Posts by Cold Steel

11

Jehovah's Organization: Is It the KINGDOM of Daniel 2?

by Cold Steel in

daniel interprets a dream in which he explains there will be four world empires -- the babylonians, the persians, the greeks (under alexander) and the romans, the last of which are symbolized by the belly and legs (eastern and western).

after that, he saw that the roman empire would fragment and ultimately become ten kingdoms, being partly iron and partly clay.

it was during these "kings" that "the god of heaven [shall] set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Cold Steel

cameo-d says: The Church of Jehovah in Christ? Well, if the name is not taken, you could probably get a mail order license for a few bucks and do occassional weddings. I don't know that you'd have many takers on starting a Bible study.

Ah, that's where you're wrong. I think anyone can form a church and get followers. All one has to do is start a church and convince people to give you $$$. The "prosperity gospel" has shown us that it's fairly easy to convince people to give money to get money. People are greedy by nature, and all that's needed is to press the right buttons.

The Jehovah's Witnesses certainly don't fall into this category, but it is a manmade church, and if they can use that term -- manmade church -- then they can infer that they, themselves, are not manmade. If Jesus Christ came in His day and established His church, then one must identify it by finding a church that can either be traced back through history to the time of the apostles or finding a church that has been created since that time and has the proper authority to administer all the ancient ordinances. The third option is that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light, and that no authority is necessary, or needed, to establish a church. That means anyone can start a church.

Who ordained Charles Taze Russell? And did he ordain Joseph F. Rutherford? And can either trace his ordination back to the apostles? Where did these men get their authority? If I recall correctly, then the Bible Students set out not to start a church, but to find it. Where was the pivotal moment in which these people were imbued with the authority to create a church? (I've always been told that since the days of Jesus there have always been discreet slaves of Jehovah somewhere on Earth, but where were they? They must have been very discreet.

The truth is, Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult! But guess what? Even the church that Jesus organized was a cult. What is a cult? Up until recently it was simply any religious sect or group; however today's new meaning is that a cult is "a religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader." The early saints lived with all things in common. And remember Ananias and Sapphira? They were "struck dead" for not giving their property to the church! Now I realize the true context of the above, but that's how religion builders are billing the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and other groups. They form clubs and determine who's extremist or false. But any religion has to be able to change with circumstances and new information. The creation of Israel should have been one of those things that jarred the Witnesses into changing their theology because it's a literal and vivid fulfillment of prophecy. They should also drop the "discreet slave" crap. Why would anyone want to be a slave over a servant?

And lastly, this bit about "manmade religions" should possibly go. I mean, people who live in glass houses....

11

Jehovah's Organization: Is It the KINGDOM of Daniel 2?

by Cold Steel in

daniel interprets a dream in which he explains there will be four world empires -- the babylonians, the persians, the greeks (under alexander) and the romans, the last of which are symbolized by the belly and legs (eastern and western).

after that, he saw that the roman empire would fragment and ultimately become ten kingdoms, being partly iron and partly clay.

it was during these "kings" that "the god of heaven [shall] set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Cold Steel

I'm intrigued by the claim that the fourth kingdom is Greece. It's certainly an unusual viewpoint. Most biblical scholars associate the kingdom of iron as Rome, which divided asunder into two kingdoms, East and West. How that could be Greece escapes me. Also, how could Daniel have missed Rome? Or were the ten kings the great Roman Empire?

I would like to know more about Rutherford's claims and the lightnings. I know he claimed that there was no legitimate authority outside of his leadership, but for this to be so, he would have either had to be ordained by someone before him or invested with authority through a divine ministration. But he never specifically stated that such a ministration occurred, nor am I aware that he even inferred it. He did infer there was to be new revelation (from his reading in the book of Revelation), but the law requires that two or more witnesses are required. Even the two "prophets" in Revelation were to act in concert, and both were to be raised up in Jerusalem. Zachariah 4:14 mentions these two prophets as "olive trees" and the prophet is told they would be God's anointed ones. Revelation 11:4 picks up on Zachariah's prophecy and declares: "These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands standing before the God of the earth."

The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that these two prophets will appear in Jerusalem because when Judge Rutherford penned his founational doctrines, the state of Israel had not yet been formed. Now that it has, the JWs are locked into a theological world that does not include Israel or the temple. Logic and truth state that they perhaps should rewrite those foundational doctrines.

11

Jehovah's Organization: Is It the KINGDOM of Daniel 2?

by Cold Steel in

daniel interprets a dream in which he explains there will be four world empires -- the babylonians, the persians, the greeks (under alexander) and the romans, the last of which are symbolized by the belly and legs (eastern and western).

after that, he saw that the roman empire would fragment and ultimately become ten kingdoms, being partly iron and partly clay.

it was during these "kings" that "the god of heaven [shall] set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Cold Steel

Daniel interprets a dream in which he explains there will be four world empires -- the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks (under Alexander) and the Romans, the last of which are symbolized by the belly and legs (Eastern and Western). After that, he saw that the Roman Empire would fragment and ultimately become ten kingdoms, being partly iron and partly clay. It was during these "kings" that "the God of heaven [shall] set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."

If this kingdom was the Roman Catholic church, then why does it come in the days following the destruction of Rome, and if it's the Jehovah's Witnesses, then in what way is it not "left to other people"? In the Lord's prayer, Jesus prayed, "Thy kingdom come...." (a future event). Is this kingdom the Jehovah's Witnesses -- a kingdom that will last forever? The JWs speak of "manmade" religions, but I'm having a difficult time in seeing how they would fulfill this scripture.

I'm interested in what JW literature has to say about this scripture and its fulfillment, and how it might have changed over the years. The leaders of the JW movement seem to be ordinary men, not particularly different than the founders of other religions. What makes them different? Did any of them claim spiritual inspiration like Ellen G. White did? They seem pretty dogmatic, and when a group of men establish themselves as leaders, judges and ordained overseers, it sounds pretty presumptuous. Some have claimed they were "false prophets," but since (as far as I know) none of them actually made prophecies, I don't see how that term would apply. White seems to have come up with a very similar doctrine, the main difference being the Saturday-Sabbath thing. But she had visions of heaven and the "pearly gates" that sound almost comical by today's standards. Did both movements come from the Millerites? In many ways they seem similar.

I guess it's this whole "manmade" religion thing that seems so bizarre. How can anyone be sure what is manmade and what's not if the men themselves don't know. Did any of them have...a visitation or something? If not, then how do they know that their own church isn't manmade?

One other prophetic incident that interests me is the formation of Israel. In Isaiah 11:11, the prohet states: "And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea." At the time the Witnesses established their foundational doctrines, Judah had not gathered back into their ancestral homelands, so I understand why they would have had to develop an alternative eschatology. But now that Judah has gathered "the second time" from all over the world, their dogmatism has them locked in to that first eschatology. Yet the formation of Israel is a literal fulfillment of Isaiah 11 and many other scriptures (see also Zachariah 12 and 14).

Some Witnesses say that the legitimacy of their religion rests on the strength of their scriptural exegesis. In other words, if it's not us, then who? So what would happen if a bunch of people got together and called themselves The Church of Jehovah in Christ, and they adopted all the doctrines they liked from the Jehovah's Witnesses, but instead decided to wipe the proverbial slate clean and not have all these wrong dates and times hanging over them and other stuff that's hung over the JWs. And let's say they decided to interpret the gathering of Israel as a prophetic event and tweak a few of the more ridiculous things, like revamping the whole blood issue and maybe voting and the whole spirit/breath thing. (They could take a stand against eating blood in, say, blood pies and such, but allow blood transfusions, or not, as they deemed appropriate). Would the leaders of the said second church be equal in authority to those of the first group? If not, why not?

I was going to call this thread, "What's in a Kingdom?" but the gist is, what if the only difference in the two churches was how they viewed the gathering of Judah and everything else stayed the same? Instead of overseers, they could call the local leaders "bishops" and other tiny changes. Obviously the leaders of the WBTS wouldn't like it, but what claim to legitimacy would they have over the leaders of the second group? The Daniel 2 prophecy also would equally apply and people who are fed up with Group A might go to Group B.

Any ideas? What do you think?

11

Did you ever voice disagreement at the Watchtower study?

by MrMonroe in

it was only after leaving that i realised just how absurd and inaccurate many of the statements in the wt study really are.

the tag-team application of "this generation" is a classic example.. i'm interested to know if anyone who was in "good standing" actually did speak up at a meeting and challenge what's in the study.

what was the reaction?.

Cold Steel

Except for the timelines, has the WBTS ever admitted it was wrong in any doctrinal matter?

I recall when I attended theology courses in college that one professor spent an entire outline on the meanings of the various words (Hebrew, Greek, etc.) meaning "spirit." He brought up the notion that spirits "sleep" at death and acknowledged that a case can be made for the "soul sleeping" doctrine. Yes, he said, these words can mean "breath." Even the Latin spiritis means "breath" and is the word we get "spirit" from. After covering the theory, however, he then approached it from the other end where, yes, on the other hand, it can mean spirit, as in that ethereal, fine matter type of being that is said to exist independent of our bodies. He covered the verse in Ecclesiastes, which he acknowledged was not an eschatological work, and talked about Jesus preaching to the "spirits" in prison during the three days in which his body lay in the tomb. These spirits were those of the disobedient who lived during the days of Noah. (The Witnesses say they were the mythical "sons of God" who turned themselves into humans and fornicated with the "daughters of men." But then why would he preach to them, even if that view is correct? (And there's much to suggest that it's a Hebrew misunderstanding of scripture.) It didn't make sense. Then Peter speaks of being able to remove the body as if it were a garment.

The bottom line was that while cases can be made for various doctrines, most Bible scholars, having looked at both sides of the issue, have come down on the side of the body having a spirit which animates it. And though arguments can be made to the contrary, unless one can speak to God directly and ask Him, it's anyone's best guess. So what if some Witnesses come to contrary conclusions regarding doctrines that aren't definitively answered in scripture? My point is, even if the Witnesses are correct about doctrines such as the state of man's intelligence between death and resurrection, there's not enough evidence to call it conclusive. (Personally, I believe the spirit continues on and that it existed before mortality, but others may come to other conclusions.) What if additional books of Christian scripture were discovered in some monestary somewhere, or in a jar sealed away somewhere? And what if they conclusively proved that the early Christians believed that the spirit of man didn't sleep? Could, or would, the JW leadership have the guts to change their doctrine? Or are they forever glued to it?

23

The "identity" of the ONLY.....god

by Terry in

if there is only one of something (anything) it does not need to be separated from others of its kind since there simply aren't others.. if there is a real something and a true something (as opposed to a phoney or false) it stands alone unique and disambiguated.. .

that is the foundational problem with giving an only true god a "distinguishing" name.. if only one true god is living there is no chance of offending that god by cheating on him with imaginary "rivals".. .

imagine being jealous of your wife or husband pretending to have an affair with a non-existent rival!.

Cold Steel

Shelby, the question looming before all of this is, what is the connection between “gods” and spirits? If Jesus was perfected by going from a spirit to a resurrected being of flesh and bone, and if Man was created in the image of God, then why would God look, or appear, as a being who lived on a terrestrial world in an earthly environment? Jesus, who is in the “express image” of the Father, was resurrected a physical being and we’re told that we mortals, because of the Atonement, will also in like manner be resurrected.

Yes, I know the JWs believe that some will resurrect as spirits while some will come forth as physical beings, but this theology simply does not make sense to me. John says that when we see God, we will be “like Him,” for we shall see Him as He is. Witnesses say that since God is a spirit, that this must mean that some will resurrect as spirits. But the scriptures do not say God is a spirit; rather it says God is “spirit.” (They also say that “our God is a consuming fire,” but one must understand the context.) If God were to appear to a man, it would consume him unless, of course, the man were somehow changed, altered or transfigured as were Moses, Abraham and other prophets to whom God appeared anciently. God being “spirit” does not mean that God has to be an ethereal, eternal mist.

One scholar and theologian made the statement that if we could understand what kind of being Jesus was after the resurrection, we would understand what kind of being the Father was. Spirit is simply the “stuff” of heaven. Jesus, though He has a physical, resurrected body, is still spirit in nature, yet He is unimaginable in power and glory. And if children in the world to come are anything like children here, they become like their Father.

I’ve seen the drawings in the publications showing smiling people wearing all sorts of varying garments. One is playing a violin, while another is gathering apples and such. Do you really think that Jesus came simply to return mankind to Edenic status? How long could you be happy in a garden setting? Several days? A week? How about seven billion years??? — and that’s only the smallest iota of what we can imagine as an eternity.

When Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, there was no turning back. We became as God, knowing good and evil, and that changed everything from that moment forth. At that moment, Yahweh became man’s mediator between him and the Father, and Yahweh will remain mediator until He delivers the world, sanctified and redeemed, back to the Father. When Jesus told the Jews, “Before Abraham was, I Am,” he was telling them that He was Jehovah, the God of their Fathers, and the God of the whole Earth. And they understood exactly what He was saying, for they took up stones to kill Him, but He passed from their midst.

There is no angel who will not be born into mortality, nor is there any man who was not a “son of God” before the world was. When the disciples saw the blind man, they said, “Master, who did sin, this man or his parents that he was born blind?” One has to either believe in reincarnation, or one must accept the inevitable conclusion that the man existed and was capable of sinning before he was born. Many people who have near death experiences report feelings of returning home, and while the WBTS says these are hallucinations caused by drugs, I’ve experienced such hallucinations — and what those hallucinations lack is something experienced by many NDEs, and that is amazing continuity. (I took too much medicine one night years ago and my wife said I had seen oranges and pumpkins on TV, and I remember telling her that. But there was no continuity. Everything was a swirl, and everything was changing.)

But you’re correct in much of what you said.

The servant of God, but a slave to none!

23

The "identity" of the ONLY.....god

by Terry in

if there is only one of something (anything) it does not need to be separated from others of its kind since there simply aren't others.. if there is a real something and a true something (as opposed to a phoney or false) it stands alone unique and disambiguated.. .

that is the foundational problem with giving an only true god a "distinguishing" name.. if only one true god is living there is no chance of offending that god by cheating on him with imaginary "rivals".. .

imagine being jealous of your wife or husband pretending to have an affair with a non-existent rival!.

Cold Steel

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, but not all religions see things in strict monogomy. In the book of Genesis, Elohim said, "Man has become as one of Us" (knowing good from evil). Many said that was Satan's first lie, but Satan wasn't lying. When Elohim created the Heavens and the Earth, everything was a plurality. If one takes any number of words: family, quorum, congress, congregation -- all of these are singular. However, all of them also suggest a plurality. How many members does a family have? Or a quorum, congress, and so forth? The same with Elohim.

As I said in another thread, Margaret Barker has a book that touches on this entitled The Great Angel. In it she argues that the earliest Hebrews believed in a plurality in the heavens. Jehovah, or Yahweh, not only was the God of Israel, He was the Son of a higher God (Elyon) and was the preeminent son of numerous sons. Mormonism has taught similar things for years and shares a common belief with early cultures that before everyone came to Earth, there was a devine council in which the "sons of God" were called and ordained to their mortal callings. Barker herself is a Methodist and believes the reforms of Josiah supressed many of the teachings that the ancient Hebrews revered. Strict monotheism followed, but Barker says the traditions of Yahweh being a Son was completely surpressed.

So now strict monotheism (sort of) rules. But Islam doesn't buy into the Christian monotheism, for how can Jesus be God, and the Father be God, and the Holy Spirit be God? And yet all three are one God? The Jews also don't buy into it. But if the Jews understood their heritage, they might better understand the Christian concepts.

31

New Book: Jehovah is Jesus! Not Michael.

by Cold Steel in

dr. margaret barkers new book, the great angel: a study of israels second god, argues conclusively that yahweh, the god of israel, was not the father of jesus, but jesus christ himself.

furthermore, the belief that jehovah was gods (elyons) first son a tradition that went far back into israelite history.

it not only was known to the ancient prophets, but to the early christians and even the gnostics.

Cold Steel

Thanks, EoM.

The Jehovah's Witnesses based their entire belief system on not only the identity of Yahweh, but in their identification with Him as God. Many people then end up with a faulty belief system with trust in self appointed leaders. This will not result in their being rejected of God, but it will lead to a terrible misunderstanding of Diety. When one understands that Yahweh is the Mediator between Elyon and Man, one is more fully able to understand Jesus' role in our salvation and His interaction with the prophets. In other words, Jesus just didn't pop into the world as an incarnation of Michael (another son of God), but as an incarnation of Yahweh, Himself, as His name implies.

If the combined leadership of the WBTS cannot correctly ascertain the true nature of God, and if they do not have the benefit of the gifts of the Spirit, then they are not capable of leading the people than anyone else. Thus, it always bothers me to hear someone say, "Jehovah and His Son, Christ Jesus." Barker's scholarship bolsters the idea that Yahweh is Jesus, something the early Christians took as a matter of record. If Jesus was the one mediator between God and Man, then Yahweh must be that mediator, not Michael, the Prince of Angels. Jesus, it was said, had authority over all angels, and Zachariah and others indicated that it was Yahweh who would touch down on the Mount of Olives, and the Jews would see the wounds in his hands and feet. Also it was Yahweh who was "pierced," not Michael.

Both Yahweh and Jesus were the First and the Last. Both were to judge the nations. Jesus told the Jews, "Before Abraham was, I Am." The Jews knew just what he meant and took up stones to kill Him. In fact, the Septuigent uses the same term for "I Am" as it does in the New Testament. Jesus was clearly saying, "Before Abraham was I Jehovah."

31

New Book: Jehovah is Jesus! Not Michael.

by Cold Steel in

dr. margaret barkers new book, the great angel: a study of israels second god, argues conclusively that yahweh, the god of israel, was not the father of jesus, but jesus christ himself.

furthermore, the belief that jehovah was gods (elyons) first son a tradition that went far back into israelite history.

it not only was known to the ancient prophets, but to the early christians and even the gnostics.

Cold Steel

<<LORD in capitals is used every time the tetragrammaton appears in scripture. So this is really Yahweh/Jehovah (whatever translation you prefer) says to my Lord... So Yahweh/Jehovah tells David's Lord to sit at his right hand.>>

Actually, this is probably a mistranslation. The early Jews didn't understand this scripture, so they put the tetragrammaton on the first Lord. Since David's lord was Yahweh, we have to assume that the first Lord was the Father. The KJV reads: "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

In Matthew 22 we read:

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, "What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?"

They say unto him, "The son of David."

He saith unto them, "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, 'The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?' If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?" And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

It's quite clear that Jesus, or Yahweh, was David's lord. It could be that they used the tetragrammaton incorrectly since the Supreme Being here was the Lord of David's Lord. If you identify the first being as Jehovah, then who is David's Lord, identified with Jesus? The scripture makes no sense. It would imply a relationship with the Son that is nowhere else explained.

But that's not the only place. Jehovah is the First and the Last, so is Jesus. Jehovah is the judge of all the nations; so is Jesus (for the Father judges no man, see John 5:22). The Father only communicates with man to bear witness of the Son, no more, no less. It is the Son, or Yahweh, who conveys all knowledge to man.

26

Should we use the form Jehovah Today?

by wannabe in

known to the people you gave me.

" {john `17:25,26 ab} one outstanding thing should be notice right at the outset.

jesus had said that they did what the father had told them.

Cold Steel

The negative use of the name comes from the crass way that the JW community uses it.

When you listen to a JW read his scriptures, there is no beauty in the translation. Everything is rendered in its most basic components, as if the translation was done by people who don't have much experience in translation. The psalms, which are supposed to be flowing and soothing, are rigid and Spartan.

BTW, what's the official Bible called these days? We always called it the Green Dragon.

26

Should we use the form Jehovah Today?

by wannabe in

known to the people you gave me.

" {john `17:25,26 ab} one outstanding thing should be notice right at the outset.

jesus had said that they did what the father had told them.

Cold Steel

I think the term is overused, but since I'm convinced that Jesus is Jehovah, and that Jehovah is the Son of Elyon (God), I think you're wrong in assuming that Jesus' Father was Jehovah.

The early Christians knew this, and scholar Margaret Barker has written a book on this entitled The Great Angel. (See topic on this.) As stated there, Jesus as Yahweh was common knowledge. Psalms 110:1-2 states, "The Lord saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand til I make thine enemies thy footstool." David's Lord was Yahweh. So who was it asking Him to sit as His right hand? The early Christians associated David's Lord in this scripture as Yahweh. And before the reforms of King Josiah, Yahweh was considered a Son of Elyon/Elohim. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but regardless, the name Yahweh was sacred -- too sacred to say every other sentence. "Jehovah" is so far removed from the Holy Name that it's fairly meaningless to tout it as much as the JWs do. Jesus and Jehovah both are called "Lord" in holy writ. And as far as we know, no one knows what the name of the Father is. But when Adam sinned, the Father removed Himself from Man and introduced Yahweh as Mediator between Man and Himself. When Yahweh completely perfects the world and completes His work, He will present it back to the Father.

His name, however, is sacred, and the ancients believed, justifiably, that you don't go bantering the word about. Some Christians don't even type the full term "God," but instead type "G-d" so as to show respect. I'm familiar with all the scriptures talking about praising the name of God, but that's a literary term. It doesn't mean to use the term Yahweh every other sentence. The stilted translation of the scriptures that JWs use also turn many off because of its lack of beauty. "Discreet slave" is laughable to most. We will serve the Lord with all of our hearts, but we will not be slaves, neither do we believe God would have us as such, discreet or otherwise. Using the term "Jehovah" is anything but discreet if it's used with too much frequency. In other words, there's a happy medium -- a place between going into the Holy of Holies and uttering the name once a year, and using it twenty times in one paragraph!

So you raise a good point. Also, not to belabor the issue, but is there a reason to add "God" after Jehovah? When I hear anyone doing that, I know immediately that one of the slaves isn't being discreet! And for those who don't know, Spartacus was a slave; Peter was a servant.