Posts by Cold Steel

31

DID JEHOVAH LIE ?

by Phizzy in

in view of this wt quote, and the july 15th 2013 wt:.

wt 09/15/2010.

" similarly today, a governing body composed of spirit-anointed christians contributes to the unity of the worldwide congregation.

Cold Steel

Those who do not believe that God uses the Watchtower as a means of communicating to with his people, or of not calling their attention to his prophecies, should study the Watchtower with thankfulness skepticism of heart and not give Jehovah God the Father and Christ Jesus all any of the honor and credit blame."

22

Interesting quote from July 15, 2013 Watchtower

by Rufus T. Firefly in

the article who really is the faithful and discreet slave in the july 15, 2013, watchtower contains a curious comment.

in paragraph 10 it is stated: "in recent decades, that slave has been closely identified with the governing body of jehovah's witnesses.".

can anyone tell me who in recent decades has closely identified that slave with the gb?

Rufus T. Firefly:The article Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave in the July 15, 2013, Watchtower contains a curious comment. In paragraph 10 it is stated: "In recent decades, that slave has been closely identified with the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses."

Can anyone tell me WHO in recent decades has closely identified that slave with the GB?

15

Question regarding Lucifer

by truthhurts13 in

if one of the meanings of the name lucifer, is morning star, can someone please explain to me the last line in revelation 22:16?.

.

Cold Steel

This is something that comes up every now and again and it's an excellent question.

LDS scholar Ben McGuire explains:

I am going to start off by saying that most of what appears on the Web link which you forwarded is nonsense. They give largely erroneous responses. While the Hebrew text is accurately noted, the quality of information goes downhill from there. Let me point out the major error, and then we can discuss the real meaning of the passage in Isaiah.
Jerome translates it as Lucifer in his Latin text–this, your article claims is the starting point for the connection between Lucifer and Satan.
Actually, Lucifer is first mentioned (under that name) in the writings of Origen (end of the second century) some two hundred years before Jerome puts it into his Latin text. Tertullian and others of the early fathers of the church also discuss Lucifer, so the connection between Lucifer and Satan was established some time prior to the end of the second century. Before the Latin text becomes widespread, however, the name Lucifer had a much more specific meaning. It was the name of Satan prior to his fall from glory. Origen explains that this is because prior to his fall, he was a being of light and thus it was an appropriate description of him. After his fall, Origen continues, he was no longer a being of light and became known as Satan.
The second point is that the scholarly community almost universally rejects the being identified as helel ben shahar in Isaiah 14 as being the king of Babylon directly. There is a figure in contemporary Canaanite religion which resembles Helel in Isaiah 14. That figure is ‘Athtar. At one point in Canaanite myth, ‘Athtar attempts to sit in the throne of Ba’al, the king of the gods. He fails in his attempt, and instead descends to the earth to rule there. ‘Athtar is known in southern Arabian inscriptions as Venus, or the Day Star. More than this though, is the account in Isaiah. The “stars of God” is a reference to the divine assembly–all of the divinities of heaven. The mount of the congregation in the sides of the north (in the original Hebrew) is equivalent to Canaanite phrases describing the dwelling place of Ba’al. So, in effect, we have in Isaiah a description of a divinity who wants to seize the throne of Ba’al and rule the heavens. Of course there are differences as well as similarities, but I find this argument to be fairly convincing myself.
While the Web-site article you reference tends to look at the literal meaning of the words, instead of examining them as names, it completely loses the rest of the context of the narrative. There is no basis in Isaiah’s charges as they would apply to the Babylonian king. It is primarily on the similarities between the Isaiah text, and text covering the Ba’al/’Athtar myth that this connection is drawn. (For bibliographic references and a description of the related scholarly arguments I recommend this article (the most recent on the subject that I am aware of): “The Mythological Provenance of Isa. XIV 12-15: A Reconsideration of the Ugaritic Material” by Michael S. Heiser, in Vetus Testamentum, 51/3 [2001], p. 354-369).
At the same time, this concept is, interestingly enough, seen in the New Testament. Jesus claims that he saw Satan “fall like lightning from heaven” and in John and Paul we find Satan described as the “God of this world.” It was these references (among others) that led the early fathers of the Christian church to conclude that Helel in Isaiah 14 was Lucifer and also Satan. The similarities between their beliefs, and what they saw in the Old Testament texts came together to form a lasting opinion. And when the Latin text named the being in Isaiah 14 as Lucifer, that tradition has been followed ever since.
Complete Text Here

24

researching polytheism of the Jews

by DeWandelaar in

i was researching the history of the jews and in wikipedia it is said that in origin the jews were polytheists by default and became monotheist in a later period of time.

i was not aware of this (neither do many others) and am therefore putting some of my findings here:.

first of all the obvious things.

Cold Steel

Genesis 1 is a fascinating issue and it shows that the earliest Hebrews believed there were other players in the creation. The Father (El or Elyon) is undoubtedly one of them; and Yahweh, the Son, was another. One of the problems with the Trinity is that it's limited to three beings, and scripture does not limit "God" to three.

If one takes singular nouns like family, quorum, club, crew...even church...all infer plurality. One may be a member of a family, but how many people can be in a family? There's no limit. The same thing with the other words, including church. How many members can a church have? Again, no limit. So that's when we look at God, in the plural form of Elohim, or Eloheim. How many members can a God have? If three, then why not thirty...or three hundred...or three million? We, many of us, assume three, but that's an assumption that cannot be backed up in scripture.

So the Hebrews can be said to be monotheistic in that they believe in "one" God, but how many members are there in a "God"?

Jews accuse modern Christians of being polytheists, and modern Christians accuse Mormons of being polytheists. Indeed, when modern trinitarians snidely deny being polytheists because they believe in three co-eternal, co-equal members, despite the fact that there are no scriptures that back this up. That's okay, the Muslims don't buy it, either. The Jehovah's Witnesses try to get out of it by playing word games, as usual. They say only one was a God, the one called Jehovah. Jesus was the son of God and thus not a God, and that the Holy Spirit is only the "active force" of the Father and not really an entity at all; so you have one God, one former angel and a nonentity governing the Universe.

23

Using the name Jehovah when praying

by Ding in

i know of number of jws who believe that if anyone doesn't address god as jehovah when praying that the prayer really goes to satan... especially if you pray to someone else (jesus, for example).. i haven't been able to find that specific teaching in wt literature.

they do say that we are to pray only to jehovah, but i haven't been able to locate a publication that says the prayer really goes to satan if you don't.. is there such a reference?.

.

Cold Steel

Ding: I know of number of JWs who believe that if anyone doesn't address God as Jehovah when praying that the prayer really goes to Satan...especially if you pray to someone else (Jesus, for example).

Well, since Jesus and Jehovah are the same being, that argument carries its own problems.

When man fell, the Father (El/Elyon) appointed man an intercessor, who was Christ. Known in his premortal status as "Yahweh," he became the intercessor between man and the Father. Jesus identified himself as the great I AM when he told the Jews, "Before Abraham was, I AM." The Jews became so enraged they sought to stone him for his impudence. But he passed through them undetected. At the conclusion of the Millennium, when the earth is glorified and redeemed and the judgment is complete, Jehovah will present it back to the Father and his role as intercessor and advocate will be at an end.

As one scholar writes: "This Nicene presupposition blurs an extremely important message of the New Testament; i.e., that it is not the Father who is Jehovah, but rather it is the Son who is the God of the Old Testament and who becomes incarnate. The unique Christian surprise is not that Jehovah has a son who is Jesus but rather that Jesus who is Jehovah has a Father."

The clues are all over the place in the Old Testament. Jehovah is the first and the last even as Jesus. Jehovah is the king of kings, as is Jesus. Jehovah will come to judge the nations, but John says that the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son. If a religion can't even get the Godhead right, how can they get anything else right.

An expample is that the law states that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. The JWs say the Holy Spirit is nothing but the "active force" of God. But the scriptures say that both the Father and the Spirit testified at Christ's baptism. If the Holy Spirit was not an entity who could testify, then how could Jesus have two who would testify of him? The Father spoke and the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove. These are two witnesses, but the JWs miss this important theological distiction.

Jesus prayed to the Father. Praying to Jehovah is like praying to the Son, so the Society has been praying to the wrong God.

31

Will Jehovah's Witnesses Populate Other Planets?

by God_Delusion in

hi guys,.

when i was growing up and pressured into having a bible study (although we didn't use the bible that much), i would ask my bible study conductor questions like:.

why are there so many other planets?.

Cold Steel

Julia Orwell: That sounds very Mormon. Now let's all write to Bethel about possible future other world habitation and watch the [new light] come out in a couple of years....

Yep, there’s a reason for that. In the early 1800s, they were about the only people really talking about it. It’s amazing what we’ve learned in just the last hundred years. In 1917, Lord Earnest Rutherford (no relation) split the atom, not knowing what significance that would play in ensuing years. We also used to think that the Universe was just a big conglomerate of stars and planets. But then someone looked at a “fuzzy” star one clear night through a telescope and it turned out to be a galaxy, then, before we knew it we realized all those other fuzzy stars turned out to be galaxies as well. Then, before anyone knew it, we were discovering the whole relativity thing, massive stars millions of times larger and denser than our own sun, black holes, dark matter, anti-matter, worm holes, and then we began defining the intricacies of quantum physics. Now, with the CERN particle accelerator in Geneva, we’re discovering some pretty amazing things bearing out the famous apperception of the Firesign Theater: “How can you be in two places at once when you’re not anywhere at all?”

Ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

31

Will Jehovah's Witnesses Populate Other Planets?

by God_Delusion in

hi guys,.

when i was growing up and pressured into having a bible study (although we didn't use the bible that much), i would ask my bible study conductor questions like:.

why are there so many other planets?.

Cold Steel

I suspect if I were a JW, that I would certainly hope there was something beyond this mess of a planet. Why not want to launch out into the Universe and learn its mysteries? I suspect one of the first things JW cosmonauts would learn after inertia dampners and wormholes would be the trilions of occupied planets and worlds that existed in this Universe, not to mention the millions of universes that surround our Universe. And on each world, man would be in the image of God.

Or not...who knows?

32

Need Advice On Shunning My Dying Dad, Please Advise!

by AuntConnie in

dear jwn,.

when i was out in field service yesterday i was approached by some sisters asking me how my dying dad was doing.

i said "i try not to visit him, you will have to ask him yourself.

Cold Steel

AuntConnie: How can I shun him, my religion allows me to judge him as worthy for Gahanna so my brain put's him in a category of Apostate, that way I can allow my "eighty year old" Mum to juggle him while I SHINE FIELD SERVICE! AM I BAD?

In my view, ritual shunning is one of the most repugnant practices of the Jehovah's Witnesses. One can understand your resentments in life, but you’re not the judge of anyone. The Lord states, “I the Lord will forgive whom I will forgive. But of you it is required to forgive all men.”

In the scriptures, the original twelve apostles were told that they would be the judges of the twelve tribes of Israel. Jehovah, in the Old Testament, is said that he will come forth to judge the nations; yet in the New Testament, John says categorically that “the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son.” (John 5:22)

The reason we’re cautioned against judgment ourselves is that we don’t have the power to see into peoples’ hearts. It’s easy for us to make mistakes. We’re also told in the scriptures that we will be judged with the tolerance that we judge others, the idea being that mercy is a two-way street. Not only must we forgive others; we must forgive ourselves.

My dad is not disfellowshiped, he has been unable to attended meetings since his cancer spread into his liver. I have not been to see him because I do not like him anymore. He's all "dried up and shriveled up" I was told by a elder who visited him a few weeks ago.

Your statement about not liking him anymore is an issue I don’t understand. Did he destroy his liver by alcoholism? Did he bring all his troubles on himself, and then to you and your family?

Why the animosity? It sounds to me like you’re letting the Jehovah's Witnesses influence you in ways that are contrary to the will of God. There are many other religions out there that offer counseling services and if you find yourself conflicted in your feelings, find out what other religious groups say. Remember, the Jehovah's Witnesses are just another manmade religion with no special powers or discernments. I’m not saying that to be contrary, but because if the Governing Body had a special relationship with God, wouldn’t they know it? And wouldn’t God imbue it with power and authority from On High? Most people who get caught between the Organization and their families are being victimized by the Society.

14

In Revelation, why is one verse to be taken literally and the other figuratively?

by I_love_Jeff in

why is the great crowd in rev.7:9, standing before the throne mind you, to be taken figuratively and on earth if the same description (before the throne) in rev.

14:3 is used in a literal sense and in heaven?.

rev.

Cold Steel

I've never understood how the scripture can say "tribes of Israel" and yet interpret it as "Jehovah's Witnesses."

The JWs don't understand that the earth will be redeemed just as man is redeemed. It will beautiful and garden-like during the Millennium, then it will undergo a glorious change and become like the sun. Those who inherit the earth will be those who are resurrected after Christ's resurrection. Paul says there are many glories and that in the resurrection there will be three major glories like the sun, moon, and stars; and then he adds that even stars differ in glory. "So also is the resurrection of the dead," he writes. (1 Cor. 15)

Thank goodness that no one will be faced with spending eternity is some stinking garden eating veggie burgers and having family reunions and base jumping (boring when you can't die).

But others put it better. When you run a church, you get to interpret the scriptures the way you want. The Governing Body has systematically excluded from leadership everyone but...well...them. At first it was Charles Russell and Joseph Rutherford, then it was the anointed class, then it was the anointed class under the GB. Now it's just the GB. If you don't agree with them, then you're out, shunned by family and friends. All this with not an ounce of apostolic authority. And if the GB doesn't have the apostolic authority to bind in both heaven and earth, they have no power over you. They can disfellowship you, but they can't excommunicate you (as in nullifying your baptism or cutting you off from salvation). The apostles will judge Israel, and Yahweh will recognize their actions because they had the keys of authority. But the GB has no such authority. You can't even get in trouble for not shunning your family or friends! Again, if the GB can't bind in Heaven and on Earth, they cannot harm you.

So you active JWs...stop giving them power over you that they don't have. Stop giving your money and your time and the GB will feel the heat and see the light. They teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.

268

After 2000 years since JC was executed ,why have we heard not a whisper from GOD ALMIGHTY ?

by smiddy in

he/she had no problem talking to adam and eve ,though they were sinners in his/her sight .throughout the hebrew sriptures, ot, he /she had no problem communicating with fallen man ,imperfect humans , to dictate his will to his subjects by means of prophets , male and female ,according to the bible , the old testament ,the hebrew scriptures , god communicated not once ,not twice ,not even thrice ,but dozens of times during the first 4000 years of human history according to the bible.. why has this god been so silent these past 2000 years ,when their have been atrocities above the scale of anything that has ever been seen these past 6000 years of human existence .. oh you may say that the atrocities were not committed by god they were committed by man.

fair enough .but god intervened in human affairs in such smaller infringements.

with prophets or so the bible says.. the so called apostacy after the last of the apostles , the influence of satan in the world ,( or was that after 1914 ,) and the 2000 year gap when christ was supposed to return ,never mind about all the crap that went before it .. the fact remains we have never heard from god ,any god, or even" a " god, with either his/her approval or disapproval of events good or bad these past 2000 years... smiddy.

Cold Steel

mP:SO when are you going to apologise for using the TF as proof of Jesus? is it honest to quote this knowing it is likely a fraud, without mentioning this fact?

You are a class act, mP. You presumably read every word I said and I never used Josephus as an evidence of Christ. I simply said that many scholars believed the TF was tampered with, not completely fabricated. I doubt you’ve read Josephus as extensively as I have and suspect your opinions are based on those you’ve read from other sites. You’re inability to grasp even simple arguments and address them is another indication that I’m dealing with someone who isn’t out of high school. In all likelihood I was reading Josephus before you were born. And if you’re a former Jehovah's Witness, I can remove a few more years from your education. So if I’m right and you’re at that point of your life, you need to pontificate less and read more.

DeWandelaar:...there are too many uncertainties about the origins of the writings/writers and the inconsistencies that are found in these scriptures are enormous. Trying to convince me by referring to the bible or to biblical figures or saying things like “The bible says...” or “The book of Mormon says...” are useless because for me it holds no authority.

I thought we were talking about what it would take for you to be converted. I’m not aware of trying to convince you through appeal to scriptures. Perhaps you confused my responses to others as to yourself. Also, when you ask questions as to why you should believe a book written in other languages and so forth, of course I’m going to respond using the scriptures because that answers the questions you put to me, assuming they’re not rhetorical questions.

So you’re refusal to answer my question about conversion backs up my earlier observation that even if God were to reveal himself to man with no room for doubt, there would be many people who would not be converted. You said such a display would make you believe, but from your response I strongly doubt you would be converted.

And that’s why God doesn’t do it. If he did reveal himself with no question and you refused to change your life and your heart, accordingly, your condemnation would be sure. By choosing to remain ignorant, or in a state of disbelief, you can’t be condemned under the laws of justice as you would if you knew and then refused obedience to God. And there are many people like you who don’t know if there’s a God and they don’t care. They just want to live their lives and be left alone.

Qcmbr: Oh Cold, your belief in these miracle stories, sans evidence, is the cost of faith.

On this we agree, Qcmbr. I have tremendous faith in the stories that come down to us through people like Wilford Woodruff and others. For example, he relates the story of a former LDS fellow, turned anti-Mormon, who attacked him as he left the man’s home. According to Woodruff, the man was struck dead on the spot and Woodruff spoke of that experience for the rest of his life. So yes, I believe these things happened. As for the casting out of devils, how many people with severe emotionally disturbed disorders are possessed? We don’t know. You can say they’re all suffering from psychological disorders, but how do you know? You mention your own experience and now you dismiss it.

Daniel C. Peterson, in his paper, Secular Anti-Mormonism, relates a story of his own:

Many years ago, as a missionary in Switzerland, another elder and I met a woman at the door while we were tracting. When we told her that we represented The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, she smiled quite oddly and, even more oddly by Swiss standards, invited us in. She immediately fetched her husband, and asked us to tell him the name of the Church that we represented. He too smiled oddly when he heard it, and I began to wonder what sort of people we had found. But then he explained that he was a Yugoslavian-born physician who had once been a Melchizedek Priesthood holder in our Church. And he told us a story that, I confess, I have never checked since; I may have some of the details wrong, but the gist of it is as follows:
Decades before, he had served as a counselor to a priesthood leader in his native country as the communists were consolidating their power there. Several times, he said, this priesthood leader had dreams warning him that members of his congregation needed to flee because the secret police would soon be coming for them. And the man was right every time. However, the former counselor, with whom I was speaking, had eventually made his way to medical school in Switzerland, where his studies had taught him that revelation was an illusion. But how, I asked, did he account for his former priesthood leader’s remarkably accurate record of forecasting visits from the secret police, a record of which I knew (and know) nothing but what he had told me? “Brain chemistry and chance,” he replied. There was, in other words, no substantial or necessary link between the various brain states of the priesthood leader and external events. That they coincided was just sheer good luck for those who thereby escaped the clutches of the commissars. (I might add that the German missionary with whom I was working that particular day, a converted German merchant sailor who was, to put it mildly, plain spoken, thereupon asked if he could visit the home again with his tape recorder, because, he said, this man furnished an unforgettable specimen of how Satan deceives people. Visibly surprised by such bluntness, the man agreed that he could return.)

Peterson adds, “If there were powerful arguments compelling us to forsake religious belief, and if there were no persuasive arguments for such belief, we might feel ourselves obliged to accept what I, at least, regard as the bleakness of the secular, naturalistic worldview. But we are not so compelled, and there are persuasive arguments for belief. The question is at the very least equally balanced. And in such a situation, as William James brilliantly argued against W.K. Clifford, religious belief represents a rational choice.”

Skepticism, at the price of faith, is a poor trade-off in my view. Perhaps one day you will see that.