Posts by Cold Steel

25

It's right there in our faces, how could we NOT see it?

by NikL in

i know there have been many many posts on here over the years on the deity of jesus.. i am submitting this one because i am feeling a little confused.. the thing is, i am not the sharpest knife in the drawer and i know this.

so when i am going through my bible reading (to all you haters, yes i still do it) i see so many scriptures that just fly in the face of everything the jws teach about jesus.. i begin to wonder if indeed i am diseased in the mind ,as they will try to paint me, because it seems so plain to me.. i never even gave it a though growing up as to if jesus and god were equal.

i just didn't.. now when i read scriptures like philippians 9.... 9 for this very reason, god exalted him to a superior position+ and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name,+ 10 so that in the name of jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground+— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that jesus christ is lord+ to the glory of god the father.. .

Cold Steel

Every other name that is named? As in Jehovah? This all from the JW.ORG Bible on their website. Can they REALLY read this and not see what I am seeing?

In a word, yes! The early Christians viewed Jesus and Yahweh as the same personality. When man fell, the Father could no longer communicate directly with man. Many modern Christians freely acknowledge that Jesus was the great mediator between his Father and mankind. But some, like the JWs, think this only kicked in around 33 A.D. Yet Jesus said, overlooking Jerusalem: "Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets that are sent to them, how oft would I have gathered thee together, as a hen gatherest its chicks, yet ye would not!"

But how could he have gathered the city and its inhabitants together had he not been the great Jehovah, the God of Israel, as he began doing some 1850 years after the Romans dispersed them? Or after they were dispersed circa 600 B.C.? (Or was he speaking only of those who lived from 1-33 A.D.? Doesn't make much sense if that were the case, or if it had been Michael the Archangel making such a statement! How would Michael have had the authority to gather Judah throughout history both before and after the times of Jesus?)

So the name of Jesus also is the name of Jehovah, and Yahweh, and Jeshua! Unknowingly, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society chose the premortal name of Jesus. Both Yahweh and Jesus was the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Both were the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last, the great Judge of mankind (as you noted). When Moses spoke to Yahweh, he wasn't speaking to the Father, but to the great Mediator between God and man. This is because Jesus is both God and Man. It was the premortal Jesus who gave the stone tablets to Moses and who appeared to the seventy elders of Israel.

So despite all the early Christian extra-biblical writings and the Jewish writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the JWs have continued to believe their adventist roots. They'll never change their views and I'm surprised they never accepted the Saturday-Sabbath doctrine that also seeped into the movement.

You'll never get a JW admitting or acknowledging that Jesus is God in any way, shape or form, even after John pretty much spells it out in his Apocalypse (Revelation).

36

Anyone know what this sculpture is of the "torture stake?"

by charity7 in

hey guys!

i'm new on this site and am a non jw here married to a jw.

my husband's family are active members and they daily post articles on facebook from jw.org which i know is meant for me to see and read.

Cold Steel

Charity7 » ...the GB has basically given themselves Christ's authority....

Yet they call all other religions "manmade" as though it somehow legitimized their own faith. "Of course, I don't want to be part of a manmade religion," you tell yourself. "I want to be part of a religion Jesus personally picked when he was invisible in 1918!"

Yeah, so how do you know Jesus picked your religion in 1918?

“Well, who else's church would he have picked? We're the only one who correctly identified 1914 as the pivotal year of Christ's coming. We're the only ones that have a purely biblical doctrine. And the holy spirit revealed to us the true date of the destruction of Jerusalem as 607 BCE!"

Where do I sign up?

36

Anyone know what this sculpture is of the "torture stake?"

by charity7 in

hey guys!

i'm new on this site and am a non jw here married to a jw.

my husband's family are active members and they daily post articles on facebook from jw.org which i know is meant for me to see and read.

Cold Steel

The Romans also frequently used stakes with crossbeams. Jesus didn't carry the entire cross as is frequently seen in art, but only the crossbeam. Constantine's mother, who became a fervent convert to Christianity, went to Jerusalem and attempted to find the actual cross Jesus was crucified on. It's highly unlikely the Romans used simply a stake if she was looking for the entire cross. Her son was the emperor. He knew what kind of devices were used for killing and torture all over the empire, plus he claimed to have seen the cross in his mystical vision, and he was only a few hundred years removed from Jesus' crucifixion.

Most Christians say it doesn't matter how Jesus was crucified, but there have been enough early drawings, illustrations of crucifixions, that we can say upright stakes were not used during Roman crucifixions in 30-35 A.D.

The real problem with the religious sect is that it has all the aspects of a man-made religion. It was created by men without the instrumentality of God. Anciently God played an active part in bringing about His purposes. Now we're told He plays a passive role in letting man create an organization, then subsequently choosing it as He allegedly did in 1919.

The question is why God changed?

7

Ex-Mormon talks about cognitive dissonence

by LevelThePlayingField in

this guy gets right to the point and talks about how mormons deny truth and their phraseology.

very similar to jw's.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlupmkdfhlu.

Cold Steel

Not every criticism. Even first century Christianity had its problems (as does organic evolution). The important thing is that we not deny them, but recognize them. I've seen some Mormons try to deal with problems, but ineffectively. If modern Christians and Mormons say there are no problems, they're only deceiving themselves. I know of no religion or scientific theories that has zero problems.

7

Ex-Mormon talks about cognitive dissonence

by LevelThePlayingField in

this guy gets right to the point and talks about how mormons deny truth and their phraseology.

very similar to jw's.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlupmkdfhlu.

Cold Steel

Yeah, he sounds like someone who would know! I agree many LDS aren't up on the things they should be, and I'm the first that would criticize them, but I've been LDS for 45 years, and this guy's doing a strawman. They're are three fairly recent, and critical, books on Mountain Meadows, and none of them point the finger at Brigham Young as the one that ordered the massacre. The reason? He had nothing to gain and everything to lose. He had no love for those who were massacred -- they were of the same stock as those who murdered, raped and pillaged the saints in Missouri. But when he learned there was conflict, he sent a personal message to the church leaders telling them to leave the people alone and let them pass.

Cognitive dissonance works in both directions and all religions, even atheism, wrestles with it. But this guy is just like the peckerhead who gets up in front of his congregation and boasts about how he bested an evolutionist who wasn't able to withstand his creationist arguments.

It's like the fable of the statue of Hercules beating the lion. It all depends on who's creating the sculpture. Honesty rarely enters the debate.

10

Will there ever be an accounting for religious leaders that go beyond what's written?

by Chook in

all including wt prophets may be surprised.

Cold Steel

I've seen some of the addresses given by JW leaders and they act as though God has selected them. Yet how do they come to that conclusion seeing that they're self appointed? As far as I know, Jehovah has not spoken to any of them. It makes me wonder what the folks at Bethel who see these guys on a daily basis have to say. Are they friendly, personable? Do they socialize with the other Bethelites or stay in a restricted area of the building? Do they do any pioneer work in their spare time or are they expected to spend all their time feeding the household of God?

I've always been curious about how the Governing Body governs and how they get along.

16

How to respond when JW's invite you to the memorial

by krismalone in

the yearly rejection of the blood of christ aka jw memorial is coming soon.. jw's will be engaging in an invitation campaign.

elders are instructed to personally visit inactive ones or faders.

some sarcastic ideas of how to respond to the memorial invitation that will scare or piss off the cult members:.

Cold Steel

I've never understood the rationale for not partaking of the emblems. If people got together beforehand and decided to partake of the emblems, it would send a message to the hierarchy. It's another doctrine that is arbitrarily interpreted without an ounce of inspiration. Thus, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul states:

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. (Verses 23-28)

Is there is anything in that scripture to indicate that this only applies to the anointed, the "faithful and discreet slave"?

But earlier in the same chapter, we read:

For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man...neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Which in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. (Verses 8-17)

If we apply the same scriptural exegesis to this scripture as we do the one before, then this, too, applies only to the anointed. So if you're gay or if you're a male who wants to have long hair or a female who wants to have short hair, don't fret! The scripture only applies to the anointed class! Isn't that what the Governing Body has determined?

The GB says it does not receive revelation, not is it inspired. So how is it qualified to determine what a scripture means?

We have two directions from an apostle, yet the GB declares that one scripture applies to the anointed class and the other doesn't.

16

How to respond when JW's invite you to the memorial

by krismalone in

the yearly rejection of the blood of christ aka jw memorial is coming soon.. jw's will be engaging in an invitation campaign.

elders are instructed to personally visit inactive ones or faders.

some sarcastic ideas of how to respond to the memorial invitation that will scare or piss off the cult members:.

Cold Steel

I've never understood the rationale for not partaking of the emblems. If people got together beforehand and decided to partake of the emblems, it would send a message to the hierarchy. It's another doctrine that is arbitrarily interpreted without an ounce of inspiration. Thus, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul states:

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. (Verses 23-28)

Is there is anything in that scripture to indicate that this only applies to the anointed, the "faithful and discreet slave"?

But earlier in the same chapter, we read:

For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man...neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Which in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. (Verses 8-17)

If we apply the same scriptural exegesis to this scripture as we do the one before, then this, too, must apply only to the anointed. So if you're gay or if you're a male who wants to have long hair or a female who wants to have short hair, don't fret! The scripture only applies to the anointed class! Isn't that what the Governing Body has determined?

The GB says it does not receive revelation, not is it inspired. So how is it qualified to determine what a scripture means? We have two directions from an apostle, yet the GB declares that one scripture applies to the anointed class and the other doesn't.

8

Jehovah God and Jesus Christ the difference in the "Old Testament " and the "New Testament"

by smiddy in

when you compare all the communications jehovah god had with humans whether it was by angels ,dreams ,or prophets as well as his intervention in human affairs when it suited him and their are many examples in the old testament to look at for about 4000 years .

the same cannot be said for jesus christ as king of kings to sit on the throne to rule over the earth for a thousand years.

in one sense he was king of christians 2000 years ago in another sense according to jw`s he was enthroned in 1914-18 for the next 1000 years.. whether you believe he was king over christians on his ascencion to heaven or his enthronement in 1914-18 for 2000 + years we have not had any communication from either god jehovah or christ jesus in any form one way or another.for the past 2000 years.. for the first 4000 years you couldnt shut jehovah up ,and the next 2000 years you dont here a beep out of jehovah or christ jesus.. for jw apologists when god gave a ruling/decree in the old testament how many times did he adjust /redefine/change what he said using the excuse "the light gets brighter and brighter" ?

Cold Steel

And how did Jesus contradict Yahweh?

8

Jehovah God and Jesus Christ the difference in the "Old Testament " and the "New Testament"

by smiddy in

when you compare all the communications jehovah god had with humans whether it was by angels ,dreams ,or prophets as well as his intervention in human affairs when it suited him and their are many examples in the old testament to look at for about 4000 years .

the same cannot be said for jesus christ as king of kings to sit on the throne to rule over the earth for a thousand years.

in one sense he was king of christians 2000 years ago in another sense according to jw`s he was enthroned in 1914-18 for the next 1000 years.. whether you believe he was king over christians on his ascencion to heaven or his enthronement in 1914-18 for 2000 + years we have not had any communication from either god jehovah or christ jesus in any form one way or another.for the past 2000 years.. for the first 4000 years you couldnt shut jehovah up ,and the next 2000 years you dont here a beep out of jehovah or christ jesus.. for jw apologists when god gave a ruling/decree in the old testament how many times did he adjust /redefine/change what he said using the excuse "the light gets brighter and brighter" ?

Cold Steel

Smiddy » For the first 4000 years you couldnt shut Jehovah up, and the next 2000 years you dont here a beep out of Jehovah or Christ Jesus.

Actually, while your point is valid, the above isn't the case at all. There were many long stretches where God didn't speak. As I noted elsewhere, when Gabriel appeared to Zachariah, the father of John the Baptist, and told him his elderly wife was going to have a son, it had been more than 400 years since God had spoken. There were many false prophets over the years, and they spoke frequently; however, real prophets came along only when it was necessary, and for the benefit of the people.

Also, the early Christians believed that Jesus was Jehovah. They viewed Jehovah as being the Son of God and the great Mediator between God and Man. When Moses and his people "saw the God of Israel," and when Moses spoke to God "face to face," (see Exodus 28 and 33), they were not speaking about God the Father. Moses wasn't the great Mediator between God and Man -- it was Yahweh, the Son of the Father.

Matthew tells us of a lamentation made by Jesus while he was yet in mortality:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (Matthew 23:37)

This clearly doesn't apply to the thirty two years he had lived in mortality. Many of those years he most likely didn't know himself who he had been in premortality. Plus, in his lifetime he had more miracles, and there were many more angelic visits and laws given than at any other time in history. Jesus began his church, gave detailed instructions on how it should be run and after his resurrection spent 40 days giving his disciples special instructions, none of which the JWs have any inkling of. Then Paul speaks of going to the third heaven and seeing and hearing things it wasn't lawful to repeat, again which the Governing Body knows nothing about.

For JW apologists when God gave a ruling/decree in the Old Testament how many times did he adjust /redefine/change what he said using the excuse "the light gets brighter and brighter"?

NONE
And yet JW`s would have you believe God has been continuously doing this for the past 100 years not being able to give a precise or concise direction that didnt need to be changed after a couple of years.

Absolutely. If God spoke anciently when he wanted to do something, it shows God was an active force in accomplishing his will. "For ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you," Jesus told his apostles. And in the Old Testament, God told Jeremiah, "Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee. And before thou camest forth from the womb, I sanctified thee and ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

Yet now, in the last days, God has decided to change from active to passive. The church forms first, then the Lord comes out and selects them. Anciently God speaks to man and man complies; now man speaks and God complies! But while it's a great setup if you can get it all worked out, there is the problem of God never changing. In the past, God was visible when he appeared. Now he's invisible when he comes.

It's also strange that the saints are now called "Witnesses" when they really haven't seen or heard anything. "Well, what are you witnesses of?" Answer: nothing, really, because everything was invisible! His coming, his being appointed King, his selection of a publishing company as his divine will. And instead of being chosen and ordained, they choose God and ordain themselves!

Active versus passive. And they've never explained that aspect of their foundation.