Posts by djeggnog

108

IF THE BIBLE is so darned great---why don't people JUST read IT?

by Terry in

working in a bookstore i notice the thousands and thousands of books "explaining" what the bible really "means.".

those are what people read.. when people say they read the bible they are really saying they "try".

but, it is like reading chinese.. so, what they end up doing is reading opinions.. opinions, conjectures, hypothesis, fantasy, imaginative ruminations, fanciful concoctions......other people's ideas presented as documentary fact.. .

djeggnog

@Psacramento:

The way it was said, it was so "watchtowerish", LOL ! Just remember, your opinion is ONLY that, yours, it doesn't make it right or worng, just your opinion.

Well, I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, not someone studying to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but someone that is qualified to teach others the things that the Bible teaches, including both active Jehovah's Witnesses and those that are no longer Jehovah's Witnesses. Whenever I speak anything, I may speak both my words and by means of God's holy spirit, for what things I speak to you from the Bible are the very things that you can read for yourself in your own copy of the Bible, which book came to be written by means of holy spirit. Understand? Probably not. I've spoken similar words to active Jehovah's Witnesses and many of them have not been taught how the holy spirit operates.

@djeggnog wrote:

So you'd like to think of the first century congregations that were being formed in this place and that as being autonomous units doing their own thing and that the letters that we read in the Bible were being sent to one or two of these congregations and not to all of them in some organized fashion. That's fine, and it's also fine that you read in the Bible how Paul took a dispute over Christian circumcision to "the apostles and older men in Jerusalem," who acted as a governing body during the first century AD to be decided there along with the holy spirit, so that a letter from the governing body was handed to the multitude of Christians in Antioch, Syria. (Acts 15:2-30)

@Psacramento wrote:

Subjective and isolated reading does NOT a faith make. When I read the Acts of the Apostles... Maybe reading the REST of the NT would be ok too, just a suggestion ;) In Acts how did they choose a 'replacement" for Judas? They drew LOTS between 2 people. They trusted the HS to guide them and when Paul arrived it was because of the HS that guided HIM AND THEM and not because of any "visible organization" that they accepted him and his message and CHANGED the rules they were trying to impose on the Gentiles.

You would seem to be suggesting here that I have not read anything in the Bible, except the Acts of the Apostles. I had stated in my previous post how "the apostles and older men in Jerusalem," acting as a governing body, had decided the circumcision issue "along with the holy spirit," but I think it more likely than not that you really didn't comprehend what it was that had occurred on this occasion, like those folks that had only received John's baptism and had said to Paul, "Why, we have never heard whether there is a holy spirit," at Acts 19:2, leading to their having to be baptized again, but in Jesus' baptism. Like many Jehovah's Witnesses, ex or active, you may not understand how, when reference is made to the holy spirit speaking, it is typically a way of saying that the words being spoken were the holy writings written by men that had been inspired by holy spirit to write them. Here's an explanatory note:

At Acts 15:16-18, James there says how "it is written" that "people of all the nations" would be called by God's name, quoting Amos 9:11, 12, and then James and Peter and the rest of the men sitting as a governing body there in Jerusalem wrote the following letter to all of the congregations at Acts 15:24-28:

Since we have heard that some from among us have caused you trouble with speeches, trying to subvert your souls, although we did not give them any instructions, we have come to a unanimous accord and have favored choosing men to send to you together with our loved ones, Bar´na·bas and Paul, men that have delivered up their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are therefore dispatching Judas and Silas, that they also may report the same things by word. For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you....

Notice in this letter how it refers to "we" not giving anyone "any instructions," but that "we have come to a unanimous accord" and how "the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden" to the Gentile Christians. Here this letter refers to the words of the prophet Amos as "the holy spirit" since it was by means of God's spirit that the prophet spoke. So like when at Mark 12:36, Jesus said that David said, "Jehovah said to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet,'" Jesus was referring to what had been written at Psalm 110:1 "by the holy spirit." Also, at Hebrews 3:7-11, the apostle Paul wrote:

For this reason, just as the holy spirit says: "Today if you people listen to his own voice, do not harden your hearts as on the occasion of causing bitter anger, as in the day of making the test in the wilderness, in which your forefathers made a test of me with a trial, and yet they had seen my works for forty years. For this reason I became disgusted with this generation and said, ‘They always go astray in their hearts, and they themselves have not come to know my ways.’ So I swore in my anger, ‘They shall not enter into my rest.’"

Here the holy spirit speaks through this psalm of Moses at Psalm 95:7-11, which psalm he quotes to make the point that it is possible for Christians to enter into God's rest. (Hebrews 4:11) The only point I'll make is that whenever anyone at all quotes from any verse from the Holy Scriptures, from the inspired word of God, it is not them speaking at that moment, but is the holy spirit that is speaking, and anyone that seeks does listen to what the holy spirit says is guilty of "resisting the holy spirit," just as Stephen said at Acts 7:51 the Jewish religious leaders had done in murdering the Christ.

@djeggnog

13

How many significant trees were there in the Garden of Eden?

by God_Delusion in

http://www.jehovahswitnessblog.com/2010/08/how-many-significant-trees-were-there.html.

were there one or two trees?.

if you said one; the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you'd be wrong.

djeggnog

@acolytes:

For a J.W the question needs to be asked how can you say Adam was created perfect. He was created in a dying state, or why would he need eat from the tree of life.

Adam was created perfect, and not in a dying state. At his creation, no death penalty had been imposed upon him as was the case upon Adam's offspring after he and his wife joined Satan's rebellion against God, so there before him for the prospect of his living forever, not that he possessed the quality of immortality, for obviously he would not have died after 930 years had he been granted immortal. Adam's right to enjoy life was contingent upon his obedience to God, upon his obedience to "every expression" that came from Jehovah’s mouth.

Actually why do J.ws say Adam was created perfect. There is not one scripture in the bible that says Adam was created perfect.

At Isaiah 42:5, Jehovah is described as "the One laying out the earth and ... the One giving breath to the people on it, and spirit to those walking in it." Being that Jehovah is "the Creator," we read about Him at Deuteronomy 32:4 that "perfect is his activity" and that "all his ways are justice."

@Soldier77:

You bring out a good point, if Adam was created perfect, why did god put in the garden a "Tree of Life™?" He ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad™ first, and was punished by being banished from the garden so they could not eat of the Tree of Life and be like god, immortal.

What "good point" do you mean? You seem to have assumed that God had told Adam or Eve before they were banished from Eden about the existence of a tree of life, but if you were to read the first three chapters of Genesis, you would quickly realize that God only mentions the tree of life when Adam and his wife were being evicted from their garden home. (Genesis 3:22)

@St George of England:

After a suitable time to prove his/their [loyalty] by not eating the tree of good/bad, they would be rewarded by being allowed to eat of the tree of life. They would thus be granted immortality which is of course different from just living forever.

I don't know anything about any "JW answer" to this question, but the Bible answer is that Adam would have been in the same position as will those of us that survive the great tribulation to become the nucleus of the new world: Those that live through the whole of the 1,000-year Judgment Day, are granted the right to live forever after the new scrolls are opened and will have passed the final test of obedience to the things written in those scrolls so that their names come to be "written in the book of life" will gain for themselves the right to live forever. This right is not the same as immortality, since human nature doesn't permit us to be immortal.

The human body has the amazing ability to renew itself, the cells in the body are either replaced or repaired, and were it not for the wearing out of a genetic material known as "telomeres," self-renewal would go on forever. Death follows as aging is a process that occur when our cells stop dividing, but science has discovered and enzyme called "telomerase," by means of which human cells can continue dividing indefinitely!

But whether telomerase is all of that which scientists think it to be or not, they still would be unable to keep the life-force in humans operating at full efficiency, for if they could, then worn tissues would continually be replaced or repaired. Adam's skin would never have wrinkled with age, his heart would not have become diseased and his internal organs break down as he got older, maybe becoming deaf or blind. Had Adam been obedient, he would not have died, for God would have sustained his life-force forever!

So with God taking care to ensure that our life-force doesn't diminish in power, then even though mortal, we would still live forever. Adam's obedience was tested, and so will the obedience of those that survive Judgment Day.

@Finally-Free:

If Adam and Eve had any brains at all they would have planned the whole thing a lot better. Before eating from the tree of knowledge, they should have picked several bushels of fruit from the tree of life, eaten some, and hidden the rest just outside the garden. Then, once expelled from the garden, they would still have fruit from the tree of life stashed.

You assume for whatever reason that Adam and Eve weren't innocent, that they had no guile in them, no desire to scheme any plan against their God and Creator. All was well in Eden until it wasn't, and once they were expelled from their garden home, there was no time for them to do anything but leave.

As I indicated above, Jehovah had told Adam about the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, but had said nothing at all to him about the tree of life until after they were being evicted, but Jehovah does tell them as to the existence of a "tree of life" so that they would know that they would have given the right to eat from it had they proved to be obedient, just as those that survive Judgment Day will need to pass the final test of obedience to the things written in those scrolls in order to gain the right to eat from the figurative tree of life, that is to say, in order to get their names "written in the book of life."

@pirata:

What I don't get is why they didn't eat from the tree of life first, and then the tree of knowledge second.

Adam and Eve weren't informed by Jehovah as to the existence of the tree of life until after they were being evicted from Eden. From your vantage point, reading the Bible, you are aware of their being a tree of life that God has planted there in Eden. (Genesis 2:9) And whatever it is that would make you think that Adam and Eve possessed the mindset of a criminal that would have been smart enough to scheme and plan in advance of their sin in order to successfully frustrate God from His being able to execute the sentence of death against them, this inclination to sin was simply not in either of them. It was only after they had sinned that their consciences began to make them realize that they were naked and to experience guilt for the very first time as it (their consciences) began to accuse them of sin, so that they then came to know that what they had done was bad.

@djeggnog

108

IF THE BIBLE is so darned great---why don't people JUST read IT?

by Terry in

working in a bookstore i notice the thousands and thousands of books "explaining" what the bible really "means.".

those are what people read.. when people say they read the bible they are really saying they "try".

but, it is like reading chinese.. so, what they end up doing is reading opinions.. opinions, conjectures, hypothesis, fantasy, imaginative ruminations, fanciful concoctions......other people's ideas presented as documentary fact.. .

djeggnog

@Psacramento:

I personally like the "without question" part, the air of authority made my skin tingle, LOL ! I notice NO MENTION of the role of the HS in there, interesting.

Why would you skin tingle? Jehovah is the Universal Sovereign and if you do not want to live under the rulership of His son, Jesus Christ, without your questioning his authority to rule as king over you, then that's your choice to make now and you will get your wish!

Of course the bible doesn't [really] speak of any visible organization or group per [se], other than the apostles and even of those, only John, James and Peter are mentioned, beyond them there was Stephen who was stoned ( only a disciple), there was Jude ( of the epistles) and we know of Mark and Luke and of course Paul, none of them apostles, and beyond them, [certain] individuals are named because of their contributions, but a "[visible] channel" doing God and Jesus's work? No, not unless by "visible channel" you mean inspired individuals, in that case I agree.

So you'd like to think of the first century congregations that were being formed in this place and that as being autonomous units doing their own thing and that the letters that we read in the Bible were being sent to one or two of these congregations and not to all of them in some organized fashion. That's fine, and it's also fine that you read in the Bible how Paul took a dispute over Christian circumcision to "the apostles and older men in Jerusalem," who acted as a governing body during the first century AD to be decided there along with the holy spirit, so that a letter from the governing body was handed to the multitude of Christians in Antioch, Syria. (Acts 15:2-30)

Jesus said the ... HS would guide his followers and that the HS would teach them, I don't recall him mentioning a "visible organization".

When I read the Acts of the Apostles, I take away from it an organized ministerial work taking place with each one in each congregation that Paul and Barnabas visited being a part of a visible organization that were being strengthened and receiving encouragement from those taking the lead, men that were sent to them by the governing body.

Now whether you personally should have a problem with those being appointed to take the lead in God's visible organization today and in being submissive, they are still the ones that have been given these spiritual assignments in Christ "as those who will render an account" (Hebrews 13:17), even if you should choose not to be submissive to them. You are a grown man and are free to choose which God you will obey, which God you will serve, but there are only two, and one of them is not the true God, but is a false god, the god of this system of things, who takes all worship not directed to the true God, Jehovah. (2 Kings 19:15; 2 Corinthians 4:4)

IOW, if you're not serving the true God, then you're serving God's adversary; there is no neutral place between my opinion and yours. There's no "highway." It's either God's way or Satan's, and making the wrong choice will lead to your death. (1 Kings 18:21) However, your failure to submit to their Christ-given authority will be wholly damaging to you.

@djeggnog

108

IF THE BIBLE is so darned great---why don't people JUST read IT?

by Terry in

working in a bookstore i notice the thousands and thousands of books "explaining" what the bible really "means.".

those are what people read.. when people say they read the bible they are really saying they "try".

but, it is like reading chinese.. so, what they end up doing is reading opinions.. opinions, conjectures, hypothesis, fantasy, imaginative ruminations, fanciful concoctions......other people's ideas presented as documentary fact.. .

djeggnog

@Terry:

In the Bible, at Job 26:7, a verse written by Moses in 1473 BC, indicated how the earth is held in suspense, saying that "hanging ... upon nothing," which is profound considering how many people there are today that are convinced that men had to wait until the Greeks came along to discover such things.

Isaiah 40:22 talks about God "stretching out the heavens," which is remarkable considering what science has since come to learn about our expanding universe since 732 BC when the book of Isaiah was written; also in this same verse it would appear that the Israelites came to know through God's prophet that the earth was a "circle" or circular in shape (we know it today to be spherical).

Also, at Jeremiah 33:25, the Bible speaks of the laws of nature in describing day and night as a "covenant," as being "the statutes of heaven and earth," denoting the existence of physical laws of the universe, and Jeremiah was written in 580 BC.

I especially like to mention here how Daniel's prophecy at Daniel 9:24-27 as to the coming of Messiah after 69 weeks of years has been fulfilled is quite remarkable, in view of the fact that Jesus' first coming did, in fact, occur in 29 AD, some 483 years after they began to be counted in 455 BC. BTW, the book of Daniel was written in 536 BC.

You spoke of a "false dichotomy," and I do agree with you as to what the choices "aren't." The choices are (a) life and (b) death. The good thing is is that we all have free will and what we choose is our choice to make.

@djeggnog

108

IF THE BIBLE is so darned great---why don't people JUST read IT?

by Terry in

working in a bookstore i notice the thousands and thousands of books "explaining" what the bible really "means.".

those are what people read.. when people say they read the bible they are really saying they "try".

but, it is like reading chinese.. so, what they end up doing is reading opinions.. opinions, conjectures, hypothesis, fantasy, imaginative ruminations, fanciful concoctions......other people's ideas presented as documentary fact.. .

djeggnog

@Deputy Dog:

You quoted John 3:16, 17 in your post, after which @leavingwt asked you the question:

Who does God love?

I note that @Psacramento responded with this:

According to John, the whole world.

Then @besty responded to your question in this way:

Define "world", and does it include Afghanistan which is currently 99.9% convinced on an alternative holy book.

At this point, you wrote in response to @leavingwt wrote:

Who can say they haven't [received] ANY love from God. The reformers never had a problem with this.

IOW, you didn't answer his question, "Who does God love?"

God loved the new world of righteousness that He purposes to bring to the earth with His son as king, for after God had taken steps to lay out in the Bible over many thousands of years what things the human family needed to know about His principles and how He had applied those principles in the past to guide the human family in advance of the Messiah, Jesus went on to advance God's purpose in having the good news of the kingdom rule destined to rule over the world of obedient mankind declared throughout the earth in explaining just how He intended to apply these same principles in the future under the government of His son.

In addition, Jesus trained ministers to explain through their preaching of the good news that our loving God means to be obedient to the doing of God's will since only those people who accept the free gift of life and who have been released from the condemnation of sin and death inherited from the common father Adam through their faith in the ransom provision that God made possible through Jesus Christ will live in that new world of righteousness. John 3:18 says:

He that exercises faith in him is not to be judged. He that does not exercise faith has been judged already, because he has not exercised faith in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.

Since 33 AD, God has given all authority in heaven as well as on the earth to the Lord Jesus Christ, and without question it is through the congregations of God through the F&DS -- mere men and woman -- that Jesus is using to refine and train others that they might find those desirous of living in that new world of righteousness under the kingdom. It is true that there are many Christian denominations today -- literally hundreds of them, including those said to be non-denominational -- but even by reading the Bible on our own, one cannot help but see how Jehovah has always worked through a visible channel on earth, for under the Law, he guided His organization of Jewish worshippers for 1,545 years until the appearance of the Christ, at which point God then proceeded to organize and provide guidance through the Christian congregation for some 1,977 years until now under the oversight of the Christ.

During this time, many of the folks that were reading the Bible on their own were being given the help that they need to understand God's requirements for life in the new world of righteousness and are even being helped to understand these things, which has given them the faith to know what the future holds for them, for without their receiving help from those with holy spirit to guide them, they know that they would have continued to be in darkness spiritually, for those not actively exercising faith in the ransom provision have been judged already and will not survive God's judgment upon the world that is coming, and no undedicated/unbaptized person will be able to escape God's wrath at Armageddon by claiming ignorance of God's will. (Acts 8:31-36; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)

Opining whether Christians are obliged to keep the Sabbath or what it was Jesus meant with respect to the commandments to love God and neighbor under the Law will not make anyone a recipient of God's grace, a recipient of His undeserved kindness. There are many folks, including drunkards, fornicators, idolaters and murderers, who, like you claim to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and in his shed blood, and yet because of their standing before Jehovah God, they are disqualified to become beneficiaries of the ransom. (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10)

Anyone opining that the ransom of Jesus Christ applies to all men are just spreading false religious ideas, since Jesus gave his life as a ransom, not for all men, but "in exchange for many," for it is only those that actually endure in the faith that will be saved. (Matthew 10:22; 20:28) Opinions that one only need live a decent life and 'do to others as you would have them do to you' to gain god's approval is also the product of false religious ideas, for only those that are doing God's will, and making public declaration of their faith that Jesus is Lord and exercising faith in their heart that Jehovah God raised Jesus from the dead are the ones that will be saved. (Matthew 7:21; Romans 10:9)

@djeggnog

457

TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

by UnDisfellowshipped in

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

@Podobear:

I wanted to correct a typo in my last post:

Just as the Bible speaks of Isaac as being Abraham's "only-begotten son," so that Abraham became Isaac's begetter, or father, likewise the Bible also speaks of Jesus as being Jehovah's "only-begotten Son, " because Jehovah became Jesus' Begetter, or Father. (Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9) Jesus became the mediator that reconciled and made peace between two parties, between God on one hand and men on the other hand, proving that Jesus is not God, but a separate entity. (1 Timothy 2:5; Romans 5:10) Some 20 years after Jesus' resurrection, the apostle Paul refers to "God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" and he calls Jesus Christ "Lord to the glory of God the Father" (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:3; Ephesians 1:2; Philippians 1:2; 2:12), and so does the apostle John near the end of the first century AD, in 96 AD in referring to Jehovah as "my God" (Revelation 3:2), and in 98 AD in referring to Jesus as "the Son of the Father" (2 John 3).

The correction I would make:

Just as the Bible speaks of Isaac as being Abraham's "only-begotten son," so that Abraham became Isaac's begetter, or father, likewise the Bible also speaks of Jesus as being Jehovah's "only-begotten Son, " because Jehovah became Jesus' Begetter, or Father. (Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9) Jesus became the mediator that reconciled and made peace between two parties, between God on one hand and men on the other hand, proving that Jesus is not God, but a separate entity. (1 Timothy 2:5; Romans 5:10) Some 20 years after Jesus' resurrection, the apostle Paul refers to "God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" and he calls Jesus Christ "Lord to the glory of God the Father" (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:3; Ephesians 1:2; Philippians 1:2; 2:12), and so does the apostle John near the end of the first century AD, in 96 AD, in which we note John quoting Jesus there as referring to Jehovah as "my God" (Revelation 3:2), and in 98 AD in referring to Jesus as "the Son of the Father" (2 John 3).

@djeggnog

457

TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

by UnDisfellowshipped in

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

@Podobear:

Do you think there is sufficient sound argument to show that The Father is Jehovah and that he remains the God and Father of Jesus?

Without question Jehovah is the Father of Jesus Christ, for on Nisan 14, 33 AD, Jesus died. This means that Jesus was no longer alive; he was dead. But on Nisan 16, 33 AD, a miracle was performed by God in His using His holy spirit to beget Jesus as His spiritual son, so that by His giving life back to Jesus on this occasion, Jehovah became Jesus' Father in the same way that God became Adam's father when he begot Adam as His earthly son by giving him life. (Luke 3:38) The holy spirit is God's reproductive seed that caused Jesus to become God's spirit-begotten son and since Jehovah is responsible for begetting or regenerating the life in Jesus after his death, this is proof that Jesus is God's son (1 John 3:9)

Just as the Bible speaks of Isaac as being Abraham's "only-begotten son," so that Abraham became Isaac's begetter, or father, likewise the Bible also speaks of Jesus as being Jehovah's "only-begotten Son, " because Jehovah became Jesus' Begetter, or Father. (Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9) Jesus became the mediator that reconciled and made peace between two parties, between God on one hand and men on the other hand, proving that Jesus is not God, but a separate entity. (1 Timothy 2:5; Romans 5:10) Some 20 years after Jesus' resurrection, the apostle Paul refers to "God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" and he calls Jesus Christ "Lord to the glory of God the Father" (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:3; Ephesians 1:2; Philippians 1:2; 2:12), and so does the apostle John near the end of the first century AD, in 96 AD in referring to Jehovah as "my God" (Revelation 3:2), and in 98 AD in referring to Jesus as "the Son of the Father" (2 John 3).

I hope you find this helpful.

@yknot:

Why not be at peace with your opinion and simply pray for the other person.. Do not go on judging or reviling... It only serves to bring out the worst in us all... It is a division (not the only one either), that is all it is and it will not be settled until Jesus returns. We as Xians are not to seek division but rather unity-- unity in believing Jesus is the Messiah, he completed earthly course and worthy of being King, for us to love God with all our heart, to love others as we love ourself and await his return as faithful servants bearing witness through our lives, words and deeds.

If one is not serving God, of what profit would it be for that person to pray for someone else, since Jehovah, "the Hearer of Prayer" doesn't listen to the prayers of those who are not His servants and of those who are not seeking Him (Psalm 65:2; Hebrews 11:6)? The Bible makes clear that only those calling on the name of Jehovah will be saved, but God only hears the prayers of those that pray to Him in Jesus' name. (Joel 2:32; John 14:6; 15:16)

It's true that all of God's prophets foretold that the Messiah, a Savior raised up by God, would rule a kingdom that would bring changes to the world (Daniel 2:44; 7:13, 14), and Jesus is that Messiah, that Savior and that King, but prayers from anyone having doubts and lacking faith will simply not receive a hearing from God, and their prayers are in vain no matter how much one feels he or she demonstrates neighbor love or claims to love God with his or her whole heart, soul, mind and strength, for if one is not doing the will of the Father, one's good deeds and words in living one's life in accord with one's own will, rather than God's, will be in vain. Absolutely no such persons will be recognized by Jesus as being his followers, and their prayers will never reach God's ears. (Matthew 7:21-23; Hebrews 3:12; James 1:6-8) The prayers of the wicked become a sin, while the prayers of the righteous God does hear. (Psalm 109:7; Proverbs 15:29)

@UnDisfellowshipped:

[W]hat difference does it make if the first year it was officially taught was 325 CE? The teaching about the Great Crowd of Other Sheep was not taught until 1935 CE, and the teaching about 1914 CE was not taught until the late 1800's.

I don't see the nexus to your question here, considering that 1914 AD and 1935 AD were years when certain prophetic features from the Bible underwent fulfillment, but in 325 AD came a teaching that totally perverted what the Bible teaches about God and Christ. Hopefully, you'll have a different attitude about the Trinity and will have embraced Bible truth before the foretold great tribulation begins. (John 8:32)

@djeggnog

21

Two Trees in the Garden of Eden

by God_Delusion in

isn't it weird how so few know that there were actually two major trees in the garden of eden account.. there was the tree of knowledge (of good and bad) and there was also the tree of life.. genesis chapter 3 makes is quite clear that god banished adam and eve from the garden and placed an angel to guard the tree of life, so that they might not eat from it again.

is this implying that the two perfect humans had to eat from the tree in order to have eternal life?

if not, why protect it?.

djeggnog

@God_Delusion:

Isn't it weird how so few know that there were actually two major trees in the Garden of Eden account.

This isn't true of Jehovah's Witnesses, even those who may have faded or left learned that there were two trees in Eden of note.

Genesis chapter 3 makes is quite clear that God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden and placed an angel to guard the Tree of Life, so that they might not eat from it again.

But this is not what Genesis chapter 3, or any other chapter in the Bible, says at all! Neither Adam nor Eve ever ate any of the fruit from the tree of life.

Is this implying that the two perfect humans had to eat from the tree in order to have eternal life?

There is no such implication in the Genesis account.

If not, why protect it?

There is nothing in Genesis 3 that suggests that God posted cherubs at the east of the garden of Eden to protect the tree of life, but since Adam and Eve's sin barred them from realizing the promise of eternal life that eating from the tree of life represented, God evicted them and posted cherubs to guard the way to the tree of life.

I did some mulling over this point and realised that the main reason all Christian religions/cults gloss over this fact, is that it would make Jesus' ransom sacrifice null and void.

Your mention of "Jesus' ransom sacrifice" here suggests to me that you reallydon't have any idea what you are saying here. Had Adam and Eve not sinned, what need would there have been for a perfect and righteous man to die to obtain a release for anyone? Does this make any sense to you?

A ransom to release whom from what? Adam's offspring were born in sin, which is why God made possible the provision of the ransom through Christ in order that those exercising faith in the ransom might obtain a release through Jesus Christ. If man had not fallen into sin, there would have been no need for a ransom

If perfection meant that you didn't live forever, but needed to eat from a tree to do so, why did Jesus die for our sins? What purpose would that serve?

Where in the Bible does it say anything about perfect human beings needing to eat from the tree of life in order to live forever? Two things are clear to me: (1) You don't really comprehend the reason that Jesus had to die, and (2) You make the assumption here that Adam and Eve knew that there was a tree of life. You know that there was a tree of life in Eden, but Adam and Eve didn't know about any such tree at all. Perhaps you should consider a Bible study with one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and not with someone that merely calls himself or herself one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and conducts Bible studies with folks motivated by the desire to show off what things he or she believes have been learned over a year or two from their having studied the Bible.

@djeggnog

457

TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

by UnDisfellowshipped in

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

@issacaustin wrote:

[Jesus'] god is the Father. That simply shows submission to the decision-maker by the agent who carries out those decisions. That does not disprove the Father and Son sharing the same nature.

@djeggnog wrote:

You are correct on all three fronts in what you say here.... While it is true that all of the angels of God -- and that would include Jesus and Satan -- are spirit beings, gods that are all sharers of the same divine nature as Jehovah, after Jesus' resurrection, only he came to share bodily that divine quality of which only Jehovah had been in possession, immortality. (Colossians 1:19; 2:9) So it is only with respect to immortality have both the Father and the Son become sharers of this divine quality. Those of the first resurrection will all of them be given immortality, too.

@issacaustin wrote:

They share [omnipotence], omniscience and omnipresence.

Is Jehovah almighty and all-knowing? Exodus 6:3 underscores Jehovah's almightiness and at Mark 13:32, Jesus underscores Jehovah's omniscience, when he said that "[c]oncerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father." Jesus attests to Jehovah, his Father, as being an all-knowing God. Although Jesus himself is now an immortal God, at John 14:28, Jesus also indicated that "the Father is greater than I am." So while it is true regarding omnipotence and omniscience that both Jehovah and Jesus share both, Jehovah's power and knowledge are without equal.

While it is true that Jesus Christ is now "Lord to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:11) and after the "great tribulation" he is destined to return with his angels "in the glory of the Father" (Matthew 16:27), Jehovah has made clear in His word that "to no one else shall [He] give [His] own glory. (Isaiah 42:8) In fact, "Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but [was glorified by him] who spoke with reference to him: 'You are my son; I, today, I have become your father,'" which promise was fulfilled when Jehovah brought Jesus back to life as His immortal Son. (Hebrews 5:5; Acts 13:32-34)

Yes, Jehovah glorified His son, Jesus, not only when He resurrected Him, thus making Jesus His spiritual Son in fulfillment of Psalm 2:7, but in His also giving to Jesus an indestructible life His own. (Hebrews 7:16)

Jehovah has committed all the judging to Jesus, so that we might "honor the Son just as [we] honor the Father ... who sent him." (John 5:22, 23) Thus Christians today honor Jesus by taking his name upon ourselves -- Jesus' name -- by declaring ourselves to the world as being Christians, and by our living up to Jesus' name by exhibiting conduct that is becoming to the Christ. To be teaching anyone that Jesus is almighty God and that he was equal to God in love, justice, wisdom and power, when Jesus didn't teach these things about himself, would be to dishonor Jesus and his name. Anyone putting faith in Jesus also puts faith in Jehovah since what things Jesus taught belonged to his father, and He it was that sent Jesus to teach us about Himself and His purposes. (John 7:16; 12:44) One more thing:

Anyone that denies the things that Jesus taught, denies the existence of the Father since Jesus is the proof that God exists.

I saved the last thing you mentioned -- omnipresence -- for last.

Where is God's house? Where does He live? What is God's location? At Acts 7:48, we read that "the Most High doesn't dwell in houses made with hands." Continuing with verses 49 and 50, same book and chapter, Stephen says "'The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What sort of house will you build for me? Jehovah says. Or what is the place for my resting? My hand made all these things, did it not?'"

God's throne is located in the heavens, the earth is God's footstool, and what kind of materials would one use to make a house in which God might dwell. So whether a structure could be made here on earth of gold, silver or some other precious stone, or even wood, God's house is not a church, not a cathedral, not a mosque, not a Kingdom Hall. It's not a house "made with hands."

A person is a "being possessing or forming the subject of personality," so God is a person, just like a man is a person, a woman is a person. A dog is not a person. A cat is not a person. Jehovah is a person, so he must have specific dwelling, for every intelligent person has location, but where is it?

So then is it true that God is everywhere at the same time, He's a part of and in everything? No, this is not true; God is not everywhere. God is somewhere. So where would we find God? Where exactly is God located? Well, what did Jesus say at Matthew 6:9? I know you know this scripture, for in the King James Version even young children learned what Jesus taught his followers to pray, "Our Father which art in heaven...." So where is God? Does this mean that God is in the sky? Is He in the clouds, or where the sun is, where the stars are, where the planets are, or in our solar system somewhere?

Our earth, it's atmosphere, our solar system, the universe cannot contain Jehovah, for King Solomon makes the point at 2 Chronicles 6:18 that "the heaven of the heavens" cannot contain Him. Now Jesus "became flesh and resided among us" we read at John 1:14, but Jehovah? He is nowhere to be found in our material universe. He's not everywhere; he's not omnipresent.

Leave the solar system past all of the stars to where the universe ends, if it so ends, and thus cross from this literal physical dimension into a spiritual dimension where the spiritual heavens is, and that is where God is, in another dimension. Isaiah 63:15 says "Look from heaven and see out of your lofty abode of holiness and beauty." This is the heaven where God makes His home, where Jehovah dwells in person.

But note what we read at Hebrews 8:1, 2 about God's dwelling place, His abode in the spiritual heavens, "We have such a high priest as this, and he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a public servant of the holy place and of the true tent, which Jehovah put up, and not man." So if it were possible to get out of our universe, out of this creation, that is to say, out of our physical dimension, and enter the spiritual heavens, you would find Jehovah in the spiritual dimension where He resides in person, you would see the palatial home that Jehovah himself put up, the palace where He lives and thrones.

But the apostle Paul provides this important detail at Hebrews 9:11 that will bear out what I've said here about God's dwelling place, about this "true tent" that Jehovah put up as His own dwelling in the spiritual heavens, for he speaks about "when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come to pass," that he did so, "through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation." Isn't this what Stephen said about God's house at Acts 7:48-50? "What sort of house will you build for me?" IOW, God's 'perfect and true tent,' His abode, is not here on Planet Earth at all. You can look, but you won't find God here anywhere!

No, @issacaustin, what we see from all of this is that God's home, His dwelling place, is in the heavens, and is "not of this creation."

@issacaustin wrote:

The Father, not the Holy Spirit, is Son's god. The Holy Spirit is the helper. This explains how Jesus can be God, yet have a God.

@djeggnog wrote:

No, it [doesn't.] The fact that the holy spirit is the active force of God that can bring back to one's mind what things Jesus taught to those that have actually learned these things (John 14:26) (while the holy spirit helps one remember the things learned, it doesn't plant memories into the mind that never existed there!) doesn't explain how Jesus can be God at all. That after his resurrection, Jesus was given immortality by God explains how Jesus is now a God. That Jesus is now immortal is proof that Jesus doesn't have to be the true God to be a God himself, and the fact that [the] God that raised Jesus from the dead gave him immortality is proof that Jesus has a God, someone greater than he.

@issacaustin wrote:

Let me say this again if I said it confusingly. I don't think i worded it well. Jesus has a god- the Father, to whom the Son is eternally submissive. Jesus also is God, by nature. In a similar sense we can say Adam and Eve were Cain's head in the Garden. Yet Eve also had a head- Adam...to whom she was to be submissive, one flesh.

I think I understand part of your analogy, but let me see if I'm understanding it correctly: Jehovah, the Father, is Jesus' head, and so what you seem to be saying here is that Adam's relationship to his wife, Eve, as being Eve's head corresponds to the relationship that the Father has to His son, as being Jesus' head. Correct?

Then, to continue the analogy, Jesus is eternally submissive to Jehovah, and so Jesus is 'by nature" God, even as Eve should have been -- let's just say she was -- submissive to her husband, Adam, and so we might conclude that Eve was "by nature" Adam. I'm not sure that this is what you meant to say, but ok.

You then go on to mention that "Adam and Eve were Cain's head," but you provide no correspondency to this relationship. I believe it could be said that Cain was "by nature" Adam and Eve, since Cain and his parents possessed human nature, but the correspondency I'm missing here is how Cain's submissiveness to his parents relates to anyone else? Do you mean to refer to the submissiveness of the angels in heaven? Or, do you refer to something else altogether? Please clarify this.

@The Finger:

c'mon djeggnog in your heart you know Jesus isn't an angel.

Well, even if Jesus is no longer an angel, then he is certainly a new creation, and so would each one of those in union with Christ be, "a new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17), each one having spiritual sonship and indestructible lives, all of these created Gods having immortality. Like the apostle Paul wrote at Galatians 6:15, a "new creation is something"!

@djeggnog

457

TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

by UnDisfellowshipped in

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

@issacaustin:

[Jesus'] god is the Father. That simply shows submission to the decision-maker by the agent who carries out those decisions. That does not disprove the Father and Son sharing the same nature.

You are correct on all three fronts in what you say here. I believe the Bible teaches that Jehovah is the true God. (Jeremiah 10:10) After Ahab and many of the sons of Israel, including some 450 of which had become prophets of Baal, died because that didn't want to walk in accord with Jehovah's standards, preferring instead to walk in accord with the standards of an imaginary god, it was clear made, at least historically, that Jehovah is the true God. (1 Kings 18:21-40)

While it is true that all of the angels of God -- and that would include Jesus and Satan -- are spirit beings, gods that are all sharers of the same divine nature as Jehovah, after Jesus' resurrection, only he came to share bodily that divine quality of which only Jehovah had been in possession, immortality. (Colossians 1:19; 2:9) So it is only with respect to immortality have both the Father and the Son become sharers of this divine quality. Those of the first resurrection will all of them be given immortality, too.

The Father, not the Holy Spirit, is Son's god. The Holy Spirit is the helper. This explains how Jesus can be God, yet have a God.

No, it doesn't . The fact that the holy spirit is the active force of God that can bring back to one's mind what things Jesus taught to those that have actually learned these things (John 14:26) (while the holy spirit helps one remember the things learned, it doesn't plant memories into the mind that never existed there!) doesn't explain how Jesus can be God at all. That after his resurrection, Jesus was given immortality by God explains how Jesus is now a God. That Jesus is now immortal is proof that Jesus doesn't have to be the true God to be a God himself, and the fact that God that raised Jesus from the dead gave him immortality is proof that Jesus has a God, someone greater than he.

As to the word "name" to which @Think About It refers in her post, this word doesn't refer to a personal name like "Jehovah," like "Jesus," or a title, like "God," like "Christ," like "@Think About It," but to the authority that someone or something has, like when a father sends his child to his brother's home with a check on a Tuesday, and the child tells his uncle that he should not cash the check until the following day, this child was speaking to his uncle in his father's name as his father's representative, being authorized by his father to tell his uncle when he could cash the check.

As recently as yesterday, I call myself explaining to@chalam (I don't know yet how well I did though!) how the word "name" is a synonym for the word "authority," that is to say, a word that refers 'to the authority with which someone has been vested by something or someone,' in this case, this teenager that had spoken to his uncle in his father's name, being authorized by his father to speak on his behalf, as his representative, who had entrusted his words to his son to carry his message (and the check) to his brother without embellishing them so as to alter his words in any way.

@peacedog:

Please explain how the word "ever" fits with (and supports) your interpretation of these verses.

No, and I believe we're done. I do know the difference between someone that is listening and someone that isn't listening, and you're not listening to me. I don't expect you to agree with what I have said here, because you are just as entitled as I am to believe whatever it is you choose to believe, and I cannot see how I could ever get in the way of anyone's exercise of their freedom to make their own decisions. It's clear that you want to quibble over words, but I do not wish to do quibble or argue with you; we're all just exchanging points of view here on this forum. I'm not more "right" than you are, except in my own eyes, and the even playing field is what makes the Bible-related discussions had here on this forum so great.

But IMO it is a show of contempt on your part to pretend as if you did not understand what I said to you about this question that you keep whining about how I have yet to answer it, when I believe I have responded to it. What I told you with respect to what Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 1:13 say was that "whereas your focus was on the word 'ever,' my focus was on the words 'to which.'" I also told you that I would "not allow you to change your argument. We were discussing the inclusion of the word 'one' in rendering Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 1:13 as 'which one,' and we were never discussing the word 'ever.'"

You and I are not going to be discussing apparent red herrings because I find that your pursuit of "truth in semantics" to be contemptuous, and I really don't deserve your contempt. At no time during this discussion can you accuse me of being disrespectful to you despite our differences of opinions in several areas. Earlier in this thread you declared a "case closed" status on matters as they relate to the Trinity, which informed me as to your mindset, that you really had no real interest in exchanging disparate viewpoints any longer, but that you're not such a stalwart in that regard or so it would appear.

So, @peacedog, if you truly believe that faith in the Trinity will save you, and you do not believe our exercising belief in the ransom provided by Jehovah through Jesus Christ for the release this provision provides from condemnation of sin and death that has ravaged mankind from Adam until now is going to save anyone, then my attitude is that maybe tomorrow you will come around, but today I accept that you and I have different opinions as to mankind's salvation and although I cannot agree with it, I do respect your right to make this choice.

@djeggnog