Posts by Lionel_P

"In all ways the the WTS is serving God's purpose as an efficient legal instrument of his dedicated and anointed servants who are the true channel of communication with Jehovah God today

Note they say "who are."

As for Deut 18 - the only requirment was that the prophet claimed to speak and come in God's name. Your extra qualifications are unbiblical. The WTS claims to come as a prophet and speak in God's name. However you cut it, they are a false prophet.
QED

LPH

78

You Know a Spiritual Coward

by AlanF in

jw
friends

here is another unequivocal example of a claim of direct inspiration: in the olin moyle court case of 1943, fred franz said under oath that no man is the editor of the watchtower.

who, then, is the editor?

who became the editor?

Lionel_P_Hartley

YK,

The legal opinions and judicial decisions of Jehovah are the only thing that matters.

And, we can determine his standards from the Bible. Those standards condemn liars and false prophets. What escapes you is that the Bible is there for all mankind - not just JWs. It is there to enable one to determine truth from falsehood.

You demonstrated how JWs have rejected the Bible in favor of alien teachings emanating from an organization that claims to speak for God, and which has explicitly claimed that the Bible is useless without that organization. God's channel is actually a circular tube with the GB shouting down one end and listening at the other.

LPH

14

You Know it's God's Channel

by Lionel_P_Hartley in

jw
friends

you know is trying to defend the wts against the charge of being false prophets.

he is relying on something of a technicality.

let's look at the facts:.

Lionel_P_Hartley

You Know is trying to defend the WTS against the charge of being false prophets. HE is relying on something of a technicality. Let's look at the facts:

(i) The WTS claims explicitly to be "God's sole channel of communication with mankind."

What does that statement mean? It is self-evident. No amount of squirming can get out of the fact that the WTS claims to speak for God. This statement amounts to saying that the Bible is useless without the WTS. Why is it useless? Because, no one can determine what the Bible means except the WTS, God's chosen spirit-directed organization - as they have referred to it - his prophet.

So (a) they claim to speak for God as his prophet.

(ii) Essentially all WTS teachings have been revised or abandoned with the exception of a minority of teachings. In particular, their pronouncements that certain dates are "God's dates" have all been abandoned. Even "this generation of 1914" guranteed again in God's name has been discarded.

So, (b) most, if not all, of what they have spoken in God's name has turned out to have been false.

Therefore, they are false prophets. No other conclusion is possible.

It really is as simple as that. What is interesting is that you don't find the Israelites engaging in long debates as to whether some guy who came in God's name and told them a bunch of BS was a false prophet or not. You didn't find them debating that, since Moses and Noah had gone of the rails then this latest dude merits a second chance. Like hell - they did what the WTS would do if it could - stoned the bugger to death.

So, come off it Robert. You sound pathetic. The WTS has associated God's sacred name with a string of lunatic teachings that have all proved false. It has screeched these teachings at the world in such a manner that the name Jehovah has become a stench because of them.

But, to hear you talk, and despite all of this, the WTS still speaks for God. It is quite amazing the lengths that people will go to avoid admitting that they jumped out of the frying pan into the fire when they traded one lifestyle for salvation WTS style. Better to have joined Brother Love's Travelling Salvation Show than that!

It demonstrates the central lie that the WTS rests upon - the ability to convince others that "today we didn't mean what we said yesterday in God's name."

Is it any wonder that the WTS cannot convert anyone anymore? God's channel is more like an intellectual sewer.

LPH

78

You Know a Spiritual Coward

by AlanF in

jw
friends

here is another unequivocal example of a claim of direct inspiration: in the olin moyle court case of 1943, fred franz said under oath that no man is the editor of the watchtower.

who, then, is the editor?

who became the editor?

Lionel_P_Hartley

YK,

You apparently missed my post on Rutherford's cimments in Light II. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=18800&site=3

Your trick is to make the challenge so specific that you think it cannot be met. But that's all it is - a trick. And a failed one at that since the leaders have a teaching which has no Biblical support -that they are God's sole channel of communication with mankind and, as Rutherford noted, they are aware of things going on in Heaven.

Your argument might make a small amount of sense if the WTS didn't loudly condemn other religions for doing what they do on the basis of Deut. 18.

The actions of the GB demonstrate that the WTS believes that they are being run by God directly from Heaven. That's why they DF people for disagreeing. It's not for causing divisions - it's for believeing differently and expressing those beliefs. Look at the elders manual.

But, all in all, it's a moot point. Your leaders are out and out liars who claim to speak for God and act as if they do speak for a vengeful God. Not only that, they have a 100% failure rate.

Ok, let's not call them false prophets. Let's call them deluded lying buffoons. Does that make you feel better?

Face it, man - there is no way on earth that you can provide a shred of evidence that the WTS is "God's sole channel of communication with mankind." Can you do that much? If they are than God sure doesn't have much of a message - except that he wants his name, Jehovah, associated with the some of the craziest religious notions and predictions ever invented. Every single one of which has either failed or is inthe process of failing.

How many angels can sit on the head of a pin, Bobby? That's an easier thing to do than to defend the WTS.

Not to worry old thing - only 12 years to 2014.

LPH LOL

78

You Know a Spiritual Coward

by AlanF in

jw
friends

here is another unequivocal example of a claim of direct inspiration: in the olin moyle court case of 1943, fred franz said under oath that no man is the editor of the watchtower.

who, then, is the editor?

who became the editor?

Lionel_P_Hartley

Earnest,

Your central accusation is not true regarding YK. He has a long history of lying and ignoring substantive arguments. For example, in another thread I found an example that I believe addresses YK's specific challenge as to what a false prophet is. So far I have seen no response. Maybe he missed it - but after several years of tangling with this individual it's clear he's a liar, a coward, a fanatic, a zealot and possibly not even a JW at all, at least by the normal JW measures. He seems to be at the lunatic fringe of JW-dom and is likely avoided by mothers with small children and those who tend to the KH plants.

As for Olin Moyle - rather than making unspecifc charges, why not provide the actual evidence. Presumably you have it, yes? Post it then, please. What I mean, is the continuation of Franz's examination that supports your statements.

The difference between you and Alan is that Alan actually provides some substance. If he is quoting out of context then have the decency to prove it. Can you?

LPH

78

You Know a Spiritual Coward

by AlanF in

jw
friends

here is another unequivocal example of a claim of direct inspiration: in the olin moyle court case of 1943, fred franz said under oath that no man is the editor of the watchtower.

who, then, is the editor?

who became the editor?

Lionel_P_Hartley

My My Rex, what's got into you? Or are you just jealous that some nutcases on this board are more equal than others - and hence given more attention.

78

You Know a Spiritual Coward

by AlanF in

jw
friends

here is another unequivocal example of a claim of direct inspiration: in the olin moyle court case of 1943, fred franz said under oath that no man is the editor of the watchtower.

who, then, is the editor?

who became the editor?

Lionel_P_Hartley

Alan,

Excellent post.

One of You Know's "arguments" is that the early Christians also had misconceptions and erroneous viewpoints. The argument goes that mistaken viewpoints can't make one a false prophet in the sense of Deut. 18 otherwise certain of the apostles would have been false prophets. In itself, that may be true - but the Society doesn't apply this more liberal standard to others.

Significantly, there is no evidence that the early Christians defined apostasy to be disagreeing with what ultimately turned out to mistaken viewpoints even though these views may have been held by some of the apostles. Contrast that with what the WTS does: it defines apostasy to be stubbornly holding to, and talking about, teachings (no matter how minor) that are different from "Bible truth as taught by JWs". This demonstrates that YK's argument in regard to the early Christians is nonsensical. Obviously the WT leaders believe that what they teach comes directly from God and cannot be doubted. They believe that their knowledge is superior to that available in the 1st century because God has revealed to them that the Kingdom has now been established. Put differently, when they - the GB - say something then there is no room for it being potentially wrong, even in minor aspects. It must be taken at face value as "revealed truth" i.e., as the Word of God - or face the consequences. Why else such a draconian definition of apostasy that focusses on disagreement, not with the Bible, but with the Society's interpretations (and embellishments) of the Bible. JW leaders make no distinction in enforcing their policy on apostasy between, say, disagreeing with the Society on the Trinity (which reasonable people could disagree about, but both sides have some degree of scriptural support) and the teaching that they are the "sole channel of communication with humanity" (which has no basis at all in the Bible, no matter how hard one looks).

Since a number of JW teachings have little or no Bible basis and since obviously the teaching must have come from somewhere, this amounts to claiming direct inspiration in the full sense of Deut. 18. That is the essential differece between JW leaders and the apostles in the 1st century - they consciously assume the role of Deut. 18 including the right to denounce those who disagree with "God's tru eprophet" to the point of hounding them out of the organization. Given the propensity for the WTS to act like a modern day version of ancient Israel it makes sense that they so often use Deut. 18 to condemn others and so, by default, assume the mantle of a true prophet. Not only do they claim to be inspired prophets they also act as if they were such.

LPH

6

Bind your Holy Scriptures with Book of Reasoning

by Dave Mosi in

jw
friends

check it out at http://www.bookbindery.ca/.

mention this post and get 25% off and free return shipping!.

dave

Lionel_P_Hartley

Dave,

Would you be able to bind "Crisis of Conscience," "In Search of Christian Freedom" and the W- section of the register of UN affiliated NGOs (who promise to further UN goals) into a single composite?

Another gift idea for next Christmas might be The Creation book and Plimer's "Telling Lies for God."

Quote on cost? Other suggestions?

Thanks,

LPH

Lionel_P_Hartley

Posts by Lionel_P_Hartley