Posts by Cold Steel

22

Watchtower admonitions against unofficial pro-JW websites

by Londo111 in

a friend of mine asked, "do you recall a watchtower or km that said the jw's are not suppose to read, or post information in defense of the watchtower on their own personal website or anyone elses website?".

of course, there is the july 15, 2011 watchtower: what is involved in avoiding false teachers?

we do not receive them into our homes or greet them.

Cold Steel

The One TRUE Website.

"I am the way, the truth and the light. No man cometh unto the Father except through my website."

22

Watchtower admonitions against unofficial pro-JW websites

by Londo111 in

a friend of mine asked, "do you recall a watchtower or km that said the jw's are not suppose to read, or post information in defense of the watchtower on their own personal website or anyone elses website?".

of course, there is the july 15, 2011 watchtower: what is involved in avoiding false teachers?

we do not receive them into our homes or greet them.

Cold Steel

The power or influence that keeps members of the Society from reading other religious views other than their own is one of the most crucial to maintaining the Organization.

The position of the Governing Body against competing views (even those favorable to the Outfit) is crucial to the integrity of the chain of command. It wasn't too long ago that the anointed were the "faithful and discreet slave." Now, everyone but the GB is "indiscreet." My how times have changed!

But what of Luke 9:

And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devisl in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. (vvs. 49-50)

Did Jesus warn his disciples correctly or does the Governing Body's advice make more sense?

Noticeably, there have been a number of individuals who have created Web sites ostensibly to preach the good news. Many of these sites are sponsored by indiscreet brothers. Other sites may be sponsored by apostates who wish to lure unsuspecting ones.

Any intelligent person could most likely spot an anti-JW site inside of 5 or 10 minutes and could simply bail out if they wished. But whose welfare is the Governing Body most concerned about? And do they make it a disciplinary issue when one reads the religious tracts of other religions? Isn't the greatest of all God's principles that of free agency? Of choosing good over evil?

Yet, as Londo pointed out, that's not the way the GB sees it:

What is involved in avoiding false teachers? We do not receive them into our homes or greet them. Wealso refuse to read their literature, watch TV programs that feature them, examine their Web sites, or add our comments to their blogs. Why do we take such a firm stand? Because of love. We love “the God of truth,” so we are not interested in twisted teachings that contradict his word of truth.

Watchtower, July 15, 2011

As Mark Twain pointed out, only editors and people with tapeworm should use the term "we." Apparently even those among the so-called anointed class is no longer included in the "we" of leadership. Regardless, it seems their tone is patronizing to say the least. But what is most troublesome is the way many JWs fear their own leaders and the disciplinary action that can be meted out.

.

55

Marriage In The New World

by Cold Steel in

okay, here's the issue.

some people, even some jws, believe that in the new world they will be reunited with their spouses.

jesus, however, said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage.

Cold Steel

Sir82: Seriously, do you think you are going to have success preaching Mormonism on an ex-JW board?

Well, I try not to let Mormonism get in the way of good old fashioned first century Christianity, but they're so closely related that it's difficult. Mormonism, so called, is comprised of both biblical exegesis and NEW revelation, which is not found in the Bible. Like the ancient Christians, we believe we have ministerial authority and the ancient keys of binding both in Heaven and on Earth. We have a quorum of twelve apostles, as did the ancient church, and an open canon. (The idea of drawing a line and telling the Lord that He can reveal nothing more doesn't make much sense to us.)

But people always have their free agency and, unlike other faiths, we don't condemn all non-Mormons to Hell, or deny them a resurrection; neither do we promote shunning, which is a Godless practice, or the learning about other religions.

When I do go into Mormon doctrine, I always explain that they are my own views or those of the LDS faith (which is frequently challenged here). I don't mind, however, and people are always free to believe what they wish. But, you know what they say about opinions....

55

Marriage In The New World

by Cold Steel in

okay, here's the issue.

some people, even some jws, believe that in the new world they will be reunited with their spouses.

jesus, however, said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage.

Cold Steel

Apognophos: Adam and Eve won't get a resurrection (so they teach) because they were perfect when they sinned, thus they have no excuse. Being perfect, they were not in need of a ransom and thus it does not apply to them. Judas, of course, sinned against the holy spirit.

Yes, Judas was called the “son of perdition,” but even he will be resurrected because both the righteous and the wicked are resurrected. Actually, I was surprised you didn’t mention Cain, another son of perdition.

The Ethiopic book of 1 Adam and Eve states:

And to the north of the garden there is a sea of water, clear and pure to the taste, like unto nothing else; so that, through the clearness thereof, one may look into the depths of the earth. And when a man washes himself in it, becomes clean of the cleanness thereof, and white of its whiteness-even if he were dark. And God created that sea of His own good pleasure, for He knew what would come of the man He should make; so that after he had left the garden, on account of his transgression, men should be born in the earth, from among whom righteous ones should die, whose souls God would raise at the last day; when they should return to their flesh; should bathe in the water of that sea, and all of them repent of their sins. —1 Adam & Eve 1:2-4

We know that the Jews had many cleansing rites and baptisms in their day, and that baptism was known well before the time of Christ. This is why John baptizing people in the Jordan River was not treated as anything new by the gospel writers.

The pseudepigraphal Apocalypse of Moses 37:3 states that when Adam died, “one of the six-winged seraphim came and carried Adam off to the Lake of Acheron and washed him three times in the presence of God.” He was then conducted to the third heaven (vss. 5-6)

The Jewish sage Ben Sira wrote that “Shem and Seth were honored among men, but Adam is above every living being in the creation.” (Ecclesiasticus 49.16;(68)).

According to the scriptures, Adam lived a little more than 900 years. During that period, he raised up many righteous seed. He taught them the ways of the Lord. One scholar writes:

In the Apocalypse of Adam, the first couple are visited by three angels who awaken him and teach them about their origins and give them knowledge of the practice of baptism. Adam later passes on this knowledge to his son Seth and their descendants. These three angels are also found in the Mandaean Adam and Eve stories, where Manda dHaiye, a kind of angelic Redeemer figure, sends three kingly angelic messengers, called “uthras” to teach Adam and Eve the rituals which are necessary for this life and which will help them to ascend back to the place where God the “Great Life” dwells. Kurt Rudolph notes that the fundamental mission of these messengers of light to “instruct the faithful and redeem their souls.” (Source)

According to the Jewish book of Jubilees, “And on the day when Adam went out of the garden of Eden he offered a sweet-smelling sacrifice-frankincense, galbanum, stacte, and spices.” If Adam was to suffer annihilation at the command of Jehovah, why would all these traditions have Adam teaching his posterity the ways of righteousness and offering sacrifice? Was not Yahweh communicating with Adam as he did later prophets? Certainly if their parents were damned to this fate, how could Seth and Adam’s other children come to love God? Or did they shun Adam for 900 years?

Anyway, I’m stunned. There are other traditions of both Adam and Eve’s baptism and Satan’s efforts to prevent it. Again, these are traditions and not part of the canon, but usually traditions contain some truth, and if one uses common sense, one would have to realize that both Adam and Eve would have to know their own fates and that they would become part of tradition.

Shanagirl: Since that is a fleshly and organic point of view, and our spirit will return back to God, obviously there are other abodes to look forward to in the Father's Kingdom that is not fleshly or earthly.

Don’t fall for the old notion that everything that is “fleshly” is bad, as the Gnostics used to teach. Actually, there’s quite a bit of evidence that our spirits gaining a physical, resurrected and glorified physical body like Christ’s will be a significant upgrade. According to some traditions, spirits cannot efficiently channel energy, or “glory” as some put it. A perfected and immortal physical body will have all the advantages of being a spirit, plus significant advantages that we don’t yet fully understand. Recall that Jesus was resurrected a physical being and he made it quite clear he wasn’t a spirit, “for a spirit hath not flesh and blood as ye see me have.” So how did he pass through doors and ceilings? Also, after his resurrection, Jesus was able to appear while containing all of his glory, as a regular person who could eat and teach. Yet John, on Patmos, saw him appear in spectacular glory. If we, God’s children, can be resurrected in the same manner, we, as co-heirs of Christ, can span the Universe as beings of energy and visit the various creations of God, adapting ourselves at will to whatever environment we wish; and this wouldn’t be possible for a spirit.

Patrick45: Consider this part of Luke's rendering :"but those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead." How could one be counted worthy of gaining a resurrection if everybody is going to be raised to everlasting life?

Check out I Corinthians 15. Paul teaches that there are many different resurrections, as different as the sun, moon and stars. For each of these differ in glory, and even the stars aren’t of the same glory. So, he said, is the resurrection of the dead. In fact, I recommend you read that chapter several times, as it’s the best teaching of the resurrection in the Bible, in my view.

“For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (vss. 21-22) But, he adds, “But every man in his own order.”

All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. (vss. 39-42)

So everyone will be raised from the dead. Furthermore, death and hell will both be destroyed. But some will have to pass through both. All men die, and the wicked will be subject to hell. But far from being a burning torment that lasts forever, it’s a torment of limited duration. God doesn’t create places of torture; it’s not in his nature. But man can torment himself, and often he’s his own worst accuser. There are some who have near death experiences who report that forgiving themselves for the horrible things that they’ve done is the worst torture they go through, and some find it impossible without outside help. But everyone will ultimately be raised, as Jesus died for all men.

.

55

Marriage In The New World

by Cold Steel in

okay, here's the issue.

some people, even some jws, believe that in the new world they will be reunited with their spouses.

jesus, however, said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage.

Cold Steel

Splash: BTW, Adam and Eve don't get a resurrection.

Hmmm...that’s a new one on me. Is this Jehovah's Witness doctrine? And why would they be denied a resurrection? Did not Jesus’ atonement cover their transgression?

One problem I’d have with this belief is that Adam and Eve didn’t just stop worshiping God when they were expelled from the Garden, but continued to have children and teach them the ways of God. It would be inconceivable to me that they would be denied life in the resurrection. After all, they fell so that man could grow and progress, knowing the difference between good and evil, which is an attribute of God that has been passed down through the human race. The apostle Paul teaches that “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”

It seems that what Paul was getting at is that yes, Eve sinned, but that she and her posterity could be saved by living God’s commandments.

Carroline77: Those who are resurrected will be like the angels, who are a higher form of life. They do not have animal nature.

My own view is that angels are simply people. Some are people who haven’t yet been born; others are people who have passed through mortality but have not as yet been resurrected. And still others may be mortal (as the word “angels” simply means “sent ones”). John, on Patmos, falls at the feet of an angel he mistakes as his risen Lord. The angel gently rebukes him and helps him to his feet telling him he must not do that. “I am thy fellow servant,” the angel explained, “and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book.” (Rev. 22:9) And David wrote, “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.” (Psalm 8)

According to the original text, the word for “angels” is “elohim,” which means “gods.” Translators, understandably, were uncomfortable with this rendition; however, Jesus stunned the Jews by quoting the law:

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? —John 10:31-36

According to the scriptures, God made man in his own image, and John wrote of Jesus:

...whom [the Father] hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. —Hebrews 1:2-3

If Jesus was resurrected with a tangible body of flesh and bone, as the apostles tell us, and John adds that Jesus is in the “brightness” of the Father’s glory, and the “express image” of the Father’s person, then it appears that Jesus became, in the resurrection, very much like his Father. And if what John teaches us about the faithful saints of God becoming “joint heirs” with Jesus, our potential appears to be virtually limitless. For years in my youth, I was taught that God was a being who was everywhere present, and that he was without form, being neither male nor female. The idea of a Father or Son was strictly metaphor designed to help us understand them.

The idea that Jesus and his apostles and prophets seem to be teaching is that men can become like their fathers in every sense of the word. When we are infants, we have the potential of becoming like our earthly parents, so as Paul teaches, “we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ....” (Romans 8:16-17) If we are joint heirs with Christ, we have, then, potential that is as yet completely unrealized by Jehovah's Witnesses, most of whom think the only thing they are going to inherit is a garden paradise. But if God really is our Father, and we his children, doesn't it stand to reason we would resemble each other, and that we could become like him?

Remember, too, that marriage was instituted by God, and that it was instituted before death came into the world. So in the world to come, is it any better or worse that man should be alone? And why should anyone assume that we end up in the next world as sexless heavenly entities? And will it apply to the “great crowd” who gets to spend the next centillion years getting to know their beautiful garden paradise? (I’d like to see a photo of that!)

55

Marriage In The New World

by Cold Steel in

okay, here's the issue.

some people, even some jws, believe that in the new world they will be reunited with their spouses.

jesus, however, said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage.

Cold Steel

Okay, here's the issue. Some people, even some JWs, believe that in the new world they will be reunited with their spouses. Jesus, however, said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage. That seems to settle the situation, doesn't it? Everyone will live separately and singly in the world to come.

Here's the rub. When the Lord created man and placed him in the Garden of Eden, he said what? That it's not good for man to be alone. So he created the woman and commanded them to be fruitful and to inhabit the earth. And since both Adam and Eve were not susceptible to death, their marriage, in essence, was to be eternal.

When Adam and Eve are resurrected, will they not be married? And if it's not good for man to be alone, then what?

Jesus said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage. But he didn't say anything about marriages performed before the resurrection, but simply that once someone was resurrected, there would be no marriage for them. In other words, once you've been raised from the dead, you cannot then decide to tie the proverbial knot.

How do you think this all will work out?

43

Jesus sacrifice and animal sacrifice contradiction

by trackregister99 in

romans 3:25 says that jesus sacrifice was applied to the past for sins forgives.. then why god request animals sacrifice like "shadow of the good things to come" (hebrews 10:1) if the jesus sacrifice forgive sins to the past.. the animal blood not have none value, because jesus sacrifice was applied to the past.. why sacrificies for forgive of sins was requested by god if romans 3:25 says that jesus forgive the sins to the past?..

.

Cold Steel

Shanagirl: IMO blood sacrifice was a practice that was never demanded by the True God.

And just who is this "True God" you're referring to? Everyone is entitled to their opinions, even people who believe the earth is flat; however, historically the facts are against you.

When discussing theology, there are people who believe that God made man in his own image, after his likeness. And he gave commandments to mankind through prophets, and people freely decided to comply with God's will and receive knowledge through revelation. Then there are the people who create God in their image. They decide God must be like them, have their political and social beliefs and values and, alas, it's difficult to discuss anything with them because their opinions are not based in historic facts.

Based on all the scriptures we have, the history of Josephus and the writings of prophets, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did demand blood sacrifice. Not because he delights in the blood of animals, but because sacrifice means something. It points the way to his Son dying for mankind, after taking their sins upon himself.

Having said that, you do raise an interesting question. Why did God need to offer his Son as a sacrifice for sin? Why didn't he just say, "I'm God and can do anything...so you're forgiven!" Interesting question. Also, why did it take God six "days" or eras to create the earth? Why didn't he just speak and have the world appear fully ready for human habitation? He can do anything, right?

Actually, it's a false doctrine. God has all the power, glory, knowledge and intelligence that it's possible to have. But nowhere do the scriptures say that God can do anything. He doesn't speak and have something appear out of nothing, and if he could have spared his Son the "bitter cup" of death and suffering, he would have done so. Also, I don't think this is his first rodeo. I think he's created many millions, or trillions, of worlds and that we humans are going through a process that many other worlds have gone through. If God creates man in his image here, why wouldn't he do so throughout the Universe? As the supreme creator of all things, he takes matter and organizes it into worlds. And if you think that's hard to fathom, try this: this universe may be one of trillions of other universes, some much larger than ours. This universe just happens to be our fish tank...our bubble. As one of my professors of Ancient Scripture related to us: "Everything is a system in the midst of like systems." I don't know what he was quoting, how old it is or who wrote it, but it's been rattling around in my noggin ever since the mid-70s. And whether you're an astrophysicist or a microphysicist, that one observation holds true in every sense. So the next question is, does the same God oversee these googolplexes of universes, each with its trillions of galaxies?

Well, this is off the beaten path, but suffice it to say that God seems to be following a very old formula with our world. He knew Adam and Eve would "stumble" (can't get enough of that word!) and need a Redeemer and Savior, and it just so happened he had one all lined up and ready to fall into place. And everything in scripture and eschatology points to him, especially animal sacrifices, baptism. Those animals don't cease to exist just because someone uses them to illustrate the sacrifice of the Son of God, the mighty Jehovah, the great intercessor between the Father and all mankind.

So again, do we learn about God and comply, or do we fashion him in our image and have him comply? And we have to accept the fact that Jesus died because, to redeem mankind, he had to. The Father, if he could have found any other way, would have. Which begs the question of whose sense of justice did God have to satisfy. But that's one of the great mysteries. It's fairly evident that animal sacrifice began with Adam and that the practice was corrupted and subverted during the passage of time.

43

Jesus sacrifice and animal sacrifice contradiction

by trackregister99 in

romans 3:25 says that jesus sacrifice was applied to the past for sins forgives.. then why god request animals sacrifice like "shadow of the good things to come" (hebrews 10:1) if the jesus sacrifice forgive sins to the past.. the animal blood not have none value, because jesus sacrifice was applied to the past.. why sacrificies for forgive of sins was requested by god if romans 3:25 says that jesus forgive the sins to the past?..

.

Cold Steel

TrackRegister99: ...if Jesus sacrifice was considered realized in the past, why [was] animal sacrifice was requested? That is the contradiction in my question.

In baptism, we are lowered into the water to symbolize the death of Jesus and his going into the grave. When we are brought out of the water, it represents Jesus coming forth from the grave in his resurrection. Even though there’s nothing special about the water, baptism itself is for the “remission of sins.”

Baptism, alone, cannot remove sins. It is a work, and we’re told that works cannot save. On the other hand, we cannot be saved without it. The efficacy of baptism is in the death and resurrection of the Savior, and baptism, like animal sacrifice, is symbolic. And, again, though neither will save on their own merits, obedience to them will save.

Recall Naaman, the leper, great captain of the armies of Syria. Naaman came to the prophet Elisha to be healed and was told to bathe in the Jordan River seven times, and that his leprosy would be gone. Naaman was outraged. First, Elisha wouldn’t even come out and meet him personally, but sent his servant to meet them. And why the Jordan River? Weren’t there better rivers in Syria, from whence he came? As he was preparing to return to his own country in a huff, his own servant checked his anger and urged him to be obedient to the man of God. Had this servant of the Lord told him to do some great thing to be healed, would he not have done it? So Naaman was obedient and washed seven times in the Jordan and came out clean of the disease. (See 2 Kings 5)

Naaman was right. There were larger, more impressive rivers in Syria. But it wasn’t the water that healed Naaman; it was obedience to the prophet’s directions. He could have bathed in the Abana and Pharpar rivers, in Damascus, for seven years and he would not have been cleansed.

Adamah: Teaching what, exactly? How to slaughter sentient beings? Did anyone inform the animals that they're on the Planet simply to be “teaching devices”?

What animals knew before coming to Earth is immaterial to the discussion. No flesh was ever wasted, and as for the animals themselves, they were not harmed in any way. Like humans and wild animals, they have spirits that survive death and return to God, who gave them life. It also may be that the animals themselves are made to understand the law of sacrifice before coming into mortality. God ordained the use of animals for the benefit of man, and sometimes that includes teaching. As someone rightly observed above, when Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, God gave them animal skins to cover their nakedness.

Adamah: ...the Bible features human sacrifice, or have you forgotten about the Binding of Isaac (willingness to sacrifice his son), Jephtha's daughter running out of the house to greet him (who WAS sacrificed), and King David's execution of the seven descendents of Saul to counteract God's anger that resulted in a long drought (and their killing appeased God's vengeance, AKA served as a human sacrifice)?

We all know the story of Abraham’s binding of Isaac, and how the Lord stopped him. Again, it was a teaching aid, and binding his only begotten son, he prepared to sacrifice him to God. In other words, it was in the similitude of the binding and sacrifice of God’s only begotten Son. According to some extrabiblical accounts found in the last hundred years or so, Abraham doubted the Lord would let him go through with it. And still another account has him ready to sacrifice Isaac, but that he had faith that God would subsequently bring Isaac back to life. As for Jephtha, let’s stay real, here. What makes you think this is the type of sacrifice approved by the Lord? Jephtha didn’t even have the priesthood, which would have been required to offer sacrifice. Jephtha was of the tribe of Joseph, through Manassas. The story’s legitimacy also has been questioned by biblical scholars and historians. What is agreed on, however, is that human sacrifice is in no way condoned by God.

The word of the Lord was very specific on this. Even though the wandering Israelites had seen God’s presence on Sinai, the thundering command of Jehovah underscored the ever-serious nature and threat of the Canaanite atrocities: “And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.”

He also stated:

Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. And if the people of the land...hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not; then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.

Molech’s profligate priests were little more than pagan pimps, and here the Lord says it’s not enough to simply not engage in these practices; if a man witnesses someone else engaging in them, “and kills him not,” then the Lord will curse that man and his family. The reference to the Lord cutting someone off is very much like excommunication, or being disfellowshiped. It's a cutting off from the people of God. If it's a stranger who transgresses, he is killed. If a local engages in the sexual rites of the Molech cult, he, too, is killed; and if Person A knows that Person B has engaged in Molech worship, he and his family are cut off from the people.

This cult was one of the most wicked in world history. Not only did they engage in degenerate sexual practices with prostitutes who acted as priestesses, they heated idols into red hot furnaces, then put infants into the arms of the idol and by means of a device attached to the contraption, delivered the screaming child into the belly of the furnace. And they used drums to drown out the cries of the infants. Yet atheists never fail to label the wiping out of such cults as "genocide."

43

Jesus sacrifice and animal sacrifice contradiction

by trackregister99 in

romans 3:25 says that jesus sacrifice was applied to the past for sins forgives.. then why god request animals sacrifice like "shadow of the good things to come" (hebrews 10:1) if the jesus sacrifice forgive sins to the past.. the animal blood not have none value, because jesus sacrifice was applied to the past.. why sacrificies for forgive of sins was requested by god if romans 3:25 says that jesus forgive the sins to the past?..

.

Cold Steel

The shedding of animal's blood means nothing to our salvation except as a teaching device. The animal without blemish is a reflection of Jesus' blood being shed for our behalf. One LDS ("Mormon") scripture, allegedly written by Moses, states:

And [God] gave unto [Adam and Eve] commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord. And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me. And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth. Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore.

Animal sacrifice has been widely practiced by early civilizations all over the world. In many of the more blood thirsty, backward cultures, people were sacrificed. In Mesoamerica, the Mayan and Aztec civilizations were exceptionally bloodthirsty, as well as many of the cultures in the land of Caanan (yep, the same cultures whom atheists bemoan as having been wiped out by Moses and Joshua). The people of Carthage sacrificed infants through the fires of Molech, and when the Romans wiped them out, they spent centuries thereafter trying to determine what drove them to it. In fact, when bad things happened to Rome and its interests, many of its people would blame their fathers for having destroyed Carthage which, after all, did nothing to Rome except compete with it in trade. They called it the "Punic curse."

I think God destroys such societies, and in the latter case, I think he used Rome.

The point is, sacrifice began as a teaching device and was then subverted and corrupted by the Adversary to the point it had to be destroyed.

.

21

Why do you still go to meetings?

by Aroq in

i'm asking this because there are a few on this site who do not agree with the wt or gb, but yet still go to meetings.. .

why?.

Cold Steel

In the days of the apostles, I don't recall reading anything requiring anyone to going to weekly meetings. The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, I think, are teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.

Things like meetings, except the Sabbath meetings, are not set forth in the New Testament. Neither is the doctrine that all baptized members are ministerial servants. There were no publishers in the first century, but there were elders and seventy. Now, in our day, the GB has (like the ancient Jewish leaders) an entire scratch pad of commandments and expectations for the church they administer.

Can people be disfellowshiped for not going from door to door? And what if circumstances exist that would keep them from attending meetings throughout the week? Anciently, the first principles of the gospel were faith, repentance and baptism of water and the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands, but nowhere is the aministration of meetings mentioned in the NT.