...Michael + Jesus + the Word...=true. Or??????

(I thought I was getting it, until your last post. NOW I`m more confused than ever)

45

Jesus or Satan ?

by carla in

the michael changes post reminded me, how many times have the wt confused jesus with satan?

i know there are a few where first they said the person was jesus then satan then back again to jesus.

anyone know of a complete list?

Hellrider

Young people ask:

Now what should I do now that you have shown me a change in our understanding? LEAVE the Org? Stop attending the meetings, stop reading the bible, start going to a church, stop worshipping Jehovah, start believing that Jesus is God, Start swearing, smoking, lying, cheating, stealing again?

We now bring a heart of wizzdom on this matter. Just put your faith in Jehovah and his prophetic organisation on earth, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, and it`ll all be alllright. Yes, in the words of Bob Marley: Everythings gonna beee alllright. ..

47

How can we know there is a God?

by defd in

one way to determine whether there is a god is to apply this well-established principle: what is made requires a maker.

the more complicated the thing made, the more capable the maker must be.. for example, look around your home.

tables, chairs, desks, beds, pots, pans, plates, and other eating utensils all require a maker, as do walls, floors, and ceilings.

Hellrider

Oh God, I remember that watchmaker-analogy. Its from the creation-book, isn`t it? And the argument goes something like: "If you put all the components of a watch in bag, and shake, even if you shaked it for 10000000000 years, it still wouldn`t assemble into a functioning watch...what then with the human eye, which is soooo much more complicated..." (etc etc).

To sum it up: This is the age-old question that religions and philosophy has discussed for 3000 years. The "everything created must have a creator"-argument is age-old, and not very impressing at all. The scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) killed this argument once and for all. If you wonder how, read his short and simple book "Dialogues concerning natural religion". It`s actually published online, here:

http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm

84

Is Michael the Archangel really Jesus?

by twinkletoes in

for years i have believed what the wt says about michael the archangel really being another name for jesus christ.

but now i am reading lots of other non-witness books, i am beginning to question this teaching.. has anyone done any research on this particular subject.. your comments would be appreciated.

twink.

Hellrider

Just a couple of things, and some questions: I agree with Leolaia that the etymology of the word doesn`t imply uniqueness. But still: If Michael is the only angel mentioned in the bible with the title "archangel", could this mean that he is "the" archangel, that he is higher than the others? Forgive me if this is a stupid question, I`m just trying to learn. I know Gabriel is mentioned too, but is he mentioned with the title "archangel"? Even though jewish tradition at this time has several archangels, this doesn`t exclude one of them from being higher than the others? Or does it? (side note: I find it strange that IF Michael is "the word" that brings everything into existence, after himself being created by the supreme God, then WHY doesn`t the Bible make this clearer? Why did they have to write everything in such a concealing manner?)

Do other (non-biblical and apocryphic) sources mention any kind of hierarchy of the archangels? Are any of them "higher" than the others? Because if Michael is mentioned as a "supreme" archangel, then the WTs stand could still be valid. And, from a JW-viewpoint...(god, can`t believe I`m making myself utter that sentence): Even IF there is no hierarchy between the archangels in other, non-biblical sources from this era, that fact that the Bible mentions him (solely), and in the context of Christs return (trumpets and the sound of an archangel bla bla bla) - would indicate that he IS Michael...Or?

84

Is Michael the Archangel really Jesus?

by twinkletoes in

for years i have believed what the wt says about michael the archangel really being another name for jesus christ.

but now i am reading lots of other non-witness books, i am beginning to question this teaching.. has anyone done any research on this particular subject.. your comments would be appreciated.

twink.

Hellrider

Hooberus wrote:

Michael was the antichrist (the pope according to the WT)

Ha ha! If they really believed this, then switching to "Michael is Christ", then it would be safe to say that they don`t know their head from their ass.

I too know that this subject has been discussed again and again, but it doesn`t matter, it`s so interesting. I have no clue what to believe, though, after reading Narkissos, Leolaias and J.Maliks posts. Well, maybe that`s a good thing.

Just a question (for all of you): Do you think it`s right to include other texts (apocryphic and others) from the time the NT was written, into this discussion? What people reading the NT texts at that time, and what they read into them (and then wrote about themselves), could be...all sorts of things, don`t you think?

84

Is Michael the Archangel really Jesus?

by twinkletoes in

for years i have believed what the wt says about michael the archangel really being another name for jesus christ.

but now i am reading lots of other non-witness books, i am beginning to question this teaching.. has anyone done any research on this particular subject.. your comments would be appreciated.

twink.

Hellrider

Incredibly interesting discussion. It is when I read posts by Narkissos, Leolaia and Joseph Malik that I realise that (in the words of Manuel from "Fawlty Towers"): I know nooothing...(and I should certainly keep my mouth shut more often). It is confusing too, though. Both sides have such good arguments that I don`t know what to believe.(My personal, amaturish opinion, though, after reading the Bible a little last night: The "I am"-statements by Jesus in John are, as Narkissos said, in a "class of their own". There really is two sides to this story)

14

Young People Ask... should i attend secondary school?

by in a new york bethel minute in

young people ask.

should i attend secondary school?.

another youth had this to say about the pressures from the worldly children in her class to attend post-elementary school: .

Hellrider

LoL. They should take it one step further:

Young People ask…

Should I attend Kindergarden?

Many youths have often pondered over whether or not they should attend the form of “high” school referred to as "Kindergarden". Firstly, what is

Kindergarden, and is it really for everyone?

Reasoning from the scriptures (published by Jehovah’s Witnesses) defines "Kindergarden" as “A form of unnecessary education

promulgated by Governments that Jehovah hates and is going to destroy.” It is important to remember that it is in Kindergarden many youths hear their first four-letter-word. How does Jehovah look upon such words? Well, in Isiah 14-3, God states clearly to Abraham that "thou shalleth not say fuck, for it is an abomination, and..." bla bla bla,

87

What was Jesus implying...........................

by defd in

at john 10:30 jesus said " i and the father are one" what was he implying?

was it a claim to be almighty god?

what is your thoughts and why?

Hellrider

Narkissos:

Aramaic (which, btw, is not "a hebrew dialect" but a distinct Semitic language with several dialects) is pointless as far as the exegesis of the Gospel of John is concerned.

Ok! I stand corrected (still learning). ( But when I said semittic was a "dialect", I didn`t mean it like...how texans speak a bit differently than new yorkers...I meant in the way...danish differ from norwegian...but I might have been mistaken about that too). Still learning..

87

What was Jesus implying...........................

by defd in

at john 10:30 jesus said " i and the father are one" what was he implying?

was it a claim to be almighty god?

what is your thoughts and why?

Hellrider

Even though jesus uttered the words "I am", with nothing "in particular" following it, and thereby saying it in a way that would resemble Gods name (just saying "I exist") wouldn`t necessarily mean that he was saying that he was God. Also, Jesus never said "ego eimi", he said it in aramaic, which is a kind of a hebrew dialect. So I wonder: What did Jesus REALLY say? Did he say "I am Yhwh"? I don`t think so. If he did, there would have been no discussion on the matter, whoever wrote the gospels would have made it perfectly clear that Jesus claimed to be God.

There is another solution: Jesus could have simply been quoting the scriptures. He was probably familiar with the OT texts (after all, as a young man he taught the students outside the Temple). By quoting scripture, he could have been emphasising that he was sent by God, and he was "reminding" people about this. I ... doubt "ego eimi" means the same as"Yhwh", although I thought so for a while too. I`m not sure, though... But what did Jesus REALLY say, in aramaic, THAT I would have liked to know.