Caution is needed here. The story was told in court third hand. Mrs. Russell declined to depose the woman involved though she could easily have done so. So while it might have been accurate as told in court, though seldom as told in newspapers, it has no first hand support.
Posts by vienne
-
28C t Russell and jellyfish case
by Jaime l de Aragon inc t russell and jellyfish case.
then he said, "i am like a jellyfish.
i float around here and there.
-
-
-
62
Ten reasons Jehovah’s Witnesses have the true religion (plus a bonus one)
by slimboyfat inthinking back when i was a true believer these are probably the top ten reasons why i believed jws are the true religion.
1. they show love among themselves by not going to war.
not killing your fellow believers in any circumstances, including war, would seem to be a very basic requirement for true christianity.
-
-
vienne
Freethe, a new posting name?
-
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat ini would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
-
-
vienne
Those who rely on John 1:1 to prove the trinity should explain why it says the Word was God instead of "the word is god."
-
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat ini would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
-
-
vienne
Neither English nor Hebrew grammar sustains your view. The verse reads: "out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” The antecedent of "whose origins" is not Ephrathah but "One who." The Complete Hebrew Bible with Commentary translates it this way: "And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah-you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah-from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel; and his origin is from of old, from days of yore." This and similar translations demonstrate that the antecedent of "whose origins" is the one who emerges to be ruler.
J. P. Lange's (Commentary on the Minor Prophets) translation also makes the grammar clear: "... shall come forth for me he that is to be ruler in Israel whose goings forth..."
Genesis 48:7 shows Ephrathah to be a place name and in the parenthesis names it as an older name for Bethlehem. The rendering of "clans" is literally thousands. Some, Lange for instance, see this as meaning "districts" rather than meaning genetically related as a clan. Others see this as military districts. That's irrelevant here, since the grammar does not support your contention.
We should note, too, that Christ goes forth at God's command: "Out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that shall be the ruler in Israel." Christ rules at God's express will. As such he is God's representative, but not God himself. The verse does not say, "I will come and rule Israel" or imply anything like that.
-
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat ini would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
-
-
vienne
The scripture - Micah 5 - is quoted in the new testament as referring to Jesus. So I'm not ignoring the context.
-
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat ini would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
-
-
vienne
This discussion is unproductive. Asq argues by Ipse dixit, misdirection and reliance on Catholic councils, but not on scripture. For instance, when we were discussing Micah 5:2 he wrote
"You reference Micah 5:2, interpreting "begotten" as implying a beginning or origin. However, a closer examination of Micah 5:2 reveals that the Messiah's origins are described as "from of old, from ancient times." The Hebrew word used here, olam, often refers to eternity or a time beyond human comprehension. This indicates that the Messiah's existence stretches back into eternity, not simply to a distant point in time. This suggests that the Messiah is eternal, aligning with the Christian understanding of Jesus as eternally existent with God the Father"
This is misdirection in the extreme. The operative word in Micah 5:2 is "origin." Jesus is indeed ancient, though the definition of olam as "eternity" is flawed. His age is indeed beyond human comprehension, but the reference is still to an origin, a point in time, a time when he went forth.
The only time olam (עולם) is used in any sense close to eternity is when considering future events, and then its basic meaning is "to the horizon" or as far into the future as humans can see. In Micah it only means in the far distant past. The NAB, a Catholic translation, acknowledges that by rendering the verse: "Whose origin is from of old/ from ancient times." The Jerusalem Bible, also a Catholic translation and a much better one than the NAB has it thus: "his origin goes back to the distant past, to the days of old." To appeal to olam as an indication of eternal existence ignores both the usage of the word in context and its antecedent in the word "origins" (וּמוֹצָאֹתָ֥יו). Note that most modern translations so render it; Brown, Driver, Briggs so define מוֹצָאֹתָ֥יו, as do L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner.
The problem here is that asq is afraid to stay on point. He squirms and grasps at anything from a medieval translation of little merit, to a Catholic assembly of Bishops none of which carry the weight of scripture, to seeing his own verbiage as carrying the wright of scripture. In that light, I do not see merit in continuing the discussion. The plain word of scripture has little meaning to him. The 'slant' he can put on it that might put his mind at rest means all. This discussion resembles a debate among Scholastic Philosophers. While many here present sound scriptural argument, he will avoid it.
Proverbs 10:19: "When words are many, sin is unavoidable"
-
4
Odd bit of Watch Tower history
by vienne inhttps://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2024/08/1912-world-missionary-tour.html.
from russell's 1912 world tour.
.
-
-
vienne
Gorb,
Dr. Schulz posted on the history blog that it has passed one million all time views. Many people, including scholars, rely on it.
Annie
-
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat ini would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
-
-
vienne
It's not "only begotten god" but "only begotten son." To be begotten implies and origin which is implied in Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.” -
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat ini would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
-
-
vienne
your reply ignores both the content and context of the verse. You are incapable of focusing on the exact content of the verses. I don't recall calling anyone an idiot.
-
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat ini would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
-
-
vienne
What you’ve written condenses to “It can’t be that way because I do not want it to be that way.” You seem to think that extended verbiage, regardless of the logic flaws, will provide some sort of refutation. You’re not alone; it’s a fairly common problem among expositors, especially Trinitarians. H. L. Baugher, a professor at Pennsylvania College, acknowledging that many translators found the passage ‘difficult,’ wrote:
“The scope of the whole passage (in Philippians) from ver. 6 to ver. 11 includes all three states of the one person spoken of, pre-incarnate, incarnate, and glorified. He "took upon him the form of a servant," but evidently was in some other form before this, and that is called in verse 6 ‘the form of God,’ and after this he was ‘highly exalted’ to a Kingship, which he did not have before” – Lutheran Quarterly, 1/78, p 120
This is clearly a non-Trinitarian statement. Yet, Baugher turned it all into a Trinitarian statement in his next words. That aside, what really is the context of Philippians 2:6? Paul wrote from house arrest, relaying the more positive aspects of his imprisonment. Rome was a theocratic state with the Emperor worshipped as god. In the Christian view this was an usurpation, a ‘grasping’ at what did not belong to him. It mirrored Satan’s rebellion.
Paul’s words set up a contrast everyone in the Philippi Church would have grasped without a further prompt. Jesus was not like the emperors who grasped at divine status they did not have. In that light Jesus is not changing from God as spirit to God in the flesh. In fact the verses do not call him god at all. It says he subsisted (vnaрxov) “in the form of God.” We have no way of knowing what God’s form is, but we can understand much about it. Jesus defined God as a spirit. John tells us we do not know what that is like, but tells us that “Beloved ones, now we are children of God, but as yet it has not been made manifest what we shall be. We do know that whenever he is made manifest we shall be like him, because we shall see him just as he is. And everyone who has this hope set upon him purifies himself just as that one is pure.” (I John 3:2) God created his angels as spirits. (Hebrews 1:7) These and similar scriptures indicates the ‘form of God’ to be spirit.
John one, often used by Trinitarians to support their argument, says exactly what we observe above. Jesus was God ... became flesh. John does not point to Jesus godhood, his identity, but to his nature. He like God was a spirit, in God’s form. Some translators note this by having it “what God was the word was.” John continues (in verse 18) “No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.” (NSAV) This does not define Jesus as God, but as his son and as the one who explains God. Many saw Jesus. No one has seen God at any time. Jesus is thus not God.
Returning to Philippians: The word μορφῇ (form) is further explained for us in other verses. At Colosians 1:15 Jesus is called “the image (eixór) of the invisible God,” and, at 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Hebrews 1:3, “the brightness (reflection, effulgence) of God's glory, and the express image (impress, stamp) of God’s substance. (τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ)” Note that Hebrews 1:3 focuses on what God is as a spirit and not who he is as a person.
I’ve fallen into your unfortunate pattern of writing a book to make a point. Yet, observe this: Although he was "in the form of God," that he "emptied himself” of this glory by assuming the contrasted "form of a servant" and being made "in the likeness of men." He laid aside God's likeness to take up man's likeness. Again, this speaks of Christ’s nature as a spirit as was God.