[we are;] for we are not peddlers of the word of god as many men are, but as out of sincerity, yes, as sent from god, under gods view, in company with christ, we are speaking.
2 corinthians 2:17, new world translation of the holy scriptures.
heres what was translated as peddlers: kapeleuo from kapelos (a huckster); to retail, that is, (by implication) to adulterate (figuratively): - corrupt.
It is important that we not try to stay balanced in our comments as to show respect for the newly adopted beliefs of others who are trying to make their way after having had their lives shaken up by an unreasonable religious machine.
Say Carl,
I am sure you meant to say: It is important that we now try to stay balanced in our comments .... I do this all the time and sometimes miss them myself? Still time to correct?
Joseph
[we are;] for we are not peddlers of the word of god as many men are, but as out of sincerity, yes, as sent from god, under gods view, in company with christ, we are speaking.
2 corinthians 2:17, new world translation of the holy scriptures.
heres what was translated as peddlers: kapeleuo from kapelos (a huckster); to retail, that is, (by implication) to adulterate (figuratively): - corrupt.
He became a celebrity and peppered (to borrow an analogy from Haszard LOL) his writings with personal opinion - he did not even hide this. He was quickly able to establish rules where there were none before and went far beyond what Jesus had to say. If disfellowshipping, homosexuality, and the role of women etc really mattered to Jesus, he had ample opportunity to discuss it when his words were being documented.
James Free.
So what? Jesus appointed him personally as His apostle (something He did not do for Matthias) as the other apostles and disciples were not doing their jobs regarding such matters. He received revelations from our Lord which easily qualified him to go far beyond what Jesus had to say and proved to them he had our Lord’s support by raising the dead and healing the sick. Are we to now disqualify John because his revelation went far beyond what Jesus taught? They needed this discipline just like they needed Hebrews and other information not discussed by our Lord. He rounded out our knowledge of the Kingdom and what it would accomplish. What amazes me is how many do not like him and distort what he actually taught. Are they still doing things he taught against?
Joseph
so after the revelation study last night where the paragraph was talking about how russell's interpertation of revelation basically didn't work and got discarded, my wife comments with the same old,"the light gets brigther, that's why i respect fds because at least they will change when they figure out something is wrong.
" (insert vomit here) afterwards, me and the book study conductor(i have to at least give him credit, he is someone i can talk to freely about my questions and he has not,as of yet, turned me in) got into a discussion of what 'the light gets brighter' really means.
he basically says so the brothers have made changes, so what?
Jah1914,
To clarify you should know that if the Jerusalem Congregation consisting of apostles and disciples was the FDS for their time, why then did they keep the Law and circumcision long after Christ died and taught Jews everywhere to do the same? Why after Paul was sent by the Antioch congregation to correct this matter did they trick Paul with a letter that only exempted the Gentiles from keeping the Law and circumcision but they continued to keep the Law for over 14 more years. Why after all this time when Paul finally went back to correct them once again (Recorded in Acts chapter 21) did they threaten Paul with violence to take the vows and prove to them all that he (Paul) also walked orderly and kept the Law? 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Why did they now after all this time admit that their letter was intended for Gentiles only and not for Jews? 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. Was Paul wrong or was James, the apostles and thousands of disciples in Jerusalem still wrong? Why did such believing Jews aspire to kill Paul anyway and it took the Roman army to save him? Why did it take the book of Hebrews to put an end to all this if they were the controlling group? Did this book make the light brighter or did it replace the empty lamp they were using that produced no light in support of their conclusions? This is not the only error recorded in scripture made by such a so called FDS. But it was recorded for us so that we would not fear and follow such men and become their disciples.
Joseph
so after the revelation study last night where the paragraph was talking about how russell's interpertation of revelation basically didn't work and got discarded, my wife comments with the same old,"the light gets brigther, that's why i respect fds because at least they will change when they figure out something is wrong.
" (insert vomit here) afterwards, me and the book study conductor(i have to at least give him credit, he is someone i can talk to freely about my questions and he has not,as of yet, turned me in) got into a discussion of what 'the light gets brighter' really means.
he basically says so the brothers have made changes, so what?
Jah1914,
Question: 1. What was true about the (your) answer?
The truth about the wrong answer not coming from the teacher is that it was false.
Question: Did the answer change or did your understanding of it change?
If the understanding was still wrong the answer was still false as in the case of the WT. You are still not getting your information from the teacher as thought. If the understanding was now true then the answer was true and one would at least expect an apology and reason for the error and confusion taught by the leading student not dominance or obedience to them. After all you have access to the same information yourself and can reason it out without such assistance.
Question: 2. How should your fellow students react to the mistake(s) you made?
The student would not be expected to follow their lead but to test their remarks for themselves. Ac 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. They would not teach anything that could not be verified as truth.
Question: How would you want them to react? Once you have what you believe to be the correct answer, should you bring it back to them?
Of course. And in the case of the WT this is not difficult. Very little of what they teach is the truth. Their application of scripture to their HQ staff is a simple example. In which of the many books and magazines printed over the years can they say? This is the truth, there are no mistakes in them? Were you obligated to follow such mistakes? No! Why is it then that they no longer continue to teach from them? Because they are so bad that they can no longer support the views taught in them. Present theology is equally as bad but they conceal it which is the real reason they must shut you up. Can they forgive sin? Can they raise the dead? Can they heal the sick? Are you their disciple? No! To each question, so you are not obligated to follow their lead.
Joseph
so after the revelation study last night where the paragraph was talking about how russell's interpertation of revelation basically didn't work and got discarded, my wife comments with the same old,"the light gets brigther, that's why i respect fds because at least they will change when they figure out something is wrong.
" (insert vomit here) afterwards, me and the book study conductor(i have to at least give him credit, he is someone i can talk to freely about my questions and he has not,as of yet, turned me in) got into a discussion of what 'the light gets brighter' really means.
he basically says so the brothers have made changes, so what?
Jah1914,
Question: 3. Do you think the teacher is upset that you tried and got the wrong answer to a very difficult problem?
The answer is yes. Jesus would not be pleased with such a person that pretended to be authorized by Him and acted as His slave. This is why He clearly stated that on His return to commence His Kingdom He said: 48 "But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; 49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; 50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, 51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Wrong attitude along with the false information offered would be dealt with severely. This is basic theology 101. A faithful and discreet slave cannot even exist on earth until after our Lord returns and examines them in the flesh. Teaching that He returns invisibly is another wrong answer and tends to conceal this problem. The scriptures do not allow for such thinking. There are many such texts but the WT does not apply them for you to see. For example: 2Jo 1:7 "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist." Such slaves are real and exist as shown but not identified as faithful or discreet. The are identified as antichrist. The teaching itself existed only after our Lord was raised once again and promised to return in a like manner at another time. It is a teaching that the apostles themselves thought and Jesus had to correct as in the case of Thomas. So the WT’s attempt to pre-empt this by moving it in time with their false teaching of invisibility has no validity.
Question: Would he be more upset if you just gave up and didn't keep trying to solve the problem? No! But you would no longer be considered a slave. Salvation is not dependent on Doctrine. It is dependent on what you are as a human being. So your everlasting life will not be lost. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Question: He would certainly be justified in being upset and removing you as a tutor if in the problem you missed some simple math portions(incorrectly added numbers, etc), but that wasn't the case you got the simple stuff right, you just missed the difficult portions.
The WT does not get the simple stuff right. What they do is keep making excuses for the many revealed errors they make while their other teachings continue to destroy you and assure your selection as evil when our Lord returns. Challenge them and offer them the right answer and see if you will be commended or disfellowshipped. You will be told to shut up and wait at the very least. Yet the scriptures say: 31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." The implication is self explanatory. If they do not hold to His teachings that you have now clarified then they are not His disciples (much less an FDS) and you are not obligated to obey them or their suggestion that you keep quiet. If they disfellowship you for this then: 10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. 11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.
Question: How should the teacher feel? After all you were one of the few to actually set up and try to help the other students?
There is a vast difference between helping and controlling or dominating the other students. A helpful one no matter how smart would change his answer when the correct answer was offered to him. They would advance together not dominate as the WT does. Peter was corrected by Paul and did not attempt to disfellowship Paul for his interference. Paul even went to Jerusalem to correct them all, and this effort not only failed at the time but took over 14 more years to accomplish. Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. . . 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?Paul also had to confront James, Peter and John in Jerusalem over this very same problem.
It should not be difficult to understand that: Eph 4:25 Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. Those that prevent our doing this or divide this body as the WT does do not represent the faith.
Joseph
does anyone know what the typical "christendom" view of "this generation" is ?.
i was just mulling over the "new" jw view that it refers to the anointed, but don't see how that fits, as at the time that jesus said this to the disciples, the anointing hadn't aken place - they were merely "anointed in waiting".. .
.
The "adventist" idea of some future generation (cf. JosephMalik), or the philosophical concept of timeless generation (cf. SadEmo) are certainly less harmful if not better warranted philologically.
Narkissos,
Well I did not think that somehow the thought was original. Someone else must have reasoned it out as well. This is not a difficult thing to do. The ones thinking that this was a failed prophecy are the ones with the real problem.
Joseph
does anyone know what the typical "christendom" view of "this generation" is ?.
i was just mulling over the "new" jw view that it refers to the anointed, but don't see how that fits, as at the time that jesus said this to the disciples, the anointing hadn't aken place - they were merely "anointed in waiting".. .
.
"THAT generation will by no means pass away", rather than THIS generation.
AlphaOmega,
Since we should be visualizing this prophecy and know that the ones targeted will actually be involved in it then this generation is just fine. It would be THAT generation for everyone except the ones actually involved. And the surrounding texts and information confirm this very well. Paul actually enlarged on it in his writings confirming this for us. But theologians and the WT in particular have distorted this reality so much that it is not discernible and its meaning is lost because of their distortions. The text is clear. The interpretations are not. I find this amazing since the text and supporting material is so clear. You should be able to see this for yourself.
Joseph
does anyone know what the typical "christendom" view of "this generation" is ?.
i was just mulling over the "new" jw view that it refers to the anointed, but don't see how that fits, as at the time that jesus said this to the disciples, the anointing hadn't aken place - they were merely "anointed in waiting".. .
.
AlphaOmega,
Biblically the answer is simple. It is the generation when Christ comes and the resurrection takes place. In Matthew we have: 34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. 36 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Then we see some examples.
And there are other indicators or exactly what is meant such as: 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
In Daniel chapter 12 we have some numbers that indicate that such events will be preceded by just a few years. So we are not talking about a lot of time after we see such things as described in the texts taking place. This is why the Jerusalem of 70CE which is so highly touted as being involved in all this somehow has no place in this prophecy. Christ did not come then and it simply sounds like that Jerusalem was involved. But until we recognize this fact then what was really meant will remain hidden from view for them.
Joseph
hi im new to this, thanks for all the info.
i read last week the item lord of lords and found it intresting and shared it with my jw wife, but she came back with what seemed to be a good answer with psalm110 v1 and matt22 41-45 and it seemed to make sense, what are your thoughts, they would be usefull to give her an answer tonite.
many thanks
hi im new to this, thanks for all the info. i read last week the item lord of lords and found it intresting and shared it with my jw wife, but she came back with what seemed to be a good answer with psalm110 v1 and matt22 41-45 and it seemed to make sense, what are your thoughts, they would be usefull to give her an answer tonite. many thanks
Jonty,
1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. 2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. 3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. 4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
What answer? What was her explanation? How many Lords are there in this verse? If you answer One then you are correct. The word LORD is a corruption of the name of the true God but this was recovered and corrected in this English translation. Placing it in all capital letters draws attention to this fact. There are two persons in this verse and two separate Beings but only one Lord. What we really see is the Jew’s aversion to even write this name in their scrolls.
Now in Matthew:
41While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, 44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
By the time that Matthew was written this distinction was lost and we will see the word LORD rendered as Lord in most of them. The KJV still follows what is found in the Psalms and even capitalizes the word LORD as it did in the Psalms but the name of God that such capitals imply did not appear in the text. It simply follows the convention found in the Psalms that was recovered from some scrolls. So then what was your wife’s view of this term? And what does such evidence prove to her?
Joseph
in order to understand who the lord of lords is, some groundwork on god being one needs to be established as biblical truth.
if the bible in deuteronomy says that god is one, and that hes the lord of lords, then would it make sense to say if there were two lord of lords, then one of them would have a lord that he wasnt the lord over?.
if the two lord of lords were equal, then they both would have a lord which doesnt make sense and contradicts the bible about god-jehovah being just one lord of lords.
Do you think that there could be more than one individual who has the same title LORD of lords? Does that make sense?
Antredd,
There is not another individual with the title LORD or lords in scripture so there is no problem. There is however another individual that has the title Lord of lords (not LORD of lords) just as there is another individual called God but is not GOD or LORD.
This is nothing unusual as even the Kings of Israel were called God and Lord in scripture as were the Patriarchs. That this individual was made God to the human race is documented in John 1:1. Since then this individual has become our God and Lord as well as our Saviour. We however know that this Jesus is not LORD but the Son of this LORD God and functions under God’s authority. Should we deny Him such titles that Moses and others also had? No!
Now trying to use such words for identity such as you have done is where the real problem is. None of these words can be used as real identity because of their multiple use. Your conclusions therefore find no support in scripture but are simply a mis-interpretation of their proper use.
Joseph
