djeggnog

Joined

• started 0 topics
• posted 660 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by djeggnog

• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @yknot:

  For the record..... I love Jehovah and Jesus.......judging me with such hard-heartedness is inappropriate, unChristian and mean-spirited (consider apologizing like a proper gentlemen because you just went a little too far in your comments)

  For what record? Based on your words, you neither love Jehovah or Jesus, for if you did love them, you would not be so disloyal as to murmur against and sit in judgment of the governing body and of Jehovah's Witnesses generally as you have done and will doubtless continue to do. You do not respect the fact that Jesus is the head of the congregation, and there's absolutely nothing that you could possibly say to me now to disabuse me of this opinion of you, for while you are here casting aspersions upon those appointed to take the lead, you attend meetings at the Kingdom Hall and fake it as a member of this "conscious class," as if you accept that these imperfect when given as gifts by the Lord Jesus Christ, which makes you a hypocrite.

  I apologize for hurting your feelings, but I do not apologize for telling you the truth. If you think me to be hard-hearted or mean-spirited, I'm fine with that, but what I am is firm and I utterly hate hypocrisy when found in those that profess to be Jehovah's Witnesses.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I've no interest in either pursuing or engaging in a discussion with anyone about the flaws and imperfect reasoning of now-deceased Jehovah's Witnesses, and I mean Charles Russell and Joseph Rutherford, and Fred Franz, too. These men are all dead now, all of them imperfect, and their future life prospects are in God's hands now ....

  @yknot wrote:

  You don't want to know the truth about our development.........why even the WTS thinks you should or they wouldn't have released the new DVD!

  Excuse me, please, but at the risk of hurting your feelings even more, if you have actually watched the new DVD about which you have been here speaking, and you comprehended from watching it that its purpose was to illuminate Jehovah's Witnesses as to inform them as to "the truth about their development," then (1) the DVD went right over your head and (2) you have totally missed its purpose.

  The DVD explores the reason why Jehovah's Witnesses are different: Their faith in God. It also makes the strong point that is hardly made by Jehovah's Witnesses, but hopefully after folks have seen the DVD, they will stop walking about as if only Jehovah's Witnesses have received blessings from Jehovah by means of His spirit. This DVD makes the point how, in the past, Jehovah's spirit has definitely been operative upon His witnesses that have been associated with other Christian faiths. If you watch the DVD and fail to get this point, then you need to watch it again from the beginning and pay attention to what you hear.

  Since the first century AD, there have been many professed Christians -- Vaudès (Waldenses), Wycliffe (Lollards), Luther (Lutherans), Anabaptists, Calvin (Huguenots), Socinus (Socinians), and Quartodecimans, Servetus, Zwingli, Hus, Milton, Newton and Priestly, Blaine, Sealy, Brown, Miller (Millerites/Seventh Day Adventists), The Campbells (Campbells), Wesleys (Methodists), Grew, Storrs, Elliot, Barbour -- all of them having God's spirit, all of them bearing witness to Bible truth, and it is these Bible truths that greatly assisted Russell and his associates to dig and dig and uncover truths that had heretofore been hidden, and so build up the faith of Christians. Only when it became clear that these Christians should separate themselves in order to distinguish their living faith from the dead faith held by Christians in Christendom's churches did the modern day association of Jehovah's Witnesses finally emerge.

  In front of me I have the text of the DVD you saw as well as the text of what may be included in a subsequent DVD, and for the benefit of those that have not seen the DVD about which you and I are speaking, I will append to this post the text for the first ten minutes of the "Faith in Action" DVD.

  Further isn't that like a Catholic saying they didn't want to discuss what past Popes have decreed because it doesn't matter.

  Not at all, but, then, your biases against Jehovah and against the WTS caused you to deliberately understand that I was saying that I have no interest in opening up a dialogue with anyone that wanted to pick the bones of dead people who were as imperfect as you and I, but who during their lifetimes were examples of faith in action. How you can conclude that I am reticent about discussing the degrees of past Popes based on my unwillingness to speak approvingly of the backbiting, the bitter jealousy and contentiousness in your heart against the people of God makes he think that you would be numbered among those in Moses' day that balked and murmured against his leadership as well. Because you don't approve 100% of the leadership provided by the WTS, you conclude, and wrongly so, that Jehovah's spirit is not at work among Jehovah's people, which may be true of you, but not of me or of the rest of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  Which reminds me, you never gave the definition of 'TRUTH'........ please add WT citation to your answer.

  I don't intend to give you such a definition, but I will say this: At John 18:37, Jesus told Pilate that he had come to bear witness to the truth, for Jesus was the very personification of truth. So you have your citation and you have the WT Library 2009, so do whatever research you feel you need to do.

  @djeggnog

  [APPENDED]

  Faith in Action © 2010 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

  For more than 1900 years, Jehovah's Witnesses have proclaimed the Bible's message that God's kingdom will rid the world of wickedness, restore the earth to paradise and raise mankind to perfection. Sharing this truth, however, has often resulted in persecution from powerful institutions. But why has such a positive message elicited such a negative reaction, and how have we overcome that opposition to get to where we are today?

  This is the story of a people intent on living in the light of Bible truth, no matter what hostility they may face. As you watch, note the determination of Jehovah's modern-day servants to study diligently, preach zealously and keep serving God faithfully. This video is more than just history; this is your story. It's a reminder that Jehovah God is in full control and that this is his organization. It is a story that begins over 6,000 years ago, the story of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  In the Bible, light is associated with truth, whereas darkness is association with falsehood.

  When God completed his creative works, there was no spiritual darkness, but after Adam and Eve sinned, human society came under the control of Satan. Shunning the light would become the foremost goal of wicked people. Anyone seeking truth in such a world would be opposed.

  The light of truth shone brightly when Jesus Christ walked the earth. All who truly followed Jesus reflected the light he radiated. But Jesus foretold that after the death of his apostles, there would be a falling away from pure worship. That apostasy would be so extensive that genuine disciples would practically disappear until the conclusion of the system of things. At the same time, a counterfeit form of Christianity would flourish, and so it happened.

  So called Christian churches deviated from Christ's teachings. The result was the abuse of power and untold suffering. This was a period of deep darkness.

  In the centuries after the establishment of the Christian congregation, we see how many of those who were taking the lead in the Christian church or the Christian congregation started to likewise love worldly wisdom. These ideas that came from Plato and other of the Greek philosophers started to infiltrate the so-called Christian thinking, and so the apostates wished to blend Christian teaching and Christian tradition with pagan religious ideas, and the idea was to make these things more acceptable to other pagans so that pagans could be drawn into the Christian religion.

  As the centuries passed, apostate religious leaders obscured the light even further by keeping the Bible in Latin, a language no longer understood by most people. Yet, at certain points during this darkness, there were still individuals who felt keenly the need to read and understand God's word. For example, in the 1100s, a French merchant known as Vaudès commissioned a translation of Bible books into the language of the common people. Two centuries later, Catholic priest, John Wycliffe wrote powerfully against unbiblical practices of the Church. By 1382, Wycliffe's team released the first translation of the Bible into English. His students, known as Lollards, preached the Bible's message to anyone who would listen.

  By 1495, the invention of movable type made it possible to print all or part of the Bible in 12 languages. Soon people were reading it for themselves, and some who did began to discern that the Church had gone off course. In the 1500s, such men as Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Luther and John Calvin preached the need to return to the original principles of Christianity. These men and others tried to expose hypocritical practices and uphold Bible teaches, even though this put them at odds with powerful religious authorities.

  You can see ones that were willing to stand out as being different, even though they didn't have a full knowledge of the truth. But standing out led to persecution, and persecution often led to compromise, especially when it came to preaching. Nevertheless, in many lands, the 16- and 1700s were marked by a strong upsurge in Bible study. In England, many learned men refuted the Trinity doctrine as unscriptural. Among them, scientist Sir Isaac Newton, poet John Milton and chemist Joseph Priestly. Besides rejecting the Trinity doctrine, Priestly declared that the teaching of the inherent immortality of the soul was false. He held that the first century Christians had the true faith, and that any change to that pattern of belief was a corruption. His opinions sparked a heated controversy, both in the Church and in the government.

  In 1791, a mob destroyed Priestly's house and laboratory. The pressure mounted for three more years until he fled to the United States. He was followed by many others who held his views, among them, Henry Grew. By 1807, at age 25, Grew was invited to serve as pastor of the Baptist Church in Hartford, Connecticut. And he had a very interesting philosophy on the study of the Bible: Let scripture interpret scripture. Grew's point was that the Bible was its own best interpreter. Now as he studied the Bible, he began to realize that the doctrine of the Trinity was false. Well, you couldn't be a Baptist minister and not believe in the Trinity.

  After four years, Grew and several others withdrew from the church. In later years, Grew published writings in which he used the Bible to refute the Trinity, hellfire and the inherent immortality of the soul. And Grew argued that immortality, according to the Bible, is a gift that God bestows on the faithful. It is not a gift that he bestows on the wicked, so how could the wicked have an immortal soul?

  Grew's pamphlet would have far-reaching effects. His work caught the attention of Methodist minister, George Storrs. Intrigued, Storrs spent the next three years studying the matter. Yet his findings met with little interest by his fellow ministers. Then finally, by 1840, his conscience troubled him so much over the difference between the Bible was teaching and what he was being obliged to teach as Methodist Episcopal minister that he resigned his position.

  In 1842, Storrs began publishing a monthly magazine entitled "Bible Examiner." Before long, he met Henry Grew in person. The two became close friends and collaborated in debates the proponents of the immortal soul doctrine. George Storrs believed that in order for everyone living during the time of Christ's return to have an opportunity for salvation a global preaching campaign was needed. He had no idea how such a thing could be accomplished, but in faith he wrote: "Yet, too many, if they cannot see just how a thing is to be done, reject it, as if it were impossible for God!"

  Storrs died in 1879 at his home in Brooklyn, New York, in the very neighborhood that would become the focal point of the worldwide preaching work that he had so eagerly anticipated. The stage was now set for light to emerge from darkness.
• 
  15

  Debate

  by goddidit in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'd like to have a one-on-one online debate with an active jw.

  it doesn't have to be private.. anyone have any suggestions how i might arrange this?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @goddidit:

  I'd like to have a one-on-one online debate with an active JW.

  Ok.

  I assumed there wouldn't be any active (by my previous definition) jws on this site at all. Is that wrong? If there is some, are they here covertly?

  I am not here covertly, but because I do not wish to stumble others, I don't think it to be a good idea to tell anyone that I visit this site. For me to inform others that I visit sites like this would be not unlike my deciding to drink a beer, and then offering a beer to a guy that I know has a drinking problem because I believe he ought to be able to handle drinking one beer with me since one beer is all I'm going to give him. (1 Corinthians 10:29)

  It is well known that many Jehovah's Witnesses learn the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, but very often do not press on to maturity by obtaining accurate knowledge, because oftentimes they have memorized doctrines (that is to say, committed certain doctrines to memory so that they never learned them), and for this reason the WTS publishes articles warning Jehovah's Witnesses about visiting websites where apostates might frequent, knowing that such sites can be dangerous and can lead one into become, if nothing else, disenchanted with being one of Jehovah's Witnesses and in time apostasy or apostate thinking.

  (For example, @UnDisfellowshipped is an apostate that believes God to be a trinity, and while I don't know if he was a trinitarian before he became of Jehovah's Witnesses, but he's like the demons that know that God exists, but prefers to embrace trinitarian beliefs and @yknot is someone that claims to be of the "conscious class," but I believe she to be an apostate thinker that hates Jehovah.)

  So active means going to meetings and round the doors but not necessarily believing it?

  If such ones are "active," they are covert since such persons are typically fearful of being found out and maybe disfellowshipped.

  Are these active non-believers the people that just stay because they don't want to lose friends and/or family?

  Yes and some of them are pedophiles, while others never have had anyone in their adult life with whom they could call their friends until they become one of Jehovah's Witnesses while others know that they would be cut off from active association with their own relatives in the truth if they should be disfellowshipped, so they are on the "down-low " in their local congregations in that they are not telling anyone in their congregation that they are of the "conscious class" or faders -- although I do not tell anyone that I visit this site and others like it in order not to stumble anyone with a weak conscience toward God, so, to answer your question, these active non-believers "walk the walk," but love for God and neighbor does not motivate their fakeness, but their not wanting to be cut off socially from their friends and family is what motivates them to "walk the walk."

  What exactly did you want to discuss?

  @djeggnog
• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Essan:

  The ironic thing is, you have the air of someone who confidently believes they are skillfully getting away unnoticed with being a monumental bloviating blowhard.

  If in your view the fact that I feel no obligation whatsoever toward helping @Podobear convince a Pentecostal minister, two of them actually, that Jehovah isn't omnipresent -- when @Podobear tells me these men have family members who, like me, are Jehovah's Witnesses, men who like me were "taught by Jehovah" (Isaiah 54:13; John 6:45) -- is something that makes me a "monumental bloviating blowhard," then in your eyes I'll be a M.B.B.

  Now as I understand it, @Podobear has been out of the truth for some 25 years, and although I do study the Bible with inactive Jehovah's Witnesses as well as active one, he's not asked me to study the Bible with him. Unless you consider yourself to be one of my Bible studies, which you aren't, then why would you think I should feel obliged to pursue @Podobear's inquiry into a matter that is of no significance to me?

  I have an ex parte motion to prepare for a case that the attorney with whom I work that must be served by fax tomorrow morning, and I also have a motion to set aside the default judgment that was entered in this particular case on which I am working to do.

  Maybe because you and I are here exchanging posts with one another on this forum, you wouldn't think it absurd were I to ask you come into the office and transcribe a relatively short, 15 minutes at the most, tape for me on my PC. Now my "dragon," that is, Dragon NaturallySpeaking, doesn't know your voice so it won't transcribe a word you say to it, but you may be able to knock out the tape in half an hour, and while there may be a few names probably unfamiliar to you, like "Kartheiser" and "Melendrez" (these are brief names of cases), and words like "rebuttable" and "presumption," I dictated no words like "bloviating" or "blowhard." It should be a piece of cake for you!

  It would save me some time if you could get here in an hour so that you can start transcribing the tape by 8:30 pm, local time here in Los Angeles (which is a little less than an hour from now as I write this) and maybe by 9:30 pm I'll be done and ready for tomorrow. But if you should not feel any obligation whatsoever to come to Los Angeles so that you can transcribe this tape for me, to help me out, even after you and I have exchanged posts and everything, then I need you to tell me this: Would this make you a M.B.B., too? Or, do you now view this idea to be as absurd as yours as to my unwillingness to help @Podobear win some theological debating points with folks that would only use this information in their pulpits to spruce up the Sunday morning sermon?

  I've no interest in either pursuing or engaging in a discussion with anyone about the flaws and imperfect reasoning of now-deceased Jehovah's Witnesses, and I mean Charles Russell and Joseph Rutherford, and Fred Franz, too. These men are all dead now, all of them imperfect, and their future life prospects are in God's hands now, and yet it is thrilling for so many of the folks that come to this forum, whose posts over the years -- I've read many of them -- are critical of the theological viewpoints that these men held when they were alive. Why not even the Lord Jesus Christ could survive the scrutiny from some of the folks here, like from @elderelite, from @yknot and from you!

  The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are progressive and not static, even though everyone here knows that the majority of Christendom's beliefs -- such as its beliefs regarding the trinity -- are static and not progressive.

  For example, Jehovah's Witnesses used to believe when Jesus used the words "this generation" at Matthew 24:34, that the generation to which he was referring was the 1914 generation consisting of people old enough to comprehend what things were taking place at that time; then over the years it was thought that by "this generation," Jesus was referring to his anointed brothers that were alive in 1914 so that the great tribulation's arrival would be before the last one of these anointed brothers had deceased. Not more than 15 years ago, "this generation" was thought to have been people alienated from God who were contemporaries of Jesus' anointed brothers during the generation beginning in 1914 until the great tribulation, who would ultimately be destroyed at Armageddon.

  Well what about today? Since the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are not static, but are progressive, our understanding of this prophecy at Matthew 24:34 has increased as it becomes clearer to us that what we had discerned in the past to be true had been in error. We are not ashamed and are quite candid in telling folks that we were wrong. Jesus admonished his followers to "keep on the watch," so while Jehovah's Witnesses are as anxious as are our opposers to see all false religion brought to a screeching halt by world leaders, we are confident that such watchfulness on our part will pay off, and so we must be willing to adjust our viewpoint on such vital matters as the foretold end approaches, despite the confidence that the naysayers on this forum lack. (Matthew 24:42; 2 Peter 3:4)

  The holy spirit has indicated where mention of a generation that is much longer than just 20 or 23 years that we typically think of as being a generation. Joseph's "generation" turned out to be 110 years! That generation was Joseph's, for at Exodus 1:6, the Bible makes reference not just to Joseph's brothers, but it says to "all his brothers and all that generation." The F&DS as represented by the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses have pondered the significance of what the holy spirit is saying here at Exodus 1:6, but it is clear that the spirit does refer to Joseph's contemporaries, in that the lives of Joseph's siblings and Joseph's two sons Manasseh and Ephraim, who were both alive when their father died -- overlapped Joseph's life. Just as Joseph's life had both a beginning and an ending, likewise the sign that Jesus provides us in Matthew chapters 24 and 25 has both a beginning and an ending.

  Jesus was referring to the generation of the remnant of his anointed brothers that were alive during 1914 that saw the events that portended the beginning of the sign as well as their contemporaries that would also see the events that portended the end of the sign with the coming great tribulation that precedes the end of this system of things. It has been explained that the lives of those that were alive in 1914 would therefore overlap the lives of those that would be alive when the great tribulation begins. Since almost 100 years have passed since 1914, we now know that Jesus couldn't have had in mind a 20- or 23-year generation, so we can now infer that Jesus was referring to a period of time as a "generation."

  We can do no more than speculate as to the year when the end will come, for literally adding 110 years to the year 1914, we arrive at the year 2024, but even though we are sure that the year 1914 marked the beginning of "this generation," Jesus stated at Mark 13:22 that no one would know the "day or the hour" when the end of "this generation" would arrive. But the point being made here is that those of Jesus' anointed brothers, whose lives overlap, that were alive during this generation would not all of them will "pass away until all these things occur."

  Now that was a rather lengthy example, but this is on everyone's mind, so that I thought I should mention it in the context of folks speaking so slightingly of the dead since Russell, Rutherford, Knorr and Franz had all died before this progressive understanding of Matthew 24:34 became known to the entire association of Jehovah's Witnesses. Discussions about this have been had over the years among the governing body and others, but only when it was discerned what the holy spirit says at Exodus 1:6 did we need to make an adjustment.

  There is no "up-side" in speaking slightingly of the dead and my attitude about helping @Podobear with information so that he could just pass it on to these two Pentecostal pastors is that I'm going to let the dead bury the dead, while I continue to "declare ... the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:60) Why? Because, like I said, I hold no theologically partnership with the Pentecostal faith.

  One more thing, @Essan: I'm pretty sure that everyone here "notices" me, which is fine, because I want to encourage "fading" Jehovah's Witnesses to stay in the faith, and those that are ex-Jehovah's Witnesses to live up to the vow of dedication that they made to Jehovah. Because I'm "noticed" here, I cannot afford to ever let down my guard here because "you guys" are no joke, and neither is Jehovah (who is always watching and "paying attention" [Malachi 3:16]!), and I don't believe eternal death is any prize to be coveted by the one that wins it either.

  P.S.: I'm glad that you rethought your earlier decision, when he told me in a previous post:

  I won't be responding to you further.

  First, I'm not a bad guy, and second, I believe you're the one that's busted! <g>

  @Psacramento:

  Angels are created beings and as such, by their nature, are NOT divine.

  This sounds like something that @UnDisfellowshipped would say, but I would like you to review Psalm 8:5, which describes the angels as "godlike ones" (hebrew, elohim), and then compare this thought with what the apostle Paul writes when quoting this very psalm at Hebrews 2:7, referring to these "godlike ones as "angels." And like the angels, the 144,000 are destined to become "sharers in divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), too, but they will have a higher station than the angels, and they will each have an incorruptible body just as Jesus has, as well as that same divine quality bodily that God and Jesus have, namely, immortality. (Colossians 1:19; 2:9)

  What is created is, what it is and nothing more, what is begotten is of the same nature that [begot] it.

  Amen.

  @UnDisfellowshipped:

  It wasn't my intention to hurt @Podobear's feelings, but to tell him the truth as to why it was I had no interest in providing the information that you just provided @Podobear from our literature. Perhaps he can use what you provided; perhaps not. But as I stated earlier in this thread to @yknot, you can pray day and night for anyone you wish, @UnDisfellowshipped, and Jehovah is not listening to the prayers of those that are not searching for him or that have dedicated themselves to do His will and are not doing it. (Matthew 7:21-23; Hebrews 3:12; James 1:6-8; Psalm 109:7; Proverbs 15:29)

  @djeggnog
• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @yknot:

  I wanted to correct a typo in my last post:

  I suppose I'm just imagining here that you are giving me counsel to the effect that the article I cited "isn't current"? Far be it from me to point out to you that we are not having a discussion. Clearly you never learned of what he headship principle consists.

  The correction I would make (in italics and in bold) is as follows:

  I suppose I'm just imagining here that you are giving me counsel to the effect that the article I cited "isn't current"? Far be it from me to point out to you that we are not having a discussion. Clearly you never learned of what the headship principle consists.

  @djeggnog
• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Podobear:

  I will leave you with this quote from the book RECONCILIATION by J.F. Rutherford 1928. The parallel Universe explanation you gave must have come in after I quit associating with JW's 25 years ago: ...

  It has been suggested, and with much weight, that ... Pleiades is the place of the eternal throne of God.

  I'm sure you will recall previously asking me the following question:

  Therefore, Djeggnog, should JW's do a full circle and return to the days of Pastor [Russell] and be looking at the Pleides for such location?

  My response, in pertinent part, began this way:

  I can assure you that I do not know what you mean by this....

  I meant this, but let me be clear: There are a lot of dead folks that went to their graves believing things to be true for whatever reason that have later on proven to be false. There are many among folks, who had formerly been Jehovah's Witnesses and were convinced that God isn't "Three Persons" of a Trinity, and yet they leave the organization and put faith in a lie, embracing the very doctrine that they had previously learned to be false.

  Jehovah's Witnesses has always been a progressive organization, so if after 25 years of being out of the truth you continue to resist the holy spirit as you harp on the zany ideas of sincere Bible students that are no longer with us, then this is your choice, your life, but I've no interest in pursuing a discussion about the flaws and imperfect reasoning of now-deceased Jehovah's Witnesses. I really see no "up-side" in speaking slightingly of the dead, including Rutherford and Franz, and even if "the dead" should be anointed and now be alive in heaven, as far as we here on earth are concerned, these folks are no longer living among us.

  Furthermore, I think it both outrageous and disrespectful to be assailing the memory of someone that has died, especially considering that they have been acquitted of their sins (that is, with the exception of those dying having committed the unforgivable sin), not that this is what you were doing, @Podobear, but I'm speaking generally here about certain aspect of our discussion here to which I'd rather not be a party.

  Could you provide the current JW work that divulges the concept of a parallel Universe[?] Des and his son David (both Pentecostal Pastors) are in my clinic tomorrow morning. I would like to get my quoting right, because the other half of their family are JW's and Elders.

  I suppose I could, but I'm going to have to say "No," for I'm not inclined to do so for the sake of these Pentecostal Pastors with whom I hold nothing theologically with them! You could toss this same question out to these elders since they are also Jehovah's Witnesses, for they may be more inclined than I am to do so.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I wasn't "insinuating" anything; I'm telling you that Jehovah doesn't listen to just anyone's prayers, for prayer is a form of worship and all trinitarians without exception are worshipers of God's adversary, Satan.

  @yknot wrote:

  The publications don’t back your opinion, think of all those wonderful stories of how people came into the Truth! Many were praying to God for answers, many were Trinitarian at the time in their understanding and praying under the Trinitarian concept when a JW couple appears at their door……

  The context in which I made this statement was with respect to your seeming to me to be an apologist for trinitarians! Anyone, sometimes Jehovah's Witnesses have to be very careful that we don't get a little self-righteous and say things like, they're just Baptists, Pentecostals or Lutherans, and feel that they're not worth the trouble to preach to them because they are diehard trinitarians and won't listen to the message we are preaching.

  But it's not just Jehovah's Witnesses that God is going to be saving, is it? I've not read that in the Bible ever! Jeremiah's attitude was, "God, forgive us all. We are all sinners," but it's true that some among Jehovah's Witnesses have gotten to be too righteous, even though not one of us -- including me -- are any bargain to Jehovah God when we all need to all of us rely upon His undeserved kindness for mercy, don't we? Our works are just fulfilling a command; they don't save us and some among God's people have become complacent with a feeling of superiority, and so they often need folks like me to remind them of these things. I told you in a previous post that I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses that teaches other Jehovah's Witnesses, and let me be clear in saying to you that God doesn't hear the prayers of trinitarian apologists like yourself that ought to know this, and, in context, I was specifically referring to you (and to those who are just like you).

  Now does this mean that Jehovah God loves Baptists and Lutherans and Catholics? Define "love." Jehovah would love for them to listen to what the spirit says to all of the congregations, but He knows that of those we call "Jehovah's Witnesses," some have become disgruntled, unsteady in their thinking and unsettled in their heart, throwers of darts at congregation elders and at those taking the lead at the WTS, but God also knows that it may take a bit of time due to the hold that this Satanic doctrine has on some people. So does God care about the trinitarians? Of course, He does, for what reason in the world does He have us out there preaching to them? Peter says that Jehovah desires that none be destroyed.

  I am baffled by your not discerning erroneous interpretations, again this makes me believe you are a convert or a young person (please clarify your status—young, old, convert, raised or born-in------ yes, those things do matter as they affect our knowledge and perceptions)

  Well, I'm not! You are all over the place, but perhaps you will remember writing the following:

  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.

  I've been reacting to this statement of yours; it is false. Jehovah's Witnesses do not pray on behalf of the wicked, and the matter has already been settled. There exists no need at the congregation level for anyone to wait for Jesus to come after the great tribulation. You wrote, "until Jesus returns," but Jesus has already returned, which is another reason why I reacted to your false statement. I believe I've dropped more than a sufficient number of hints in my posts as to my age and status and current assignment, but I'm about "seeking the glory that is from the only God" and not my own glory. I don't want to talk about me. I'd like nothing more than to discuss the Bible with folks.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I use e-Sword, too, so what's your point.

  @yknot wrote:

  You do realize those Commentaries are from TRINITARIANS and according to you are not capable of receiving Jehovah's spirit because he doesn't hear their prayers as they were under the influence of satanic direction!

  Where did I ever say that I consulted anyone's "commentary"? I use the KJV, ASV, RSV and (quite recently) the NWT modules only, but like I said in my previous post, you're a hateful person that you would rather knock me for some reason because I use e-Sword, instead of asking me why I used e-Sword. I also use the WT Library 2009 and BibleScope on the iTouch I carry with me daily, if you must know. So what?

  I am starting to believe you have so many responses that you are confusing me with another poster.

  I do not have you confused with any other poster here.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  As to this nonsense about you and I being in clear violation of the F&DS's direction by posting here, or as to our casting stones at one another (which I do not do!), please review the article, "Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones" ([w74 8/1, 466-473]), for even though this article was published back in 1974, the information in it is still current, and perhaps you will then appreciate -- that is, after you have read the article -- that posting messages here isn't a violation, except in your own mind! (1 Corinthians 10:29)

  @yknot wrote:

  No, I am sorry but that isn’t current. Please reference "God’s Love" pg 207-209.

  I suppose I'm just imagining here that you are giving me counsel to the effect that the article I cited "isn't current"? Far be it from me to point out to you that we are not having a discussion. Clearly you never learned of what he headship principle consists.

  This forum--- what is your purpose on this forum? Are you looking to clock in some ‘easy time’?

  What do you mean? I cannot "clock" any of the time I spend here. Now you are attacking my motives for being here on this forum. There seem to be so many things that you simply do not know.

  @elderelite:

  Clearly, DJ eggfoo you are wrong, as usual. let me show you what the WT library CD rom has as references when it comes to dealing with DF'd individuals...(you may wish to add that little reference to your PDA, if there is room with all those bibles and such)

  No, thanks.

  @djeggnog
• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @yknot:

  I was just pointing out that Jah’s true name and pronunciation is lost to time until the millennial reign.

  Then in the future you really should not be pointing such things out to me as if you are qualified to teach me anything about the Bible. Perhaps you could just ask me a question before assuming anything about me or about what things I might know.

  Trinitarian prayers…… Are you insinuating that Jah only hears JWs prayers?

  I wasn't "insinuating" anything; I'm telling you that Jehovah doesn't listen to just anyone's prayers, for prayer is a form of worship and all trinitarians without exception are worshipers of God's adversary, Satan.

  Scriptures...... Careful there DJ, interpretation by the WTS isn’t squeaky clean as prophets of Old……and I am starting to feel you don’t discern our history very well…..I am not talking about what Ray Franz, Don Cameron or any other ExJW have said, I am talking about from our own publications….

  I don't care about what Raymond Franz or what any other ex-Jehovah's Witness may have stated in the past. I believe all of these folks were all entitled to their opinion. Despite what you might think you know about what things I might know as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I don't know the interpretations to which you are referring, so I am unable to comment without more than just a passing reference from you.

  No we are not always progressing forward—2008 ‘generation’ is from 1927, we also flipped on higher authorities, we flipped on holy spirit directing too…..but of course you obviously don’t know about this as you are either a young person or a convert

  What was it that gave you to understand that I might be "a young person" or "a [recent] convert"? Tell me this since you just mentioned this: When ever have any of Jehovah's Witnesses done any proselytizing? I'm familiar with the QFR article [w64 10/1 "Is it right to say that Jehovah's witnesses do a converting work or a proselyting work?"], and I believe you would find mention made in the Bible of a Christian named Nicolaus, who had been a Jewish proselyte of Antioch, Syria, but Christians do not engage in forced conversions.

  I tend to think of proselytizing as forced conversions and Jehovah's Witnesses to not engage in such since it would be useless for them to do so considering what it was Jesus states at John 6:44. This is 2010, and if you wish to harken back to what things we believed as Jehovah's Witnesses back in 1964 (I was raised in a Christian household btw), you are free to do so, but I would not recommend your use of the word "convert" in the sense that you have used it here. You are very dismissive in your post, so it would not surprise me that you would reject whatever recommendations I might make to you.

  I am curious do you even know what the ‘truth’ is….. do you discern it’s proper definition?

  Yes, I know the truth.

  Further the writing department uses E-Sword and many other ‘worldly-babylon the great’ commentaries too! So much for the FDS adhering to 1Cor 10:21,22!

  I use e-Sword, too, so what's your point.

  Have you viewed the new DVD yet? What did Russell and his buddies do to discern 'bible truths'?

  I have viewed the new DVD. If you have yourself seen Part 1-Out of Darkness" of the "Jehovah's Witnesses-Faith in Action" DVD, why then do you ask me this question? What does this DVD have to do with this particular topic?

  Being a JW

  I had asked if you were one of Jehovah's Witnesses, because you sound like someone that accepts false doctrine. You are giving me counsel as if you know me, but you do not, and I suspect what you are doing violates the headship principle, or didn't you learn about the existence of such during your many years in Jehovah's organization? Read my posts and you'll find that I don't take myself so seriously that I become dismissive of others. I believe everyone -- whether they be in the truth, as it were, or out of it -- is entitled to respect and I give it. I don't berate others and I do not engage in name-calling. These things that you are saying to me here are totally inappropriate as none of them are applicable to the way I've conducted myself here on this forum. You come off to me as being both hateful and opinionated, but you can be whatever it is you choose to be, and I will still accept you as you are, just as I accept people as they are.

  As to this nonsense about you and I being in clear violation of the F&DS's direction by posting here, or as to our casting stones at one another (which I do not do!), please review the article, "Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones" ([w74 8/1, 466-473]), for even though this article was published back in 1974, the information in it is still current, and perhaps you will then appreciate -- that is, after you have read the article -- that posting messages here isn't a violation, except in your own mind! (1 Corinthians 10:29)

  You see, my conscience "bears witness with me in holy spirit" and I am rendering direct worship to my God, Jehovah, "with a clean conscience" as I know the value of having a good conscience toward Jehovah (Romans 9:1; 2 Timothy 1:3; 1 Peter 3:16), but what about your conscience? Also, if your conscience should become disturbed for any reason in your posting messages to this website, then it might be wise for you to stop visiting this website, since it would be a sin for you to do so against the dictates of your own Bible-trained conscience. (1 Corinthians 8:12; James 4:17)

  Think of this forum as a chance to hone your skills as we live in a ‘google society’ now and many topics often found here will start coming up at the door or later during a study….. so best to be prepared!

  This is your thought and you are free to hold onto to it, but I don't come here to hone my ministerial skills. Read my posts and you should discern that my skills are already honed, because I conduct Bible studies every week. (As a matter of fact, I was a bit delayed in posting tonight because of a study I conduct on Sundays.) I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses that teaches other Jehovah's Witnesses, and I have the Bible, several of them actually, on my PDA, so I'm always prepared.

  Majority of the posters here are nice people too, treat them with respect and more than often they will return the courtesy even when disagreeing.

  You may or may be right about this, but, as I say above, I always treat folks with respect. But how long will it be before you yourself start treating me with respect and courtesy?

  divine nature….

  You didn't answer my question. You don't have to answer it, mind you, but here again is my question:

  Speaking of "divine nature," since you brought it up for some reason, let me ask you this: Do you believe Jesus alone to have the divine nature or do you believe the other angels of God have the divine nature? Your answer to this question would be telling.

  @djeggnog
• 
  55

  THE "OTHER SHEEP" ARE NOT GENTILE CHRISTIANS, because...............

  by Titus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i don't want biblical answer, but from any watchtower publication.

  has that question ever been answered in any watchtower publications?.

  please, give me some references.. i expect answer from debator, alice, bane, scholar or any other active jehovah's witness.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @djeggnog wrote:

  What do you think about this response to your non-question about me? Do you think it to be a straight answer to your non-question, a cloudy, perhaps an irrelevant counter question or a case of my using a bit of sleight of hand in order make things "hopelessly and needless convoluted"?

  @Essan wrote:

  Yes. I think it's a complete waste of time. I wasn't talking to you and I'd like not to talk to you further, if that's OK. I don't mean to be rude in saying this, I'd just like you to plainly answer the OP's questions, rather than making distractions out of countless other issues. For that reason, I won't be responding to you further.

  What you do in this thread is up to your; your choice. However, whether you decide to be either rude or nice to me, I'm going to be the kind of person that I want to be, and I do not wish to take notes on "etiquette" from you. I don't recognize you someone that is moderating this thread, and only if you were the moderator of it, would I accord you the respect to which you would be entitled as such. Respond or do not respond is your choice, but if you should say anything in this thread to which I decide to respond, I will do so without seeking your permission.

  BTW, @Essan, please feel free to ask me any question at all should be inclined to do so in the future, but if you decide to do so, you should be an adult. This isn't some high school kids gather so you might want to try another approach, one that usually works for you when you are speaking to another adult. If it would help, next time you post something to me, you might imagine that I'm your mother, ok?

  Let's see if a simple question - the OP's - can receive a straight, sound JW answer.

  Frankly, I'd be more interested in hearing how you would answer the OP's question(s).

  @Titus

  The Abrahamic covenant is "a covenant to time indefinite." Its terms require that it extend on until the destruction of all God’s enemies and the blessing of the families of the earth have been accomplished.

  [QUESTION 1]:

  Why does Jesus lead them out of the sheepfold, or out of the Abrahamic Covenant, which is "a covenant to time indefinite"? (John 10:2-5)

  Let assume that it is true. then we have:

  •Sheepfold1 - is identified with the Mosaic Law covenant arrangement

  •Sheepfold2 - congregation of anointed Christians who will rule with Christ in heaven

  •Sheepfold3 - those who will live on the Paradise earth

  We can say this: The sheep in the Sheepfold2 come from - the Sheepfold1.

  [QUESTION 2]:

  Where do the sheep in the Sheepfold3 come from? (John 10:16)

  [QUESTION 3]:

  Where do the sheep in the Sheepfold2 come from TODAY? TODAY! Isn't the answer - from Sheepfold3? Or you claim that all GB members were under the ... Mosaic Law before?

  Jesus calls his own sheep by name and leads them out of the Sheepfold1, which is the Mosaic Law, according to gt. (John 10:3) He leads them out of the Sheepfold1, and brings them in the Sheepfold2.

  [QUESTION 4]:

  Who brings the sheep INTO the Sheepfold3?

  .

  .

  .

  Please, keep it simple!

  Support every answer with the WT publications.

  My answers to your four (4) questions are based (in part) on the source material you provided in your post: (1) Chapter 80 of the Greatest Man book, "The Sheepfolds and the Shepherd," and (2) the article, "The 'Fine Shepherd' and His 'Other Sheep' [ w80 7/15 p. 22-28]. You will find my responses are interleaved between the text of your questions repeated below:

  1) Why does Jesus lead [the sheep] out of the sheepfold, or out of the Abrahamic Covenant, which is "a covenant to time indefinite"? (John 10:2-5)

  While it is true that Jesus led the sheep out of the sheepfold to which his second cousin, John the Baptist, was the doorkeeper -- that "sheepfold" being the descendants of Jacob/Israel, the nation of Israel, who were "kept" by means of the Law of Moses (Sheepfold 1) -- only a remnant from Sheepfold 1 that had become Christians are those that became a part of the "little flock" that represented spiritual Israel (Sheepfold 2).

  Jesus led these sheep out of Sheepfold 1 after Pentecost. The rest of this "little flock" were the Gentiles that had also become Christians to become the "composite" seed of Abraham by means of which the nations would eventually come to bless themselves, spiritual Israel. Since Jesus is the principal member of the "seed," Jesus as well as his "little flock" are a part of the Abrahamic Covenant.

  2) Where do the sheep in the Sheepfold3 come from? (John 10:16)

  The sheep that are a part of the third sheepfold (Sheepfold 3), that is to say, the "other sheep," are those that come from all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues in response to the preaching of the good news of the established heavenly kingdom of God.

  3) Where do the sheep in the Sheepfold2 come from TODAY? TODAY! Isn't the answer - from Sheepfold3? Or you claim that all GB members were under the the Mosaic Law before?

  You are correct that the sheep in Sheepfold 2 come from Sheepfold 3. What any of this has to do with the members of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses I do not know, since the Mosaic Law was nailed to Jesus' torture stake in 33 AD! I'd be curious to know the connection between this question you ask about the GB and the sheep in Sheepfold 2 if you care to share it.

  4) Who brings the sheep INTO the Sheepfold3?

  Both the remnant of sheep in Sheepfold 2 that are still alive today as well as the sheep in Sheepfold 3, their companions, who are both one flock under one shepherd, Christ Jesus, are those that bring the sheep -- that is, the "other sheep" -- into Sheepfold 3. Although it is obvious that they cannot be a part of the "great crowd" that survives the "great tribulation," those resurrected during Judgment Day will also join Sheepfold 3 as Jesus' other sheep, during which time the great crowd will be a blessing to the resurrected dead of Sheepfold 3 in helping them to learn righteousness.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I don't mind 'helping you out' at any time as long as what you want is help. I'm not sure that you do want help from me though, @elderelite.

  @elderelite wrote:

  and so again i ask.... Where is there any indication, at all, of any sort, that paul was on the first century governing body?

  So it seems evident that you do not want any help from me, and that's fine.

  @elderelite:

  These quotes clearly show that we do not believe or assert that Paul was on the first century governing body.

  I don't know who the "we" is, but you might consider going back through my posts to see if in any of them I have heretofore stated anything at all to the effect that Paul sat on the governing body back during the first century AD. Why not go check and see.

  A small point to be sure, but it shows just how ignorant you really are of what you claim to believe.

  I suppose I might be ignorant.

  You were so busy trying to prove what you thought I was asking (whether or not there was a governing body in the first century) you failed to answer what I asked.

  Ok.

  Was Paul on that body[?]

  If you say you had asked this question, then I believe you, but I don't recall at the moment being tossed this particular question.

  You come here and write huge dissertations that never really addresses the question answered.

  Ok.

  Just like a good little JW.

  So you are disparaging me now for being one of Jehovah's Witnesses? I mean weren't you one of Jehovah's Witnesses once-upon-a-time?

  (BTW there was no first century GB either)

  Is this your opinion (I have one, too, and I do not agree with you) or do you have any proof that there was no first century governing body? What's the big deal about this? You keep raising this point (regarding the governing body) as if this is personal with you. If you have a gripe with the modern governing body, why not draft a letter and send it registered mail to the Governing Body, c/o WTS? If you need specific address information I could supply such information to you on request, but I do not speak for the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  @djeggnog
• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @The Finger:

  But if the angels can pass DNA to, angelic material to make a hybrid, can God be the same substance as them and not be a creation?

  Whatever the substance of divine nature may permit an angel to do, it is not appropriate, even unnatural for an angel to be 'passing DNA,' as you put it, between themselves and humans.

  If the particles that create angels are the same as God. Then he is a creation

  I don't follow your logic here, but ok.

  @Podobear:

  If Almighty God Jehovah is an Immortal being without creation, and Jesus is now an Immortal being, and was created... that would mean that Jehovah has size and therefore location in an Infinite, yet ever expanding Universe. [Des (the Pastor) and I met mind to mind on that one]

  Even if you and the pastor agreed that Jehovah has both "size and ... location," I'd say that the Bible makes clear to point out that Jehovah is bigger that our expanded universe and that his location, where He dwells, is in the spiritual heavens, which is not in our universe at all!

  Therefore, Djeggnog, should JW's do a full circle and return to the days of Pastor [Russell] and be looking at the Pleides for such location?

  I can assure you that I do not know what you mean by this, but the organization of Jehovah Witnesses is a forward-moving, progressive organization, and so we do not "return" to beliefs long-abandoned due to our discovering our understanding to have been in error.

  I know this sounds like the anecdote of the Evolutionists scaling the wall of Theory, reaching the top, only to find a panel of Theologians... (LOL).. but really, does this mean that Almighty God has size and location as JW's presumably see it.. or after all, are we ALL including Jesus to join this Omnipresent, Omnipotent whole as a kind of Universal consciousness? [That, they Father may be one...as WE are one].

  This question of yours is rather compound, and I'm pretty sure that I won't be making any real attempt here in trying to decipher what it is you might be really asking me here. Although it is true that since Jesus' resurrection, Jehovah gave him at least a couple of things that He Himself possesses -- incorruptibility and immortality -- so although Jesus is now an immortal God, Jehovah is almighty, which means that whatever might Jesus possesses, Jehovah is a mightier in power than is the Lord Jesus Christ.

  But I will say that as to God's being omnipresent, I responded to someone else's message recently on this very topic, and so I'll just answer your question in a similar fashion now:

  Where exactly does God live? Does God have a house? If so, where is it, or, to put this in another way: 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, @Podobear, 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."

  @djeggnog
• 
  55

  THE "OTHER SHEEP" ARE NOT GENTILE CHRISTIANS, because...............

  by Titus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i don't want biblical answer, but from any watchtower publication.

  has that question ever been answered in any watchtower publications?.

  please, give me some references.. i expect answer from debator, alice, bane, scholar or any other active jehovah's witness.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Essan:

  Can I suggest that the vast list of - largely irrelevant - counter-questions in djeggnog's post above not be answered until he has provided full answers to the fairly simply questions in the OP. Let's stick to one question at a time - the original question, remember who asked it, what it was, and who is obliged to answer it. Let's keep it simple.

  What questions did I ask here that you thought to have been "largely irrelevant"? I know the original question and I have been responding to it as best I can, but some of the arguments presented here by some -- @pirata included -- weren't simple ones, so I felt a need to unravel some of these arguments in order to make it clear that none of them were accurate or responsive to the question that the OP (@Titus) that asked in this thread.

  Don't fall for the JW defensive equivalent of 'squid ink' - a pointless clouding of the waters - avoiding simple questions through endless irrelevant counter questions, answers to questions that weren't asked (sleight of hand), and generally making things hopelessly and needlessly convoluted, so that - they hope - their inability to give s straight answer to a simple question goes unnoticed.

  What do you think about this response to your non-question about me? Do you think it to be a straight answer to your non-question, a cloudy, perhaps an irrelevant counter question or a case of my using a bit of sleight of hand in order make things "hopelessly and needless convoluted"?

  @elderelite:

  I know you don't want to talk to me but perhaps you could help me out this one time... you say Paul was on the first century Governing Body... could you please support that with a scripture or two? a bible account that mentions it? something? anything?

  I don't mind 'helping you out' at any time as long as what you want is help. I'm not sure that you do want help from me though, @elderelite.

  When at Acts 15:2-30, you read how Paul took a dispute over Christian circumcision to "the apostles and older men in Jerusalem," those men sent out a letter that was handed out to the multitude of Christians in Antioch, Syria, by Paul and Barnabas' hand, and by the hands of others that received guidance from those who were taking the lead over the congregations back during the first century AD, they deciding this matter, along with the spirit, as a governing body. No, the words "governing body" are not used in the passage I cite here, but neither are the words "abstain from blood transfusions" found anywhere in the Bible. As a matter of fact, the words "cigarette smoking is an unclean practice" nor words that suggest how elders should "once a year" make a review of "disfellowshipped or disassociated" ones that may be living in the territory assigned to the local congregation and assign two elders to call on selected ones in order that they might explain to such individuals what they can do to return are in the Bible.

  But we find at Acts 15:16-18 that the brothers in Jerusalem that, as I said, acted as a "governing body" for the Christian congregations during the first century AD in deciding that it wasn't necessary for uncircumcised Christians to be circumcised did so with the guidance of holy spirit (Amos 9:11, 12), even though there wasn't found anything in the Bible that accordingly provided specific direction to them. Just as during the first century AD, decisions are being made today by responsible and spiritually mature brothers that are taking the lead in keeping watch over our souls, and whether you feel this way or not, @elderelite, Jehovah's Witnesses would do well to grow up and cooperate with the direction being provided them by the governing body.

  @Mad Sweeney:

  Paul was on the first century Governing Body

  Watch Tower President Fred Franz disagrees that a first century Governing Body even existed.

  So I should agree with someone now deceased that when alive was one of Jehovah's Witnesses, who then went rogue? I believe the Bible directs Jehovah's Witnesses to 'remember those who are taking the lead" among us, those "who have spoken the word of God" to us, and then as we "contemplate how their conduct turns out [to] imitate their faith," which in Fred Franz' case, I did. (Hebrews 13:7) I actually did contemplate how his conduct turned out over the years, and during his declining years, things didn't turn out so well for him as it seems that he lost interest in the truth, becoming doubtful as to whether he had, in fact, found the truth. At least, this is how I see it.

  @TD:

  Jesus speaks of only one sheepfold.... [T]he predicate links both origins with the act of becoming one flock. It would take extraordinary linguistic evidence to sustain the idea that the sheepfold(s) are the destination(s) that the sheep are led to instead of the origin that they are led from

  There are two folds, but one sheepfold, one shepherd.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  If the fold of "sheep" that Jesus contrasted with the "other sheep" were solely Jewish Christians -- which is what the words, "the nation of Israel," mean -- then why did only a small remnant of Jewish Christians -- which is what the words, "that nation," mean -- accept Jesus as the Messiah? What this particular sentence you're attacking here as being a strawman disproves is Christendom's claim that the little flock are only "Jewish Christians" since only a small remnant of Jewish Christians became a part of the "little flock," and if "the full number of people of the nations" -- or Gentile Christians -- had come into this sheepfold, then spiritual Israel, "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16), would then have been complete. But many centuries would pass before the "other sheep" to which Jesus referred at John 10:16 would be brought into union with the "little flock," which is exactly what Jehovah's Witnesses teach and what Christendom does not teach.

  @pirata wrote:

  I interpret the term "Jewish Christians" as Jews who were baptized, the "Nation of Israel" as Jews in general, and "Spiritual Israel" as all Jews and Greeks who were baptized. That is why I called it a strawman. Christendom does not claim that the entire "Nation of Israel" is the little flock, they only claim that those Jews baptized as Christians are the little flock.

  Well, you have yet to expose a strawman here for what the QFR article debunks is Christendom's claim that the "little flock" (Luke 12:32) are solely "Jewish Christians." If you don't see this, then you don't understand the argument and shouldn't be labelling the statement in the QFR article as a strawman, when you yourself don't comprehend the article. I've examined already in an earlier post how you read and I find this post of yours in follow-up to be wanting. We agree on what "Jewish Christians," "nation of Israel" and "spiritual Israel" all mean. But how do these things constitute a strawman? Frankly, you are using this word "strawman" in a way that suggests to me that you don't understand what the word "strawman" in this context even means!

  A strawman is an argument in which one argues against something totally unrelated to the real argument because they wanted (for whatever reason) to speak slightingly about the real argument, except they really didn't understand the real argument, like, in this case, you don't understand what the QFR article does to Christendom's position on the "little flock" being Jewish Christians, and so you (for whatever reason) want to speak slightingly against the real argument that exposes the fallacy of Christendom's position, but you, not really understanding what the WTS' argument means, opt to erect a strawman yourself in arguing that you know what the terms "Jewish Christians," "nation of Israel" and "spiritual Israel" all mean when the QFR article doesn't argue the meaning of these terms.

  Thus, until you should address the real argument, you are positing a strawman argument about which no one cares to discuss. I would suggest, @pirata, that you get someone else -- and I mean someone that you trust -- to help you to comprehend the real argument being made in that QFR article, so that you know whether or not your dissent is based on something stated in the article itself or whether or not it is based on what bigotry you have against the WTS. If its against the latter, then it's a false argument, a strawman.

  @djeggnog
• 
  55

  THE "OTHER SHEEP" ARE NOT GENTILE CHRISTIANS, because...............

  by Titus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i don't want biblical answer, but from any watchtower publication.

  has that question ever been answered in any watchtower publications?.

  please, give me some references.. i expect answer from debator, alice, bane, scholar or any other active jehovah's witness.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Psacramento:

  The other sheep were indeed gentiles, hence the circumcision and dietary restrictions issues addressed in Acts and by Paul.

  No, they weren't. And what does the dietary issue addressed by Peter and the circumcision issue addressed by Paul (and other members of the governing body during the first century AD) have to do with Titus' question here regarding the other sheep not being exclusively Gentile Christians? Whatever your point was (or is!), I don't see the relevance of your mentioning of these issues.

  You are wasting your time Dude, it is interpretive man-made doctrine and they know it.

  What's "interpretive man-made doctrine"? Are you saying that what Jehovah's Witnesses teach with respect to the "other sheep" is "man-made doctrine"? If so, on what basis do you say this? What do you suppose the "other sheep" at John 10:16 to be?

  @myelaine:

  I think that because of the "privilege and hierarchy" of the jewish system the early church had a template for the church as well as what one might call a "[genealogy]" in God.

  What exactly do you mean by a "'genealogy' in God"? What template of the Jewish system of worship do you imagine to have been the foundation of the Christian church? To what exactly is this "privilege and hierarchy" of the Jewish system to which you refer here?

  therefore the new church writings, by the inclusion of some OT writings and of course OT "theology", was really magnifying the doctrine of God and providing a continuity of privilege and hierarchy within the church structure...

  What "OT writings" or "OT 'theology'" provided "a continuity of privilege and hierarchy" within the church?

  this authority was to govern the church not lord it over them...

  What authority other than that of the Christ governed the church?

  @heathen:

  my point was that there is no longer a high priest and the priestly arrangement does not apply .

  In Christ, the Jewish arrangement with respect to the Levitical priesthood does not exist, but with Jesus as High Priest, what need do Christians have for such when Jesus is immortal and he is able to plead to God on behalf of Christians forever? Are you familiar with what the apostle Paul states at Hebrews 7:23-25 regarding Jesus' having "his priesthood without any successors"? Or is there some reason that you do not consider Jesus to be a High Priest?

  The jews did have a hard time accepting the belief that gentiles were equal in Gods eyes .

  What Jews do you mean? Christian Jews or non-Christian Jews? If the latter, what is the significance of your mentioning them here, since those Jews didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah? Now, @heathen, I do agree with you that Jewish Christians had difficulty with the admittance of Gentiles into the new Christian faith, which is why the apostle Paul has to admonish the Christians in the cities of Colossae and Galatia, where in the former there were mostly Gentile Christian believers and in the latter the Judaizers sought to discredit Paul as an apostle in a mixed Jewish/Gentile environment. (Colossians 3:11; Galatians 3:28).

  I'm not going off topic and discuss the Christian arrangement . The fact is the 2 fold of sheep the WTBTS claims are the GC and LF is misused even though I do believe there are 2 groups .

  I don't follow you here: You say you are not discussing the Christian arrangement, which suggests that you are discussing the Jewish arrangement (for some reason), and yet, in the very next sentence, you would then go on to suggest that the understanding that Jehovah's Witnesses have as to who the "other sheep" are to whom Jesus refers at John 10:16 is "misused" (your word), but with what exactly do you take issue with regard to the great crowd (GC) and the (LF) when Jesus refers to his "other sheep" and doesn't at all mention the GC at John 10:16?

  @Titus:

  Yes. But, have they ever explained their (and my) official teaching in any publication? That's what I ask. Debator? BANE? Alice?

  What "official teaching"?

  It IS "interpretive man-made doctrine", but it is also interesting to notice that that "interpretive man-made doctrine" has never been interpreted in any WT publication.

  What exactly have you found to be "interpretative man-made doctrine"?

  "One shepherd ONE flock" (John 10:16) Only 1 flock?

  Yes.

  "LITTLE FLOCK of the Christ's brothers" and "GREAT FLOCK of the other sheep". 2 flocks? I don't get it...

  No, just one flock, two sheepfolds, and one of these folds is only a "little flock " in comparison with the other fold. Get it?

  @brotherdan:

  In Search of Christian Freedom" by Ray Franz said that there were GB members that believed the real truth, that Jesus WAS referring to Gentile Christians. Sydlik was notorious for this belief. However, I assume that there never was a 2/3 in favor of change.

  How does saying that by "other sheep," Jesus was at John 10:16 referring to "Gentile Christians? Even though this is what many of Christendom's churches teach, this isn't "the real truth." Daniel Sydlik didn't favor changing his belief that Jesus could not have been referring to Gentile Christians when he made reference at John 10:16 to his "other sheep." Until his death in 2006, he had never part of any "2/3 in favor" of teaching the racial superiority of Jews over the Gentiles, which is what I hear you saying here. That is the basis of Christendom's interpretation of "other sheep," but I'm scratching my head here trying to figure out what Raymond Franz has to do with any of this.

  Loved that article, by the way, Titus. It's so funny how they dance around the question. They go off course by saying that this belief does not take into account Adam and Eve. How did we ever fall for this stuff?!?!?

  What question do Jehovah's Witnesses "dance around"? What does any of this discussion about the "other sheep" at John 10:16 have to do with Adam and Eve, if anything?

  @pirata:

  This makes it clear that the fold of "sheep" that Jesus contrasted with the "other sheep" could not have been the nation of Israel, for only a small remnant of that nation recognized Jesus Christ as their shepherd....

  A good straw man argument because instead of disproving Christendom's claims that the little flock are "Jewish Christians", they instead disprove that the little flock is the Jewish nation as a whole (which no one ever claimed it was)

  How exactly do you see this statement as a "strawman"? Anyone associated with the nation of Israel that should become a Christian would be what? A Samaritan Christian? A Gentile Christian? What? In this context, when you read the words, "a small remnant of that nation," how do you conclude that this sentence (that you quoted here from the QFR article) does not disprove Christendom's claim that the "little flock" (Luke 12:32) are solely "Jewish Christians"? After reading your criticism of this particular statement, it became apparent to me that you didn't understand the sentence that you read, so let me clarify what it is saying just a bit here:

  If the fold of "sheep" that Jesus contrasted with the "other sheep" were solely Jewish Christians -- which is what the words, "the nation of Israel," mean -- then why did only a small remnant of Jewish Christians -- which is what the words, "that nation," mean -- accept Jesus as the Messiah? What this particular sentence you're attacking here as being a strawman disproves is Christendom's claim that the little flock are only "Jewish Christians" since only a small remnant of Jewish Christians became a part of the "little flock," and if "the full number of people of the nations" -- or Gentile Christians -- had come into this sheepfold, then spiritual Israel, "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16), would then have been complete. But many centuries would pass before the "other sheep" to which Jesus referred at John 10:16 would be brought into union with the "little flock," which is exactly what Jehovah's Witnesses teach and what Christendom does not teach.

  When, in time, Gentiles were accepted by God, anointed with his holy spirit and called to heavenly life, they also were "joint heirs with Christ," his "brothers." (Gal. 3:27-29; Rom. 8:17) Logically, then, the "other sheep" would be persons who are not his "brothers" but who are brought into close association with them.

  Faulty logic.

  A (disciples) are called B (little flock). A are called C (brothers). D (gentiles) are called C. Therefore D must also be A. That is like saying "Group A are Americans. Group A are called Humans. Russians are called Humans. Therefore Russians must also be Americans." The "logical" conclusion is based on that faulty logic.

  Your logic here involving disciples, little flock, brothers and Gentiles -- four (4) things -- is quite faulty, and so I do agree with you even though I totally miss your point (that is, if you even have one other than that of bashing the WTS):

  Where A=disciples, B=little flock, C=brothers and D=Gentiles, and A=B, A=C and D=C, D does not necessarily equal A or B, for D may not equal A and D may not equal B.

  Then you go on to expand on this "logic substituting Americans, Humans and Russians --- three (3) things -- doesn't exactly make any sense either:

  Where A=Americans, B=Humans, C=Russians and D=(who knows?), and you seem to be suggesting that C=A, but this logic, in a word, is "cracked."

  Now if A=Americans, B=New Yorkers, C=Humans and D=Russians, and A=B, A=C and D=C, similar to the above, D does not necessarily equal A or B, for, in this case, D does not equal A and D does not equal B.

  Forget all of this and just tell me what you find to be so illogical about the following statement:

  When, in time, Gentiles were accepted by God, anointed with his holy spirit and called to heavenly life, they also were "joint heirs with Christ," his "brothers." (Gal. 3:27-29; Rom. 8:17) Logically, then, the "other sheep" would be persons who are not his "brothers" but who are brought into close association with them.

  Moving on: The first to accept Jesus as the Messiah were the Jews, but only a remnant of them did so. Consequently, we read how in Romans chapter 11 the apostle Paul illustrates the situation in which spiritual Israel found itself in pointing out the reason wild olive branches (Gentiles) came to be grafted into the garden olive tree of spiritual Israel due to the unbelief among Jews that had had first "dibs on" (a US expression, meaning "claim to"), so, as verses 17-23 describe, the natural (Jewish) branches of the garden olive tree were broken off permitting the wild (Gentile) branches to become a part of that garden olive tree (spiritual Israel).

  So with this in mind, when we read John 10:16 (or when I read this verse!), it is clear that the sheep of the "garden olive tree" sheepfold was a congregation consisting of the spiritual brothers of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that these Jewish and Gentile Christians were of "this fold," so, logically, these "other sheep" that Jesus mentions at John 10:16 that he says there were not of "this fold" would be another sheepfold that would become one flock with "this fold" under the "one shepherd," Jesus. To suggest that Jesus is discussing a racial preference at John 10:16, with the Jewish Christians of one fold being superior to the Gentile Christians of another fold is totally ridiculous and disparages the Lord Jesus Christ as a kind of racist!

  [H]e will put the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.... Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty, and give you something to drink? ... And in reply the king will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, To the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’"—Matt. 25:31-40. The "sheep" here mentioned are revealed to be different from Christ’s brothers.

  Ignores the reasonable interpretation that brothers could be judged by how they treat their other brothers, thus drawing an unsubstantiated conclusion.

  Not at all. Perhaps you didn't notice that the "sheep" that are the ones put on Jesus' right hand are called "righteous ones" and are not referred to by the king as "my brothers"? Matthew 25:31-40 is not talking about how spiritual brothers treat their spiritual brothers, but how these "righteous ones" or "other sheep" treat the king's anointed brothers, for "a lesser one in the kingdom of the heavens," as Jesus indicated at Matthew 11:11, is greater than was his second cousin, John the Baptist.

  Now Jesus' cousin, John, didn't live to become one of Jesus' anointed brothers, for he died centuries before these "righteous ones" or "other sheep" had actually come on the scene, giving their support in connection with the work that Jesus' brothers have been directed to do. There is no "unsubstantiated conclusion" here, for Jesus clearly distinguishes his " brothers" from these "sheep," when he says that "to the extent that you did [these things] to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me," so these "righteous ones" or "other sheep," have to be different from "Christ's brothers."

  The apostle Paul, writing to fellow Christians, states: "[God] chose us in union with [Christ] before the founding of the world."—Eph. 1:4, 5.

  contradicts the Watchtower teaching that if Adam and Eve hadn't sinned, all humans would live on the earth (Why would God choose brothers to go to heaven before the founding of the world if they were all going to live on the earth?).

  The difference in the time element regarding the foreordination of the reward definitely points to two different destinies.

  I don't know a thing about any "Watchtower teaching," for Jehovah's Witnesses teach folks what the Bible teaches, the Watchtower magazine (as well as the other WTS publications) that you are here disparaging is simply a Bible study aid, but I'm sure you knew this already. Anyway, the point that I would make here is that there is no contradiction in what Jehovah's Witnesses teach with respect to God's purpose that humans live forever here on the earth.

  God did not foreordain a heavenly destiny for any human until after Adam and Eve's sinned in Eden at which time the very first Bible prophecy, recorded at Genesis 3:15, was uttered, for it was at this time "before the founding of the world," meaning before any children were born to Adam and Eve, that God foreordained a heavenly destiny for Adam's not-yet-born offspring in order that by means of the kingdom in which Jesus' brothers will serve as co-rulers with Christ and as underpriests, those "sheep," for whom the ransom provided the basis for righteousness being imputed to redeemable mankind, might eventually "be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God." (Romans 8:21) Of course, you are free to disagree with me here, but I see no contradiction at all in anything that the Bible teaches.

  The rest of the article is based on assuming the material presented above is true. Also tosses in the word 'evidently'

  I think it silly for you to be having a proverbial cow over the use of a word like "evidently," which I know happens to be one of many words lambasted here to excoriate the opinions of the WTS, whereas this word -- whether one doesn't like the way in which it is used by the WTS or by Jehovah's Witnesses generally -- is a synonym for words like "undoubtedly," "apparently," "clearly" or "obviously."

  Thanks for raising the questions Titus. I am doing more real personal study (ie. thinking about what I read) because of questions like these on the site than I have ever done in my life. I look forward to your thoughts after you have studied it too!

  You really need to stop what you are doing now, and see if you can arrange to have one of Jehovah's Witnesses study or re-study the Bible with you (it has to be someone, mind you, that is qualified to teach!), because IMO your "personal study" of the Bible has been useless, for there is much that you clearly do not understand and cannot hope to understand by studying the Bible on your own and by reading some of the posts that I have read on this forum. Ignorance and bigotry (did I say ignorance?) really abound here for no one that claims to have been one of Jehovah's Witnesses or to have studied with one of Jehovah's Witnesses here seems to have learned what the Bible teaches on so many related things.

  @snowbird:

  Nice breakdown, Pirata.

  How so? As I point out above, what things @pirata wrote here made no real sense at all.

  @cameo-d:

  The flock sheep and the other sheep have nothing whatsoever to do with bloodlines or ethnic origins. Jesus said that was all useless [genealogies], remember?

  This is true.

  @pirata:

  cameo-d: What does it have to do with?

  This comment of @cameo-d's has to do with the making of racial distinctions between someone being born Jewish (being of the "little flock") and someone being born non-Jewish (i.e., being a Gentile and being of the "other sheep"), both of which are interpretations that make Jesus out to be some kind of a racist if it were so that Jesus was separating one people from another on the basis of "bloodlines or ethnic origins." I think you may be a bit over your head in trying to comprehend all that is being said in this thread so far (and what you said is only going to confuse @Titus!) I don't mean just what @cameo-d's post.

  @Nostromo:

  They just cant admit that they have been wrong all this time. It was originally Rutherford's idea and the GB loves that tradition more than what the Bible actually teaches.

  What was Rutherford's idea? That the "little flock" were Jewish Christians and the "other sheep" were Gentile Christians?

  Evidently -- there's that word that some of "you guys" don't like -- you aren't aware that Joseph F. Rutherford, who at the time was the WTS president, gave a discourse entitled "The Great Multitude during the convention held in Washington, DC, on June 1, 1935, in which he explained that the "other sheep" wasn't a secondary heavenly class, but an earthly class. (At that time, these "other sheep" were referred to as "Jonadabs" [Jeremiah 35:18, 19].) I believe you're making things up here.

  About Sydlik, from the freeminds site: "In the mid-70, when I was at Bethel, my friend Dan Sydlik told me that the other sheep of John 10 were the Gentiles. That made so much sense to me, and it fit so well with the actual state of affairs, that I rejected the two-class fiction then and there, even when I thought that the WTS was still God's organization."

  What you quote here from another website with reference to something that Daniel Sydlik allegedly said to someone else about a "two-class fiction" is, I believe, pure fiction and hearsay.

  @djeggnog