Posts by Cold Steel

13

I'm so glad the anointed were 'demoted'.

by a watcher in

now they can mingle inconspicuously with the 'other sheep' without being 'made an example of' (for better or worse)..

Cold Steel

Taylor Caldwell wrote a book years ago entitled Devil's Advocate. It took place in the future when the United States was a dictatorship. After the civilian leadership proved to be incompetent and corrupt, the military took over. Using planned starvation and shortages, the American public was manipulated into "sacrificing" endlessly for one cause or another. The only priviledged class left were the farmers, who were allowed to have their homes and their servants as long as they kept production going.

Well, there's an underground group that's infiltrated the military, and their plans are to restore the U.S. Constitution and freedom, and the head military guy is a member of this group. He appoints a real go-getter, also a member of the secret Minute Men, to take over Section 8, which is a farming district. The idea is to work everone up to a state of rebellion by mistreating them, so he moves his men into a farmhouse and moves the farmers into subsidized housing with the servants. Well, the farmers are livid. They're big, have nice families, get respect and eat very well. He next decides (after a while) that they shouldn't eat the fat of the land while their fellow citizens eat rations, so he signs an executive order and with a stroke of his pen has them eating the equivilent of ready to eat meals. The only problem is, this makes him popular with the masses and he can't have that, so he begins to burden them more until he's hated and feared. Soon other section leaders are doing the same until, finally, at the end, everything blows. The top military guy is murdered in an uprising and now citizens are coming for the section leaders.

This thread reminded me of that story. Sounds like the faithful and wise servant (who actually is nothing but a metaphor in a parable) has decided they don't want to share the power. Oh, woe is me! Since the anointed class is actually just a myth and there aren't two classes, the so-called anointed will soon learn that they're no better or worse off than their earthbound buddies. In the Father's house there are many mansions, or degrees, and everyone will receive a physical resurrection, like Christ's.

The parable raises the question of whether the servant is good or evil. That's because the members of the church are the servants, not a group of leaders. Jesus was teaching of individual readiness. He's the bride's groom and the church is the bride. The members are the servants, some good, some ready, others evil and not ready. The faithful and wise servant is a member of the Christian church who is ready to receive the Savior. The feeding of the other servants is something every Christian should do, not just the Governors. If someone is needy, help them; if someone's hungry, feed them; if someone needs comforting after a loss (even a pet), comfort them and resist the urge to denigrate animals or the deceased. Giving the servants food isn't sitting around the table and coming up with creative doctrines to be shoved down the throats of the people.

It's also odd that this is the ONLY scripture the GB uses to get a blank check on limitless power and authority. Yangmask is right when he says that the elders and overseers might be in a state of apostasy. After all, they can rob someone of their friends and family, make their lives miserable, force them to believe outlandish things like not wanting to seek a higher education or that Armageddon is a worldwide battle. But it's their mess. If the anointed wanted to make a point, they'd get together, make the GB elected positions with term limits. Get the church behind you and appoint new ministers. But do it discreetly....

18

Bibles out of stock

by turtleturtle in

so i txt my in law who works at the printing facility in the us regarding why there were no bibles in so many congregations.

they never answered for either text.

i would say someting is going on with the nwt..

Cold Steel

What do you think they are, a publishing company?

BTW, how can I get one of their Bibles? Do they sell them?

Also, have they gone through any changes over the years or is it the same version they had back in the 70s?

6

John the BAPTISER vs John the BAPTIST - which do you prefer?

by PaintedToeNail in

i have always wondered why, as jw's, we would always say jt baptiser instead of jt baptist like everyone else.

it bugged me, so i refused to say it.

does anyone know why the wtbts uses the 'baptiser' moniker instead of the norm?.

Cold Steel

Or...how about John the Immerser, or John the Dipper? I like John the Baptist. As for why the JWs use some of the terms they do, I'm convinced because they prefer it that way. The New World Translation is an entire book of bad translation. Why "slaves" instead of "servants"? Why "discreet" instead of "wise"? They take the sublime and the profound out of everything, then they turn it into the pedestrian.

8

Signs of a Cult.. William Branham Cult

by tornapart in

this is very interesting, this guy was a cult member for 37 years.

replace 'william branham' for jw and you can see clearly what a cult really is.

he uses 10 points from steven hassan's book 'combatting cult mind control'.

Cold Steel

I'm not impressed. This guy was dumb enough to join a cult and he's going to tell me I'm a member of a cult because I'm a "Mormon"??

I can associate with whom I choose. I can question any aspect of my faith I choose. Mormons are encouraged to seek a higher education, we don't shun people or mistreat them; we don't believe that non-Mormons go to Hell, and because I believe in prophecies and a "cult leader," then I'm a member of a cult. Under his line of reasoning, first century Christianity would be a cult. Moses would be a cult leader, Jeremiah was a cult leader and Isaiah, too. So I suppose we can add Joseph Smith to the list.

Ah, but we do have question and answer books, God forbid! We aren't asked to not question, however, and now vast libraries of knowledge are available on computer disk, with all of our earliest records. We also have one of the finest apologetics people in the world. But others have apologetics as well, such as the Catholics, Methodists, Orthodox, Jews, and Muslims.

This guy can resort to name calling all he wants, but if one is going to make cults a source of study, they'll have to realize that the early Christians, by their own definitions, were just as much cultists as some of the others. After all, Christianity taught new doctrine, it had a cult leader who claimed to be the Messiah, he claimed to heal people, turn water into wine, be born of a virgin, raise the dead, appoint a group of other cult leaders who were completely dedicated to him; he was blasphemous, claiming not only to be the SON of God, but God Himself! He claimed authority the Jews said he didn't possess, and he was said to dabble in the occult. And most of his life was cloaked in secrecy. There were doctrines that those on the inside knew but which weren't to be taught to others, and when the Romans came down on the Holy City, he did not rise up and overthrow him, as the Messiah was supposed to. In fact, his "Kingdom" was not of this world (read: invisible).

In some ways, according to this fellow, Jesus pretty much defined cults.

So I suppose Mormons are in good company.

3

A knock-down argument against the WBTS interpretation of Daniel 7:13,14 to support 1914!

by yadda yadda 2 in

the watchtower society still officially teaches that daniel 2:44 is fulfilled in the future at armageddon while in the same breath asserting that daniel 7:13,14 was fulfilled in 1914. note the following paragraphs from chapter 10 of the "worship god" book, recently studied by all jehovah's witnesses:.

"3. learning about god's kingdom is of the greatest urgency now, as soon that kingdom will take action to change forever the rulership of this earth.

daniel 2:44 foretells: "in the days of those kings [governments now ruling] the god of heaven will set up a kingdom [in heaven] that will never be brought to ruin.

Cold Steel

When anyone quotes the New World Translation, I just cringe. The JW interpretation of scripture is bad enough, but it's like a group of Boy Scouts with a Hebrew-Greek-Aramaic lexicon translating the entire Bible. Even if I were a dedicated believer in the Society, the first thing I'd do is toss that abomination in the trash and use a respected and accurate translation!

Regarding the establishment of Yahweh's Kingdom in the last days, the Green Dragon "translates" it (as it appears above):

In the days of those kings [governments now ruling]the God of heaven will set up a kingdom [in heaven] that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people [humans will never again rule the earth]. It will crush and put an end to all these [present] kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite.

First, in the "days of those kings" refers to the individual nations that sprang up followed the fall of Rome. One can stretch it to our days if one wishes, but the period of time spans from about 1830 to our present time and presumably beyond. Next, it will be established by God and not man. In fact, the New International Version puts it this way:

In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.

One wonders why the translators of the Green Dragon uses the terms "never be brought to ruin" instead of "never be destroyed" as most other versions state. The original language actually uses the word "destroyed" and not "brought to ruin." True, "ruin" means "total destruction or disintigration," but "destroy" means to "tear down or break up, demolish." But the NWT states the kingdom would not be "brought to ruin." It's once removed in meaning from what it actually says. After that, the NWT says the kingdom will "not be passed on to any other people." But the original language doesn't say this. It says that it will not be "left to another people." In other words, the kingdom will not be run by "another people." Using the term "passed on" to any other people implies a transition of the kingdom that the original language doesn't say. Literally, the text states: "and its kingdom to another people is not left." The term "left" in this case is defined, "To cause or allow to be or remain in a specified state." This is completely different from being "passed on," which implies a "change" in remaining in a specified state. Finally, the NWT states that the kingdom will "stand to times indefinite." Literally, the text states, "standeth to an age," which is a way of saying "forever" or "without end." But "indefinite" means "unclear" or "vague"—without precise limits.

Let the readers compare the versions, but it's clear the translators of the Green Dragon have agendas in their "translations." If one cannot add or delete from the scriptures, can one change its meaning? How can the scriptures mean that humans no longer will rule the earth by this scripture? It may be true, but that's not what the scriptures say. And while these are parenthetical interpretations of scripture, the governments of God throughout the millennia have always included humans. And when Jesus becomes the King of Earth, it's not reasonable to think he will micromanage every detail of government. Wasn't the whole idea that the saints would reign with Christ?

It's not clear what the Society believes the Kingdom is. When Jesus returns, will he establish a kingdom or will he use the WBTS government now in existence? And when Daniel writes that "in the days of those kings," does he mean a future event or a past event? In short, is the Society that Kingdom or will Yahweh establish another kingdom?

--------------------------

What does Psalm 110:1-2 with 1914? And how does the Society know the Ancient of Days is "Jehovah God"? The Father God already has conferred "rulership and dignity and kingdom" upon Jesus after the fall of mankind, when he was made intercessor. Finally, why do the NWT translators insist on translating "everlasting" into "indefinitely lasting"? The first and most popular definition of "everlasting" is "eternal" or "neverending." Only the second definition refers to "continuing indefinitely or for a long period of time." If Daniel had meant "indefinitely" rather than "eternal," why didn't he say so?

34

Jehovah's Witnesses: Who's Your Mediator?

by Darth Rutherford in

is jesus your mediator?

were these men anointed christians?

... jesus christ, is not the mediator between jehovah god and all mankind.

Cold Steel

Another thing they miss is that the Father appointed Yahweh as the Intercessor between Himself and man. JWs have never understood that Jesus was the great I AM, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Methodist scholar Dr. Margaret Barker has written extensively on the ancient views of the Israelites regarding Yahweh and she notes that Jehovah was the son of El (Eloah or plural, Elohim). He was not the Father God, but a son of the Father God. This makes sense when one considers that if the Father dealt with prophets "face to face" as with Moses, there would have been no Intercessor. Barker's hypothesis is that Elohim is the "Most High God" and that Jehovah was considered one of his sons. There were 70 Sons that ruled the 70 nations, and Jehovah was the "God of Israel." Jesus' insistance that he was Jehovah is the claim that the Jews of his day considered most blasphemous. To claim to be the Messiah was one thing, but the Jews failed to understand the beliefs of their fathers, or to understand that his name would be "the Mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." (Isa. 9:6)

In this case, Jesus is not identified with the Father God, but the Father of the Nation, the Father of the Patriarchs, and the Father of Salvation. Potentates such as kings and the Roman Emporer (and later the popes) all were called "Father" or "Holy Father." And in the United States, we refer to the "founding fathers" and, in the case of Abraham Lincoln, "Father Abraham." Since Jesus is the King of Kings and the Lords of Lords, the Beginning and the End, he is rightfully called the "everlasting Father." So while he wasn't the Father he spoke of, he was "the Mighty God" and Immanuel means, "God with us."

This does not mean that because man has an intercessor, that God cannot also call prophets and apostles. Yahweh was man's intercessor in the days of the great exodus, and as one scholar noted:

As Moses recounted the events that occurred on Mount Sinai, he reiterated God's anger and displeasure over the Israelites' disobedience (Exodus 9:18–20, 22–23). At that time, Moses, as a type of Christ, interceded for the Israelites and through much prayer (forty days and nights according to the text–9:25), saved them from destruction (10:10).

And when Jesus rose from the dead, he gave Peter and the other apostles the Keys of the Kingdom, and did not disband the apostles. If the Governing Body wants to claim to be latter-day apostles ("sent ones"), they can. But they cannot rob the role and title of intercessor from Jesus/Yahweh. Jesus will remain the intercessor until the end of the Millennium, and following the final judgment and the final resurrection of man, and the glorification of the earth, he will present the earth to the Father and it will join His other creations, which number more than the grains of sand on the shore.

10

Never discuss politics and religion in polite company, WHY.

by jam in

i think we handle this pretty good here.

are not able to see the expression on ones face or sense.

ones blood boiling while discussing these topics.

Cold Steel

I've never much cared what people want to talk about as long as it's fit for polite company. Back in the 1800s, before there were radios or televisions, people talked about politics and religion, often without resorting to violence.

In the South, where we were all Methodists, quite often during "dinner" (dinner was at noon, and supper, a lighter meal, was at about 6 p.m., give or take a half hour), we would discuss what we'd heard in church and we commented and critiqued the pastor's sermon. We had lively conversations about how many persons were in the Trinity, whether they were physically one or three separate beings. The pastor seemed to feel that God was one, but manifested himself in three different ways. We didn't much agree with that, but thankfully, no one disfellowshiped us for disagreeing with the pastor! We also talked politics, but mostly we agreed on conservative family values. One big controversy was whether the Democrats had outlived their usefullness as a party and whether folks should split away from it and become Republicans. After all, it was the great Al Smith who declared the party had been betrayed by socialists, communists and fellow travelers.

This was back in the mid- to late- 60s. NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON was a bestselling book that convinced many of us that our way of life was under attack, and that there were those in government who wanted our youth to be bereft of religion, patriotism, virtue, integrity, education and intelligence—you know, like they are now. Such were sowing the seeds of destruction in the body politic and turning makers into takers. And as Karl Marx said, the best way to destroy a nation is to debauch its currency. All the old folks were still steamed over Truman firing MacArthur and that the Vietnam conflict was the very embodiment of Truman's foolish, inept and gullible globalist policies.

Other than that, we didn't much discuss much. We let in Jehovah's Witnesses, and my grandfather used to walk across the street and attend something called a "Kingdom Hall," since there were no other churches in walking distance. Although he enjoyed himself, he often came back shaking his head at some of their doctrines. He knew the Bible well and he was pretty sure they didn't.

Nowadays, when visiting my wife's socialist aunt, I just keep my Teaparty views to myself unless she asks me, then I'll state my view matter of factly. She now swears I've led away my wife into outer darkness.

110

Anthony Morris The 3rd Talks About Human Hot Dogs At Armageddon, There Will Be No Picnic For Survivors

by frankiespeakin in

watch out for armageddon it is going to be numbing to human sensibilities:.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=micq4iqrklm.

i guess he's thinkin jehovah's gonna roast them like a hot dogs burned to a charred ruination over a fire.

Cold Steel

Ah, yeah. Just scrape up some of your neighbors and
have 'em over fer' dinner!

38

I went to the DC!!!!

by DATA-DOG in

it sucked.

the co said that the term, " the truth " means " truthful understanding of the scriptures.

" he also said that the truth does not change.

Cold Steel

Badges? Badges?? They don't need no stinking badges!

38

I went to the DC!!!!

by DATA-DOG in

it sucked.

the co said that the term, " the truth " means " truthful understanding of the scriptures.

" he also said that the truth does not change.

Cold Steel

Yeah, they cover their tracks and tell you don't google "Jehovah's Witness"...

Really? How do they tell you not to do things like this? Is it just council or what?

There isn't one person in the history of all mankind that has ever not died.

Well, I've never died...not yet. And biblically, there are some who are reputed to have not died:

1. Enoch: Taken into heaven prior to the great flood.

2. Moses: Joshua said Moses died, but no one saw the body. Later, Satan was said to have entered
into a contest with Michael over the "body" of Moses. Was the contest over Moses' translation?

3. Elijah: Taken into a fiery chariot, he is reputed to be taken into heaven. Prophecy states that he will
return before the great and dreadfjul day of the Lord.

4. John: The apostles got into a snit because the word was getting around that John had been promised
life until Jesus' Second Coming. But Jesus reminded them that he never said John wouldn't die,
only that if he willed John to "tarry" on Earth to that time, what was that to them?