Posts by reniaa

99

How could have Rutherford been a 'drunk'?

by wholewheat in

jw
friends

i feel that the apostate's claims that rutherford was a drunk to be far fetched.

on the one hand, they claim that he was so drunk that the brothers at bethel shipped him to san diego to beth sarim, where he stayed drunk out of his mind, then on the other hand, they claimed that he ruled the society with an iron fist, that he was a dictator.

no drunk could have ruled the society like a dictator.

reniaa

hearsay, exageration and the accusations of bitter apostates from the past who had clear axes to grind like olin or his family, are not proof. We know rutherford drank booze but biblically that isn't a crime only being a drunkard. It's easy to fall into the trap o fthinking "there is no smoke without fire".

All we have here is the fact judge rutherford drank alcohol beyond that is speculation and possibly the strong feelings of teatotal brothers against any sort of alcohol consumption from feelings promoted by the prohibition era.

Reniaa

332

The Son in two persons

by Deputy Dog in

the wt and jws around the world have made the evil "trinity" their reason for existence.

when in fact they have quite a mystery of their own.

one son in two separate an distinct persons with two separate an distinct natures archangel michael/human jesus.. on another thread spike tassel tried to explain this by saying: .

reniaa

Hi Jon

I completely disagree with you since I consider John 17-1-3 as ample proof among others that JEsus isn't the 'one true God' so we are at an impasse. I completely repudiate your claim that the bible in any way states Jesus is the 'One true god' .

Aside from that your reasoning is circular using one unproven theory to validate another unproven theory. that are both challenged by witnesses and their lack of mention by the bible.

Does the bible ever say Jesus is the 'One true God? No.

Does it say Jesus is the son of the father who is the 'One true God alone? YES john 17:1-3

Does the bible say at any point Jesus is joined to a flesh creature Jesus? No

Does it say 'The word' became flesh not joined to flesh? Yes john 1:14

Reniaa

332

The Son in two persons

by Deputy Dog in

the wt and jws around the world have made the evil "trinity" their reason for existence.

when in fact they have quite a mystery of their own.

one son in two separate an distinct persons with two separate an distinct natures archangel michael/human jesus.. on another thread spike tassel tried to explain this by saying: .

reniaa

hi leolaia

The greek scriptures and hebrew do mention or refer to points from non-canonical sources but all that testifies too is the point they refer too, it in no way canonisies the source material itself which is written without inspiration so cannot be considered authoritive or proof on any of it's other content.

All jude does is validate archangel michael as correct nothing more or less.

Reniaa

16

For those that say the Witnesses are NOT a HCG - High Control Group

by besty in

let's start a quick list for reference.. here's a gem from the 2008 keep yourself in god's love book:.

"....should the newlyweds identify to all the giver of each gift?

christians from macedonia.

reniaa

an now can we have an unedited version?

Not that it realy bothers me I have been to a few weddings and at only one did they read out the gifts and it was a richer affair, where clearly some of the more afluent givers wanted their gifts acknowledged.

Cards are read out but gifts are usually kept for private perusal later by the bride and groom, maybe thanking the giver personally in private at a later date.

this is so not a big deal!

Reniaa

332

The Son in two persons

by Deputy Dog in

the wt and jws around the world have made the evil "trinity" their reason for existence.

when in fact they have quite a mystery of their own.

one son in two separate an distinct persons with two separate an distinct natures archangel michael/human jesus.. on another thread spike tassel tried to explain this by saying: .

reniaa

You've been having fun in my absence :)

Hi leolaia

While I appreciate you indepth study on extra-biblical sources they cannot be considered proof or I could use ones didache that clearly only talks of Jesus being God's servant making it clear he wasn't considered God by the early writers that wrote it. And thats a very early apocrypha.

I'm confused we think michael is just another name but you all insist we think it is another person when you all allow that lamb, logos, immanuel are just other names for Jesus?

Why Is hypostatc union the only choice you guys are allowing as the only possibility? because as far as I am concerned no-one has yet put any sort of argument against this scripture which totally disproves it completely.

John 1:14 (New American Standard Bible)

14 And (A) the Word (B) became flesh, and (C) dwelt among us, and (D) we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of (E) grace and (F) truth. This scripture alone refutes any sort of hypostatic union and none you have addresses this clear constradiction to you hypostatic construct theory other than just blind denial of its blatant truth. the word 'became' past tense of 'become' in reference to this usage means a change of state from one thing to another completely. and not just stopping but clarifying it more saying once 'the word' became flesh it 'dwelt among us'. Reniaa

332

The Son in two persons

by Deputy Dog in

the wt and jws around the world have made the evil "trinity" their reason for existence.

when in fact they have quite a mystery of their own.

one son in two separate an distinct persons with two separate an distinct natures archangel michael/human jesus.. on another thread spike tassel tried to explain this by saying: .

reniaa

hi quietly leaving

Come on! what Paul is talking about is the essence of free will. The conflict in one consciousness that we all have knowing that we have the choice to do right and wrong, the temptation to do wrong even knowing the consequenses is always there. Having the conflict of choices inside us is totally different from saying two separate consciousnesses and persons coming together.

It's that freewill and ability to reason that makes one complete consciousness in itself.

You now reaching the point were you are looking for scriptures that you can back up your thoughts and that means reading back into the scriptures what you want it to be. yet ignore it's literal explanations.

Reniaa

236

I need some good sriptures & reasoning to refute Jesus = Michael Archangel

by androb31 in

i have a lot of good stuff at home on the subject but i'm at work and could use some help for a friend who was just conversing w/ a jw..

reniaa

This thread is making the same mistake of saying angels are separate to God and Jesus in race but angels are spirit, like God and Jesus are spirit.

there is no difference to Spirit person Jesus coming to earth, than spirit person Jesus that uses the name michael among other names.

that he is also head of the messengers = Archangel is irrelevent, they are spirit beings too.

Reniaa

332

The Son in two persons

by Deputy Dog in

the wt and jws around the world have made the evil "trinity" their reason for existence.

when in fact they have quite a mystery of their own.

one son in two separate an distinct persons with two separate an distinct natures archangel michael/human jesus.. on another thread spike tassel tried to explain this by saying: .

reniaa

hi quietly leaving

Why is their a problem with Jesus being dead for 3days? We do not think he is the One true God his father and so Jesus dying is something real and true. Not a pretend death that isn't really a death but a true sacrifice and trust in his father that he will resurrect him.

Luke 22:44 (New International Version)

44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground

Is this what someone would do if they knew only part of themselves was dying?

when it comes to changing nature are you saying this is impossible? it's what the bible says he did literally.

John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

the bible doesn't say he joined with flesh but that he BECAME flesh.

Is believing he joined with another 'flesh creature Jesus', easier to believe? even though the bible never says this unlike the scripture I just used that does say he literally became flesh? Jesus God's son and the creature Jesus (as trinitarians call him) shared the same body and had two wills and consciousnesses inside the same head and mind, is that easier to believe? swapping to and fro from each other so each one gets a chance to speak?

Reniaa

332

The Son in two persons

by Deputy Dog in

the wt and jws around the world have made the evil "trinity" their reason for existence.

when in fact they have quite a mystery of their own.

one son in two separate an distinct persons with two separate an distinct natures archangel michael/human jesus.. on another thread spike tassel tried to explain this by saying: .

reniaa

HI again

On thinking about this. The only creature that cannot be designating a messenger is the "One true God" himself who has the messengers for him.

As with every discussion this boils down to one point people having to proof Jesus is the one true God. Here is another contradiction revealed. Jesus cannot be a messenger to the one true God and the one true God himself.

back to the hypostatc union.

To acknowledge Jesus is 100% percent God while a man on earth is to put all the following points from scripture at fault, 'Made himself little lower than angels' sacrificed for us' 'emptied himself' 'became' greater. because in everyone it refers to Jesus as a whole and that he can be lower or emptied below other spirit creatures something the "One true God" can't be. So trinitarians in their own minds must say this is only refering to the man part of Jesus they have developed in their own doctrine outside of the bible with no backing from the scriptures that obstinately refer to Jesus as a whole not in parts in all these scriptures.

Reniaa

332

The Son in two persons

by Deputy Dog in

the wt and jws around the world have made the evil "trinity" their reason for existence.

when in fact they have quite a mystery of their own.

one son in two separate an distinct persons with two separate an distinct natures archangel michael/human jesus.. on another thread spike tassel tried to explain this by saying: .

reniaa

HI deputy and leolaia

I think since Jesus is acknowledge Mediator of the new covenant despite malachi ambigous language, I think it's splitting hairs to say he is not the "messenger of the covenant" since he has obvious designated john who did prepare the way for Jesus in the first part of malachi but I'll let it ride.

I changed my mind I am saying all messengers are angels because that the word for angel only means messenger, so hense the hebrew word in malachi is the word for angel/messenger used in both cases, a messenger doesn't have to necessarily be a spirit creature but spirit creatures are called angel/messengers because they were and acted as messenger to God. I refer the 'Angel of the Lord' or 'messenger of the lord' that appeared to the various leaders abraham moses etc.

So what we have in reality is spirit creature who work as angels/messengers on the one side and humans on the other that can also work as messengers/or angels. Jesus is an acknowledge messenger to God.

hebrews clearly shows that Jesus superiority to the angels is not that he isn't an angel but that he earned a position above them, in name hense why we have the word 'Become' used which denotes a lack of superiority in the past so he doesn't preclude a spirit creature acheiving this as isaac would debate it.

At this point you or isaac may say well as a man Jesus he wasn't superior but that would argue against trinitarian doctrine of fully 100% man and m 100% God at the same time which is trying to say Jesus is God in all his 3 cycles so always superior to angels.

As for michael it is a bible Fact that many of the main players have multiple names and titles getting referred to them at various points sometimes letting the text define which being is being refered to. Malachi itself is a point in fact and it takes JEsus to identify one of the messengers in it.

So all witnesses believe is that michael is simply another by which Jesus acts under like he acts under the name of 'the lamb' like he acts under the name of 'the word' like he acts under the name of 'Jesus' or he acts under the name of "christ" which unlike some believe isn't his sir name but the reference to him being the annointed.

For us to acknowledge any sort of hypostatc union we would have to say that it is this openly as trinitarians do, otherwise you are saying anyone with a name change in the bible is showing a hypostatic union if you cannot acknowledge that we can believe it is only a name alternative in our eyes, not a union of one conscousness with another.

That you believe michael is a different person to jesus so you would make it a hypostatic union if you put them together but we just think it is another name alternative of the bible precedent has been set as something that can happen without it involveing some sort of hypostatc union.

Reniaa