Posts by stark

9

Jesus' death

by Honesty in

chapter 6 page 28 paragraph 3 of the revelation book claims that jesus was indeed "the first" human to be resurrected to immortal spirit life.

(colossians 1:18) moreover, he is "the last" to be so resurrected by jehovah personally.

this is an outright false teaching from the watchtower society as the biblical evidence proves:.

stark

Jesus said that he would raise his body from the grave in John chapter 2...was he mistaken or did he really raise bodily from the dead?

29

Jesus film Slammed

by TopHat in

http://www.livescience.com/history/070226_ap_jesus_film.html.

archaeologists and clergy slam jesus filmby marshall thompson.

associated press.

stark

Let's look at the credibility of these critics ... hmm, are they the same ones who believe the world is less then 10,000 years old and made in 6 days? Hmm, interesting that most of the ones mentioned in the article are "clergymen". Go figure.
Kwin

On the other hand look at the credibility of the supporters, not one of them are born again believers in Jesus Christ and his bodily resurrection.

So where does that get us?

9

Need some education on REALITY? Start here! Religionists take note!

by Nathan Natas in

prove that jesus is imaginary - from the bible - in less than 5 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huj8hg5cosw.

stark

Well, the site didn't prove that Jesus is imaginary, but wow, it most certainly proved that Jesus is not a circus monkey who will come and perform at our every whim.

171

The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?

by Terry in

history has demonstrated:.

religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone or something.. science asks questions.. religion purports to answer questions.. science seeks to disprove its own conclusions.. religion seeks to reinforce its own dogma.. science is error-correction toward adjusting for realities as they unfold.. religion internalizes against reality by mocking up a substitute.. science is the most recent development of the human mind.

technology proves science to be successful in advancing human progress.. religion disdains human progress and waits for the end.

stark

Science is a religion that puts it's faith in facts and evidence not a god(s) or leader(s).

5go, for that statement to be accurate, wouldn't every person who puts their "faith in facts and evidence not a god(s) or leader(s)" have to personally and empirically test each fact and test each piece of evidence?

For example when a Professor stands in front of a class and says that spontaneous generation are how worms get into a piece of meat on a plate, isn't it faith in their leader, (the Professor), that causes a student to accept the teaching as fact? And it's not until a Louis Pasteur comes along and checks for himself, that it's discovered that modern science (modern for that day) was wrong?

So now I have to ask myself, after reading Terry's first post on science vs religion:

Do I have complete faith that what Terry wrote was written after an objective, unbiased, search and study of all the proper materials and accept his teachings with faith and say that Terry is true?

Or

Do I look at what he wrote with a more critical eye and check maybe a fact or two?

Let's look at his first assertion:

Religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone or something.

Science asks questions.

Religion purports to answer questions.

It is certainly true that Religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone, or something. For me I trust God and I trust the Bible.

But Science also trusts someone or something. The scientist trusts the scientist who came before him and he trusts the science that that came before him. Look at the laws of motion, or energy, that everyone accepts as true, even the scientist.

I do agree that Science asks questions and that Religion answers questions, and I would have to add that since all religions differ in their answer they are either all wrong, or only one of them is wrong...my vote is for Christianity.

Really though, doesn't Science purport to also answer questions?

I suspect Terry's agenda is something other then a fair contest between science and religion.

171

The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?

by Terry in

history has demonstrated:.

religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone or something.. science asks questions.. religion purports to answer questions.. science seeks to disprove its own conclusions.. religion seeks to reinforce its own dogma.. science is error-correction toward adjusting for realities as they unfold.. religion internalizes against reality by mocking up a substitute.. science is the most recent development of the human mind.

technology proves science to be successful in advancing human progress.. religion disdains human progress and waits for the end.

stark

There are a few things I'm not dead certain about so I have a couple of questions:

When you say Science vs Religion, what type of Science are you talking about? Is it Chemistry vs Religion or Physics vs Religion, or is it another Science?

What is Science?

What is the Scientific Method?

9

The WT Club says Jesus is NOT your mediator?

by LexWatson in

what year did the wt start to teach it's "earthly hope" members that jesus was not their mediator?.

what scriptures did they say supported that belief?

do jw's know their religion teaches this?.

stark

...constant pushing Christ aside and taking his position is dethroning of the Christ and usurping his God given position. Setting themselves up as a god...

avidbiblereader, you know I'd never thought of it like that, excellent point. I had a JW act all amazed that I found Christ so important, and I always wondered why, but of course the WT takes away Christ's Deity, any worship of him, or celebration in his name, and his position of mediator, so that they can move in.

I hope you don't feel cheated when you see me using this in other threads on this site.

57

Jesus Christ, Michael the Archangel does it really matter?

by unbaptized in

jesus christ, michael the archangel does it really matter?.

because at the end of the day he's still our lord and saviour.

he died on a stake for our sins.

stark

Wow, look at all that...sorry about the long posts gang.

57

Jesus Christ, Michael the Archangel does it really matter?

by unbaptized in

jesus christ, michael the archangel does it really matter?.

because at the end of the day he's still our lord and saviour.

he died on a stake for our sins.

stark

Hi unbaptized, I've got a bit of time so I thought I'd start with you post where you said:

"Let's just use the ancient name of Almighty God before it was translated. (YHWH) Let's leave out the word LORD and GOD and call him by the name he gave to ancient Israel."

Actually, the name YHWH is not the full name that God gave to the Israelites. They took some letters out so it wouldn't be misused. No one knows now what it really looks like.

"Now let's call Jesus by his name that was translated as Yeshua in greek."

The question I have for you is why? Why stop at the Greek, why not go to the Aramaic? But having said that I'm fine with using YHWH and Yeshua, but I really would like to know your reasoning.

"Now you made some good arguments about the origin of Yeshua and about the word firstborn being used in that scripture, but you left out a very important piece namely the word CREATION. Did you look up the greek word for CREATION? Because that passage said that he was the Firstborn of all CREATION."

One could argue that "Firstborn of all creation." means that creation created him, but we know that‘s not what the text says.

See you still have a problem with Paul using firstborn not first created, also you have a problem with John 1:3 which tells us twice that Yeshua created everything that had a point of creation, and there is a problem with John 9 where Yeshua asks the man he had healed if he believed in the Son of Man, the man asked Yeshua who the Son of Man was and Jesus said that it was him, immediately the man worshipped him, the question is what’s the big deal with “Son of Man”? The answer is found in Daniel 7 where Daniel, along with ten thousand time ten thousand, are before the Ancient of Days (YHWH). Check out Daniel 7:13-14, there right in front of (YHWH) comes Yeshua and right in front of (YHWH) all of creation turns and starts worshipping him. Keeping in mind that (YHWH) says in Isaiah 42:8 "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.”

There are more problems then that, some I’ve already listed in other posts, but instead of making a list let me just say that if the true teaching is that Yeshua is but a created being, a “little god” then the Bible is a mass of contradictions. I would still like to know if you think Yeshua is a true god.

Next, I disagree with you assessment of Psalms 89:27, you said:

“Secondly you pointed to a scripture in Psalms 89:27, stating that YHWH said that David was his firstborn? You also stated that this meant that David was in a higher position. I have to disagree with your logic, because YHWH was referring to his firstborn son Yeshua who's kingdom would never be brought to an end. YHWH stated in the scriptures that Davids kingdom would be the most high over all the kings of the earth.”

Here’s my point, first the context is clearly King David, second, (YHWH) says that He will “appoint him my firstborn,” the key word is “appoint.” Third, verse 30 speaks of his sons, we are brothers and sisters in Yeshua, and become children of God only when we accept Yeshua, (John 1:12-13)

Next you mentioned:

“Now David's kingdom was great indeed, but his son Solomon's kingdom was greater than his and their were other rulers on the earth who had far greater kingdom's than David ever had,”

Again I urge caution concerning your limiting (YHWH), if He says that He is appointing David the “most exalted of the kings of the earth,” Then David is the most exalted king of the earth. Having said that, let me add that, about Solomon kingdom being “greater” read the account, Solomon had greater wealth but his kingdom and himself had turned to many other gods, by way of his many wives. By today’s system he had it all many would love to live like Solomon or Hugh Hefner, but in the truth of (YHWH) Solomons Kingdom was a wreck, and Solomon didn’t figure it out till later in life

“So what I'm thinking now is Yeshua is the legitimate aire to the throne of David, he is the promised Messiah spoken of by the scriptures.”

Agreed

“Also the scriptures state the Messiah's kingdom will never be brought to ruin and it will be greater than any other kingdom on the earth.”

Agreed

“So my final conclusion is the Yeshua was the figurative David that YHWH was referring too his FIRSTBORN Son”

Disagree.

57

Jesus Christ, Michael the Archangel does it really matter?

by unbaptized in

jesus christ, michael the archangel does it really matter?.

because at the end of the day he's still our lord and saviour.

he died on a stake for our sins.

stark

Now on to your next post where you said:

"How can Jesus be Almighty God in the flesh. Now you are belittling Almighty God. The Eternal Father, King of Eternity could never assume a slaves form such as ours. Our weak fleshly bodies could not contain his power and majesty. He even stated to Moses no man can look upon him and live, so how could he get into a man's form and people continue to look at him.Also Almighty God told Solomon that the Heavens is his throne and the earth is his footstool. How can a body made from dust contain such power and majesty?You belittle the Almighty God with your talk, saying he became a mere man as Adam in the flesh. But it's only due to lack of understanding."

Look at the words you used: "The Eternal Father, King of Eternity could never..."

I call this a Matthew 22:29 problem it says: "Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God."

You have to be very careful when you say "God could never." He is all powerful, and we are in danger when we put our limitations on Him.

By the way do you consider Jesus a true god or a false god?

I look forward to your reply.

57

Jesus Christ, Michael the Archangel does it really matter?

by unbaptized in

jesus christ, michael the archangel does it really matter?.

because at the end of the day he's still our lord and saviour.

he died on a stake for our sins.

stark

Hi unbaptized thanks for the response, I'd like to take a look at your posts, first you said:

"First of all I want you to do some research on that scripture. The name of God was taken out of the Bible and replaced with the word Lord. So the original hebrew should have stated (YHWH or Jehovah or Yahweh) in the place of Lord. That's why it's hard for some to distinguish between Almighty God and Jesus our Lord and Saviour. Jesus is God's chosen one. The one mentioned in the verse you just quoted from Isaiah 43."

Okay, let me start by pointing out that the "Lord" you spoke of in Isaiah 43 is not Lord, but "LORD", and we have no idea what God's name sounds like. Jehovah is a Catholic name, given to save time.

Next I've got a question for you, I understand that the Watch Tower Organization replaced Lord for Jehovah in the New Testament. Would you mind telling me what criteria had to be met for Lord to become Jehovah?

Next up is where you said:

"Second, Jesus was the firstborn of all creation by God and through Jesus all other things were created. 1 Col 1:13-20"

If the word "firstborn" means, in this case, that Jesus is the first created, it causes a great problem with John 1:3 which says, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

But now I have a problem, what do I do with firstborn? My problem is solved in the Old Testament starting in Genesis 48:10-14, to save space I won't quote it, but in this passage we find that Israel blesses Ephraim as the firstborn when Manasseh war really the one born first. Look at Jeremiah 31:9 you see it confirmed that Ephraim is the "firstborn". Not because he was born first, but because he was in a higher position. Look at King David he was the last born of Jesse yet in Psalm 89:27 God says "I also shall make him My first-born the highest of the kings of the earth."

In Colossians 1:15 "firstborn" means first in rank, pre-eminent one. That was Paul's intention when he wrote the word "prototokos", if he had intended first one created he would have written, "protoktisis" which means first created.

You mentioned that "through" Jesus all "other" things were created. Just a reminder that the word "other" is not in the text, and by adding other it doesn't clarify the text, it changes the text. Now I understand that the Watch Tower teaching is that God used Jesus, or rather Michael as a tool to create everything and one of the reasons they teach that is because of the word "through." Why does the Watchtower insist that through can only mean, be means of, like a tool. If that is the only way "through" can be used there is a problem with Romans 11:35- 36 which says: "Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?" For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.

See how that word causes a problem? If it can only mean "by means of" the question would be who used God? When John 1:3 says "through him" concerning Jesus it means "as a result of, or because of" John 1:3 could very well say "Because of him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." The same would fit for Colossians 1:16.

Next you said:

"It is not belittling Jesus to be a creation and not the Almighty God, that's why is called the son of God. He is the image of the invisible God."

If Jesus is God incarnate, it would be belittling, and you would have the wrong Jesus.

"So Michael, Jesus is the High Priest and Anointed King of Almighty God. Amen"

That's the teaching of the Watchtower Organization not the Bible.

I'll continue in another post.