Posts by Philippus79

9

Tick tock tick tock (the answer my friend.....)

by cultswatter in

http://www.watchtower.org/statistics/worldwide_report.htm.

http://www.watchtower.org/e/statistics/worldwide_report.htmhow many hours will these web links exist.

before there're washed to the sea?.

Philippus79

I find it most fascinating that they know that the exact population (average) in Zimbabwe was 12,103,949 in 2006. I thought the dubs spend their time preaching, but hey, looks like they are taking constant censuses...lol Phil

7

New World Order VS. The Lord of the Sabbath

by writetoknow in

new world order vs. the lord of the sabbath .

jehovahs witnesses teach the great crowd pictured in revelation 7:9 is the modern day organization of jehovahs witnesses.

their groups survives the end of the world, thus, coming out of the great tribulation and entering into the thousand year reign of christ coined as the new world order or the great sabbath of god.

Philippus79

@ writetoknow

I'm not defending the WTS or the JW faith here, but you missunderstand some of their dogmas:

You write: "Jehovah’s Witnesses teach the Great Crowd pictured in Revelation 7:9 is the modern day organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses."

No, they don't teach that. They teach that they (JW) will be part of the Great Crowd but there will be so many others as God sees fit.

You write: "Furthermore, they teach that if you are not baptized into the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses Jehovah God will destroy you during the Great Tribulation."

Again, this is not the official understanding. It is up to Jesus/Jehovah to decide who is worthy and who isn't.

Then there are some more points which I would like to remark on:

You write: "Failing to understand basic bible teachings that all scriptures prior to Christ Jesus having come into the world are written about him. They are or will be fulfilled by him."

How do we know? Does every account in the Bible have a greater meaning or a prophetic fulfillment? How many of them? How do we know? I for my part think they do and there is a way to figure out the dimensions

You write: "Moses was instructed by God to institute the Sabbath a physical Sabbath a shadow/picture of Christ Jesus the Lord of the Sabbath."

The thing itself cannot possibly picture the owner of the thing. The Sabbath cannot picture its own Lord, Jesus.

And I would argue that the Sabbath law was instituted by Moses but the concept of the Sabbath transcendences the Mosaic Law, if we believe in the Bible. It is a divine rhythm, a concept we first encounter in Genesis 2:1,2. Thus it is older and superior to the Mosaic Law which was abolished by Jesus.

You write: "Throughout the scriptures two (2) point stand-alone: “Physical/Law & Spiritual/Faith. 1.) Physical is always inferior or less 2.) Spiritual is superior and greater. Proving oneself by Law/any law is inferior/less and is mans works; mans work = sin/slavery."

I agree with the two points taken alone. But I partially disagree with the conclusion you reach. You are right in saying that law and works are inferior to spirit and faith but the way of proving of ones obedience depends on the time one lived in.

In the time between Adam and Moses faith and obeying one's conscience was enough and fine for YHWH. But between Moses and Jesus there was only one way to serve God acceptably. It was by obeying the Law of Moses which required works. You could perfect your works during this time by faith.

After Jesus it was again spirit/faith which was important and the way to please God and Jesus. Now we can perfect our faith by works that correspond to our faith. But you are right, works alone cannot justify us before God!

You write: "Law hardens the heart the very thing sought through law, justification of our actions proves to be disobedience to God."

Nicely put, I agree. There is no justification whatsoever beside through the ransom of Christ. Nontheless the Law was a tutor, a pre-school and it hold the definition of "sin":

(Romans 3:10-12) . . .“There is not a righteous [man], not even one; 11 there is no one that has any insight, there is no one that seeks for God. 12 All [men] have deflected, all of them together have become worthless. . .

(Romans 3:20) 20 Therefore by works of law no flesh will be declared righteous before him, for by law is the accurate knowledge of sin.. . .

(Romans 3:21-26) 21 But now apart from law God’s righteousness has been made manifest, as it is borne witness to by the Law and the Prophets; 22 yes, God’s righteousness through the faith in Jesus Christ, for all those having faith. For there is no distinction. 23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and it is as a free gift that they are being declared righteous by his undeserved kindness through the release by the ransom [paid] by Christ Jesus. 25 God set him forth as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood. This was in order to exhibit his own righteousness, because he was forgiving the sins that occurred in the past while God was exercising forbearance; 26 so as to exhibit his own righteousness in this present season, that he might be righteous even when declaring righteous the man that has faith in Jesus.

@Sarah You are right I think, there is a distinction between "the day Of Jehovah" and "the day of the Lord". Subject to further research.

Phil

27

What Were the "Geneologies" Of Which Paul Was Warning In 1 Tim. 1:17?

by Justitia Themis in

interesting...from the jaimeson, fausset and brown bible commentary:.

genealogies--not merely such civil genealogies as were common among the jews, whereby they traced their descent from the patriarchs, to which paul would not object, and which he would not as here class with "fables," but gnostic genealogies of spirits and aeons, as they called them, "lists of gnostic emanations" [alford].

so tertullian [against valentinian, c. 3], and irenaeus [preface].

Philippus79

Paul was the first "gnostic". Why and how? Well, certainly not in the sense that is today known as gnosticism, the gnosticism of the 3rd and 4th century.

But surely he was the first to coin gnostic concepts and after all, he was after "gnosis", he wanted to "know"!. He spoke and wrote about his own visions of Christ and sometimes secret revelations. He claimed to have received direct revelations and teachings by Jesus, an elemnt which is essential in gnosticism.

As an besides, Valentinus claimed he had been taught by Theudas who was a student of Paul and part of his inner circle.

Phil

18

JWs Chronology VS. Peace With God

by writetoknow in

is the bible written for self-preservation or dependency upon god for salvation?

bible chronologist seems to imply that all depends upon their personal intellect or ability to figure out bible dates for salvation.

furthermore, they arent often concern with helping people understand the rest of the bible, that is, finding peace with god.

Philippus79

I would argue that we can have both (faith/relationship with Jesus AND insight/chronology) although I'm sure that chronology wont save us and neither will brilliant understanding.

Basically it is faith/obeying our conscience that save us and spares us from the sin bin during the Kingdom.

Romans 4:13 For it was not through law that Abraham or his seed had the promise that he should be heir of a world, but it was through the righteousness by faith.

Romans 3 and 4 hold a lot of scriptures that show that 1. obeying your conscience will save you and 2. that faith and love in/for Jesus, his ransom and his Father help.

So this faith is the basic ticket, the basic "entrance fee" for the Kingdom.

Or it is like working for the market leader - a divine company if you like. You can be employed as a custodian or legman/runner or referee or floorwalker or manager or director or as CEO. All work for the same successful company all join in the positive development, all have a save job. But the level of your employment will be dependent upon your qualification and training and the experience you already gathered.

Likewise it is with faith and personality and insight/knowledge/chronlogy. It will be useful if you have come to known God's requirements, if you have studied the scriptures deeply for years, if you have already developed a christian personality etc. when the Kingdom comes.

But again, besides faith, nothing of these is necessary...

Phil

28

Why use the word apostate?

by greendawn in

why should we define ourselves by what the fds defines us?

our enemies who seek emotional control over us even after we left their destructive cult have invested a lot of effort to demonize us with the word apostate and when we use the term ourselves we do their work for them.

most so called apostates simply thought about things deeply and came up with many questions that the jws instead of answering in a logical manner labelled these inquiring minds as demon inspired apostates doubting the god appointed fds and expelled them from their org.

Philippus79

Lol, "conscious consumers"! Sound very political correct! gg The etymological side of the word has already been discussed in this thread. So I just want to add a Biblical consideration to it. From my study of the Scripture and my (moderate) understanding of Greek you cannot be an apostate to an organisation, only to a faith. When I leave the Org does it necessarily mean I leave YHWH or Jesus/Yahushua? Does it mean I will reject the Bible? Does it necessarily mean I start to indulge in an unbiblical lifestyle? No, it does not. So really even they themselves if they have to use this word they should only use it for those who become atheists or change to a religion which rejects Jesus. Phil

16

Millions of years vs. Thousands according to the Society

by Cindi_67 in

another topic gave me the idea to post this one.

i have always asked myself, why does the society not agree with the amount of time archeologists say dinosaurs and other species roamed the earth?

they agree the earth has existed for maybe billions of years.

Philippus79

@nicolaou Invoke the Holy Spirit, bro, maybe he will help you and you will finally succeed? Phil

16

Millions of years vs. Thousands according to the Society

by Cindi_67 in

another topic gave me the idea to post this one.

i have always asked myself, why does the society not agree with the amount of time archeologists say dinosaurs and other species roamed the earth?

they agree the earth has existed for maybe billions of years.

Philippus79

What about BOTH being true? The Bible AND science? Can't we have it both ways? Why throw away logical and empirical reasoning when it comes to faith? Why throw away faith when studying science? Phil

49

A rhetorical analysis of the Sept. KM Question Box

by Leolaia in

some have pursued an independent group study of biblical hebrew and greek so as to analyze the accuracy of the new world translation.

they have also held conferences and produced publications to present their findings and to supplement what is provided at our christian meetings and through our literature.. throughout the earth, jehovah's people are receiving ample spiritual instruction and encouragement at congregation meetings, assemblies, and conventions, as well as through the publications of jehovah's organization.

rather, the claim is implicit.

Philippus79

Great work Leolaia! A wondeful and comprehensive analyzis of the manipulative wording technique of the "Society". Much appreciated, Phil

18

Acts 20:28

by faundy in

forgive me if someone has already answered this, but i'm new on here and am not trawling every page to check.

ok, now why does acts 20:28 in the nwt have the son in brackets?

did they insert it themselves?

Philippus79

Ac 20:28—Gr. (di·a´ tou hai´ma·tos tou i·di´ou) 1903 “with the blood of His own Son” The Holy Bible in Modern English, by F. Fenton, London. 1950 “with the blood of his own [Son]” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn. 1966 “through the death of his own Son” Today’s English Version, American Bible Society, New York. Grammatically, this passage could be translated as in the King James Version and Douay Version, “with his own blood.” That has been a difficult thought for many. That is doubtless why ACDSyh (margin) (followed by Moffatt’s translation) read “the congregation of the Lord,” instead of “the congregation of God.” When the text reads that way it furnishes no difficulty for the reading, “with his own blood.” However, ?BVg read “God” (articulate), and the usual translation would be ‘God’s blood.’ The Greek words ??? ????? (tou i·di´ou) follow the phrase “with the blood.” The entire expression could be translated “with the blood of his own.” A noun in the singular number would be understood after “his own,” most likely God’s closest relative, his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ. On this point J. H. Moulton in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90, says: “Before leaving ????? [i´di·os] something should be said about the use of ? ????? [ho i´di·os] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 111 131, Ac 423 2423. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations . . . . In Expos. VI. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 2028 ‘the blood of one who was his own.’” Alternately, in The New Testament in the Original Greek, by Westcott and Hort, Vol., 2, London, 1881, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix, Hort stated: “it is by no means impossible that ???? [hui·ou´, “of the Son”] dropped out after ???????? [tou i·di´ou, “of his own”] at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind.” The New World Translation renders the passage literally, adding “Son” in brackets after ????? to read: “with the blood of his own [Son].”

18

Acts 20:28

by faundy in

forgive me if someone has already answered this, but i'm new on here and am not trawling every page to check.

ok, now why does acts 20:28 in the nwt have the son in brackets?

did they insert it themselves?

Philippus79

Ac 20:28—Gr. (di·a´ tou hai´ma·tos tou i·di´ou) 1903 “with the blood of His own Son” The Holy Bible in Modern English, by F. Fenton, London. 1950 “with the blood of his own [Son]” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn. 1966 “through the death of his own Son” Today’s English Version, American Bible Society, New York. Grammatically, this passage could be translated as in the King James Version and Douay Version, “with his own blood.” That has been a difficult thought for many. That is doubtless why ACDSyh (margin) (followed by Moffatt’s translation) read “the congregation of the Lord,” instead of “the congregation of God.” When the text reads that way it furnishes no difficulty for the reading, “with his own blood.” However, ?BVg read “God” (articulate), and the usual translation would be ‘God’s blood.’ The Greek words ??? ????? (tou i·di´ou) follow the phrase “with the blood.” The entire expression could be translated “with the blood of his own.” A noun in the singular number would be understood after “his own,” most likely God’s closest relative, his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ. On this point J. H. Moulton in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90, says: “Before leaving ????? [i´di·os] something should be said about the use of ? ????? [ho i´di·os] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 111 131, Ac 423 2423. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations . . . . In Expos. VI. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 2028 ‘the blood of one who was his own.’” Alternately, in The New Testament in the Original Greek, by Westcott and Hort, Vol., 2, London, 1881, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix, Hort stated: “it is by no means impossible that ???? [hui·ou´, “of the Son”] dropped out after ???????? [tou i·di´ou, “of his own”] at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind.” The New World Translation renders the passage literally, adding “Son” in brackets after ????? to read: “with the blood of his own [Son].”