Posts by Mikeus

34

Discussion with Elder....a must read story

by drew sagan in

jw
friends

for those who don't know i've been 'inactive' for around one year.

i stopped attending meetings late last year.

all during this time i was working on my wife (known on this board as amber rose), helping her see the problems with the watchtower.

Mikeus

Wow, excellent job Drew. Every encounter I've had with an elder either ended with them enraged or repeatedly inviting me back to the Hall. If it's not too much trouble, would you post the outline you went over, or even just some resources that you used? That would be greatly appreciated!

19

Isn't it amazing ... how many Christians chose to ignore the OT...?

by needproof in

i read this funny article about the god of the old testament, and i thought how amazing it was that some christians seemingly chose to ignore this brutal god of war, yahweh, as though in the nt, he suddenly had a change of heart.

the deity is clearly a maniac with a bloodthirst.

here is the article: .

Mikeus

Let me clarify I am not being hostile in my objections, rather it's simply I see a poorly constructed argument. When we only "skim" through the Old Testament, being an ancient historical book, we can find a lot of things that will shock us if taken out of its historical context. For example we find the tribe of Benjamin, some of God's chosen people, displaying complete depravity and committing acts of cannibalism. Then there's the classic example of God calling bears from the woods to kill the young men making fun of Elisha's bald head. What about God telling the Israelites to sack entire towns and kill everyone?

What the writer of the article is doing is interpreting ancient culture from a 21st century culture and morality. Admittedly what is reported in the OT is far from what we would today consider to be moral actions, but ancient Hebrew culture and morality were far different from our own. The Hebrews were living in a much more casually violent society. They were faced with other kings and cultures with the desire and/or power to obliterate them without a care to their feelings. It was quite literally kill-or-be-killed. Where God has told them to annihilate other peoples it has been for the continued survival of the Hebrew people. God was seeking to create and sustain a people that would bear his image to the world; through following the law in general, and from Christ in particular.

But then why was Jesus a man of peace and not of war? It's an interesting question, because even the Jews were waiting on a Messiah that would liberate them from the oppression of the Romans through means of revolt. I believe that at the very heart of the question lies a fundamental misunderstanding of what both the Old and New Testaments reveal about the nature of God.

For example, throughout the Old Testament, God is declared to be “merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness and truth” (Exodus 34:6; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 4:31; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 86:5; Psalm 86:15; Psalm 108:4; Psalm 145:8; Joel 2:13). Yet in the New Testament, God’s loving-kindness and mercy are manifested even more fully through the fact that “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). Throughout the Old Testament, we also see God dealing with Israel much the same way a loving father deals with a child. When they willfully sinned against Him and began to worship idols, God would chastise them, yet each and every time He would deliver them once they had repented of their idolatry. This is much the same way that we see God dealing with Christians in the New Testament. For example, Hebrews 12:6 tells us that “For whom the Lord loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives."

In a similar way, throughout the Old Testament we see God’s judgment and wrath poured out on unrepentant sinners. Likewise, in the New Testament, we see that the wrath of God is still “revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18). Even with just a quick reading of the New Testament, it quickly becomes evident that Jesus talks more about hell than He does heaven. So, clearly, God is not any different in the Old Testament than He is in the New Testament. God by His very nature is immutable (unchanging). While we might see one aspect of His nature revealed in certain passages of Scripture more than other aspects, He Himself does not change.

Because of God’s righteous and holy character, all sin past, present, and future must be judged. Yet God in His infinite love has provided a payment for sin and a way of reconciliation so that sinful man can escape His wrath. We see this truth in verses like 1 John 4:10 “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” In the Old Testament, God provided a sacrificial system whereby atonement could be made for sin, but this sacrificial system was only temporary and merely looked forward to the coming of Jesus Christ who would die on the cross to make a real substitutionary atonement for sin. The Savior that was promised in the Old Testament is more fully revealed in the New Testament, and the ultimate expression of God’s love, the sending of His son Jesus Christ, is revealed in all its glory. Both the Old and the New Testaments were given "to make us wise unto salvation" (2 Timothy 3:15). When we study them more closely, it really is evident that God is no different in the New Testament than He was in the Old Testament.

Respectfully, Mikeus

19

Isn't it amazing ... how many Christians chose to ignore the OT...?

by needproof in

i read this funny article about the god of the old testament, and i thought how amazing it was that some christians seemingly chose to ignore this brutal god of war, yahweh, as though in the nt, he suddenly had a change of heart.

the deity is clearly a maniac with a bloodthirst.

here is the article: .

Mikeus

What you've got here, with all due honor, isn't a straw man argument but more like a straw army. Whoever wrote this had a lot of presuppositions and a very limited view of King James language and hermeneutics in general, not to mention basic Christian theology.

If this article were accurate, every Christian scholar, especially OT scholars, wouldn't be Christians! Most of the points made are hopefully just a misunderstanding of theology, otherwise they are a blatant misrepresentation of the text. For instance, the anthropomorphizing of God. Orthodox Judaism and Christianity clearly understand that God does not literally have "eyes" or "hands" (except when dealing with the incarnate Christ), and this is simply a way God speaks to His creation in order for relatability.

I suggest you do a basic study of Christian theology and this essay will quickly seem ridiculous.

12

Please help me understand new blood policy...

by Mikeus in

hello everyone, i just need some help and maybe a history lesson about the wt's current blood policy, and how it differs from the past.

i was discussing this with my wife (inactive dub) and she said the wt has always allowed blood fractions.

is the current fraction amount nearly equal to whole blood?

Mikeus

Hey thanks to everyone for the great information, it's really helping me. I'm going to bring this topic up again to my wife. I can't seem to find any WT scans stating the no fractions policy, so if anyone has a link to some or can post them it'd be extremely helpful.

I noticed on http://www.ajwrb.org/ that it states all of the currently allowed fractions equal 100% blood. I have a scan of the most recent fractions WT and it says on the far left column "100% Blood - Unacceptable to Christians" and then it goes into the fractions columns. It will have the name and then a percentage beside the name. For example "White Blood Cell Fractions - 15%". What is this percentage number? Added up they do not equal 100%. Am I missing something obvious?

12

Please help me understand new blood policy...

by Mikeus in

hello everyone, i just need some help and maybe a history lesson about the wt's current blood policy, and how it differs from the past.

i was discussing this with my wife (inactive dub) and she said the wt has always allowed blood fractions.

is the current fraction amount nearly equal to whole blood?

Mikeus

Hello everyone, I just need some help and maybe a history lesson about the WT's current blood policy, and how it differs from the past. I was discussing this with my wife (inactive Dub) and she said the WT has always allowed blood fractions. Is the current fraction amount nearly equal to whole blood? Just need some clarification and a little more information on the subject.

Thanks for your patience and help!

4

Remaining Steadfast when Grandparents Shun

by Dogpatch in

jw
friends

remaining steadfast when grandparents shun.

by anonymous.

a christian woman whom we will call joy tried to raise her son to love jehovah god.

Mikeus

Great stuff. It's true: love never fails. Keep showing unconditional love to those who shun you! Show them the freedom that such love brings about.

I've forwarded this to my wife, who's parents have started to shun us as she's been "marked". Thanks for the post Randy!

6

Grace versus Ephesians 4th & 5th Chapters

by TheListener in

for those who are believers in god and the bible:.

if we have god's grace and have been purchased by jesus shed blood why do we have to be careful not to do the things mentioned in ephesians and elsewhere in order to not be excluded from god's kingdom?.

for example, ephesians tells us not to tell obscene jokes, or commit immorality, etc etc for if we do we will not inherit god's kingdom.

Mikeus

TheListener - Sad Emo gave a great answer, and I'd like to share what I understand about this topic.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

All throughout Paul's writing in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians we see him admonishing his readers that "works" or "merit" will not gain you salvation. When Paul the Apostle was Saul the Pharisee, he believed in quite the opposite. As we see in Philippians 3:5,6 Paul was a man of strict self-discipline and zeal for the Jewish Law. But when he became a follower of Christ, he announced that all his education and heritage were a loss and "rubbish". Why? He goes on to explain in 3:9 -

Phi 3:9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith

The Jews of that time (and still many people today) were relying on themselves, through there own effort, for righteousness and purity before God, instead of relying on God. This is why Paul constantly exhorts his readers to get rid of this idea of autonomy and self-reliance, and look to God and God alone as their Savior.

So if good works can't gain salvation, then bad works can't lose it, right? Right! At the end of Romans chapter 7, Paul defines the struggle between the righteousness of the reborn spirit and the sinful nature of the flesh. Tying into that, Romans 8:1 tells us that Christ does not condemn the Christian when he fails (c.f. 1 John 1:9). With this is in mind, we look at Ephesians chapters 4 and 5. Paul tells Christians to put away all sinful action, so that we may be imitators of God as we are children of God. Paul wanted the Ephesians to separate themselves from the pagan world around them, showing the world that they were under a better influence (the Spirit) and walked the path of the "new man" in Christ. Eph 5:2 tells us to walk as Christ walked (in love). This is in sync with the two greatest commandments. All the actions Paul lists are in disobedience of loving God with all your heart, mind, soul, might, and body (Matt 22:37; Mar 12:30; 1 Cor 6:19,20; Rom 12:1).

For a person to accept Christ as their Redeemer and then to continue in willful disobedience to the message of righteousness (the message being to walk in love) is a slap in Jesus' face, as stated in Hebrews 10:26. John writes in 1 John 3:9 and 1 John 5:18 that a true Christian, who has received the regenerative Holy Spirit, simply cannot forsake the desires of God. This does not mean the Christian will not sin (literally "miss the mark"), because as Sad Emo noted, the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit is a progressive process (the theological term is sanctification i.e. being cleansed of sinful desire). John only means to tell us that as we are sanctified, our desire will be to please God and not our flesh.

The root of all these writings are dealing with an issue of the heart. The man who professes Christ as Savior and means it in his heart will naturally conform to the desires of the Spirit and the new man, while the man who professes Christ with his mouth but does not with his heart will continue to walk in darkness, but at the same time proclaim he is sinless. John identifies and warns against this in 1 John 1:6-9. A great illustration of this condition of heart is James chapter 2. Here we see outlined a person who professes faith in Christ, yet there is no fruit of the Holy Spirit in their life. Here the author James proclaims this to be a "dead" faith.

This was really long, I know, but I hope that helped a little. :)

7

Disassociation Question

by Mikeus in

my wife is currently trying to fade w/o having to go through a disassociation or dfing.

so far when we've had witnesses come to our door we've been avoiding them.

lately her parents have stopped the usual emails and have made no attempt to contact her.

Mikeus

OnTheWayOut - Thanks for the info. Judging from what you said, I think she's probably been marked.

JWdaughter - Yeah my wife could call, but she doesn't want to get cornered with questions about holidays, churches, etc (understandably).

7

Disassociation Question

by Mikeus in

my wife is currently trying to fade w/o having to go through a disassociation or dfing.

so far when we've had witnesses come to our door we've been avoiding them.

lately her parents have stopped the usual emails and have made no attempt to contact her.

Mikeus

My wife is currently trying to fade w/o having to go through a disassociation or dfing. So far when we've had Witnesses come to our door we've been avoiding them. Lately her parents have stopped the usual emails and have made no attempt to contact her. She doesn't know if she can become officially disassociated without her even knowing about it. Can she be da'ed even though she hasn't talked to any elders and no one has talked to her?

Thanks in advance!

7

Bible verses that seem contradictory.....................

by JH in

after telling us that only jehovah was god, and he was our only heavenly father, this verse below really bugged me when i first saw it.. isaiah 9:5. for there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder.

and his name will be called wonderful counselor, mighty god, eternal father, prince of peace..

Mikeus

Justahuman24: From http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/jesus.htm

JWs also cite John 10:34 to prove that even men can be called gods, and so when Jesus is called God it is not unusual. John 10:33-36 reads:

The Jews answered him, saying, "For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, `I said, Ye are gods?' If he then called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

In this passage, Jesus appeals to Psalms 82:16 where Yahweh calls the judges "gods." This is one of only three occurrences in the OT where servants of Yahweh are called "gods" by God himself. The other occurrences are in Exodus 7:1 and 4:16. This represents a third, very limited use of the word god as applied to a person. Thus we have three possible definitions of the word "god" in the Bible. First is the true God Yahweh, who alone possesses true Deity. A Supreme Being must be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and existing eternally from everlasting to everlasting; or he does not fit the title of God. Yahweh says in Isa. 43:10 that there was no god formed before him and none were to be made after him. Evidently he means none with the true nature (Deity) of God would ever exist beside him.

Secondly, there are false gods, those who make themselves out to be gods and creations of man who are titled as gods. Yahweh says they are really not gods at all (1 Cor. 8:6).

Thirdly, the three occasions (four including John 10:34 which quotes from the 3rd occurrence) where Moses and the judges are called gods. However, neither Moses nor the judges of Israel possessed the nature of a Supreme Being. They did not have the essence or nature of God. They were certainly not to be worshiped, nor were they to share the glory of Yahweh. Isa. 42:8 says, "I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images." (AS)

When we look at Jesus Christ, we must ask, in the light of John 1:1 (the WORD was GOD), which kind of God is he? First, he is not a false god. That leaves two other categories. To settle the matter, we consider these things: Greek scholars agree that the use of God in John 1:1 as applied to Jesus refers to him as having the very nature of his Father, in other words, possessing Godship. This agrees with Hebrews 1:3, which tells us that Christ was the "radiance of the Father's glory" and "the exact representation of his very Being." Col. 2:9 supports this by saying that in Him (Christ) all the fullness of the Godship (Deity) dwells in a human body. John 5:23 says that we are to honor the Son the same way we honor the Father. Rev. 5:13,14 says that all the creatures of heaven bow down and worship the Father and the Son. John 20:28 identifies Jesus as the God (Greek: ho theos). Heb. 1:612 reveals that Jesus is NOT an angel, and is even called God and Lord by the Father! Isa. 9:6 identifies Jesus as El Gibbor, the Hero God (used only of Yahweh - see Isa. 10:21). Jews to this day interpret this as only applying to Yahweh. Although Isa. 44:6 identifies Yahweh as the First and the Last alone in the universe (and the only God), Rev. 1:17 and 22:13 says that Jesus is the First and the Last. Col. 1:19 says that all the fullness of God dwells in him. 1 Pet. 3:14,15 quotes from the OT "sanctify Yahweh as Lord" (Isa. 8:12,13) and reinterprets it as "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts." We could go on, but the point is made: Jesus shares the title, majesty and worship of Almighty God. For him, the first definition of "God" must apply.

Monotheists believe in the existence of only one God. If you believe in the existence of more than one true God, you are a polytheist. No creature, not even Satan, is a god by nature. There is only one true God by nature, existing eternally, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, and deserving of worship by the creation. All others are false gods, "For I am God, and there is no other" (Isa. 45:22).

Arius, a bishop in the church in the fourth century A.D. is the champion of the doctrine that Christ is a created being who was elevated to sit beside the Father in heaven. Arius believed that Christ was God, but in a lesser sense, i.e., a god. Yet Arius agreed that we are to worship Christ, although in his mind he was a secondary god, a created being. For advocating such a doctrine, Arius was accused of being a polytheist, and his doctrine was rejected by the Christian church.

How could Jesus be both God and man? How could he be God at all if he prayed to the Father, stated that there were things that even he didn't know but only the Father, and even called the Father "his God"?

The answer to these difficulties comes through the realization that Christ emptied himself of his glory to become a human (Phil. 2:9). It is like the president of a company that desires his own son to know the company well enough to run it, so he suggests the son become a janitor in the company for a time, to get the feel of it. While he is a janitor, he sets aside his active title to future ownership of the company; at first the employees may not even know who he is (it's better that way). He is fully a janitor, yet fully co-owner of the company. But he holds his real power in check for a time, in order to accomplish a special work. During the time of his humiliation, he is fully subject to the other employees and can even be ridiculed and shoved around. Yet by the very nature of his birthright he could destroy the future of anyone in the company if he so chose. The employees, however, would find that hard to believe, as they recognize him only as a janitor.

Such is a crude illustration of the incarnation of Christ. Though possessing Deity and bearing the very nature and image of his Father, he laid his rights aside; his position, his powers, etc. to relate to man fully and to carry out his work of salvation. Yet he was still God; just in human flesh, and voluntarily limited.