Posts by Cold Steel

15

God’s name (Jehovah) is so ambiguous to the extent of even supporting The Theory of Evolution!

by venus in

we have been taught that the name jehovah means “he causes to become.” it is interpreted that he causes himself to become whatever needed to accomplish his will—as happened in the case israelites to whom he “caused himself to become” a savior leading them from slavery in egypt.. but there is a problem with this definition.

nobody would use the phrase “cause to become” with regard to himself.

one may say: “i helped him,” (but he won’t say: “i caused myself to become a helper to him.”) “causing myself to become a helper to another person” obviously implies helping nature comes with effort as though it is not in my nature.

Cold Steel

Forget "Jehovah" -- it was the Latinization of the much older Yehweh (YHVH), which is thought to have come from the Canaanites or the Egyptians. Actually, the name, which is believed to mean "He Commands the Wind, or Storm," actually was given by God to Abraham who then subsequently lived among the Egyptians and taught them astronomy and mathematics. The name, as given, was "I Am," which was also given to Moses. The name itself was also, in later form, said to mean "the Unchangeable One." Exodus 6:3 says that He was known to the earliest patriarchs as El Shaddai (God Almighty), but by the name Jehovah was He not known to them. This is contradicted in other writings and has led some to wonder if the original text wasn't posed as a question (there have been numerous changes over the centuries, but none containing huge doctrinal problems).

The biblical text does not say where the various forms of God came from, but we know the patriarchs respected the name and refused to say it, substituting the word "Lord" for it. I'm not sure where you got the "changeable" part of the name as it was just the opposite. Technically, the early Christians saw YHVH as being Christ, the Mediator, not the Father. If you look at the titles, the role, everything -- the Son is the one who spoke to Moses. He was God of Israel and the Judge of mankind (see Margaret Barker's The Great Angel: The Story of Israel's Second God**). She argues that the earliest Hebrews saw Yahweh as God's Son, not the Father.

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

**What did "Son of God," "Messiah," and "Lord," mean to the first Christians when they used these words to describe their beliefs about Jesus? In this book Margaret Barker explores the possibility that, in the expectations and traditions of first-century Palestine, these titles belonged together, and that the first Christians fit Jesus' identity into an existing pattern of belief. She claims that pre-Christian Judaism was not monotheistic and that the roots of Christian Trinitarian theology lie in a pre-Christian Palestinian belief about angels--a belief derived from the ancient religion of Israel, in which there was a "High God" and several "Sons of God." Yahweh was a son of God, manifested on earth in human form as an angel or in the Davidic King. Jesus was a manifestation of Yahweh, and was acknowledged as Son of God, Messiah, and Lord. Barker relies on canonical and deutero-canonical works and literature from Qumran and rabbinic sources to present her thoughtful investigation.

23

Another family needlessly torn apart

by Visitor1984 in

i'm feeling very angry tonight as i watched my mother in law end her relationship with my husband, her son, tonight.

we were happily inactive, enjoying a distant but decent relationship with my in laws until they saw some christmas decorations and everything changed.

i spent two hours getting drilled on whether my husband and i celebrate holidays, to be told that my laws won't socialize with us anymore.

Cold Steel

How do you perceive this, is this over Christmas decorations or is this the straw that broke the camel's back? In other words, if you suppress using the decorations, would things return to normal (such as it was)? By this time it's probably safe to assume she's spoken to someone in the chain of command and has been counseled in how to proceed. If not, though, you may be able to reach an aggreement regarding future holidays, if you're prepared to pay the price.

In Christianity and Judaism, nearly everything is based on symbolism. The sacrifice of the firstlings of the flock -- those without blemish -- represent the sacrifice of Christ. Baptism represents death and resurrection, of going into the earth and coming forth in a newness of life, a re-birth. This is how Yahweh presented the law and how later, as Jesus, he continued on. It's true the Christmas Tree wasn't devised by Christ, but I think he would approve.

The tree itself represented the night. The lights (or ornaments) represent stars and the star at the top is the Star of Bethlehem. The gifts at the base of the tree represent the greatest gift God can give, that of Eternal Life. As a teaching representation, even though it's not in the Bible, it's not bad...or evil. Perhaps if you explain it like that, she might find it somewhat less objectionable.

That the holiday occurs on December 25 should not be objectionable, either. That it replaced a heathen holiday and taught a correct principal should be a plus and I can't understand the JWs opposing it as they do.

It's easy to respond to such senseless and obstinate views with anger and hostility, and that's my first reaction as well, but you may offer this to her as reason. If she won't accept it, it means a life without her son and grandson. And finally, the Governing Body has itself admitted that it's not led by revelation, nor is it infallible. Thus, it could be wrong on this point.

9

Christianity (Including JWs) Debunked

by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

1 cor.

15: 21,22 rnwt: for since death came through a man,+ resurrection of the dead also comes through a man.+ 22 for just as in adam all are dying,+ so also in the christ all will be made alive.. .

so according to the nt jesus makes alive those that die in adam.. given the overwhelming evidence that adam as a man did not exist jws lose the battle on this verse.. however foolish christians like pentecostals and catholics like to call adam figurative.. okay... read it again^^^^^^... .

Cold Steel

No one said it was a bunch of dead patriarchs. It said the graves of many were opened and appeared to many, and frankly, no one knew what any of the patriarchs looked like, anyway. And we don't know anything beyond what I just said. And that no one recorded anything about it also isn't unusual.

First, the Roman and Herodic authorities were trying to suppress such accounts (that's why guards were placed at the tomb of Jesus). Second, people didn't write things the way they do now. There were numerous miracles that happened in the early church I belong to; some were written down and some weren't, but they were dismissed because the unbelievers didn't want to believe, and the witnesses were thus not deemed credible. People don't change, and they don't gain or lose credibility just because they're ancient.

Religion is all about faith. You can say the Jesus story was simply a myth all you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that Christianity was simply too big to have been a concoction. As I said, every apostle except one was killed. Churches were established, epistles written, doctrines created and defended and many documents written. The Coptic Christian church collection alone proves Christianity was more than a mere concoction. It's an absurd proposition, sir, and is a super-minority position as most critics of Christ believe he existed.

If you have a decent Bible, try reading it. Read Isaiah 53 and listen to the lecture I posted for Shepardless. The sheer consistency of the story is a strong argument in its favor. You may not agree with what Jesus said and did, but the man and his followers both lived and died for what he believed in and taught.

9

Christianity (Including JWs) Debunked

by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

1 cor.

15: 21,22 rnwt: for since death came through a man,+ resurrection of the dead also comes through a man.+ 22 for just as in adam all are dying,+ so also in the christ all will be made alive.. .

so according to the nt jesus makes alive those that die in adam.. given the overwhelming evidence that adam as a man did not exist jws lose the battle on this verse.. however foolish christians like pentecostals and catholics like to call adam figurative.. okay... read it again^^^^^^... .

Cold Steel

Shepardless » all we have is a few partially conflicting accounts of people claiming to see Jesus resurrected, a couple of whom didn't even recognise him until after he left.

You can believe as you wish, of course, but there are multiple accounts of people seeing Jesus after the resurrection. And there are multiple prophets who testified of him, his betrayal, his sacrifice and his resurrection (see Isaiah 53). There are countless people who have reported seeing him, including those who have had near death experiences. Many of these are non-Christian. One wonders why Muslims don't die and see Muhammad, or are Hindus and don't see Hindu gods; or Jews dying and seeing Abraham. But they see Jesus -- even atheists. And there are others witnesses as well, but none that can't be dismissed if you put your mind to it.

Jesus was seen of the apostles for 40 days after the resurrection (Acts 1). That's well over a month. Others were resurrected too. The idea wasn't to prove to his enemies that he was alive and couldn't be harmed by them again. Rather, the idea was to gain believers through faith. All the apostles were killed but one (John), giving their lives as testimonies.

40-Day Ministry by Hugh Nibley

Part 1 - 40-Day Ministry

Part 2 - 40-Day Ministry

9

Christianity (Including JWs) Debunked

by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

1 cor.

15: 21,22 rnwt: for since death came through a man,+ resurrection of the dead also comes through a man.+ 22 for just as in adam all are dying,+ so also in the christ all will be made alive.. .

so according to the nt jesus makes alive those that die in adam.. given the overwhelming evidence that adam as a man did not exist jws lose the battle on this verse.. however foolish christians like pentecostals and catholics like to call adam figurative.. okay... read it again^^^^^^... .

Cold Steel

The reality of Adam wasn't even questioned by the early brethren. The term "quickening spirit," of course, means, "the living spirit," which scholars have said is an esoteric term referring to the perfected physical body of Jesus after the resurrection.

Most often people think of spirit as being non-corporeal, but it refers to the physical body animated by spirit. (Cited by Nibley as: It has been shown that the term "the Living Jesus" (and even kyrios) refers specifically to the risen Lord, Schmidt, Gespräche Jesu, 264; cf. James Rendel Harris, The Odes and Psalms of Solomon: Now First Published from the Syriac Version (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), 73. Thus the same value must be given to the opening line of the Gospel of Thomas 80:10 (=NHLE 32:10, p. 118), as to the Oxyrhynchus Logia, no. 8 (1): "sayings which Jesus who liveth and was dead spake to Judas Thomas"; cf. Gospel of Thomas 99:7-8 (=NHLE 51:7-8, p. 129). The conversational and questioning form of discourse is another clue, Schmidt, Gespräche Jesu, 206; Puech and Quispel, "Les écrits gnostiques du Codex Jung," 9, n. 3; Gospel of Thomas 81:14-17 (=NHLE 33:14-17, p.118); Oxyrhynchus Logia, 4-5, 13 (6), 8 (1); a large number of the pseudo Acts in E.A. Wallis Budge, Contendings of the Apostles (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1935), begin with the Apostles questioning Christ after the Resurrection. Where an account of the Resurrection or Descensus is included in the report the setting is naturally post-resurrectional: this refers to all the apocrypha mentioned below, notes 63-66. The 40-day situation is implied where the resurrection of others is described, as in the second Akhmim fragment of the Gospel of Peter, in ANT, 508; Gospel of the Twelve Apostles 2, in PO 2:135; and Acts of Thomas 54-55, in ANT, 390-91. The Prologue to the Discourse on Abbatôn purports to offer documentary evidence from the hands of the Apostles for the typical 40-day situation it describes, in E.A. Wallis Budge, Coptic Martyrdoms (London: British Museum, 1914; reprinted New York: AMS, 1977), 225—26, 474-75.)

33

The reality of "shunning" and character assasination highlighted at the Australian Royal Commission

by stuckinarut2 in

once again, the arc has brilliantly highlighted the reality that any witness who either fades or disassociates is subjected to active official shunning by the organization.. the "brothers" tried to state that it was the choice of the indiviual who steps away from the organization to shun them!

they actually tried to make it out to be the fault of the one who leaves!

then they tried to say that those who fade are not shunned!.

Cold Steel

Has anyone done any research on the relationship between shunning and suicide inside the Society?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

Cold Steel

Konceptual99 » So when a father abuses his child is this permissible and acceptable either because the father has an absolute right to do as he pleases with his child or that Jehovah has the right to allow any amount of suffering to the child?

No, it has to do with the Plan we all agreed to before entering mortality. No true harm can befall us in mortality, and all infants who die automatically gain eternal life. Since infants are without sin, they gain this blessing as part of their heritage. If we shed the blood of an infant, this is murder and it disqualifies us from eternal life (see 1 John 3). Yahweh is the judge and chief arbiter of sin and this was with our consent before we were born. The idea isn't to survive death, but to be redeemed from it.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

Cold Steel

Cofty » So murdering millions of innocent children in natural disasters is for the greater good is it?

So who gets to define murder? And how does one rightfully charge God with murder when He is the chief judge and arbiter? If God created man and if man has free agency and is an eternal being, like God, being created in His image, then He is quite incapable of being murdered by God, for his mortal body ceases to exist and his spirit continues on. The body, according to Christian theology, is merely a shell (and a burdensome one at that). People don't cease to exist at death, and those children you seem so fond of protecting are, in reality, are actually adults in spirit. Even Jesus, the greatest, wisest and most powerful of all, was at his birth in mortality, a spewing, gurgling and helpless infant who had to be rushed off to Egypt by his parents to escape being murdered by Herod. But what was He before He was born? He was the great Yahweh, the God of Israel, the One who taught Moses, the Great Lawgiver, for hours at a time. So what do you know of those who were “murdered” in natural disasters or by God's hand?

Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? Or hast thou walked in the search of the depth? Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? Or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death? Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? Declare if thou knowest it all!

Where wast thou when He laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the cornerstone thereof; when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

For all you know, you were one of those sons of God...or not, how would you know? “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 gods, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet.” As John declared, “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”

Jehovah's Witnesses see man as being little more than an afterthought on God's part, but who knows the width, breadth and depth of God's works and His plans? You can speak with some knowledge about evolution, Cofty, but your knowledge of God and His ways is sorely lacking, as is any mortal's. You can only only build up strawmen, then knock them down; but it's amazing how people like you feel qualified to sit in judgment of God. To put it in terms you can understand, it would be like a 4-year old sitting in judgment of Darwin's theories.

Just Fine » Mormons made up a whole book, given to a crook on golden tablets only he could read. It tells of the Lamanites, Nephites, and others who supposedly came to North America, and yet there is not a shred of historical evidence to support it. All religions have their own delusions. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses just think their beliefs make them morally superior to everyone else. It must be hard being the chosen one of God.

Uh-huh...and tell me, how, exactly, you know there's not a shred of historical evidence to support the Book of Mormon? Did you read that somewhere? People say there's no evidence, but not those who have actually studied the evidences. Do you even know where the events in the book were supposed to have taken place? Do you know that the places Nephi described as taking place in the old world actually exist and that no one knew anything about them in 1830? How would that be possible? Joseph Smith had never been to that part of the world, nor had anyone else living in the Western Hemisphere. Even Bedouins in the Arabian Peninsula tended to be locals -- they didn't travel all over the land. Yet if Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, he would have had to have traveled it. So, again, how would you know there's no historical evidence?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

Cold Steel

Just Fine » I agree, if God exists and is all powerful, surely he could make it clear. I pointed out to a Mormon once - so you are telling me God cares whether you drink hot beverages, but he doesn't care about the millions starving to death?

The problem is, everyone wants to set the policy and make the rules, and that just doesn't happen. For example, you begin your discussion with the Mormon by assuming God cares whether you drink hot beverages, strong drink or smoke cigarettes. (Well, yes, He does, but not even many Mormons know the entire story of the health code known as the Word of Wisdom.)

When that was given, the Lord said specifically that it was not by "command or constraint," but by a word of Wisdom. Well, the Mormons drank, smoked and hacked their way from Illinois and Missouri all the way to Utah and Idaho. When they got to the great Salt Lake and were instructed to build the Temple (it wasn't the first in Utah, btw), the project took them forty years. Brigham Young got up at one of first conferences and said, we've had this word given to us, not by commandment, and we drank and smoked the whole way out here. I propose we take all the money we spend on this stuff and we put it all towards the Temple fund. The people thought it over, it sounded good to them, so they voted what the heck.

So they did it. Fast forward forty years. The Temple was built, the church noticed its alcoholism and other health problems had vanished, no spitoons, no bars -- so we put it up for a vote to make it permanent and binding and it passed! So that's how it became binding. It was voluntary and made a covenant.

So historically it wasn't a huge doctrine.

As for those starving to death, dying from genocide and so forth, as unfortunate as it is, God is under certain obligations pertaining to our mortality. There are arguably good reasons He doesn't prove His existence and it's all been revealed, but morality and religion are all dispensed on God's terms and it all has to do with balance, free agency and obedience. It also has to do with a master plan we all agreed to before coming here, according to our religion. Suffice it to say that happiness and prosperity is all tied to obedience.

Atheists approach man's existence as an enemy to God, accusing Him of murder and hypocrisy. Mormons and most other Christians approach Jehovah's Witnesses as retrograde religionists. On a board of former JWs, the issue is atheism versus the governing body. One can be true, but not others. Many religions revere the name Jehovah, but not the claims, name or theology of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

"Well, they're all ridiculous!" atheists say, and on the surface I can understand that. But not from a human dignity standpoint. The blood transfusion issue, and especially shunning. But again, it's JW or nothing for most. And for atheists, God is a murderer. He advocates slavery and injustice. It's a somewhat inconsistent stance because, according to them, we're all going to end up dead anyway; yet God ultimately saves us from that in most religions.

...

80

Lots Of Whining And Complaining About Us JW's

by Deaconblues1914 in

in reading these posts, it sounds like a lot of you are very jealous of the wt.

society’s annual income and the money they/we have in the bank.

jehovah has indeed blessed us.

Cold Steel

I've noticed that DeaconBlues1914 doesn't react to your arguments. Instead, he spouts diatribes -- statements of his own beliefs. Clearly he's here to preach and not be preached to. And he has no respect for your beliefs. To him, you're base apostates, clearly not worth responding to. It's ironic that he calls himself "deacon" (even though it's most likely a musical reference). A deacon is an office in the early Christian church that is not found anywhere in the Watchtower church. At any rate, he's clearly not interested in discourse, or reason, nor do I believe he's truly interested in reclamation; rather, he may simply be trying to jinn up points for his weekly stats and little more.

If he doesn't specifically address your arguments or concerns, you may wish to divert your attention to more constructive pursuits. And if you ask him a question and he deflects, chances are he's also ill-equipped to deal with theological concepts with which he's unfamiliar.

If you were an active member and was doing what he's doing, how would you record it in your weekly records? I imagine Deac is reaching quite a few people. But he's not having a necessarily effective time doing it! Additionally, I suspect his superiors might not fully support his missionary endeavors. Coming to a place like this and discussing theology might result in further apostasy, not less.