i still go to a few meetings a month just to keep members of my family happy.. the witnesses seemed to be getting all worked up about how close the end.
it sorta feels like the 1975 era only 35 years later.
the brother who gave.
Technically the bible has being predicting Armageddon 4000+ years. Jesus was asked when will the "conclusion" be. So if you think Jehovah's witnesses are slow after 120 years, you must really struggle with the length of time the bible has made you wait?
Armageddon only has to happen right once!
that they (trinity) are burning billions alive...forever?
with worms that live forever gnawing on them?.
Teel, I admit the concept of "hell" (eternal Torture) was in other non-christian religions under various names. So I should have been clearer that I was refering to the bible's and Christianities concept of "Hell" but wiki does admit.
"Judaism does not have a specific doctrine about the afterlife,"
The word Hell, in the Old Testament, is always a translation of the Hebrew word Sheol, which occurs sixty-four times, and is rendered "hell" thirty-two times, "grave" twenty-nine times, and "pit" three times.
1. By examination of the Hebrew Scriptures it will be found that its radical or primary meaning is, The place or state of the dead.
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/tbhell.html
Next wiki doesn't really go into how Christianity developed this concept only citing established post-third century Christian religions that support a specific Hellfire dogma.
""And I looked, and behold a pale horse; and his name that sat on him was death, and hell followed him." ReV vi 8. There is no necessary connection between death and a place of endless punishment, as all men die, good or bad; but there is a connection between death and the grave, or the state of the dead; and there is a propriety in representing the last as following the first. "And death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them." ReV xx. 13. This is the reverse of what is usually taught and believed of hell; for the leading idea is that it will not give up those who are in it. Surely the hell the Revelator speaks of is not a place of endless torments. This is further confirmed by the next verse, where it is said, "death and hell were cast into the lake of fire," that is, utterly destroyed. Of course, then, this hell cannot be a place of endless woe, since it is not itself endless."
I agree completely with the witnesses on this one. Or are you going to say "sheol"/grave is not a biblical teaching that got changed to Eternal hellfire in dogma?
externally, we get a certain 'impression' of what living in england is like.
every third baby boy is named mohammed.
people who engage in self defense are imprisoned while criminals are given a 'firm talking to' and have their hands slapped.
BBC world news is accounted one of the most popular news channels world-wide.
that they (trinity) are burning billions alive...forever?
with worms that live forever gnawing on them?.
Hellfire was born from people taking a parable from Jesus way to literally and also liking the third century dogma of an immortal soul but then realising they had to create a immortally nasty place as a complement for the ones that get the immortally nice place.
i still go to a few meetings a month just to keep members of my family happy.. the witnesses seemed to be getting all worked up about how close the end.
it sorta feels like the 1975 era only 35 years later.
the brother who gave.
I am confused here.
Are you questioning the bible prophecy of Armageddon here and whether it will happen?
Or are you just questioning that witnesses believe this?
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
this debate is quite thrilling.. .
start at three minutes and forty two seconds where bart ehrman begins speaking.
then, if you find this compelling, go back and watch all the debate.. .
We can do what Jehovah's witnesses have done... that is, take the earliest examples of translations available. Take what the majority agree on and also use what the original understanding of words from the actual languages they were written in were and not later dogma driven meanings that are not original to the source languages. Then look what the Bible says as a fluent whole rather than cherry pick what you like and contradict what you don't.
Most people don't argue bible texts but rather they argue the dogma put onto the bible texts.
this debate is quite thrilling.. .
start at three minutes and forty two seconds where bart ehrman begins speaking.
then, if you find this compelling, go back and watch all the debate.. .
Was Jesus talking to people that doubted the existence of God? and the validity of the bible? Or even that there would be a messiah?
Your asking Jesus to give you answers to the argument that he was a man, that he existed, when he was actually a man and existing.
How could jesus answer questions to you when he was talking to a group that challenged him on other issues and answering those not you?
People ask for an extraordinary proof from the bible that they expect from no other source. How do we know about any historical figure? how do we know about Plato, Henry the 8th, Julius Caesar? How do we know any historical event happened? They are documented and written about just the same as Jesus and the bible are documented and written about but believed more.
We accept as fact many other historical events and people, that have a lot less proof and testimony about them than the bible and Jesus does.
The Bible is very unusual because many of it's events/people have been corroborated by secular sources included archaeology and other writers.
Today we have a weird situation were you will get doubters saying "okay I have to accept it is correct on that bit because it has been proven historically but this bit were they haven't found a secular evidence yet to support it, I can still deny openly." With no other written document will you get parts fully accepted and other parts totally denied still.
as many of you know the active jehovah's witness known as v has a youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/wtcomments .
v has 27 videos and 1000 subscribers on his channel and over 200,000 views so far.
his most recent video is a satirical expose of the most recent generation doctrine change.
The video maker clearly infringe copyright laws and so faced the consequences. The wts were well within their rights to point out this breech of law as all organisations can and do.
some months ago i was listening to a co-worker witnessing to some others about why he believes and why they should to.
as i listened i kept hearing over and over about the "rewards" of eternal life in heaven in the kingdom of god.
later on we had a conversation that went like this.. me: can i ask you a question about your beliefs?.
Did first century Christians become Christians for the reward?
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Do people of other Christian religions do it so they get to heaven and avoid hell?
Is it a bad thing to recognise the reward and blessings of our actions from God?
if you have been "brain washed" the control of your thinking has been wrested away from you and diverted.. .
hidden cues have replaced the ordinary path of logical analysis when examining your world.. .
think of this like a detour sign on a highway.
This goes both ways. A person can evaluate any belief structure he buys into by a few well chosen questions and his responses to them. Try the following.
There is no God this is a fact. true, somewhat true, maybe true, false.
Did you pause to think about this? did you consider the alternatives? Would you ask people to accept this statement as a fact and not analyse the alternatives for themselves?
Complete sexual freedom is beneficial for society. true, somewhat true, maybe true, false.
Did you pause to think about this? Do you think the question encompasses a lot more issues than one simple statement can express? Do cultural demands drive our viewpoints?
Disbanding all religions will end war. true, somewhat true, maybe true, false.
Enough people blame religion for wars totally as a cultural norm and promote this viewpoint. If you believe this did you think this statement completely correct without a pause? If you think war is more complex than this did you think this statement a false one straight away?
A person can look at road rules and see the benefit to them by personal analyse. But this equally applies to the bible and what it teaches. It can also be measured and evaluated.
If I look at a road sign saying "children crossing" indicating I slow down. I immediately see the benefit of it for both myself and the children. In future I program myself to obey this sign and no longer think about it since it has already been processed.
We can do the same with bible teachings seeing the benefit of teachings on morality etc obviously evaluating them initially to see whether we accept them. Do we then keep evaluating our original decisions so as to reasure ourselves?
Are you saying we cannot have confidence in a biblical setting without it being a cult mindset?
