Posts by JosephMalik

4

Examining the WTS (CARIS - about 1976) - PDF

by Doug Mason in

i have uploaded the 8-page brochure examining the wts by caris (about 1976).

its 6.42 mb because my files are large when i scan in color.. you can download it at:.

http://www.filesend.net/download.php?f=fdcaf7c71ad4f7939467360f9cd344d1.

JosephMalik

Doug,

You know Doug, I took a look at that article by CARIS and it gave the WTS some hits that it truly deserved. But it also had an article in it about the word Theotetos which appears only once in the NT. Other spellings or applications are also possible as in the KJV. Similar words appear a few more times but not many. And the article said that: "this word differs from THEIOT (divinity) as essence differs from quality or attribute." But this was simply an assumption since no proof was given and the word was used of a human body not something non-human or contrary to human nature. The verse actually said: 2:9 KJV For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 2:9 RSV For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, And you know I agree with that for it does not support the Trinity Doctrine. The truth is we should all be like that since Jesus and the Father were one. This is what the word really means. And Jesus taught that we should be one in the same way that He was one with the Father. What does that make us? Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one. And other texts will show they are not the same Being. This brings us to this reality. Joh 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. I believe that as well. But the article makes this text in Col 2:9 out to be God in the flesh. And then says: This is exactly what Christianity is proclaiming - - the Eternal God became flesh and died for the sins of the world and that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself." This is not a true statement and does not properly represent the text. Did the Jewish Christians to which this letter was delivered believe anything like that? If so where? They had no such idea of the Trinity for thousands of years and still do not believe anything like that. And many Christians that are not part of the WTS do not believe it either. So it is not Christianity but a sect derived from it that altered the meaning in this way. The whole of Christianity (both good and bad) has not been Judged yet and any Evil ones found in it not teaching the truth will be removed when our Lord returns to Judge it.

Joseph

32

Help reform the crumbling tower with your bright ideas

by JH in

lets say that the watchtower approached you to help them be more successful, so that more people join and be happier jw's.. what would you suggest?.

JosephMalik

JH,

The scriptures teach to get out if we do not want to share in her sins and not reform such an organization. It took me a while to grasp it. But this time confirmed for me what was written all along.

Joseph

18

Let JWD find the true number of partakers!

by cultswatter in

i've heard stories that most congregations have no partakers at all.

if there are approx 9000 partakers in 90,000 congregations then 81,000 congregations don't have partakers.

i just don't believe that - how bout you??

JosephMalik

We had one in our Hall here in Wilmington NC. There may have been some it the other halls. Could they be lying and just now trying to get out of it by letting everyone partake? What of the ones that died and never had a chance? You know there is a scripture that says: Mt 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Bad news for them.

Joseph

5

Studies on the "Name of God" - PDF files

by Doug Mason in

the wts pats itself on the back for revealing the name of the true god.

it claims that through superstition and by deliberate action, jews and apostate christianity have hidden the name.. the truth is, the name jehovah that the wts reveals is not gods name but a confused and mistaken concoction.

the wts has inserted this mistaken name into its nt, using english characters.. in hebrew thought, a name is the very person, it is not a handle.

JosephMalik

Doug,

I do not believe in the Trinity and I believe that God is one Person, One Being as a result. The Trinity doctrine does not since by saying that there is one God and hiding behind this thought they add more persons to this one God and run all over the Bible trying to prove it. But the scriptures when translated into the Greek Septuagint used the English word BEING for God saying, I AM the BEING and not simply I AM as many think when it introduces Him as real and existing. Clearly one Being, one Person, one yet un-named God in this verse. This name YHWH would be revealed in the next sentence. Jews recognized such verses this way ever since then without correction from this Being. This Being in turn accepted them as His People. Since you point to Trinitarian material then a further explanation of why you are doing this should be expected. If I am to know exactly what you believe then naturally I expect you to explain yourself and not simply go on teaching such things and at the same time demand immunity from challenges. If your views are scripturally based then this should be no problem.

You said: I believe there is one God, not many and I do not believe that Moses possessed the divine nature.

The Divine nature (whatever that means?) is not required of someone like Moses identified as a God to someone else. Why do you keep saying this? Ex 7:1 NAS Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. If you are free to say whatever you like than why should I be restricted? How are others to determine what to believe?

You said: Maybe you could tell me where the WTS gets the idea that "YHWH" is the Father's name.

I do not speak for them but the scriptures did that for all of us when the reality of His existence was first revealed to Moses. For example they say: Ex 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. The word in all capitals shown as LORD here is YHWH. And it was used thousands of times in the texts because it was His name and positive proof of His identity. Substitutes such as LORD and GOD came later but such letters are still behind this use of capitals in some versions and this continues to make this distinction in many but not all texts. The failure by many to maintain this name led rise to abuse as clear identification was then lost. The word God began to be used in ways not intended with new (Trinitarian and other like Mormon) meanings attached to it. It is these new meanings that I see you are supporting. You can correct me if you do not support such views and tell us now what you really think and why?

Joseph

50

I just stumped our PO!!!

by The Last Nephilim in

i have never seen this guy stumped on a bible topic or point before, but history was made today!!!

he and a soon-to-be elder were doing a shepherding call on my wife and i because we've missed weeks worth of meetings and had no service time for dec. he went through the usual lectures about how we're cutting off jehovah by missing meetings (because we all know god won't lift a finger for those who don't go to meetings, right?

) he gave some good illustrations- the guy really is a good teacher, it's just what he's teaching that's questionable.

JosephMalik

The Lord of me and the God of me".

The Last Nehpilim,

This is because the WT does not understand it either. They double talk their way around such use. The text did not say the YHWH of me or the only true God of me and thus provide something closer to absolute identity. This word God is not identity. They do not understand the word Truth either. They cry out "we have the truth" but hardly anything that they say and teach is truth. A PO and this PO in particular is not smart, just clever. He has no authority over you, nor has Christ authorized him to be such.

Joseph

5

Studies on the "Name of God" - PDF files

by Doug Mason in

the wts pats itself on the back for revealing the name of the true god.

it claims that through superstition and by deliberate action, jews and apostate christianity have hidden the name.. the truth is, the name jehovah that the wts reveals is not gods name but a confused and mistaken concoction.

the wts has inserted this mistaken name into its nt, using english characters.. in hebrew thought, a name is the very person, it is not a handle.

JosephMalik

The WTS pats itself on the back for revealing the Name of the True God. It claims that through superstition and by deliberate action, Jews and apostate Christianity have hidden the Name.

Doug,

They do and they think they can score points with God by using it. It is as if they think that such use protects and distinguishes them magically somehow. Jews on the other hand were so fearful of using it that they replaced the name with other words like God and Heaven. Even today such words are held in such regard that they spell G_d instead of God.

You said: The truth is, the name "Jehovah" that the WTS reveals is not God’s name but a confused and mistaken concoction. The WTS has inserted this mistaken name into its NT, using English characters.

This is denying what is staring you in the face. The WTS was not the first to try translating this name and we find it rendered in one form or another in other translations as well. It is a real translation of the Hebrew letters from which it was derived. There are other derivatives that could have been used and other languages in which this was done as well so this is not limited to Jehovah. Something like Yahweh also is used with this and other spellings that many prefer. Attempts to transliterate and all that used in arguments about it do not change this reality. At least it identified and replaced the Jewish substitutes like LORD and GOD used for it in times past that corrupted the text for many years and hid the real application and use of such words. But it is true that the WTS use in the NT cannot be supported as you state here. Its use by the WTS borders on idolatry

You said: In Hebrew thought, a "name" is the very person, it is not a handle. Hence the change in a person’s name following a significant, life-changing experience.

This is funny. You give our Supreme Being no credit for intelligence. Nowhere in His word does God say that pronunciation would be a problem for Him or that He would reject anyone doing so. You give our Father no credit for the many languages He caused to exist in which this name would be rendered. And you have no proof for what you are saying here. But this does present a problem. How then did YHWH the "name" of "this very person" somehow become the Father, Son and HolySpirit. Under what authority and where in scripture were such changes made?

You said: So to reveal God’s name is to reveal his character, to reveal the nature of his Being. This is what Jesus did.

And this is a good thing is it not? But how did Jesus do this? By saying Yahweh and lot of times instead of Lord or God? By revealing his plan to redeem us opening up the scriptures and teaching us and acting the way God would have acted in his place? Yes! But the nature of His Being was not revealed visually or literally by the human Jesus standing before them. We know this because Jesus said: By Joh 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. So that is not the way we should be thinking. We should be thinking another way, this way in fact where he said: Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Comprehension, by now understanding his prophecies and commandments, see with the minds eye how we should act, think and believe. He was one with the Father in such ways despite the fact that he as a human did not had the nature of such a Being.

You said: I do not pretend to understand everything provided by these authors, but there is sufficient to show that the WTS does not have a clue.

This is true just as Trinitarians do not have a clue. Why else would both of them falsely teach we will go to someplace else called heaven to live and work? False doctrine is not what we get from Jesus who promised humans redemption and immortality in a kingdom here on earth instead. Nowhere do we see Jesus doing what the WTS and Trinitarians are doing.

Joseph

4

"... and the Word was God" (Warren) -- PDF file

by Doug Mason in

i have provided the scan of a study, ".

.and the word was god" (5.59 mb) that was given to me over 30 years ago.. http://www.filesend.net/download.php?f=d2d4d87d0abec5b50616d92beaaf0701.

i would like to add my own comment that the introduction of john's gospel was addressed to contemporaries of his who said "flesh" is "evil, and sin".

JosephMalik

I do not see "God" in terms of "authority" but in terms of "the essential attributes of deity".

Doug,

But the scriptures do not. There is no verse to support such thinking. In any event deity is not trinity. The term deity applies only to the Father and the Son in the text.

You said: A human might have authority over another but each still self-possesses the attributes of the human nature. One is not a lesser human because of their rank or position in society.

But the term God can still be applied to such a human as it was to Moses and others. We are not lesser humans because we are not the President of the country, but we do not have the authority that the President has. This is the way God is used in scripture. Your argument is not applicable as shown. Nor does such an argument support the Trinitarian concept.

You said: Further, I suggest you find out what a Trinitarian means by "person".

But I do know what Trinitarians mean by person and they are simply wrong in their assumptions. They think they have a superior understanding of this simple word that refutes their view.

After all I did write Beyond Trinitarianism which is found on my web site as a supplement to the book. It is some 61 pages at present and covers the subject beyond what is necessary to disprove it. The doctrine is despicable and shared by many that support hell fire and immortal soul as well. Such people do not indicate that they really know what the scriptures are teaching us..

You said: It is still my understanding that John was addressing contemporaries of his who said Jesus was an ethereal spirit because they equated "flesh" with "sin", and hence Jesus could not have been a real physical man.

How words are used is usually determined by context not grammar. But John knew that Jesus was not spirit and recorded this for us. John also knew that Jesus had another nature that was not offered to us and wrote about this as well. John also tells us when this non-human nature applied to Jesus which Trinitarians value so much. So what others may think is not a factor that somehow supports the Trinitarian view. You are free of course to prove your points if you like. I have already documented such information.

You said: Sin is not an attribute of human nature, and the nature that Jesus took was untarnished by sin.

But it can be and was in our case. In fact one did not have to actually commit a sin for it be applied to them. This is because it was an attribute of our human nature since we received their life from Adam. Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Jesus did not receive his life from Adam and this is the reason that he was without sin. It is the source of his life not human nature that determines this.

You said: I am still looking for a thought out answer from the WTS on the nature of Christ.

And I answered this question long ago but that is another story. The WTS does not know the answer just as Trinitarians do not know the answer. I wanted to know the definition of Deity and I never got a scriptural answer to my question either. All I got were opinions that could not be supported and/or applied to the way they abused the word in their theology.

Joseph

16

The Earthly Hope for the thief on the cross?

by Honesty in

since jesus died first and the curtain in the temple was torn in two did the thief share in the earthly or the heavenly hope?.

so the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first man and of the other one who had been crucified with him.

when they came to jesus, they did not break his legs since they saw that he was already dead.

JosephMalik

Laying Low,

You may be right. But remember this is a JW board and they teach differently. They word things the way she did and imply different meanings to such texts. And until Honesty answers in more precise terms and statements we will not know. Why else would she have tried to challenge me to the questions I already answered?

Joseph

16

The Earthly Hope for the thief on the cross?

by Honesty in

since jesus died first and the curtain in the temple was torn in two did the thief share in the earthly or the heavenly hope?.

so the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first man and of the other one who had been crucified with him.

when they came to jesus, they did not break his legs since they saw that he was already dead.

JosephMalik

Honesty,

I have been doing it for years and this board is full of such comments. This is your thead and your proposition. You put it out for discussion on your terms. So you go first.

Joseph

16

The Earthly Hope for the thief on the cross?

by Honesty in

since jesus died first and the curtain in the temple was torn in two did the thief share in the earthly or the heavenly hope?.

so the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first man and of the other one who had been crucified with him.

when they came to jesus, they did not break his legs since they saw that he was already dead.

JosephMalik

Since Jesus died first and the curtain in the temple was torn in two did the thief share in the earthly or the heavenly hope?

Honesty,

Are there two kingdoms in different places? Can you support this assumption? Then is the kingdom divided somehow in two different places? Can you support this assumption instead? Well then will this kingdom consist of a human ruler complete with administrators and a general population that will need such an administration? Can this be supported? Yes! I can support this assumption. And will all this be in the same place like for instance the earth when Christ returns here? Yes! I can support this assumption. And would you say that anyone not part of the administration the kingdom as it is known would never the less be in paradise with Jesus because of this? Yes. I can support this assumption. One would not expect this thief to be one of the administrators of it such as his apostles and disciples will be. The time when one died does not determine who belongs where. I can also support this assumption. Christ determines such things not this circumstance. But if I am wrong please use the scriptures to correct me on all this.

Joseph