Posts by middleman

"Can you please make a video showing these other 1975 related quotes to share with the Youtube community, to tell the full story? There's much more than listed below, but I won't bore you with the details unless you would like to see them. True to form, the Society was talking out of both sides of it's mouth. Using some "opt out clause" statements ALONG with definitive statements to mix and muddy the waters. Thank-you for your time. BTW, why do you disable the comments? What do you have to hide? You and I both know what it is.

Here's some I would like you to include ok? (Emphasis mine)

1968 October 8 p.13
"The fact that fifty-four years of the period called the "last days" have already gone by is highly significant. It means that ONLY A FEW YEARS, AT MOST, REMAIN before the corrupt system of things dominating the earth is destroyed by God."

Awake! 1969 May 22 p.15
"If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that YOU WILL NEVER GROW OLD in this present system of things. Why not? Because all the evidence in fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years."

The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah - How (1971) p.216
"Shortly, WITHIN OUR TWENTIETH CENTURY, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom."

1980 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses pp.30-31
"The brothers also appreciated the candor of this same talk, which acknowledged the Society's responsibility for SOME of the disappointment a number felt regarding 1975."

Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom p.104
"Brother Franz then referred to the many questions that had arisen as to whether the material in the new book meant that by 1975 Armageddon would be finished, and Satan would be bound. He stated, in essence: 'It could. But we are not saying…. However, other statements were published on this subject, and some were likely MORE DEFINITE than advisable."

347

Must see video on Youtube where a JW is clearly defeated on the trinity subject...

by Tuesday in

personally i hate bible ping-pong.

i don't think it ever gets anywhere, i don't think it solves anything and i don't think the participants ever make any head room.

however i will say in this case, i have been proven wrong.

middleman

Here's an online Greek interlinear of John1:1---> http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh1.pdf

It's kinda interesting...

347

Must see video on Youtube where a JW is clearly defeated on the trinity subject...

by Tuesday in

personally i hate bible ping-pong.

i don't think it ever gets anywhere, i don't think it solves anything and i don't think the participants ever make any head room.

however i will say in this case, i have been proven wrong.

middleman

Hey what's up Frank? Good to see ya...

347

Must see video on Youtube where a JW is clearly defeated on the trinity subject...

by Tuesday in

personally i hate bible ping-pong.

i don't think it ever gets anywhere, i don't think it solves anything and i don't think the participants ever make any head room.

however i will say in this case, i have been proven wrong.

middleman

Mad Dawg, Great posts!!!

3

Can some people here please tell me about the Copics, especially concering John1:1

by middleman in

i know that the jw's have recently used this ancient text in support of their "a god" rendering of john 1:1. i'm not too familiar with it so can someone please give me a detailed rundown of this version and the people that translated it.

my gut feeling is that they may be ancient heretics...or am i not being fair?

i know the jw's will cite anyone or anything as long as it agrees with their view, but most/all of these sources can't be taken as serious.

middleman

Thanks guy for you help...looks like I got some reading to do.

Blessings...

3

Can some people here please tell me about the Copics, especially concering John1:1

by middleman in

i know that the jw's have recently used this ancient text in support of their "a god" rendering of john 1:1. i'm not too familiar with it so can someone please give me a detailed rundown of this version and the people that translated it.

my gut feeling is that they may be ancient heretics...or am i not being fair?

i know the jw's will cite anyone or anything as long as it agrees with their view, but most/all of these sources can't be taken as serious.

middleman

I know that the JW's have recently used this ancient text in support of their "a god" rendering of John 1:1. I'm not too familiar with it so can someone PLEASE give me a detailed rundown of this version and the people that translated it. My gut feeling is that they may be ancient heretics...or am I not being fair? I know the JW's will cite anyone or anything as long as it agrees with their view, but most/all of these sources can't be taken as serious. Here's a video that talks about it a little bit. Thanks guys it means a lot.

"Real Truth about John 1:1"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdMV3PIEUco

347

Must see video on Youtube where a JW is clearly defeated on the trinity subject...

by Tuesday in

personally i hate bible ping-pong.

i don't think it ever gets anywhere, i don't think it solves anything and i don't think the participants ever make any head room.

however i will say in this case, i have been proven wrong.

middleman

"i love it how begetting is clearly understanding one point whilst totally ignoring the fact that if you beget something, you are seperate from it, and older (and in more authority) than it."

Well, I have heard scholars speak of Jesus as being eternally begotten from well, eternity. Wrap your mind around that one. In a finite way we can look at the time it takes light photons from the sun and stars to reach our field of view. You can have/see all the apparent "ages' of light particles but in fact are all the SAME source, that can be seen as past, present, and future depending on your location eg from a mountain, from a plane, on the ground, from outerspace, North Pole, equator etc...I think you get my point. Now magnify that and take all time, space, and matter away...and yes that's eternity with no reference point.

Concluding with my light application is this. Lets examine the sun's attributes. The sun is the source of the rays of light photons but the rays are not the sun but proceed from the sun, the energy from the rays are not the light photons or the sun but guess what...they are the essence of the source. So we have the Sun (Father), light photons (Son), and energy (Holy Spirit) all distinct of each other but yes...you got it, ALL the same essence and substance.

Blessings...

17

Jesus the Firstborn - What the Bible REALLY Teaches!

by UnDisfellowshipped in

what the bible really teaches: the firstborn of all creation.. jehovah's witnesses teach that because jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation" at colossians 1:15, this has to mean that jesus was the first creation by god.. .

since jesus is called "firstborn" because he created all things and existed before all things, this shows that he is not called "firstborn" because he was the first thing created.. paul himself, at colossians 1:18, explains that he is referring to the position or rank of "firstborn," because paul says jesus is the one who has "preeminence" or "first place" in all things.

therefore, paul was not saying that jesus was the first creature created by god.

middleman

btt...