glenster
JoinedPosts by glenster
-
15
Adam alone for YEARS before Eve's creation
by alanv ini went to my son's witness wedding on saturday and i was interested in the comment by the presiding oversear that adam was alone for years before god finally brought eve to him.
apparantly he had plenty to keep him busy naming the animals, cultivating the ground and generally getting used to his environment.
i just thought it was funny how after the 1975 failed prophesies they now have to say that adam was alone for years, whereas at the time they said he would have been alone a few months at the most.
-
-
-
54
Romans 10:13 - got owned in a jw study. need help with greek.
by bohm infor reasons i have posted on another topic i have become involved with a study with a rather knowledgeable jw.
i try to stay clear of the scripture (im an atheist who have never read the bible so i have desided to agree with his interpretation of the scripture for the sake of argument, however to say that when it come to interpretations of the bible, there are also many other ways to think about it, and it require significant research for me to commit to one particular view).
we talked about how you know jehovahs witness have the truth and ofcourse the conversation went into the usual topics like using the name jehovah (however, it did end where i felt it should, on jesus selection in 1918, more on that on another thread).
-
-
glenster
The JWs leaders' motive for removing "Lord"s and putting in "Jehovah"s is to
replace the "Lord"s in dozens of verses where leaving in "Lord" better suits the
mainstream view. If the original writers had the JWs leaders' view, it would
have been important to them to phrase those verses differently for the same
reasons the JWs leaders have. ("Archangel Michael" would be good, and would
have made their stance clear even better if it were used instead of "Jesus" or
"Logos," etc.)
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/id18.html
The JWs leaders have a less likely case regarding related history in various
ways, including this one. By their version, the original followers were taught
by Jesus and the apostles but were strangely non-committal and disappeared
quickly, followed by another group that removed "YHWH"s and put in "Lord"s in
various scriptures written in various areas over decades, and what they did
somehow managed to disappear so remarkably well that there's no record of the
issue being brought up in the Arian debates later, or by whoever else arguing
for the original view, which you'd think it would have been. -
7
Is God Justified....
by cameo-d inin teaching man that if he has done something wrong that all he has to do is put his hands on the head of an innocent animal/person to transfer his sins to it (rather like the cootie game children play) and then cut it's throat?.
does it appeal to your sense of justice to let someone else take the blame for something you did?.
do you believe this is the way a just god should behave?.
-
-
glenster
It depends on whether you refer to "just" from God's reference or "just" from
the various frames of reference of people. The God concept comes with God's
prerogative--it's just for Him to do with everything as He wants, and He's not
all-beneficent or we'd all live in heavenly circumstances forever. The animal
sacrifices weren't the neccesary way but were one imaginable way for followers to
show their devotion or apology by sacrificing something they own. How good or
long a life He gives people, if any, and whether He wants to draw them to
Himself or not or if so how, and if so how to show their devotion, is all fair
game and becomes just on the level of God's prerogative.
And sometimes they got hamburgers out of the deal. Now if they had to kill
cute little pup dogs, that would be disgusting. -
Music Animation Machine
by glenster inhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkzr3exexuc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvadl4ocx0m.
http://www.musanim.com/all/.
-
-
9
Urim And Thumin....or "Jehovah Dice" as I call it! High preist rolls "yes" or "No." Unreal!
by Witness 007 inwhen king saul wanted to know if they should continue to chase after the philistines, the high priest would ask jehovah by rolling the "jehovah dice {urim and thumim} "yes" or "no.
" i find this interesting that god would use a dice to decide a major battle plan....anyone else smell a rat?.
-
-
glenster
If you have a faith for it, the idea would be God communicated through the
priests that way. It would be an article of faith that God spoke to them that
way or any way. We're not sure what the Urim AND Thummin were, though. The
interpretation that one indicated a positive answer and the other a negative one
is uncertain and debated (see the article at the next link).
http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T9017 -
2
Before Christ-mas it was Childer-mas: Massacre of the Children
by cameo-d inwhile researching crucifixion artwork from the 12th to 16th centuries, i noticed that many paintings had a santa claus type figure included in the painting.
usually a red cap and red clothing.
in other paintings, the majority of people in attendance at the crucifixion were dressed in red or green---the traditional christmas colors.
-
-
glenster
Was Christmas actually a holiday that began as a celebration of the massacre
of innocent children?
In the research I did, I found the "feast of the Holy Innocents"--is that what
you mean? I wouldn't characterize it as having been meant as a celebration of
the deaths of infants generally. Christmas seems to have originated as a
concern to celebrate the birth of Jesus that was going on before the feast was
initiated and then only related to the feast in the same way as the massacre,
which we also don't have a date for, was related to his birth.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07419a.htm
Although assigning a date for Christmas is generally considered as having been an
unimportant pragmatic/Romans 14, etc., concern compared to the meaning of it,
nobody is saying the selection of the date originated with the feast in the
places I checked, anyway. I did find that the JWs leaders' stance seems to have
originated with Origen, though many of his contemporaries liked the idea and
suggested various dates for it. See the article at the next link and the
section about it at 1988 on the timeline at the link after that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/id12.html
Was Jesus actually crucified not in the spring, but on the actual Day of
Atonement which was Yom Kippurim?
Likewise, nobody is connecting the two in the places I checked, anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Date_of_the_crucifixion
Was the account of Herod's massacre just a retelling of the stories of old
from the days of Pharoah/Moses?
In defense of believing Matthew (and the implication of whoever wrote "The
Assumption of Moses"--see below) although it otherwise wasn't reported around
the time, it may have been a small number, like 12 or 20, since Bethlehem was a
small town and Herod did worse things that got more attention. A similar
indication of his brutal character is that he had his own wife and two children
murdered.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07419a.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great#New_Testament_references
"There is a First-Century, Jewish, apocryphal, pseudepigraphic work called the
Assumption of Moses which states that 'An insolent king will succeed [the
Hasmonean priests]… he will slay all the young.' Inarguably, Herod was an
"insolent king" who ousted the Hasmoneans as ruler of Judea. Therefore it seems
likely the writer of the Assumption of Moses had knowledge of such a slaughter
- though he falsely presented his document as if it were a prophesy that pre-
dated the slaughter."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Herod%27s_Massacre_of_the_Innocents_historical_Matthew_2_v6 -
4
The role of the "firstborn Son" as the Creator?
by Doug Mason inthe watchtower of 1 april 1978 (page 16), tells me:.
"through [the firstborn son], jehovah god brought into existence millions of angelic sons, the vast universe with its billions of galaxies and the earth with its abundant variety of plant and creature life.".
is the wt telling me that the "firstborn son" created black holes, dying stars, poisonous atmospheres, uninhabitable planets, comets that crash into planets, dangerous rays from the sun, and life-threatening places on earth?.
-
-
glenster
I think the JWs leaders' idea of God creating through Michael is like God healing
through an apostle, not that the apostle has any special ability but as a sign
that the apostle was sent by God or, in this case, that the Son was special to
God. I don't think the Son would have to go anywhere or do anything while it
happened, but if they think he did, it would be incredibly unneccesarily
tedious. I think it's more like the Lincoln Tunnel. -
19
Bill Cetnar tells a lie ....
by Raphael innot the way to refute watchtower theology:.
bill and joan cetnar make a statement that russell said he spoke to angels , this is a blatant lie and we know what the bible says about liars .... he also says that russell claimed to be the fds and the laodicean messenger, both statements are misleading .
russell never claimed in any of his writings that he spoke to angels or was the aforementioned messenger or the fds , rather it was some of his associates that suggested he may be.. the cetnars also make a number of other poorly researched and misleading statements that sadly bring their own characters into disrepute .. .
-
-
glenster
Initially, Russell taught that the Harvest of the "elect," an elite group that
included himself and whoever agreed with everything he said (which would be a
little group) was to last until 1881, although that date changed as time went
by. Russell eventually specified that the elect, otherwise called the "little
flock," was the 144,000 of Rev.14:1-5 taken literally to be 144,000 followers.
("Watchtower Reprints," 1881, p.224; 1880, p.172)
1880 Russell taught that the 144,000 of Rev.14:1 are the "little flock" he's
part of, not those of the "nominal church" of corruption, by which he meant most
all other Christians. "Christendom" isn't a derogatory word unless it's meant
that way, and he meant it that way. (Practically none of them taught a created
Jesus you worship, let alone when he invisibly appeared, etc.) The ability to
join the 144,000 would end in Oct., 1881:
"Dearly beloved, if we believe these things, our works will attest our faith.
If you and I believe that the door to the 'high calling' closes in less than a
year, should we not increase our efforts to bring all Christians into the light
of present truth--the knowledge of the bridegroom's presence--that they and we
may be more fully separated from the world." ("Watchtower Reprints," Nov., 1880,
pp.155,156,172)
1914 "The evidences seem to be that there are still quite a number of vacan-
cies in the elect number, because there are people coming into Present Truth and
consecrating who have come directly from the world. This would seem to indicate
that there are not at present a sufficient number fully consecrated to complete
the 144,000. If there were, these would be given the preference over those not
consecrated." ("Watchtower Reprints," March 1, 1914, p.5411)
1916 Russell taught that the ability to join the alleged literal 144,000
would end in "perhaps a year or two or three." "...we anticipate that before a
very long time--perhaps a year or two or three--the full number of the Elect
will be completed, and all will have gone beyond the Veil and the door will be
shut." ("Thy Kingdom Come," forward to 1916 edition, pp.i,ii)
Russell played prophet whether he claimed any contact with angels, or admitted
it or not, on any one occasion, by pretending to be the spokesman for a literal
144,000. The things he meant to justify the exclusiveness (and damning others)
included things like New Earth creationism, a created Jesus who was to be
worshiped for 1st cent. Jewish monotheism, when Jesus invisibly appeared and
would visibly appear, pyramidology, etc. The movement may have gotten even
stricter with Rutherford, but the phoniness started with the claim of being the
spokeman of a literal 144,000, and having to cook things up for the pretension
of exclusiveness, which started with Russell. -
13
Do any [( Triniterian)] Christians on here disagree with Bishop Irenaeus ???
by wobble inmy reason for putting [(trinitarian)] in double brackets is because i have no interest in the wt version of theology or their silly view of the "trinity" doctrine.. my question stems from reading some of bishop irenaeus's writings.
he seems there to me to present a cogent and scripturally acceptable view of the divinity of jesus christ.
do you guys (chalam et.
-
-
glenster
Basically, Jesus as God's wisdom personified, not created Michael, and the holy
spirit personal, not impersonal?:
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of
the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith:
...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and
all things that are in them;
and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salva-
tion;
and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations
of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the
resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the
beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory
of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of
the whole human race,
in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, ac-
cording to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things
in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every
tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards
all...'"
("Against Heresies," X.l)
"God formed man...it was not angels, therefore, who made us...neither had an-
gels power to make an image of God."
(Against Heresies," book IV, chap.20, section 1)
There are other quotes of his about it a little more than halfway down the
page at the next link:
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/id23.html
I don't think Irenaeus meant Jesus lived to be an old man literally (sorry for
the contentiousness of some of the next article):
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a38.htm
I think he referred to the greater credibility of the agreement of the line of
bishops which the Gnostics didn't have the like of, but apostolic succession was
made a doctrine later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus -
11
Did GB Karl Klein really say that?
by sacolton ingoverning body member, karl klein, uttered these words at a convention:.
"if jehovah doesn't do something soon, he's going to have to apologize to sodam and gommorrah.".
geez!.
-
-
glenster
^ God's prerogative--it comes with the concept. But you can see something like that in the crucifixion, etc.