you raised some issues. and I promise (if you're sincere about this whole thing with the spirit of learning from the matter, as I myself am trying to do as well, instead of a puffy huffy I know I'm right attitude). let's try to study this together in a congenial spirit. even though you're an apostate. sad to say. but even so. cuz I agree it's not always so black and white every second. but this is the point (and I can't get too deep into the matter at present, but soon I will) but let me first say that you're just plain wrong when you say that God Biblically did not use organized arrangements throughout pivotal points in dispensational history. Noah's Ark was necessary for salvation at that time in history and turned out to be "the only true church" at that time. and of course Noah and his family were looked at as presumptous and arrogant "exclusivist" too. (hence why I said "wake up") it matters NOT that they were only 8 people. that's not the issue. whether they were 8 or 800. the principle is the same. Noah's Ark and Church at that time. The Hebrew Israelites, under Levi and Judah, arranged and organized, with rules and laws that were BINDING on all the tribes. look at what happened to Korah and Dathan and Abiram for thinking how you're thinking. they were electrocuted and burned with fire. how boot dat? and the First Century True Christian Church, if you carefully read Acts and the Epistles, was under Central Oversight, with decisions that were BINDING on all the other local congregations. Read Acts 15,16. you bring up the Ethiopian Eunech and Cornelius?? it's amazing. that supports MY argument !!!! Cornelius could not progress and be fully "accepted of God" without the Theocratic GUIDANCE of Peter. did you forget that whole point of that?? and the Eunech needed Philip to teach him !!!!!!! "how can I know what this means without someone to teach me," he said to Philip. and guess what. Both Peter and Philip were part of the Apostolic and Eldership ("Senate" in Latin) of the Church !!!!! so for you to bring those cases up in a weird and feeble attempt to try to support the idea that it's ok to have this looke and independent nonsense that you see in apostate Korah-like "Christendom" is almost unbelievable. people see what they WANT to see, not necessarily what's actually truly there. nothing new under the sun. now check this out: IT SAYS CLEARLY IN ACTS 15:2 that it was NOT this silly Baptist-like democratic (from the bottom up) thing, but a THEOCRATIC top down orderly thing, "APOSTLES AND ELDERS" not just any average Christian witness and congregant. I know that Korah-like (why is it in Jude as a warning for true Christians that whole matter with Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, who rebelled and thought too that they didn't have to humbly subit to Jehovah's appointed LEADERSHIP ??? Jude makes the warning for Christians too. I wonder why, if it's all independent Baptist Baloney ways that are ok with God. hmmmm Jude 11, compare 2 Peter 3:7). Also, I don't think that the beloved Watchtower said that it's ONLY "circumcision", but I agree with you, the Mosaic Law in general, but TYPIFIED AT THE TIME with the circumcision issue. cuz that's specifically what was brought up. but notice PLEASE. and yes Roman Catholics have used the same argument for THEIR church (but the only problem is that Romanism is so pagan and warped and worldly and corrupt that they can't be God's true church), that it says "the Holy Spirit AND US" meaning the Apostles and Elders, "saw fit to add nothing unto you BUT THIS, abstain from blood, fornication, idolatry, etc". not just "oh the Holy Spirit guides me individually" blah blah blah. especially nto in the Last Days. in pivotal times in history, the Lord Yahawah NEVER worked in such a chaotic conflicting confusing way, but always in an organized centralized arrangement. Will you tell me that Mosaic Israel was not organized and arranged and binding????? Read Exodus and Leviticus a bit more closely why don't you. Noah told his family EXACTLY what needed to be done as far as the measurements of the Ark and the food and the lower beasts, etc. You see it in Acts and in the Letters for the True Christian Church too. First Century Biblical Christianity does NOT resemble the Southern Baptist Convention or the "Independent Baptist Churches" or the "United Pentecostals" or Presbyterians who fellowship with Lutherans on committees. I'm not saying that it resembed the elaborate weird heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church either. You don't see the terms "cardinals" or "arch-bishops" or "pope" or "his holiness" or "father McNeal" or "diocese" or "Mass" or "Vatican" or "Holy See" or whatever else. but again, it was NOT so loose and independent and chaotic in the first century either. Paul and Peter and James and John directed things, buddy. human nature tends to want to rebel against authority. people never learn from history. "do not even say a greeting to such a man" is for what then? "do not murmur" is for what then? "beware the rebellious talk of Korah" is for what then??? "BE OBEDIENT TO THOSE TAKING THE LEAD" IS FOR WHAT THEN???? son, it's NOT just "one or two verses". it's a host of passages and principles, from both "Testaments". but anyway, as I said, I appreciate your thoughts, though I disagree with like 98% of what you're saying. and I'll get more into the specifics of what you brought up at later dates, as I do more research both in the Word of God, and in some dictionaries and volumes that I have, both Witness and non-Witness stuff. but the stuff I said so far is really enough for you and others to undestand (Acts 15:2) that it was not this free-for-all thing that you're saying, but leadership and direction and central oversight, with decisions that were BINDING on all the local congregations. there's no getting around those hard stubborn facts. not matter how much Scripture juggling or twisting or smooth sophistry you may use at times. to say that God did not use organized and orderly arrangements throughout the Bible is insane. Noah, Moses, Jesus, Peter, Paul, all Theocratic, top down, and binding. you had to be part of those things. yes "channel". Roman Catholics aint it either. cuz of all their paganism and corruption and idolatry. but it's not the miserable mess and joke of mish-moshed Protestantism either. Babylon means confusion. And God is not the author of what you believe in. utter confusion and confliction and chaos. that's apostate Christendom for you. "I never knew you" if you'll notice is said to the MAJORITY of professing "Christians". not just a few here and there. scary. but we'll talk more about it. thanks for correspondence. peace.
sweetscholar
JoinedPosts by sweetscholar
-
42
exjw, is there a script
by carla inis there any one scripture (or more) that really suprised you once you took the wt glasses off and just read the bible as is, without all the extra literature?
-
-
-
144
Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?
by hubert inin a post by syn that lady lee has brought up again, there is this statement by syn.
i could underline my watchtower in 10 minutes, tops, and be sure that all the answers were right.
many esteemed researchers have shown that repetitive imprinting of ideas is a primary cult tactic, and i tend to agree with them.
-
-
sweetscholar
the real main reason that lack of respect from most people is what I'm receiving is not so much my tone but the fact that I'm defending the Watchtower and JWs theology based on Scripture. I guarantee you, I can pretty much assure you that if I came off the same way, BUT ONLY IN OPPOSITION TO JWs AND THE WATCHTOWER, I would not be getting these disrespectful things from most people. and also, it hasn't been all disrespect, but just pointed discussions, with certain people. debating or discussing some theological or ecclesiastical things. but sorry to say, that my tone is maybe only 10% of the reason for general "disrespect" as you call it. it's mainly because of what position I'm on with this whole matter. believe that. cuz as defd said, this is basically an anti-JW site. so as he said, what can I expect? let's get real here.
-
144
Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?
by hubert inin a post by syn that lady lee has brought up again, there is this statement by syn.
i could underline my watchtower in 10 minutes, tops, and be sure that all the answers were right.
many esteemed researchers have shown that repetitive imprinting of ideas is a primary cult tactic, and i tend to agree with them.
-
-
sweetscholar
well I guess you didn't like my tone all the time in my messages and postings. well ok. perhaps there's a point there. but that should not be used as a convenient dodge either. my tone could be worse. did I curse or threaten?? so how bad really was I?? also, that's not mostly what I've done. if you carefully analyse it, I've gone into technical and doctrinal and historical things. matter-of-fact and straightforwardly. and remember, just to balance things out. Christ, Stephen, Paul, and Elijah called them "names" like "hypocrite" "sons of Satan" "false apostles" "ministers of Satan" "white-washed graves, full of corruption" "snakes" "children of Gehenna". "wicked men" etc. but your point is taken. seasoned with salt. but I do not go off like this with regular people on the street. on this site is mostly apostates or apostate types or religious hypocrites and scoundrels big time. I hate to say that but it's true. anyway, that's it for now. also, try focusing more on the sum and substance of what I've been saying, rather than whining and harping about my tone so much. because that's ultimatley the point anyway. I could be the most abrasive guy on the planet, and still be telling you the truth. think about it. (and also, I'm NOT the most abrasive guy in the world. believe that. ever heard Dr Peter S Ruckman or Robert Morey???) peace.
-
144
Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?
by hubert inin a post by syn that lady lee has brought up again, there is this statement by syn.
i could underline my watchtower in 10 minutes, tops, and be sure that all the answers were right.
many esteemed researchers have shown that repetitive imprinting of ideas is a primary cult tactic, and i tend to agree with them.
-
-
sweetscholar
ok. you seem reasonable and thank you for telling me your position. you don't have any real belief in the Bible as God's Word or as even probably God's Word. you're honest enough to tell me. (and thank you defd for stepping in to). I wonder why you're interested in this site though, because most people here presumably professingly have SOME kind of belief (even if it's a distorted belief) in the Bible as God's Word. not all do but most I would say. also, I have to say that your point would be stronger about how I've been tone-wise and "name-calling" if that's all I did. if you carefully analyze it, that's not even mostly what I've done. I've expounded and gone into technical doctrinal historical things. don't worry. most JWs are not as gruff or "junk yard dog" ish as I'm appearing here. understand though, that I really am taking a chance even being on this website. I would never come off even half as blunt with someone like you if I approached you on the street and struck up a conversation with you about world conditions or God or the Bible or whatever. honestly. so for that, I apologize. I can only imagine how it must have appeared to you. can you do me a favor though. can you try to take that with a grain of salt though? I thought you were either an ex witness or a disgrunted witness student type or at least someone who has been so swayed by apostates all your life. if you entered an assembly of JWs, it would be warm and sweet. for the most part. but it's unfair to demand perfection from anybody. even if JWs did have the Truth. Moses was not perfect, and neither was Saint Paul. but anyway, that's basically it. I'll try hard for the sake of people like you to tone it down a few degrees. hopefully you won't have hostile feelings towards me anymore. you seem ok. nobody's perfect. but one question. why don't you believe the Bible? there's good evidence and documentation for it. and also why the interest in this site? holler.
-
31
JW's: Polytheists?
by jstalin ini was thinking today about the issue of jesus' deity (or lack thereof), according to the wts.
they say that jehovah is god, jesus is not the same as jehovah, but that jesus is a god.
doesn't that make jws polytheists?
-
-
sweetscholar
Dec 5, 2005 it's a question and point that I've come across before a number of times already. it's not a new point or discovery. and if you're asking me this in at least a semi-sincere way, and in an honest manner, then I welcome the question. civil discussion about it is fine and even necessary. but are you just gonna be closed-minded and dismissive with everything I write and say here? hopefully not. if you can humbly keep your mind open just a crack, it might suit you well. I don't say that condescendingly either, but honestly. we all could and should take that advice, in general. I say that a case CAN be made for a co-equal trinity, in Scripture. Just not an air-tight or totally bullet-proof case. I concede some seeming points here and there. but where's the weight of evidence? The Bible was written in such a way so as to test men's hearts. let's discuss this matter now. here we go. let me first say this: a text without a context is a pre-text. (just like trinitarians have lifted "I and My Father are one" out its proper and understandable and reasonable context in John 10 concerning one in pastoral or shepherding work, being "one" with the Father in holy mission and saving purpose, and NOT in some mystical Nicean "substance" thing, of Athanasian hallucinations.)
now, what was the overall situation and context and point in Isaiah? People of an Athanasian or Trinitarian bent have constantly used Isaiah 44:24 to TRY to prove that Jesus is the Supreme Creator, just like His Father is, or that they must be co-equal or con-substantial or co-eternal, or the same God, because Scripture states that God made all things by Himself. So the pre-existent Christ must have been "God" exactly and equally like God the Father is. That therefore Jesus would have to be part of the Godhead since Paul and John said that all things were created through Jesus Christ. (John 1:3,10; Colossians 1:16) RUSaved, as I said before, regarding this, because, frankly, you guys always do it, DO NOT TAKE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE OUT OF THEIR PROPER AND NECESSARY CONTEXT. What was the context of Isaiah 44:24 ??? What was the setting?? What do the surrounding Verses indicate? RUSaved, stop using closed-system logic. Let's examine things openly and honestly and fairly. Let's take it from the NIV. (Read this through)
"This is what the LORD says--your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, who foils the signs of the FALSE PROPHETS and makes fools of DIVINERS, who overthrows the learning of the wise and turns it into nonsense, who carries out the words of his servants and fulfills the predictions of his messengers, who says of Jerusalem, 'It shall be inhabited,' of the towns of Judah, 'They shall be built,' and of their ruins, 'I will restore them,' who says to the watery deep, 'Be dry and I will dry up your streams,' who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid."'"--Isaiah 44:24-28.
Jehovah is the Creator of heaven and earth. He is powerful enough to take action against Babylon, and in favor of His forgiven people. (With me so far?) We see that Yehowah Elohim feels absolutely certain about future events and He brings the test to a climax and puts Himself to the severest test of whether He is the one true God compared with gods of the pagan nations. (A very crucial and important point there.) He names, almost 200 years in advance, the very man whom He will raise up to free His people from Babylon.
The fortunetellers, the diviners, the astrologers, the political forecasters who made unfavorable predictions against Yehowah's people, particularly the forecasters of Babylon--all of these Jehovah has proved to be "frustrated fools", having things backwards. At the same time He has proved His own servants, His messengers, His witnesses like Isaiah and Jeremiah, to be true by fulfilling the inspired counsel that He gave through these prophets.
So, sir, when it says that God stretched out the heavens and earth by Himself, it's in the context of refuting pagan gods and idols, that the false gods of the nations (hostile nations) had nothing to do with the creation of the universe. It's exposing false ideas and concepts of the worldly nations. It's the idiomitic Hebraic expressions, and in context, that need to be understood. But this does not ipso fact of necessity mean that a true one, a mighty Firstborn Son of God, can't be a Master Worker and Craftsman at the Father's side while "the foundations of the earth were being marked out." (Read Proverbs 8:22-36; John 3:36; 1 Cor. 1:24.) Trinitarians ALWAYS take Isaiah 44:24 out of its historical, linguistical, religious, Biblical, grammatical, and logical context. To attempt to support an extreme doctrine.
And also, you never really addressed Revelation 3:14, with the Greek "arkhie" meaning "beginning" (NOT beginnER) of God's creation. a Greek term which does NOT mean "ruler" or "source". "arkHON" means "ruler" OF something in the Greek "New Testament", and "arkHEGOS" means "Source" or "Author" OF something in the Greek Scriptures. every single time that the word "arkhie" is used by all writers of the inspired New Testament, where "OF" is next to it, in a genetive sense, it always always means "BEGINNING" or "first in a group" of something. how boot dat?
And now back to the ultimate creation question. it's this simple. God the Father is the Ultimate Source of creation. He "CREATED" (one Hebrew word), and Christ the Master Worker "MADE" all things, a different Hebrew and Greek work. The Father Jehovah can be spoken as both creating and making, but the Son Jesus only "made". Why? because the Father supplied the materials, and the Son worked the materials, at the bidding and in the service of God. Thence, "all things were made through Him, and not one thing that was made was made without Him" and so on. But to TRUE pure unadulterated NON-Athanasian "Christians" of the Bible, there is ONE GOD, the Father, OUT OF (EX) whom all things are,... and one Lord Jesus Christ, THROUGH (DIA) whom all things are." Paul did not say: "to us there is one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". Why? that would have been a perfect place for him to say and define and make clear who the True God of Christianity is, IF that God is really a co-equal co-eternal trinity. Paul didn't write: "to us there is one God, the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." He didn't phrase it like that. read it carefully. he put only the Father in the "one God" classification. we can get into at another time how Christ is "Lord" in a way (Messianically) that is different than how the Father is "Lord". And that the Father is "God" in a way different (in a Supreme Absolute sense) than how Christ is. And Paul also did not say "to us there is one God, the Father and Christ Jesus OUT OF whom all things are." In other words "ex" is never used of the Son. Even though "dia" as well as "ex" is used of the Father, the crucial point is that the Greek "ex" (for "from" or "out of") is never ever ever used of Christ in the inspired "New Testament." why is that? if Christ is just as much the Creator as the Father is? the answer is that Christ is NOT the ultimate Creator of the universe, but rather its "Maker". Because God the Father both "creates" and "makes" but the Son only "makes" in the sense of working materials that were already there provided by God the Father, the Eternal Unbegotten Supreme God, "whose Name alone is Jehovah." Amen. anymore questions? I hope this helps answer some of these things. And I hope you give at least a smidgen of consideration and fair attention to the points and positions here. -
144
Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?
by hubert inin a post by syn that lady lee has brought up again, there is this statement by syn.
i could underline my watchtower in 10 minutes, tops, and be sure that all the answers were right.
many esteemed researchers have shown that repetitive imprinting of ideas is a primary cult tactic, and i tend to agree with them.
-
-
sweetscholar
I said like a few times already that this forum is different. so what is your deal anyway? ever a witness? ever studied with them? why is that you constantly dogmatically harp on my "tone" (which could be actually worse) instead of really addressing or seeing the actual specific points raised?? that's a convenient dodge, son. and very transparant after a while. but really, why are you so bothered by that? when that's not even the crux of what I'm doing anyway. I'm going into matter-of-fact substantive things and expositions. yet what do you choose to always harp on? my manner and tone that you find so offensive. yet you give a free pass I notice to the really rude blunt obnoxious ex or anti-JWs. funny that. all you ever do in response to what I've written is whine about my tone. that says more about you than about what I'm writing. give that a rest already. I already admitted that I was not necessarily as gentle as I could have been every syllable. but so what?
NONE OF THAT NEGATES THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ACTUAL POINTS I WAS BIBLICALLY AND HISTORICALLY MAKING. is that so hard to see? I guess. but you'd rather focus on irrelevent matters. did I curse or threaten anyone? NO. so how bad really was I?? and again, did Christ call people names in the Bible?? yes He did. He called a Greek pagan woman a "dog" in the Bible. and called Pharisees "hypocrites" and "sons of the Devil". wow. I guess if that's the case, if you wannt be totally consistent, you'll "stay a safe distance away" from Christ too. whatever. anyway, try (if you can) to look at the actual points made. thank you. -
144
Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?
by hubert inin a post by syn that lady lee has brought up again, there is this statement by syn.
i could underline my watchtower in 10 minutes, tops, and be sure that all the answers were right.
many esteemed researchers have shown that repetitive imprinting of ideas is a primary cult tactic, and i tend to agree with them.
-
-
sweetscholar
I said like a few times already that this forum is different. so what is your deal anyway? ever a witness? ever studied with them? why is that you constantly dogmatically harp on my "tone" (which could be actually worse) instead of really addressing or seeing the actual specific points raised?? that's a convenient dodge, son. and very transparant after a while. but really, why are you so bothered by that? when that's not even the crux of what I'm doing anyway. I'm going into matter-of-fact substantive things and expositions. yet what do you choose to always harp on? my manner and tone that you find so offensive. yet you give a free pass I notice to the really rude blunt obnoxious ex or anti-JWs. funny that. all you ever do in response to what I've written is whine about my tone. that says more about you than about what I'm writing. give that a rest already. I already admitted that I was not necessarily as gentle as I could have been every syllable. but so what?
NONE OF THAT NEGATES THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ACTUAL POINTS I WAS BIBLICALLY AND HISTORICALLY MAKING. is that so hard to see? I guess. but you'd rather focus on irrelevent matters. did I curse or threaten anyone? NO. so how bad really was I?? and again, did Christ call people names in the Bible?? yes He did. He called a Greek pagan woman a "dog" in the Bible. and called Pharisees "hypocrites" and "sons of the Devil". wow. I guess if that's the case, if you wannt be totally consistent, you'll "stay a safe distance away" from Christ too. whatever. anyway, try (if you can) looking at the actual points made. thank you. -
42
exjw, is there a script
by carla inis there any one scripture (or more) that really suprised you once you took the wt glasses off and just read the bible as is, without all the extra literature?
-
-
sweetscholar
read the context, it's referring to political rulers, not the elders of God's Congregation, in whatever dispensation. now it's true that it can have a broader application in the sense of not putting total trust in any fallen imperfect human. son of Adam. I grant you that. because no one, not even God's appointed leadership in His Church can ultimatley provide you with salvation. Only God and Christ can do that. not an imperfect son of Adam. but you can't go bananas on that and ignore "be obedient to those taking the lead among you AND BE SUBMISSIVE" (Hebrews 13:17) "for they are keeping watch over your souls as those who will render an account; that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you." what do we do with verse, sweetie? or "the Holy Spirit and WE OURSELVES will add these NECESSARY THINGS onto you." (Acts 15) say it means something else, so conveniently?? or "beware the rebellious talk of Korah" (Jude 11,12) relegate that as inconsequential or just for Israel when Jude was applying (under the Holy Spirit) to the Christians??? Or "may you keep submitting to those types of persons" (1 Cor 16:16) how boot dat one? and "have regard for those presiding over you" (1 Thessalonians 5:12) or "let the elders who preside well receive DOUBLE HONOR, especially those who work hard in in speaking and TEACHING." (1 Timothy 5:17) or "He (Moses) is being entrusted with all My house" (Numbers 12:7) or "So they (Korah, Dathan, and Abiram) congregated themselves against Moses and Aaron and said to them: 'That is enough of you, because the whole assembly are all of them holy and Jehovah is in their midst (sound familiar?). Why then should lift yourselves up above (as leaders and "governers") the congregation of Jehovah?" but we know what happend to Korah and his apostate crew. they were electrocuted and burned with fire. how boot dat? one thing that people learn from history is that people don't learn from history. we hear today against JW leadership: why should you lift yourself and control things, blah blah blah. God and Christ are with us too. yeah sure. again, all Verses of Scripture need to be considered. from both "Testaments" obviously. important matters to think about. human nature generally tends to rebel against authority, even God's true appointed authority. as the cases in Scripture clearly show. "cast him out of the church" said Paul and John. how boot dat?
-
42
exjw, is there a script
by carla inis there any one scripture (or more) that really suprised you once you took the wt glasses off and just read the bible as is, without all the extra literature?
-
-
sweetscholar
hi Carla. wow, what a venomous viper you obviously are. and nice sophist too. well that witness did not explain it totally correctly. 1 John was not written ONLY to the born again anointed class, but, get this clearly ok, PRIMARILY to them. it's that simple. not that hard to grasp. I know that some witnesses (sad to say) don't always explain thing clearly or totally accurately every second. and then the ones who are not all that knowledgeable are easier pray for your smooth venom and sly silly traps. but you're not talking to one of those types right now, sweetie. "other sheep" not of this fold. is not just physical Gentiles. because in Christ "there's neither Jew nor Gentile". or did you miss that one? by the way, that was a lovely (very UN-Christian and UN-kind COLD) thing you said to me.
yes, I admit my first posting was too wordy and bunched together. but not my second one on here. sorry about that first posting though. but even so. you were rude and dismissive. I at least read the stuff put on here. and believe it or not, if you red all of my things on the other sections, I actually do not so easily dismiss valid or seemingly good points raised by others on mattes. but actually CAREFULLY CONSIDER THEM AND RESEARCH THEM. yet I'm the bad guy with the bad tones?? that's funny. I notice that I'll get nit-picked at for my supposed "tones" but none of you are ever complained about with your tones. why? cuz it's people that agree with you to begin with. so they won't notice it in people that are tickling their ears. very selective I see. and very hypocritical. 144000 are the ONLY ones who have the Father's Name and His Lamb's Name written on their foreheads, and who "master that song" and are said to follow the Lamb everywhere. physical Jews? if so, the Bible contradicts itself when it says "Jew inwardly, not outwardly" and "if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham's seed" speaking PRIMARILY (got that) to the "anointed" spirit-begotten ones. NOT the "other sheep" of Christ's Flock. tootles.
-
42
exjw, is there a script
by carla inis there any one scripture (or more) that really suprised you once you took the wt glasses off and just read the bible as is, without all the extra literature?
-
-
sweetscholar
...I will say to them "depart from Me, you workers of iniquity" or "why do you call me 'Lord Lord" but do not the things I say." Again, apostates and unstable types are notorious for seeing one Verse on a matter, and dismissing or easily forgetting a whole host of passages dealing with the matter. duhh. obviously (and not just JW teaching either) there would be many claiming to follow Jesus and even doing "works in His name" that would be shown up as false and "I never knew you." what do we do with those Verses, Mr Eye Opened by that Verse,?? yeah, how convenient. what do we do with Paul's words to those CLAIMING to do Christ's will, "false apostles" and "apostles of satan"?? what's the matter? speechless with those things too? it's this simple. as for Luke 9:49,50. which of course I've been hit with before. it's not a discovery to me. but as has been said many times "a text without a context is a pre-text." that Verse has been used by apostate and indepentent Protestant blockhead types before. now analyze who it was there doing the thing in Christ's name. A JEW THAT WAS STILL TECHNICALLY PART OF GOD'S FLOCK AND CHOSEN HOUSE OF ISRAEL. the apostles there were objecting because that guy was not part of their immediate group there. but Christ rightly told them that it was ok. that guy was not some false apostle (stuff that would appear later on, as Christ Himself predicted, Matt 7, Luke 6). at that time in Luke 9, the Israelites were still God's chosen people, and it was pre-crucifixion. so it was a different situation there. you have to be careful with those things. you have to "rightly divide the word of truth." and you have to definitely NOT ignore hosts of other Verses that clearly indicate that not all who claim Christ as Savior can really be truely so. "false apostles"??? "not everyone saying 'Lord Lord' and who do works in My name"? don't you think that "on that day" those to whom Christ says "I never knew you" also clamored Luke 9:49,50 the way you people are?? lol.
wake up. The Bible was written in such a way so as to test men's hearts. we can't ignore that in the Acts, and as is seen throughout the Epistles, that True Christiaity in the First Century A.D. was NOT this loose confederate mish mosh of conflicting sects, denominations, cults and groups, and Baptist baloney and whatever else. Decisions from the top down that were BINDING on the rest of the local congregations. what do we do with THOSE Verses of Scripture that show that many will claim to be Christians but simply won't be true Christians and that it's not this free-for-all independent Korah-like (Jude 11,12) nonsense that we see in apostate "Christendom"?? pretend those Verses are not there, or pretend they mean something else? how convenient.