vienne

Joined

• started 95 topics
• posted 1,351 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by vienne

• 
  8

  I just made a video that every JW should see.

  by Kosonen in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i just made a video every jw should see.

  the aim of this video is to help jehovah's witnesses be more open to constructive critisism, especially from their own members, that are swiftly excommunicated /disfellowshipped/ removed from the congregation if they dare to point out their religion's flaws concerning doctrine and practises, even when there is scriptural evidence.

  i have first hand experience of that.. https://youtu.be/71zcv7lux3g.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  I've said it before. I'll say it again. You need mental health counseling.
• 
  59

  Proof of two destinies for believers in the Bible, heavenly and earthly

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the jw idea that believers are destined either for heavenly life or for endless life on earth comes in for significant criticism by critics of various kinds.

  even some groups, such as the christadelphians, who share belief in a future paradise earth, don’t share the view that some christians are destined for life in heaven.

  yet there is surprisingly quite a lot of evidence in the bible for the existence of two distinct groups of believers.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  Most Age-to-Come adherents believed that Bride of Christ's proper home was earthly and that the kingdom was an earthly kingdom. Barbour (and perhaps Russell) believed that until 1877 when he published an article clearly explaining the two destinies salvation theory. The Herald of the Morning issue containing the article has been lost, but key elements are quoted by Peters in his Theocratic Kingdom. Barbour's article rejected the commonly believed earthly destiny doctrine. He called it an "agricultural heavens." [Theocratic Kingdom, vol 2. page 120 and following.]

  The issue was current in millennialist circles. It does not show up in Bible Examiner until after Barbour's 1877 article.

  George Storrs and George Stetson's history, biography and relationship to Russell are the subject of chapters two and three of Separate Identity volume one.
• 
  59

  Proof of two destinies for believers in the Bible, heavenly and earthly

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the jw idea that believers are destined either for heavenly life or for endless life on earth comes in for significant criticism by critics of various kinds.

  even some groups, such as the christadelphians, who share belief in a future paradise earth, don’t share the view that some christians are destined for life in heaven.

  yet there is surprisingly quite a lot of evidence in the bible for the existence of two distinct groups of believers.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  Sadly, this post has been hijacked. To answer the original question, see Separate Identity, volume two, page 34. There you will find a brief summary of the 19th Century background to the two destinies theology. There are older writers teaching the same thing, but I do not believe Russell read any of them.
• 
  73

  JWN, 23 years posting Blondie

  by blondie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  can i call you friends, i think so after 23 years posting here.

  i am dismayed how jwn is being "dominated" or taken over by a few posters, peppering the comments.

  in the past, the admin did not approve of this and did remove some posters from jwn.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  It's way past time for FreeMasonsw and the Catholic missionary go.
• 
  28

  C t Russell and jellyfish case

  by Jaime l de Aragon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  c t russell and jellyfish case.

  then he said, "i am like a jellyfish.

  i float around here and there.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  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.
• 
  62

  Ten reasons Jehovah’s Witnesses have the true religion (plus a bonus one)

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  thinking 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  Freethe, a new posting name?
• 
  152

  Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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"