Posts by djeggnog

posted

457
TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else
by UnDisfellowshipped in
1. watchtower
2. bible
trinity challenge using only the new world translation of the holy scriptures -- let us debate and reason on the scriptures about whether god almighty is a trinity, or is only one person.. on another thread, bane said that we know for a fact immediately that nearly all religions other than jehovah's witnesses are false because almost all of them believe in the trinity.

and bane claims he can "out-scripturize" anyone with the help of jehovah.

* the son was praying to the father.
djeggnog

@garyneal:
What does Jesus mean when He says, "for unless you believe that I am He?"
The controversy surrounding the Lord Jesus Christ is whether he was, in fact, the "Son of man" (notice that Jesus uses "Son of man" at John 8:28 and "Son" at John 8:36, both referring to his title at Daniel 7:13) that is to say, the promised Messiah, or "Christ," that the Jews had been expecting, "the prophet that was to come" (John 6:14, 7:26). You should also notice that in this same verse -- John 8:24 (from which you have quoted) -- and at John 8:28, the Greek words _egó eimí_ are rendered in both verses as "I am he," while at John 8:58, the same Greek words are rendered as just "I am," without the addition of the word "he," evidently for theological reasons to make it appear that Jesus uses the title, "I AM" at Exodus 3:14.
Many of the folks that make this theological argument do not know that the Greek Septuagint doesn't use the words "_egó eimí_" at all, but instead renders this specific portion of Exodus 3:14 as _ho On_, which means "The Being" or "The One who is," and _ho On_ ("the One") is applied to Jehovah at Revelation 1:8 and at Revelation 11:17.
Of course, there are some folks that do know this, but they have an agenda. When you get to John 8:56, Jesus is still making the point that he is the Messiah, for he says there that Abraham's faith led him to rejoice in the prospect of the arrival of the promised Seed, the Messiah, for at Genesis 22:18, we read God's promise to Abraham that it would be "by means of [Abraham's] seed" that all nations of the earth would bless themselves, Jesus also indicated at John 8:58 that he had been in a position to have observed Abraham's faith in action since in Jesus' prehuman existence, before Abraham had not even been born, Jesus had existed.
@Podobear:
Similarly, Jesus takes on the attributes of his Father and sometimes the functions too.. but he is a "creation" both in a heavenly and earthly sense. So, No, he is NOT Jehovah.
Adding to what you have said here, Jesus is referred to at Revelation 3:14 as being "the beginning of the creation by God," so not only is Jesus God's firstborn, but he is God's first creation, who the apostle Paul states, at Hebrews 10:12, 13, had been biding his time sitting at God's right hand "until [when] his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet" (Psalm 110:1).
However, it is when the end of the "appointed times of the nations" (Luke 21:24) had arrived that God "again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth" (Hebrews 1:6) to rule "in the midst of your enemies" (Psalm 110:2) during his invisible presence after having girded on power in his having dealt a blow to his heavenly enemies in 1914 when Jesus began ruling as king (Revelation 12:7-12), and having received an anointing from God as a prophet, as high priest, and in his kingship.
Paul distinguishes Jesus from the rest of God's angels, for Jesus is the only one of the angels to whom God refers as "my son," underscoring the fact that Jesus' anointing was "more than [had any of Jesus'] partners" received from God, their anointing having only been as a king (Hebrews 1:5-9).
457
TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else
by UnDisfellowshipped in
1. watchtower
2. bible
trinity challenge using only the new world translation of the holy scriptures -- let us debate and reason on the scriptures about whether god almighty is a trinity, or is only one person.. on another thread, bane said that we know for a fact immediately that nearly all religions other than jehovah's witnesses are false because almost all of them believe in the trinity.

and bane claims he can "out-scripturize" anyone with the help of jehovah.

* the son was praying to the father.
djeggnog

@Undisfellowshipped:
TRINITY Challenge using ONLY the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures -- Let us debate and reason on the Scriptures about whether God Almighty is a Trinity, or is only One Person.
I have read many of the threads in which you either started or in which you were an active participant, @Undisfellowshipped, but I'm pretty sure that you are not able to discuss your faith in Trinity, let alone debate it reasonably with others (you wrote "debate and reason"), so I'm just going to do my best here to help you to focus on your own topic, assuming this is something that you believe you are prepared to do. Anything extraneous that you decide to inject into this discussion will not be given any consideration and such will be unceremoniously "shown the door," as it were, since these discussions about the Trinity do tend to go off the proverbial rails, and I, like the man, Jehonadad (about whom I'm sure folks that have read the Bible and do not just make John 1:1, John 8:58 and John 20:28 their "gospel" and whole reason for living), do not tolerate any rivalry toward Jehovah. I suppose it's just a character defect, so I've learned to live with it.
On another thread, BANE said that we know for a fact immediately that nearly all religions other than Jehovah's Witnesses are FALSE because almost all of them believe in the Trinity. And BANE claims he can "Out-Scripturize" anyone with the help of Jehovah. So here is his chance.
Were someone to issue to them such a taunt, I can appreciate how one might be a bit reluctant to step into the fray and ruckus that typically accompanies such "anything goes" discussions had about the Trinity. If I happen to someone that believes the things the Bible says to have been written to Jehovah's Witnesses that they might survive the coming day of judgment, then it is a reasonable conclusion to draw that I must also be of the belief that all other religions, whether they be of the "Christian" variety or any of the non-Christian and atheist "faiths," are false, regardless of whether any one of these Christian or non-Christian faiths should believe the Trinity to have some merit or believe Elvis is still alive. Now I don't know Bane and have only read some of the messages that he has posted to this forum, and while he strikes me as being someone that is full of faith, he also comes off as someone that enjoys patting himself on the back for the things of the spirit that he has come to learn as if he did not receive what things he knows from someone else. (1 Corinthians 4:7)
So, I challenged BANE to a debate on the Trinity using only the New World Translation. He has yet to respond. So I am now issuing that challenge to him and ANYONE else who would accept.
All I ask is that you do your best to stay focused, for I will withdraw from this discussion (or debate) if you should introduce arguments that have nothing at all to do with proving the Trinity to be a Bible-based doctrine using the New World Translation of the Holy Scripture.
But BEFORE you start debating, PLEASE look at the following list which EXPLAINS exactly what I mean when I say TRINITY:
The historical Trinity Doctrine of the Christian (Protestant and Catholic) churches has always been this:
[1] There is only One True God by Nature.
[2] There are Three Distinct Persons who share equally the Nature of God.
[3] There are NOT three different GODS (that is the false doctrine of Tritheism or Polytheism).
[4] There is NOT one PERSON who is revealed three different ways (that is the false doctrine of Modalism).
[5] However, each Person of the Trinity does have His own "role" or "function." The Son willingly obeys the Father. The Spirit willingly obeys the Father and the Son. (This is known as "Functional Subordinationism")
[6] Each of the Three Persons is called "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh") and "God" in the Bible.
[7] The Father, Son, and Spirit are EQUAL in Nature, Essence, Attributes, Qualities, Power, Knowledge, etc.
[8] The Father, Son, and Spirit deserve EQUAL worship and praise and prayer from Christians.
Why does it matter that the Protestant and Catholic churches teach the Trinity doctrine? There are non-denominational churches that teach that embrace the teaching on the Trinity, too, churches like yourself, for example, since I did read one of your messages in this thread in which you indicated that you do not promote any "church or religious group," so why bring this up when it is enough that you and your church of one is out here in the world defending the Trinity?
Anyway, I numbered each of the eight (8) items you mentioned above so that we can focus on just these items as you go on to prove each one of them using the NWT Bible. Note that excluded from your list are the following items which are unacceptable in a discussion of the Trinity where the discussion centers around the three Persons said to be one God, for there is nothing at all "three-ish" in any of the following six (6) items that had been included in your post:
* Jesus IS Jehovah, but He is NOT The Father or The Spirit.
* The Son is the One who died on the Cross, NOT The Father or The Spirit.
* The Father is the One who sent The Son into the world. (Jesus did NOT send Himself)
* The Son was praying to The Father. (Jesus was NOT praying to Himself)
* While Jesus was on earth (and even after He returned to heaven), The Father had a greater position or rank of authority within the Godhead.
* The Son took on flesh, and became 100% Human in addition to being 100% God. That is why He had certain human limitations while He was on earth.
I don't say that you cannot or even should not believe any of these things in your list that are excluded, for you are certainly free to believe whatever it is you wish to believe, even as I also have such freedom, but you don't get to "stack the deck" by tossing into this discussion things that are totally irrelevant to it.
Let me be the first to apologize on behalf of all Trinitarians for the behavior and actions of those who have treated you wrongly. Also, I do want to make it clear to everyone that I am NOT promoting ANY church or religious group. I only want people to study in the Scriptures and THINK for themselves just like the Beroeans did at Acts 17:11.
Why do you feel the need to be among the first "to apologize on behalf of all Trinitarians" for anyone's behavior and actions? This is a forum and if others should get upset with anything at all that they read here on this board, then they should not be here, and they can remedy the problem by turning off their computers (which is an extreme!), or by visiting a website like Yahoo! for entertainment, for this web site is not a Kingdom Hall, not a church and it isn't some revolutionary substitute for a place of worship. This forum is like a coffee shop where people might talk about anything, e.g., the Bible, politics, sports, what have you. Some folks come to websites like this to win Bible-related arguments; others come due to their having a bit of curiosity.
Now if Bane thinks that he can be a participant on a website like this one and report the time he spends on them, maybe he'll read this post and come to realize that coming to this website does not constitute sacred service, does not involve direct worship to God, and therefore cannot be counted or reported as if what things Jehovah's Witnesses should decide to do for entertainment, like spending the day at an amusement park with their family is somehow the same as our rendering direct worship to God; whatever it is we do for entertainment is not sacred service. Being part of a group assigned to clean up the Kingdom Hall or to provide services at a convention of Jehovah's Witnesses would both be sacred service, direct worship to God, but Jehovah's Witnesses cannot report such time spent in carrying out what assignments they might receive to the best of their respective abilities.
Why do you care that folks are making a "study in the Scriptures" and that they are thinking for themselves if you are not, as you say, here promoting either a church or a religious group? Do you think that encouraging others to take up a study of the Scriptures, as you are doing, isn't the same as your promoting a sect? When you say this, are you not also speaking to the atheists among us here? Why should they be interested in joining your sect when most atheists do tend to think for themselves, and typically they don't profess believe in a god, in any god (let alone a "Trinity" God!), which is kind of why these folks often refer to themselves as atheists?
If you actually study the Bible and you truly do not believe that the Trinity is taught in the Scriptures, then you should not believe it.
Ok.
If you truly believe that the Bible teaches Unitarianism, then you should believe that.
Please explain why someone that doesn't believe that the Trinity doctrine has scriptural support should not believe in Unitarianism? I don't follow your logic here, considering that Trinitarianism is not the same as Unitarianism, and unless you are claiming that Unitarianism is the very antithesis of belief in the Trinity -- which I don't believe you are saying here -- then it makes no real sense for you to have said this.
And I agree that everyone should be open to hearing arguments from the other side, and should be open to discussing the Scriptures and different interpretations of them.
I'm open to hearing your arguments for Trinitarianism, but what is this "other side"? I'm willing to discuss and listen to your interpretation of the Bible texts in the NWT that you claim provide support for the Trinity doctrine, but why should others be open to listening to your arguments or to discussing the Scriptures and your take on what they mean?
With that being said, when it comes to belief in the Deity of Christ that is a very serious important belief necessary for salvation (according to most churches), so yes you are going to meet a lot of people who will not accept Unitarian beliefs because then they would be at risk of going to Hell for eternity.
So what does any of this have to do with this topic, this discussion? Forget all of that and let's just focus on this topic that you started here as we "reason on the Scriptures about whether God Almighty is a Trinity, or is only One Person." Ok, @Undisfellowshipped, your turn.
19
How Long Has The Christ Been Invisibly Present?
by wannabe in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
how long has the christ been invisibly present?.

i don't know as i have covered this one before or not, but can't we say that jesus has been invisibly present ever since his ascension in the first century?

didn't he indicate that he was in this following scripture?.
djeggnog

@wannabe:
[C]an't we say that Jesus has been invisibly present ever since his ascension in the first Century? Didn't he indicate that he was in this following scripture ... "I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." {Matthew 28:18-20 KJV}
You can say whatever it is you like, but this expression, about Jesus being "with" the anointed members of his congregation until "the end of the world" is just one way of Jesus giving assurance to his disciples of his approval for the disciple-making work that lay ahead of them.
Isn't it true, that when the Christ's anointed Brothers sit down with Jesus on his Throne after conquering the World, as he did; they are crowned King Priests?
Yes, but Christ's anointed brothers, the 24 elders dressed in white outer garments and who were seen by the apostle John in his vision wearing golden crowns upon their heads, many of whom had been martyred, were told to "rest a little while longer" until their number had been filled, "who were about to be killed as they also had been" (Revelation 4:4; 6:10, 11), so that John, who was one of the 144,000 knew that he, too, would be going to his "rest" until at some point during "the presence of the Lord" those who were already "dead in union with Christ" would be resurrected to heavenly life and thereby given their assignments as king priests. (1 Thessalonians 4:15, 16)
Now no one can be so dogmatic as to say that the "first resurrection" occurred in the year 1918, some 3-1/2 years after Jesus was installed as king in 1914, just because Jesus became King-Designate in 33 AD, some 3-1/2 years after his anointing in the year 29 AD, but we do know that during the Lord's presence those who had already "fallen asleep in death" were the first to be resurrected, and that those of Christ's anointed brothers that finish their earthly course during the Lord's presence will be changed "in the twinkling of an eye" and join Jesus in his heavenly kingdom "as priests to our God," and from where they will "rule as kings over the earth." (Revelation 5:10; 20:6; 1 Corinthians 15:52)
Am I amiss in saying, the Christ has been invisibly present ever since his ascension in the first Century?
In a word, yes.
Now! I'm no great [mathematician], but the scriptural information is, the Christ has been invisibly present for well over two thousand years now; and to say that he has only been invisibly present since 1914 just has to be an utterance of the Spiritually Blind. They do not understand the Book they tell us no else understands but them. Who is that, you say? The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is who!
Actually, it isn't true that "the scriptural information" is that Jesus Christ "has been invisibly present for well over two thousand years now," for his presence began when the appointed times of the nations were fulfilled in 1914. Anyone that suggests that Jesus' invisible presence began before 1914 would be dogmatically blind to the truth, if not spiritually blind. Not just the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, but all Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide recognize this as being the truth!
On Pentecost of 33 AD, the apostle Peter relates at Acts 2:32-36 how after Jesus' resurrection, God had made Jesus "both Lord and Christ," which made Jesus the "head over all things to the congregation" (Ephesians 1:22), but because he had only being recognized as being king over his spirit-anointed subjects, "the Israel of God" at that time (Galatians 6:16), Peter was there indicating how Jesus had, in effect, become King-Designate toward the kingdom of the world, since he had to sit at the right hand of power and wait until the time appointed by God to expire when Jesus' enemies would be placed as a footstool for his feet.
This waiting period is somewhat similar to the time that the Bush Administration had to wait between his being declared the victor after the election on November 4, 2000, until his inauguration as president on January 20, 2001, during which Bush was only President-elect Bush, having authority over those in his cabinet, his only "subjects," or similar to the 77 days that the Obama Administration had to wait between his becoming the victor after the election on November 4, 2008, until his inauguration as president on January 20, 2009, during which Obama was only President-elect Obama, having authority over those in his cabinet, his "subjects."
However, when the full limit of the appointed times of the nations came and the "appointed times" were fulfilled in 1914, Jehovah's Witnesses discern that Jesus thereupon took up full Kingdom power over "the kingdom of the world" as king. This means that Jesus is no longer King-Designate, but he has been actively ruling as king of God's heavenly government over his earthly subjects 'in the midst of his enemies' since 1914. (Acts 2:32-36; Hebrews 10:12, 13; Psalm 110:1, 2)
39
@ djeggnog
by bennyk in
1. jw
2. friends
2:16), and sanctified (john 17:19; 1 cor.

7:25; 1 john 2:1), high priest (heb.

3:29; 4:7; titus 3:6,7; heb.
djeggnog

@bennyk:
djeggnog, you have given no response to the quotes above indicating that the Watch Tower Society claims to be God's prophet.
I read the quotes in your post, but what my reading of them told me is that you believe them to support your point of view. Your point of view seems to me to me -- and I could be wrong here, so please forgive me if I have totally understood it -- that the WTS is not being used by God today as His prophet. Isn't this really your point? If I am correct about this being your point in the main, then why do you claim that I have given you "no response" to the many quotes you provided in your post from various publications produced by the WTS? If you were to look at the big picture, responding to all that you have been saying here, including these quotes, is really all that I've been doing in this thread. For example, in your previous post, you objected to Jehovah's Witnesses being referred to as "prophets," even though that is exactly what all Jehovah's Witnesses are.
I can discern and have discerned from reading in this thread what you called your "gospel" that you were once actively associated with God's organization, having studied enough of the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses using various Bible study aids so that you became familiar and are now in possession of some knowledge about many of the things that the Bible teaches, which very things are what Jehovah's Witnesses, in turn, are also teaching others. But I have also discerned about you a serious deficit in spirituality, that is to say, a lack of spiritual comprehension, with respect to things of the spirit that with this post I want to bring to your attention, things about which it is quite apparent to me and things that would be apparent to any other spiritual person you simply do not know, and not because you weren't given "solid food" as part of your spiritual diet, but because you weren't able to digest all of the "food" that had been prepared for the household of faith and placed upon your plate to both eat and digest. Let me tell you this:
Jehovah's Witnesses aren't just prophets that have been given a commission by Jesus to speak God's words to others, but we are ministers of the New Covenant kindly given by God to those who have the work of bearing witness to Jesus and in company with the faithful slave, God's anointed, as well as we, Jesus' other sheep, who are serving alongside the remnant of that "little flock" in the earthly realm of God's House, giving direct worship to God, day and night, in the courtyards of God's Great Spiritual Temple, which is a holy place. I'm going to be returning to this later.
But your "gospel" has a different flavor than the one that the Bible teaches. Your gospel teaches that "[t]hose exercising faith in the ransom sacrifice of Jesus ... are promised full forgiveness of sin [citations], are justified (i.e. declared righteous) [citations], ... sanctified [citations] ... [and] reconciled to God [citations]," but technically there is no such promise given. Whether one is of the "little flock," who has been declared righteous for life, or of the "other sheep," who has been declared righteous as a friend of God (meaning that, like the patriarch Abraham, righteousness has only been imputed to the "other sheep"), those turning from the authority of Satan to do God's will have already received "forgiveness of sins" (Acts 26:18), those exercising faith in Jesus' ransom sacrifice had already had "forgiveness of sins" published to them through Jesus by us. (Acts 13:38; John 17:18, 20)
In fact, @bennyk, everyone that puts faith in Jesus "gets forgiveness of sins through Jesus' name" at once (Acts 10:43); there is no promise of forgiveness given to anyone. Examine the scriptures and you will see that for anyone to preach a promise of forgiveness of sins to anyone is to be preaching a different gospel, for such a gospel is not scriptural.
It was in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy (Isaiah 61:1) that Jesus indicated that his anointing by God was, among other things, to preach a release of those held as captives to spiritual bondage in the year of good will that began with Jesus' ministry in 29 AD, as well as God's day of vengeance that came upon the Jewish system of worship in 70 AD. Likewise, Jehovah's Witnesses have since 1919 been preaching a release to those held captive to the religious traditions of men in order to restore sight to those who are suffering spiritual blindness in this year of good will before God's day of vengeance comes upon this system of things at Armageddon. You are doubtless familiar with this release, but I am speaking here about another release.
For what other reason do you imagine Jesus to have sent his apostles out preaching baptism in his name, except "for forgiveness of sins"? (Acts 2:38) Baptism, mind you, is a symbol that acknowledges the repentant believer's dedication to do God's will as did Jesus in his doing God's further will after his baptism, and baptism is what signifies the request we made to God through our dedication "for a good conscience" with the "release by ransom" through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21) It is the good conscience that we have toward God that is the "release," the "forgiveness of our sins."
Continuing on, your particular "gospel" also teaches that all of those that have been reconciled to God are "adopted as [God's] children [citations], [who] thereby [become] brothers of Christ" [citation]..., [and] "thus become heirs of God and joint-heirs of Christ [citations], who graciously grants everlasting life [citations]" in heaven, due to your belief that "the Scriptures do not limit the number of anointed Christians to 144 000" and you interpretation of Revelation 7:15 as portraying the unnumbered great crowd standing "before the throne of God" in heaven.
Now we're here talking about Revelation 7:15, so let me present the spiritual application of it, because it's possible that you may not have been able to digest all of the "food" that has been prepared for the household of faith and served up to you.
It is by means of His son, Jesus Christ, through "whom we have our release by ransom" that Jehovah has cleaned up His people, imputed righteousness to them, and brought them to a lovely, clean place of worship. It is for this reason that Jehovah has allowed His people to come into the grand courtyards of His great spiritual house, his great spiritual temple, in order to worship Him where Jehovah resides in person. Recall that in ancient Israel, the penalty for mingling uncleanness with Jehovah's pure worship and temple activity was death, and this serves as a warning to us today.
Note what the Law stated at Leviticus 15:31:
"'And you must keep the sons of Israel separate from their uncleanness, that they may not die in their uncleanness for their defiling of my tabernacle, which is in their midst.'"
So, in other words, even when they were back there in the wilderness, with temple activity around the tabernacle, Jehovah said you must keep them "separate from their uncleanness." In other words, anytime you participated in temple activity, temple worship, any kind of service at God's tabernacle, or anything that involved service to God, you could not have defiled yourself with any uncleanness, because Jehovah said it defiled the tabernacle. So he said, "separate." If they became unclean, there were these purification rites that they had to go through in order to become clean again, so that they couldn't defile Jehovah's tabernacle or bring uncleanness into His house.
So the separateness of the individual worshipper of God must be maintained from his uncleanness, otherwise this unclean state defiled the tabernacle, "which [was] in their midst." Likewise today, if we allow that white robe to be spotted, to become soiled with uncleanness from the world, and we fail to apply this and become 'separate from our uncleanness' and keep our white robes clean -- those "white robes" described at Revelation 7:14, 15, as they were when we dedicated our lives to do God's will and got baptized -- you see, our uncleanness will be with us.
While some may think we can hide any such spots on our robes by getting into Jehovah's direct service, by preaching the good news or preaching our own "gospel," by attending meetings at the Kingdom Hall, and all of that, it is impossible to hide such spots from the sight of Jehovah. Jehovah says that a defiled robe defiles His temple, it defiles His house, and Jehovah is very clear on this point when he says that we will "die in [our] uncleanness" if we should defile His tabernacle by not becoming "separate from [our] uncleanness."
So, today, in Jehovah's great spiritual house, we're to maintain cleanness, a white robe, clean physically, clean mentally, clean morally, clean emotionally, clean spiritually, and in every way if we are to have the privilege of serving in His temple day and night. Those are our basic responsibilities in Jehovah's great house, to render Him sacred service day and night, and to maintain the purity of our white robe, clean standing, before Him, and those who appreciate their privileges at His house will do their best to carry out their responsibilities. Like the psalmist said at Psalm 84:10:
"For a day in your courtyards is better than a thousand elsewhere. I have chosen to stand at the threshold in the house of my God, rather than to move around in the tents of wickedness."
@djeggnog wrote:
You said that the citations you gave me "were examples of the Watch Tower Society 'rewriting' their history, i.e. 'lying,' but many of us were alive and do not [need] to read the Watchtower to know what things we believed in the past, and we are fully aware of what ideas we may have abandoned in order to embrace those new things we now know to be in accord with the truth. It isn't even possible for the WTS to rewrite the history of Jehovah's Witnesses for the history of our organization is an open book to many....
@bennyk wrote:
That is precisely why I refer to what the Society has done as "lying." They have deliberately written what they must know to be untrue.
But there is a reason over the years Jehovah's Witnesses have not over the years resisted making adjustments in our understanding of the Bible, for the holy spirit has progressively given God's people a progressive understanding of His word today, so that as world events unfold, we have been blessed -- and only Jehovah's Witnesses -- to discern the fulfillment of prophecy that others cannot since God's organization is led by God's spirit, and not inspired by it, as was the case when the gifts of the spirit were operative back in the first century AD. Jesus explained at Matthew 9:16, 17:
"Nobody sews a patch of unshrunk cloth upon an old outer garment; for its full strength would pull from the outer garment and the tear would become worse. Neither do people put new wine into old wineskins; but if they do, then the wineskins burst and the wine spills out and the wineskins are ruined. But people put new wine into new wineskins, and both things are preserved."
Likewise, Jehovah's Witnesses today have no interest in "rehabilitating," as it were, information that may have appeared in extant issues of the Watchtower and Awake! magazines printed during Russell's, Rutherford's and Knorr's lifetimes, or in some of the older publications like "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose (1959)," "'The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah'-How?" (1971), "Holy Spirit-The Force Behind the Coming New Order!" (1976) and "Jehovah's Witnesses -- Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" (1993), because you just cannot patch up a tear in an old garment with unshrunken cloth without the tear getting worse, nor would it be a good idea to put new wine into old wineskins, for the old wineskins, because they are old, will eventually burst.
While it may pose no difficulty for Christendom to hold fast to its creeds based on adherence to religious tradition, Jehovah's Witnesses endeavor to be guided by God's spirit, and so they will never try to apply a "patch" to whatever wrong ideas we may have believed and published in the past, as we must abandon the "old wineskins" in favor of putting "new wine into new wineskins."
Now you (and others here on this forum) may think it reasonable to judge Jehovah's Witnesses by things we may have understood to be true in the past, but we have since moved on to embrace God's progressive revelatory truth as we know it today according to our current understanding, and you are certainly free to so judge us, but after August 24, 2006, when the scientific definition of "planet" became official and the kids in school came to learn that Pluto was no longer considered to be a planet, they moved on, too, and stopped thinking in terms of "My Very Educated Mother Just Sent Us Nine Pizzas," and, instead, started using "My Very Elderly Mother Just Sits Up Nights" and (as used here in Southern California) "My Very Extravagant Mother Just Sent Us Nachos" according to their current understanding.
@bennyk:
Nothing in the last two paragraphs you wrote convinces me of your sincerity.
I have no interest in convincing you of my sincerity. If you've been baptized, then you should not only have made your mind over (Romans 12:2), but you, as a dedicated servant of Jehovah, the same as I am, should be wearing a white robe and proving to yourself what God's will is, and not allowing your mind to be controlled by anyone, including an elder, but if your robe is unclean, Jehovah will simply not permit you or anyone preaching his own "gospel" as good news and not wearing a clean white robe enter His spiritual house for only those wearing white robes will come out of the great tribulation. (Revelation 7:14)
Think about this: If you should not have already gathered with the other eagles with eyes fixed on the carcass when the great tribulation begins, you could possibly be sorted to Jesus' left hand. (Matthew 24:28; 25:31-33)
39
@ djeggnog
by bennyk in
1. jw
2. friends
2:16), and sanctified (john 17:19; 1 cor.

7:25; 1 john 2:1), high priest (heb.

3:29; 4:7; titus 3:6,7; heb.
djeggnog

@bennyk:
In response to my statement "Even more egregious is the fact that the Watch Tower Society is perfectly willing to attempt to establish its credentials using distorted statements and outright lies", djeggnog writes: "If the WTS should be mistaken in its adherence to Acts 15:29 with respect to blood transfusions, and someone dies, I'm thinking that Jesus Christ has been empowered to resurrect the dead."
My response: The citations I gave you had nothing to do with the Society's blood doctrine. They were examples of the Watch Tower Society "rewriting" their history, i.e. "lying". Kindly respond to the citations given in my post...
Actually, the following is your statement in its entirely:
You make repeated references to "truth", but seem to be little concerned that it be ... true. Even more egregious is the fact that the Watch Tower Society is perfectly willing to attempt to establish its credentials using distorted statements and outright lies.
And this was reply to your statement in its entirely:
This statement of yours is loaded, but I'm sure you knew that, didn't you? Whatever their many faults as imperfect men, even as you and I are also imperfect, I believe God is blessing their efforts to search for those who are sighing and groaning to acquaint them with the good news so that they might gain life in God's new order. If the WTS should be mistaken in its adherence to Acts 15:29 with respect to blood transfusions, and someone dies, I'm thinking that Jesus Christ has been empowered to resurrect the dead. What do you think?
Now were I faced with the decision as to whether to permit a transfusion for a member of my own family, or should the decision be about medical decisions affecting my own life, we are resolved to take whatever steps we can short of violating God's command to "abstain ... from blood," because we believe in the resurrection. (We know that are going to need one if any of us should not be among the survivors of Armageddon, you see.) But if I should fall short and give in to fear, I'll just be sitting in the back of the Kingdom Hall being shunned while being scourged by Jehovah until reinstated. I mean, where shall I go? Jesus is the Holy One of God and he pleads for me. (John 6:67-69) I'm not going anywhere!
It's true that the citations you gave me "had nothing to do with the Society's blood doctrine," but this blood doctrine is not something that was spawned by the WTS, but is an example of what Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide do based on the truth of what the Bible says at Acts 15:29, for our conviction is that the same God that raised the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead has now given to Jesus the same authority to raise others from the dead, and so the stand that Jehovah's Witnesses take with respect to blood transfusions is based on truth, and if anyone should die as a consequence of their adherence to Acts 15:29, our faith is that Jesus has been empowered to resurrect the dead.
You said that the citations you gave me "were examples of the Watch Tower Society 'rewriting' their history, i.e. 'lying,' but many of us were alive and do not to read the Watchtower to know what things we believed in the past, and we are fully aware of what ideas we may have abandoned in order to embrace those new things we now know to be in accord with the truth. It isn't even possible for the WTS to rewrite the history of Jehovah's Witnesses for the history of our organization is an open book to many, and I say "many" here for there are written transcripts of court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses that are not as easy to access, but can be accessed by those that are willing to dig them up that contain statements in them that were true then, but which would not be true were they made today. Tell me this though:
How would you characterize what Luke (the gospel writer) did in his using the number "75" at Acts 7:14 instead of "70" in quoting Stephen's words as to the number of folks that moved from Canaan to Egypt back in 1728 BC as a consequence of a famine that affected both Egypt and Canaan? Would you accuse Luke of having rewritten the history of Jehovah's Witnesses as was being recounted by the disciple Stephen back in 33 AD when Luke knew there were five names added in the Greek Septuagint's rendering of Genesis 46:20 and also knew the Hebrew text of Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 to both say that there were "seventy souls" that made the move to Egypt with Jacob/Israel and not "seventy-five souls"?
Perhaps you would accuse Luke of having rewritten the history of Jehovah's Witnesses in what he writes in quoting Stephen, at Acts 7:35, 36, as saying about Moses that "God [had] sent off as both ruler and deliverer by the hand of the angel that appeared to him in the thornbush. This man led [the sons of Israel] out after doing portents and signs in Egypt and in the Red Sea and in the wilderness for forty years." Nowhere in this portion of what Stephen is quoted as saying does he mention Moses' brother, Aaron, even though we know from reading the inspired account that Aaron's role as Moses' prophet was instrumental to Moses' speaking to the Pharaoh (Exodus 4:10-16; 6:30-7:2), and Aaron was certainly there through the beginning of the exodus to its end (Exodus 4:27-14:31), but Aaron isn't specifically mentioned until later on in Stephen's discourse to the Sanhedrin, and only once, so would you rightly accuse Luke of rewriting the history of Jehovah's Witnesses at that time, too?
Now he's a "big picture" question: How familiar are you with Stephen's discourse at Acts 7:2-53? When you review the things that Stephen says, what do you note about the progressiveness of Jehovah's purpose? Do you see Jehovah as being "stuffy" or being rather laid back? Or when we examine the things that Jehovah has done since 1943 BC, the year when the Abrahamic Covenant to which all of God's people today became beneficiaries became operative, to 2 Chronicles 6:18 through 2 Chronicles 7:1 when God's glory came to fill His typical tabernacle in the year 1027 BC -- a span of some 927 years' time -- are you not filled with reverence over having come to know God, and I mean, this God, Jehovah?
Since the outpouring of holy spirit under those 120 disciples on that Pentecost day in 33 AD, more and more souls came to be added to the household of faith (Acts 2:1-11, 41), for there was no other way in which anyone could receive God's spirit and be saved unless he or she were to become associated with one of Jesus' apostles and thus become a part of God's organization. In a previous post, you wrote how you "do speak to others regarding the 'good news,'" describing the good news in this way:
Despite the fact that men are actually born estranged from God [citations], God sent His Son to die on behalf of sinful mankind [citations]. Those exercising faith in the ransom sacrifice of the Son are promised full forgiveness of sin [citations], are justified (i.e. declared righteous) [citations], and sanctified [citations]. As such, they are reconciled to God [citations] and adopted as His children [citations], thereby becoming brothers of Christ [citation], who serves as their Advocate [citations], High Priest [citations], and Mediator [citations]. Christians thus become heirs of God and joint-heirs of Christ [citations], who graciously grants everlasting life [citations].
You also added to this, saying that "the Gospel [that you] preach is scriptural," but your "gospel" isn't scriptural at all, and to have to know this since Christ is now gathering "the things in the earth" (Ephesians 1:10), and is presently teaches those of the "other sheep" what things we must do to survive the "great tribulation." You see, while you are preaching your gospel, we won't be, for once we "see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies," that's the sign, and we're outta here. (Luke 21:20) Those in God's organization will be in flight, all of us heading toward the mountains, as it were."
All false religion will be left just as desolate as it was when the Romans devastated Jerusalem back in 70 AD. You'll be like the man that was expelling demons through the use of Jesus' name (Mark 9:38-40), preaching your "gospel," a message that isn't expelling anything but hot air, for while you are now reviling Jesus by preaching a message different than the one we're preaching, while you will then at that time be reviling Jesus by preaching a message different than the one we'll be preaching, and while you are preaching a message of hope in your dissatisfaction and impatience in waiting, like the rest of us, for that sign to appear, God's organization will then be preaching a message of doom.
As the psalmist said about Jehovah (Psalm 18:35), He is a humble God, as made clear by the time He sought suggestions from His own angels as to how He might frustrate and defeat a wicked king (Ahab, the king of Israel) (1 Kings 22:19-22), so along with wisdom we must be humble like our God and wait on the appearance of that sign. (Luke 7:31-35) As Jesus said, 'wisdom is proved righteous by its works,' by our 'reasonableness and readiness to obey' we show ourselves to be wise. (James 3:17; Ephesians 5:15, 16)
In an earlier post, I told you that this is the gospel that Jehovah's Witnesses are preaching today:
[N]ot everyone that exercises faith in the ransom provision will become recipients of Jehovah's merciful arrangement. One needs to inform themselves of God's mercy through the ransom and put faith in this provision by studying the Bible, and then recognize that apart from the ransom, we are all of us under condemnation and will die. Through the ransom only those 144,000 called and adopted by God are declared righteous in spirit and will be granted immortal life in the heavens as joint-heirs with Christ in the heavenly kingdom as immortal sons of God. Those declared righteous as friends of God will have righteousness imputed to them until after Christ's Millennial Reign when they along with the resurrected "dead" will only then be declared righteous in the flesh on their own merit as perfect sons of God.
The gospel or "good news" involves the fulfillment of God's purpose [to] vindicate his name and purposes toward the earth, which includes crushing out all rebellion, and the restoration of peace and righteousness in both heaven and earth. The good news speaks to both the blessings that are in store for true worshippers of Jehovah, for all worship not based on truth goes to Satan the Devil, who accepts all worship not based on truth, as well as to God's day of vengeance when those that don't know God and those that don't obey the good news will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction.
However, only those dedicated Christians that are a part of God's organization that remain faithful to God until the end of their lives and those who are wearing white robes as survivors of Armageddon have the prospect [of] being declared righteous in the flesh along with those of the resurrected dead that will learn righteousness during Judgment Day.
If you should no longer be a part of God's organization, know that you have abandoned Jehovah, and God's adversary, that hateful Devil and Satan, is your god, and whatever it is you're preaching is just in vain, for it is not the gospel of Jesus Christ that you are preaching, for you are not preaching in accord with the good news.
When you wrote the following --
djeggnog writes: "Not just the WTS, but all of Jehovah's Witnesses know from having studied God's word that if one has not been anointed and adopted by God so that they enjoy spiritual sonship, then one is a party to the New Covenant."
My response: I trust that was a typographical error.
-- I smiled. Hardly no one, except someone that has studied with Jehovah's Witnesses at some point in time, could have caught this. Maybe it is a typo; maybe I meant to write this in just the way I wrote it; maybe I should have written that one is not a party to this covenant at all; maybe it was just a test to see if you still remembered from whom you learned what you do about the New Covenant, and who the parties are that are bound by it. Who knows what this is?
djeggnog writes: "Well, if you have a reply to make, then make it."
My response: I question your sincerity...
Do you? That's sad, really sad to hear.
39
@ djeggnog
by bennyk in
1. jw
2. friends
2:16), and sanctified (john 17:19; 1 cor.

7:25; 1 john 2:1), high priest (heb.

3:29; 4:7; titus 3:6,7; heb.
djeggnog

@bohm:
In another thread started by @Undisfellowshipped, the question that was asked was this:
2:) Also, isn't it true that the Watchtower Publications forbid Jehovah's Witnesses from speaking to "Apostates" or reading their writings? If that is true, then aren't you disobeying the Governing Body by being on this website?
Jehovah's Witnesses are not 'forbidden' to speak or read the writings of apostates. Fornication is forbidden, idolatry is forbidden, eating blood sausage (and the like) is forbidden, accepting a blood transfusion is forbidden, but those of us that have been Jehovah's Witnesses for awhile understand the counsel that has been sent out to all of the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses through the pages of the Watchtower as well as other WTS publications is designed to make us alert to the very real possibility that there are some folks that have not been counted worthy of gaining life in God's new system of things (Luke 20:35), those that have perhaps lost some of what spirituality that had when they were studying the Bible and gaining power of holy spirit as a result of the effort that was exerted by them during that time.
As someone that is full of faith, I have an abundance of holy spirit that can reinvigorate you so that you might regain your footing in the truth, but you must in faith ask God for wisdom as He gives it generously to all and without reproaching, and without doubting, for if you do not ask in faith, you will receive nothing at all from Jehovah. (James 1:5-8)
Also, the Watchtower of August 15, 1972, p. 507, states the following:
If you find that you are stumbled or are offended about something being taught in God’s organization, or some adjustments being made, keep this in mind: God has put enough in the Bible to provide a complete foundation for faith. (2 Tim. 3:16, 17) He has also left many details of various events in the Bible out of the account, enough so that one whose heart is not right, who wants to discover an apparent fault, who wants to find an excuse for leaving the way of truth, can find it.
There are some here that are perishing , according to 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12, "as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth that they might be saved ... that [no longer] believe the truth." But this does not have to be the case at all since God's patience is still waiting on those who are dedicated, baptized Christians to return to their senses before the end comes. You see, endurance is necessary, for no one is going to receive the prize unless he or she shall have endured to the end. Many of you used to believe this, many of you used to know this.
Look! If the elders in your local congregation that decided to disfellowship didn't find you to be repentant, even if you believe otherwise and were repentant and are still feeling just horrible and maybe embarrassed about the situation in which you found yourself, you need to remember that they are just imperfect men, even as I am, and that they cannot read hearts -- not yours, not anyone's -- but Jehovah uses such imperfect men just the same to accomplish His will.
If you don't feel comfortable talking to me, or asking me questions, that's fine, although I will respect your anonymity, but in this case you really should approach elders not a part of your local congregation, letting them know your disfellowshipped or disassociated status (especially if you elected to disassociate yourself when you learned that you were going to be publicly reproved for your sin), and telling them how sorry you are that your wrong conduct damaged your relationship with Jehovah, that is, if you are truly sorry.
If you should be sorry that you disappointed yourself and your family, as well as your brothers and sisters, our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jehovah God to whom as a dedicated servant of His you belong, that's fine, but deep regret and remorse are signs that one is truly repentant.
Perhaps those elders in a new congregation will suggest that you temporarily transfer to their congregation, putting them in a position to monitor your spiritual progress, but the elders in the congregation that disfellowshipped you will still be in the loop, even though your request for reinstatement, if you should make such a request, will be heard by the elders in your new congregation, and the elders that sat on the committee that decided to disfellowship might want to meet with you before you are actually reinstated. A few recommendations are made in the "Pay Attention..." book, but I'm going to make a few comments of my own here.
If the decision is to reinstate, an announcement to this effect will be made in both your old congregation where the decision to disfellowship occurred and in your new congregation as well. This is not a Bible-sanctioned rule, but a rule promulgated by the governing body and there's no way around the making of such announcements as uncomfortable as this might make you feel at the time.
All privileges will be restored progressively by the elders in your new congregation, but you may actively participate in field service at reinstatement. But certain privileges of service that you formerly may have enjoyed may not be approved until such time as you are "free of accusation," which may be several years, especially if it should become widely known (which is often the case when children are involved!) where an unscriptural divorce has ensued in which one has schemed to dump their spouse in order to marry someone else, which is scandalous.
Did you appeal the decision in writing within a week of the decision to disfellowship (assuming that you were disfellowshipped and did not disassociate yourself from God's people)? Did you think that Brother so-and-so was such a jerk to you? Were the brothers that sat on the judicial committee so rigid or "gung-ho" about disfellowshipping you that you threw up your hands over the matter instead of talking to other elders about your situation and the adverse decision you received at their hands?
Was the decision made to disfellowship you because you didn't respect the elders sitting on the committee enough to show up to meet with them? Did you request an appeal, but fail to show up for the hearing on your appeal? How many brothers handled your case and were you given to think that the decision to disfellowship had already been made and that the meeting was just a formality? Did you voluntarily confess your sin(s) or did you attempt to hide them or to justify them? Was you sin premeditated? Was your sin the product of your momentarily succumbing to human weakness or had you been sinning repeatedly and deceiving the brothers over many months or years that you were keeping a secret?
Were you asked the kind of probing questions that sought to elicit details that would make anyone feel uncomfortable discussing with your own relatives, let alone with the brothers that sat on the judicial committee, that caused you to become angry with Jehovah's arrangement? Had you ignored the admonition given you in the past by the elders to 'watch that how you walked was as a wise person' (Ephesians 5:15)? Have you taken the appropriate steps to right the wrongs that you have done by apologizing or making restitution?
Here's the thing: I'm not here to argue with anyone, but I'd like to help anyone that is in need of spiritual help.
39
@ djeggnog
by bennyk in
1. jw
2. friends
2:16), and sanctified (john 17:19; 1 cor.

7:25; 1 john 2:1), high priest (heb.

3:29; 4:7; titus 3:6,7; heb.
djeggnog

@bohm wrote:
Hold on djeggnog, [you're] saying two different things. Your original statement was this:
Children are deemed "holy" on account of their believing parents; if neither is believing, then the child that you think to be so innocent will, in fact, perish at Armageddon, and if he or she dies before Armageddon and he or she has no believing parent, that child will perish in this life and will not receive a resurrection. Do you now feel you have a better understanding of what the Bible teaches? of what Jehovah's Witnesses teach? Put this question to your wife and my hope is that she will be just as frank with you as I have been here.
There were no children -- not a single infant -- that survived the global deluge that occurred in 2370 BC, and there were no children that survived the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah that occurred some 461 years later in 1909 BC, and just like the parents of these children, not one of their children will receive a resurrection during Judgment Day; they will all have fallen victim to the sword along with those on the side of your god when God's Executioner, Jesus Christ, brings to a climax the end of this wicked system of things at Armageddon.
I asked you this:
So do you 100% stand by the statement that Jesus will kill the children of unbelievers at armageddon, and that this is the official, current WT doctrine on that matter?
And you answered [categorically] yes. HOWEVER at this point you know you are wrong and its quite [embarrassing], so you try to wiggle out anyway by a semantical argument:
This means that those who die during this judgment period before Armageddon as non-believers -- meaning that they were ignorant of Jehovah's requirements -- will receive a resurrection, along with their children. However, those that die during this judgment period before Armageddon as unbelievers -- meaning that they were not ignorant of Jehovah's requirements -- will not be among the "unrighteous" that will receive a resurrection (...)
You go from just two classes - believers and those who are not believers - to [THREE] classes: Believers, unbelievers and non-believers. Quite ingenious of you, really.
Actually, what I was discussing with @TD with such frankness here was "those who have been counted worthy of ... the resurrection from the dead." (Luke 20:35) I was never talking to @TD about the resurrection of those put to death at Armageddon, for those that perish at Armageddon as non-believers or as unbelievers will not be among the "unrighteous" to whom the apostle Paul refers at Acts 24:15 that will receive a resurrection. I was talking to @TD about those who die during this judgment period before Armageddon as non-believers and as unbelievers, and saying that these persons and their children are not the "unrighteous" to whom Paul refers that would receive a resurrection.
So let me ask again: Was your original statement, the first i quoted, wrong? Or let me [re-ask]:
So do you 100% stand by the statement that Jesus will kill the children of parents who are not believers at armageddon, and that this is the official, current WT doctrine on that matter?
My response:
Yes, both "parents who are not believers" and their children will perish at Armageddon as well as parents who are non-believers and their children will perish at Armageddon, for only those counted worthy of gaining that system of things" (Luke 20:35) will survive Armageddon.
Let me emphasize to you here again that 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 states -- with no equivocation whatsoever -- that the "judicial punishment of everlasting destruction" -- which is called Armageddon -- is that which is executed upon (1) "those who make tribulation" for God’s people (apostates), (2) "those who do not know God" (non-believers) and (3) "those who do not obey the good news" (unbelievers) the same as Lot's sons-in-law and Lot's wife (unbelievers) perished because they rejected God's salvation through Lot for themselves and their children as to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah along with those that did not know God (non-believers), the same as those law-defying people in Noah's day to whom Noah preached (unbelievers) and to whom Noah did not preach (non-believers) perished due to their also having rejected God's salvation through Noah for themselves and their children as to the deluge of water that destroyed that ancient world.
This is not the same topic that @TD and I were discussing though. We were discussing "those who have been counted worthy of ... the resurrection from the dead" (Luke 20:35), discussing whether those who die during this judgment period before Armageddon as non-believers or as unbelievers and their children will become recipients of the resurrection. They will not.
[You're] really teaching [@TD] about the deep things of the bible even though you cant expect him to understand it, all while you try to wiggle out of a complete and utter failure on your part in the understanding of what the witnesses actually teach.
But I do expect @TD to understand what things I have said here, because unlike what I would normally do when discussing such things, he required frankness during this discussion, and so I have been frank during this discussion. But I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and know what it is we teach, so while it's true that there may be some among God's people today that do not know accurately what things the Bible teaches, which is what they ought to be teaching others, I happen to be one of those Jehovah's Witnesses that does know accurately what the Bible teaches as to these things that have been discussed in this thread. I feel absolutely no need to try to wiggle out of anything here. Being one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I do know what things we teach according to the Scriptures.
In your post "1324 of 1328," you indicated that I was "changing the subject to what TD [believes], which was never the question of interest," and I understand now that your question pertains to who will be resurrected among those that perish at Armageddon whereas @TD's question pertains to who it is that will be resurrected that should die during this judgment period before Armageddon, which are two different questions.
39
@ djeggnog
by bennyk in
1. jw
2. friends
2:16), and sanctified (john 17:19; 1 cor.

7:25; 1 john 2:1), high priest (heb.

3:29; 4:7; titus 3:6,7; heb.
djeggnog

@bohm:
So do you 100% stand by the statement that Jesus will kill the children of unbelievers at armageddon, and that this is the official, current WT doctrine on that matter?
Yes.
The question is if the statement above is the current view of the witnesses. [You're] changing the subject to what TD believe, which was never the question of interest.
I've not changed the subject at all.
Tell me, are you an elder or just a regular witness?
It's evident that you haven't been reading my posts very carefully, but I'm curious: Do you view elders as being somehow greater than the men and women that have not been and scripturally cannot be appointed to serve as such? I ask because in the world people lord the authority that they have been given over others, but in God's organization this is not done. People often mistakenly view the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses as our leaders, but like the elders are merely taking the lead, for Jehovah's Witnesses have but one leader, Christ.
@TD:
It's clear that you didn't quite understand me when I told you in my previous post that "I don't want to argue with you over what you believe to be the current and 'more liberal view' held by some on any Bible-related topic." I conceded the argument to you as a win and I want nothing more to do with you.
You said:
There are some issues that come up regarding JW belief that I'm willing to argue about, but on this one, I was genuinely confused. I freely admit that there are nuances of JW belief that I miss sometimes.
You also wrote that I am "the first person [you've] ever heard say [the following]": "Children are deemed 'holy' on account of their believing parents; if neither is believing, then the child that you think to be so innocent will, in fact, perish at Armageddon, and if he or she dies before Armageddon and he or she has no believing parent, that child will perish in this life and will not receive a resurrection." (Emphasis yours)
In this response, I have decided to humor you again, since I have no real way of knowing whether or not you are "genuinely confused" as you claim to be.
You speak about "a little boy named Owen, the child of non-JW parents" and you go on to mention "[a] young woman [who had] lost her adoptive mother to cancer many years ago [who] ... was not a JW," and you tell me how "courteous and kind," and even how forthcoming with information pertaining to what Jehovah's Witnesses teach with respect to the doctrine of the resurrection the individual with whom you spoke on the phone at Patterson was to you, but what you aren't getting is that at 1 Corinthians 7:14, the apostle Paul is not talking about folks that are not Jehovah's Witnesses or the children of folks that are not Jehovah's Witnesses. Paul is talking about believers, about Jehovah's Witnesses whose children are considered "holy" on account of their believing parents.
Were you to sit down with one of Jehovah's Witnesses and have a Bible study, you might learn (and I realize it's possible that you might not learn this!) when considering what Paul goes on to say at 1 Corinthians 7:14-16 that you are sanctified on account of your believing wife, who is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but you are not saved on her account, and you will end up perishing "as a retribution ... because [you] did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness" by your rejecting God's salvation through Christ in building faith so that you might make the same dedication that your wife has made to serve God. (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12) If your being married to one of Jehovah's Witnesses were enough to save you (and it isn't enough!), Paul would not have said (at 1 Corinthians 7:16), "for, wife, how do you know but that you will save your husband?" (See 1 Peter 3:1, 2)
The children that are being raised in a home where there is at least one believing parent are viewed differently by God than the children in a home where there are no believing parents; according to the Bible at 1 Corinthians 7:14, these children are considered "holy" on account of the believing parent(s), whereas if the believing parent should follow the unbelieving course of his or her spouse, such children are no longer viewed as "holy."
However, what Paul states at Acts 24:15 is a very different case than the situation he describes concerning the children of believers, for when he stated that "[t]here is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous," he was referring to the following two categories of people:
(1) The "righteous": The faithful men of old and any of the great crowd of other sheep who may die before Armageddon.
(2) The "unrighteous": Those who have not lived during a judgment period and who did not know of Jehovah’s requirements.
Anyone that dies during this judgment period that (a) wasn't of the great crowd and (b) didn't know of Jehovah's righteous requirements will be among the "unrighteous" that will receive a resurrection. Hopefully the following will clear the matter up in your mind, @TD:
This means that those who die during this judgment period before Armageddon as non-believers -- meaning that they were ignorant of Jehovah's requirements -- will receive a resurrection, along with their children. However, those that die during this judgment period before Armageddon as unbelievers -- meaning that they were not ignorant of Jehovah's requirements -- will not be among the "unrighteous" that will receive a resurrection because they will have rejected God's salvation through Christ for themselves and for their children, who would otherwise have been deemed "holy" had at least one of their parents been a believer.
I don't think of you as being "genuinely confused." I think of you as being stubborn, even perverse, but I realize that I could be wrong about you (and I want to be wrong about you).
39
@ djeggnog
by bennyk in
1. jw
2. friends
2:16), and sanctified (john 17:19; 1 cor.

7:25; 1 john 2:1), high priest (heb.

3:29; 4:7; titus 3:6,7; heb.
djeggnog

@bohm:
If i ask the elder i study with exactly this question: "Will a child living with unbelieving parents be killed by Jesus at armageddon?" and he says no, what will that signify? If i promise to ask that question, will you then ask your elder the same?
I'm not really sure what this would signify for you. And let me ask you this, assuming that you've read at least a few more of my posts than just the ones I've made to this thread here: If I should be an elder, demonstrating a deep knowledge of what I believe, what Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible teaches, then for what purpose exactly would I be asking someone else this question, considering that I was speaking here in this forum with frankness, whereas what I might teach others not in this forum would be the truth, would be honest, but wouldn't necessarily be as frank or insensitive? The ability to teach includes knowledge what and when to say a particular thing, taking into consideration your audience, just as Jesus told the Greek, Syrophoenician woman at Mark 7;27 that he had been sent to heal and feed the children of Israel and not "little dogs" or "puppies" as we might say today.
If anyone reading any of my posts should read them seeking to know what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, what they will be learning is what things the Bible teaches, so that no one should get the idea that the things that Jehovah's Witnesses teach is not exactly what the Bible teaches, when what we teach is exactly what the Bible teaches as the holy spirit has revealed these things to us.
None of your quotes, no matter how many times you repost them, says a child living with unbelieving parents will be killed at armageddon, because its simply not what the witnesses teach. Instead of copy-pasting, please help us connect the dots by elaborating.
Take the personalities out of all of this and you'll see that what things I say in my posts here -- whether someone not a Bible scholar, but with considerable experience being in and living the truth should disagree -- is the truth, and while, in a perfect world, I would be keeping my typos in check so that what I say should be complete in every respect, but I must confess that I am unable to bridle my entire body. (James 3:2)
I thought it appropriate to copy and paste those three articles I posted here, but you have to know that I did so specifically because you had specifically written the following:
This last article (#3) is also in response to your post (notice the date is 25 years later than 1951) and there has been to my knowledge no adjustment made to this viewpoint.
I had omitted to post article #3 in my original post, but when I attempted to edit my post that contained just the first two articles, the time to so edit it had expired, so that I had to repost the corrected post, which included the third article that I had failed to include in my original post. In the event you didn't notice, I fancy using my own words, rather than quoting something written by someone else in one of our publications to explain Bible truths to others. Reading my posts one should gather than I know the truth, in other words, that I know exactly what things the Bible teaches and I know what things Jehovah's Witnesses believe.
I also know that there are some things that some Jehovah's Witnesses believe that aren't based on their having an accurate knowledge of the truth, that some of those that have been in the truth 20, 30, 40 years are saying things today, and even teaching their Bible students, that accord with what we understood to be true 20, 30, 40 years ago, which are not what we believe to be true now due to the many adjustments that have been published in the Watchtower. Depending upon what was said, it may be appropriate to correct such outdated viewpoints from the podium and at other times to effect such corrections privately, but we "should all speak in agreement" (1 Corinthians 1:10), and hope that we do not discover later, because of an inadvertent typo or our omitting the context needed to understand what we have said, that we have ourselves proven to become causes of stumbling to others by what things we say. (Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 8:9; 10:32; 2 Corinthians 6:3-10)
I'm not here to help you or to help anyone to "connect the dots by elaborating"; I'm here to discuss topics of interest with you and others here. Jehovah's Witnesses do not typically conduct Bible studies using mediums like this one, so if you should need some to 'connect some dots,' I would recommend that you seek out that elder with whom you are studying the Bible and let him know what needs connecting, ok?
What do you think of what djeggnog is saying? Do you agree?
And with this, do you really think that you could pressure me into changing any aspect of what things I have said here by putting the matter to a vote? Put me in a room of devout Catholics and ask us to vote "yes" or "no" on whether the Catholic view of Mary being "Ever Virgin" is scriptural, and if there should be 50 or even 100 Catholics in that room, I would expect that my "no" vote would be the sole "no" vote cast against this view.
Ask any one of Jehovah's Witnesses the question, At Matthew 5:43, Jesus stated the following as part of his Sermon on the Mount: "You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy?" Where would we find this command in the Bible? and some of them, lacking accurate knowledge, would actually think that such a command existed under the Law of Moses.
Ask any one of Jehovah's Witnesses the more difficult question, What did Jesus say to the Pharisees at John 8:7 to persuade them that adultery was no longer a capital offense? and some of them, lacking accurate knowledge, would not realize that the premise of my question is just wrong, that this question is more of a trick question, a thinking question, for(a) the passage at John 7:53-8:11 is known to be spurious, and (b) Jesus had not come to abrogate the Law of Moses (and thus become guilty of sin!), but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17), so if two witnesses had been brought to him as the Law requires, one of these witnesses being the woman's husband, who is conspicuously missing from this account, and the one with whom she had been "caught at adultery," then there might actually have been a legal case presented to Jesus. (Deuteronomy 17:6; Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22; Numbers 5:11-31) I'd say parenthetically here that one would need to totally suspend credulity and believe that the Pharisees would actually have been persuaded by anything at all that Jesus had taught them.
What is true is going to be true no matter how many people you find that should say that what is true isn't true. Why don't you take a right view?
@TD:
Okay, out of curiosity, I've called the main contact number at Patterson. I talked to a couple people, explained who I was, what my interest and connection to Jehovah's Witnesses is and posed the question. They've confirmed that the more liberal view on the resurrection is current and gave me a list of additional references which I'll post here.
That's fine. You clearly have the right to telephone anyone you wish in order to perhaps discuss anything that you wish to discuss. You clearly want to argue with me, but I don't want to argue with you over what you believe to be the current and "more liberal view" held by some on any Bible-related topic. Perhaps you are also of the belief that there is a more conservative view on the resurrection doctrine? There isn't; there is only one view; the truth. I'm done talking to you about this particular topic. You want to win an argument? Ok. Then I concede the win to you on this one. I'm willing to accept that I cannot win them all.
15
Know of a searchable NWT other than WT-CD or clone thereof?
by blondie in
1. watchtower
2. bible
not the www.watchtower.org one, not searchable by word or phrase..
djeggnog

@NeonMadman:
I didn't know that you had sent me an email until last night, and I really do appreciate your taking time to send the file to me. As you know, you sent it to me back on July 9, 2010, but early this morning before I left (me and the attorney with whom I work had to go to court) I loaded it and you know what? It worked! <smile>
Again, thank you.