Posts by Vidqun

35

Re-activate me?

by punkofnice in

there was a knock at my door and i thought it was my take-away being delivered.. long story short, it was 2 elders calling to see me.

i guess to re-activate me.

once they said who they were i recognised them.

FragrantAddendum, sorry to hear of you problems. I am thankful not to have immediate family in the "truth" anymore. That simplifies matters for me. They must hate you very much, for speaking the truth, perhaps? Sounds like you wanted to burn down the Kingdom Hall. Perhaps you should've burnt down the Hall then they would have a good reason to hate you. What a horrible lot!

35

Re-activate me?

by punkofnice in

there was a knock at my door and i thought it was my take-away being delivered.. long story short, it was 2 elders calling to see me.

i guess to re-activate me.

once they said who they were i recognised them.

Vidqun

My aunt houses a missionary couple, working (surfing?) where the need is great. I knew his family. He was about 10 at the time. Yesterday he cornered me to tell me that they care and they want me to come back (reactivation?). By the way, I was kicked out because I did not agree with many things they taught.

Sorry, Punky, I'm not as nice as you. First of all, they keep on telling friends and family that it was my choice (for being disfellowshipped). So I went to great lengths to explain to him the difference between disfellowshipping and disassociation. When you are disfellowshipped ("removed") you had no say in the matter. The three elders have the last say. So I would appreciate if they stopped lying.

We touched on the UN, lack of love, empathy and compassion, also the gene therapy program and of course the governing body. He exclaimed "the faithful and discreet slave" would never do or say anything to hurt or disadvantage the brothers.

Well, it was the wrong thing to say to me. First slave group to rule and judge their fellow slaves. Perhaps they should have sticked to dishing out (spiritual) food. Then I encouraged him to carry on reading those verses and see what happens when the slave becomes wicked.

I wanted him to fetch his Bible so we can discuss Rom. 14:1, but he declined. Weird that JWs these days would not want to reason from the Bible. As though they are not very sure of their beliefs. Guess there's no chance of me losing my "removed" status. I thanked him and reassured him "all's well that ends well." I will keep the peace and remain as I am.

14

How Much Damage Would You Assess?

by Sea Breeze in

just as there is no such thing as a christian who worships satan, there is no such thing as a christian outside of the new covenant “for the forgiveness of sins”.

and he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

- mt.

Vidqun

Sea Breeze, in a similar vein, the basis of judgment, if you live on the dark side, you condemn yourself. John explains: "For God sent forth his Son into the world, not for him to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through him. He that exercises faith in him is not to be judged. He that does not exercise faith has been judged already, because he has not exercised faith in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. Now this is the basis for judgment, that the light has come into the world but men have loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked." He adds: “If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day” (John 3:17-21; 12:47, 48 ESV).

14

How Much Damage Would You Assess?

by Sea Breeze in

just as there is no such thing as a christian who worships satan, there is no such thing as a christian outside of the new covenant “for the forgiveness of sins”.

and he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

- mt.

Vidqun

Sea Breeze, I agee. All Christians as well as the Jewish remnant are part of the new covenant (Rom. 11). This one shows by celebrating of the Lord's evening meal and by partaking of the bread and wine. This is a confirmation of the new covenant and the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 26:27, 28).

As John puts it: "Accordingly Jesus said to them, Most truly I say to YOU, Unless YOU eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, YOU have no life in yourselves. He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I shall resurrect him at the last day" (John 6:53, 54 NWT).

But now the thousand million dollar question: Where does that leave the majority of spectator JWs?

18

Romans 10: 9 Simple Salvation - Not So Fast Says WT.

by Sea Breeze in

"if you confess with your mouth that jesus is lord and believe in your heart that god raised him from the dead, you will be saved".

- romans 10: 9. i find it interesting that this simple requirement for salvation has been a specific target of wt since their beginning.. first, jw's call jehovah lord, not jesus.

the fact that scripture calls jesus the king of kings and lord of lords doesn't seem to matter to them.

Vidqun

Sea Breeze, I believe in "supplemental" theology in the sense that the Israel concept was enlarged to include the nations, i.e., Christians. There is a debate as to what the trunk symbolizes. Jesus is the root, as many scriptures indicate (cf. Is. 11:10; 53:2; Rom. 15:12; Rev. 5:5; 22:6; cf. Rom. 11:17, 18). The wild olive branches would be the people of the nations, i.e., Christians. Natural branches, to be grafted in again, would be the Jewish remnant.

Originally, Israel was in a privileged position: "who, as such, are Israelites, to whom belong the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the sacred service and the promises; to whom the forefathers belong and from whom the Christ [sprang] according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4, 5 NWT). Now they must share these privileges with the people of the nations: "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for there is the same Lord over all, who is rich to all those calling upon him." (Rom. 10:12 NWT)

Israel would have been the premier nation if they stayed the course. Now only a remnant will be saved (Rom. 10:22, 23; cf. Is. 10:22, 23). While Jesus was on earth, they claimed their superiority because of being offspring of Abraham (Luke 8:39, 44). But Paul explained Abraham was righteous, not because of circumcision, but because of his faith (Gal. 3:6, 7). On this basis Christians also become “offspring” of Abraham, because of their faith (3:8, 9, 29).

18

Romans 10: 9 Simple Salvation - Not So Fast Says WT.

by Sea Breeze in

"if you confess with your mouth that jesus is lord and believe in your heart that god raised him from the dead, you will be saved".

- romans 10: 9. i find it interesting that this simple requirement for salvation has been a specific target of wt since their beginning.. first, jw's call jehovah lord, not jesus.

the fact that scripture calls jesus the king of kings and lord of lords doesn't seem to matter to them.

Vidqun

Don't worry Sea Breeze, I looked it up. Seems like they view the broken off branches as the natural Jews and the wild branches as the 144,000. But then they still have the problem with the remnant of natural Jews that is going to be saved. Sometime in future these will be regrafted to the tree because of His promises to their forefathers.

So this is how I see it: Natural branches (Jewish remnant) + wild olive branches (Christians) = All Israel, i.e., the Israel of God (Rom. 11:25, 26; Gal. 6:15, 16).

According to the Watchtower: What do the various features of the symbolic olive tree represent?

The tree: the fulfillment of God’s purpose regarding the Abrahamic covenant
The trunk: Jesus, the principal part of Abraham’s offspring
The branches: the full number of the secondary part of Abraham’s offspring

The “broken off” branches: natural Jews who rejected Jesus
The “grafted in” branches: spirit-anointed Christians out of the nations

As foretold, Abraham’s offspring—Jesus and the 144,000—will bring blessings “to people of the nations.”—Ro 11:12; Ge 22:18

18

Romans 10: 9 Simple Salvation - Not So Fast Says WT.

by Sea Breeze in

"if you confess with your mouth that jesus is lord and believe in your heart that god raised him from the dead, you will be saved".

- romans 10: 9. i find it interesting that this simple requirement for salvation has been a specific target of wt since their beginning.. first, jw's call jehovah lord, not jesus.

the fact that scripture calls jesus the king of kings and lord of lords doesn't seem to matter to them.

Vidqun

Sea Breeze, while you're on the subject of Romans, can you tell me how JWs interpret the olive tree, the breaking off of the natural branches and the grafting in of wild olive branches? If I remember correctly they view Israel as the 144,000. Who would the wild olive branches be?

It is clear that Israel here refers to fleshly Israel, because he quotes Isaiah (10:22, 23): "Moreover, Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, Although the number of the sons of Israel may be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved." (Rom. 9:27) Later on he reasons that God will show mercy to the remnant because of his promises to their forefathers: "True, with reference to the good news they are enemies for YOUR sakes, but with reference to [God's] choosing they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers." (Rom. 11:28 NWT) Again, this proves that he views the natural branches as fleshly Jews.

I remember there was a Watchtower article dealing with the subject many years ago, but my memory fails me.

34

The snake of Genesis 3:1

by Halcon in

we've got some really knowledgeable members on here so i have a question for them and everybody.

what was the earliest adjective used to describe the snake of genesis 3:1?

currently one can read words in english translations like 'cunning' and 'crafty'....but in other languages you see words like 'wise' and astute...which convey a completely different idea.. i'm wondering what may have been the earliest and most accurate adjective known or used.

Vidqun

It can mean anyone of those, depending on the context. I like the explanation of TWOT:

עָרוּם adj. crafty, shrewd, sensible;—1. crafty, ע׳ as pred., of serpent Gn 3:1; pl. as subst. מַחְשְׁבוֹת עֲרוּמִים Jb 5:12, לְשׁוֹן ע׳ 15:5. 2. in Pr, in good sense )opp. אֱוִיל, כְּסִיל, (פֶּתִי; as attrib. אָדָם עָרוּם Pr 12:23 a shrewd or sensible man; ע׳ as subst. = id., v:16, 13:16, so חָכְמַת ע׳ v:8; = prudent man 14:15, 22:3, 27:12; pl. עֲרוּמִים 14:18. BDB.

—1. cunning: נָחָשׁ Gn 31 )Sept. φρόνιμος, Matthew 1016(, Jb 512 155;
—2. clever ):: פֶּתִי, כְּסִיל, (אֱוִיל Pr 1216.23 )Bühlmann Vom rechten Reden und Schweigen )Göttingen 1976(:232f: smart(, 1316 )for כָּל־ rd. (כֹּל, 148.15.18 223 2712. HALOT.

עָרוּם: pl. עֲרוּמִים: subtle, shrewd, clever Gn 3:1. ) pg. 283. (Holladay Lex).

'arûm. Crafty, prudent, subtle. The adjective `arûm is construed to be a positive virtue when rendered "prudent." The prudent one does not vaunt his knowledge (Prov 12:23), ignores an insult (Prov 12:16), acts with knowledge (Prov 14:8), looks where he is going (Prov 14:15), sees danger and acts appropriately (Prov 22:3 = Prov 27:12), and is crowned with knowledge (Prov 14:18).
This adjective is negative when rendered "crafty" (see Job 5:12; Job 15:5). The most memorable use of
`arûm in this negative nuance is, of course, Gen 3:1, "Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild creature which the Lord God had made." His "malevolent brilliance" (D. Kidner, Genesis, Chicago: Inter Varsity, p. 67) is contrasted by paronomasia to the naked innocence of Adam and Eve in Gen 2:25 (`arûm "craftiness, " vs. `arûmmîm "nakedness;" see U. Cassuto, Genesis, I, p. 143). TWOT.

6

The apostle Paul was WRONGLY inspired by the H.S.: The New Covenant is NOT everlasting!

by BoogerMan in

only its benefits will be everlasting.

(for the earthly 2nd class sheep).

w80 7/1 p. 31 - questions from readers - why does the november 15, 1979, issue of the watchtower (pages 26, 27) speak of the “new covenant” being near the end of its operation, when hebrews 13:20 speaks of this covenant as being “an everlasting covenant”?

Vidqun

The edifices they have built, are certainly crumbling. They have hijacked all the covenants, which is nonsensical. I have always maintained, one cannot be the figurative tribes of Israel and be governing the tribes of Israel. You are either the one or the other (Rev. 7:1-8). The leadership of Israel will fall under the kingdom covenant (Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:28-30).

Who is the Israel of God (Gal. 6:15, 16)? According to Rom. 11 Paul explained it with an olive tree. All Israel (olive tree) = Jewish remnant (natural branches) + Christians (wild olive branches): Rom. 9:27; 11:16, 17, 25-27.

The new covenant is concluded with "all Israel," which will be permanent, as indicated above (Hebr. 8:10; 13:20). It is the former covenant that will become obsolete (8:13).

So, who makes up the temple?

16 Do YOU not know that YOU people are God's temple, and that the spirit of God dwells in YOU?

17 If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] YOU people are. (1 Cor. 3:16-17; cf. 1 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21, 22).

JWs insist the 144,000 make up this temple. The bad news for them is that there is no temple in heaven (Rev. 21:22). Where Revelation mentions the heavenly sanctuary, this is the tabernacle sanctuary (cf. Rev. 15:5). Another indication that the temple is on earth. The courtyard of this temple will be trampled by the nations for 42 months (Rev. 11:2).

18

Do JWs Really Say This?

by NotFormer in

i stumbled, via a google search, upon a part of jw space that is usually heavily defended against outsiders like my good self.

in a discussion, someone started their post with "i (started doing x)... when the slave began to suggest doing so"*.

do pimis really talk that way?

Vidqun

They should call them "kings," because they are reigning already (cf. 1 Cor. 4:8). They did call themselves "dukes" or "sheiks" a while back. Perhaps they should use such a term as it has been sanctioned by the top.