so it is now widely known that bro russell got most most of his teachings from the adventists but the society says" jehovah blessed the bible students" .
why then are there now 17 million adventists and only 7 million jw's?.
NowWhat: ...why then are there now 17 million Adventists and only 7 million JWs?
It's questions like that that are going to keep you from being a popular guest at your local Kingdom Hall!
When I heard that Jesus had inspected all the religions on the earth and had chosen the WTBTS, it was then that I knew they had an inside man in Heaven who was snooping for them. Who do you suppose it was who snitched?
Wait...you don't think they MADE IT UP, do you?
Boy, do I feel dumb!
DATA-DOG: So Moses spoke for God, right? A prophet is someone who speaks for God and relays his messages and commands. According to many commentaries, prophesying does not always involve predictions of future events. So you can be a prophet by just telling someone what God says, or what God wants them to do, right?
Absolutely. Moses often came down from the mount to instruct the Lord’s people. He made numerous prophecies during his time, but most of the time he was the Lord’s agent in conveying the will of him who sent him.
So what happened at Meribah? YHWH gave Moses a specific command, but Moses became angry and only followed some of YHWH's commands. Moses also claimed credit for God's miracle. So did Moses "prophesy" falsely in this instance?
Moses lived until he was a hundred and twenty years old and many of those years were spent representing the Lord and speaking to him face to face. Even as the recalcitrant Israelites were slipping back into idol worship at Sinai’s base, Moses was receiving detailed revelations from the Lord. In fact, he was interrupted in the middle of his meeting when Yahwah commanded him to get back down and take care of the problem.
My point is that he spent a great deal of time identifying with the Lord, even more than his own people, so no, I don’t believe Meribah had anything to do with Moses’ untimely departure. Meribah means “chiding” and is the place where Moses chided Israel for their disbelief. He may have been a bit presumptuous, but it was nothing that couldn’t have been settled with a mild rebuke. He certainly didn’t prophesy falsely.
One of Moses’ scribes subsequently wrote: “So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. And...when he died, his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.” (Deut. 34)
The truth is, no one even knew whether Moses died or not. Jude tells us that the angel Michael entered into a “bitter” dispute with Satan over Moses’ body. This hardly makes sense if Moses just died and was buried. Nevertheless, whatever happened, the Lord rebuked Satan, and whatever it was that Satan objected to happened.
Josephus writes of Moses’ final moments with the people:
He withdrew among the tears of the people; the women beating their breasts, and the children giving way to uncontrollable wailing. At a certain point in his ascent he made a sign to the weeping multitude to advance no farther, taking with him only the elders, the High Priest Eleazar, and the general, Joshua. (Antiquities of the Jews, VI:8:48)
According to Josephus, Moses “dismissed the elders, and then, as he was embracing Eleazar and Joshua, and still speaking to them, a cloud suddenly stood over him and he vanished in a deep valley.”
So according to Jewish scripture and tradition, the fate of Moses was not really witnesses. Is there any reason to think Moses might have been taken in the same way Elijah and Enoch were? In my view, yes. Not only did Satan “bitterly” oppose whatever happened to Moses’ body, but Moses appeared with Elijah on the mount of transfiguration in Jesus’ day. This appearance was for a purpose, but it’s not revealed in the New Testament scriptures.
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?.
.
mP: there are many scriptures that back this up. The bible is simply astrotheology, where nature is worshipped and given silly stories. All cultures in the ancient world did it.
And where do you find this?
If the Bible is “simply astrotheology,” what about the complexities and wisdom in its law? In a land full of ignorance, evil and gross wickedness, including sexual depravities and bloodshed, how is it that a religion emerges based on righteousness, honesty, integrity, virtue, kindness, justice, mercy and sophistication? It just popped out of a desert culture and, in the case of the Israelites under the thumb of the Egyptians, it blossomed forth from an uncouth, uneducated, servantile people? I’d find that highly unlikely.
This foundation of justice, mercy and righteousness wasn’t just a flash in the pan, either. It is found in the writings of Hebrew prophets throughout the generations. My point is that desert rats don’t just produce ideas and concepts that rival and even surpass the writings of the greatest of Greek philosophers. I don’t see it just popping out of nothing. Hebrew law influenced other great laws, including those of freedom found in Western Roman Law, the views of individual rights held sacred by the Greeks and Anglo-Saxons. So blow it off on “astrotheology” (whatever that is); but it doesn’t explain the consistency in the law emanating, allegedly, from the Hebrew deity Yahweh.
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.
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."
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?
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?.
.
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.
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.
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.
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?.
.
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.
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?.
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.
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?.
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?
