Posts by KalebOutWest

19

About the Mark of the Beast

by Kosonen in

jw
friends

i can agree on most of what this man preaches about the mark of the beast.. https://madmaxworld.tv/watch?id=64fd01a1112661824fb397c7.

..

KalebOutWest

I watched you on that other thread when you were a jerk to that other guy--and then you cried that he was doing something bad to you, but in reality you were the one being terrible and horrific.

People need to see what kind of "love" you really have. You even said you were going away for awhile from this site because of how badly you were treated, when in reality you were being the jerk, like you are now.

You don't show love--or if you think it is, it is because you are twisted. I am glad you are being this way. Now everyone can see you for what you are.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5126221415841792/what-self-deception

19

About the Mark of the Beast

by Kosonen in

jw
friends

i can agree on most of what this man preaches about the mark of the beast.. https://madmaxworld.tv/watch?id=64fd01a1112661824fb397c7.

..

KalebOutWest

EasyPrompt: Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean there isn't someone else who does understand it.

I didn't say I didn't understand it. I wrote that I did because there are scholars and academics that do too. I said that the Watchtower and Fundamentalists do not. That was what I wrote.

Academics and scholars aren't people who "make up" things about the books of Daniel and Revelation.

The scholars that you are mocking and that I am talking about are people like Jewish sages such as Maimonides and other great Hebrew teachers of history such as Ravi. I am also making reference to the Church and Apostolic Fathers, such as those that helped create and finalize the Biblical canon. That is who you are talking about whar you said "they don't know jack about what Revelation means." Without them we would not even have the Book of Revelation.

You talk about "love" is what you need to protect you from the "mark of the beast." Your type of love is not helping you do anything but be arrogant and hateful and close-minded and turn people off.

Who would want to be like you? I would rather hear from the great teachers of the Jews, the Church Fathers than from someone like you. You are not a person of love. You are dark and dimwitted.

19

About the Mark of the Beast

by Kosonen in

jw
friends

i can agree on most of what this man preaches about the mark of the beast.. https://madmaxworld.tv/watch?id=64fd01a1112661824fb397c7.

..

KalebOutWest

People, have we not grown past our Watchtower days?

Personally, I believe people should be free to make their choices free of religious dogma. But even if you are going to go down that route, why choose to repeat the same mistakes and go down the road that the JWs take?

They read Revelation and the Bible without any critical type of approach, without any consideration of its ancient form of genre. It isn't a prophecy, it's an apocalypse. Its alternative title is even "The Apocalypse of John."

An apocalypse is a writing containing political intrigue that is filled with commentary on what was happening during the author's lifetime written in the name of a prophet as if they were oracles foretelling the future. The Book of Daniel is a similar work (it was written during the time of the Hasmonean dynasty explaining the events of the Maccabean revolt that lead up to the first celebration of Chanukah). Just as "Daniel" is not the author of the book bearing his name, neither is "John" the author of the Christian apocalypse. So why try to go back and "guess" what these things are going to be in the future like the Watchtower (of some Fundamentalist Christians) preach. There are countless commentaries explaining what the authors were talking about in the past that academics agree upon (in other words, scholars know more or less what these writers were saying as they were talking about the past, not looking into the future). That's why there are commentaries on the subject.

Because some people (still) think that the book of Revelation is an actual prophecy, some of these have actually thought that the "Mark of the Beast" have been the following:

RFID tags (introduced in WWII)
Barcodes on products
Microchips (fear they would be forced to tag people to ID them or used as payment)
Cryptocurrency
REAL ID Act
"Obamacare"

For more information see--The Desperate Search for the Mark of the Beast

11

4 Verses Jehovah's Witnesses fulfill today, can you think of more?

by raymond frantz in

.

KalebOutWest

And by the way, here's one that I think applies to the JWs:

Beware that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name and say, "I AM!" and "The time is near!" Do not go after them.--Luke 21:8, NRSV, using the footnote reading.

According to scholars, the reading: "Many will come in my name and say, 'I am he!" can also read, "I AM!" This, according to academics means that false prophets may come employing the Divine Name and claim that only they know the time of the end. Here Jesus warns his followers: "Do not go after them."

11

4 Verses Jehovah's Witnesses fulfill today, can you think of more?

by raymond frantz in

.

KalebOutWest

Duran...

Since, as you claim, you've never been one of Jehovah's Witnesses. How do you know the things you do?

Remember in our earlier discussion on the thread on the Trinity, when I talked about people who either grew up in or were actual members of the religion, you said you were neither. Where do you get all your knowledge?

Why do you quote from the NWT?

I ask out of curiosity at this point. In our discussion you were adamant to point out you were never one (or that my comments about being associated with Watchtower religion and being brought up in it did not apply to you). So where are you getting all this?

55

Trinity Statements in the Dead Sea Scrolls

by Sea Breeze in

dr. ken johnson has identified several statements in the dead sea scrolls that predict that god would visit the earth as a man... as the messiah.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljrfvytjhve&ab_channel=kenjohnson%28biblefacts%29 .

KalebOutWest

Duran, you really are talking in circles and cannot stop, can you. You really think you are making sense, and that I am reading what you are writing, right?

I'm not, dude. You're writing to no one. I gave up a long time ago. I've been pasting a cutting my replies a while back.

You are wasting your time.

55

Trinity Statements in the Dead Sea Scrolls

by Sea Breeze in

dr. ken johnson has identified several statements in the dead sea scrolls that predict that god would visit the earth as a man... as the messiah.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljrfvytjhve&ab_channel=kenjohnson%28biblefacts%29 .

KalebOutWest

I decided to change my previous post to this simpler one:

It is not easy coming to terms with change after leaving the Watchtower. It is all people know.

For some, it is all people will cling to even after they leave. Some will never stop quoting the NWT, some will only think of God as "Jehovah," and others will be afraid of living outside the limits of religious dogma altogether.

The point is, whether any can or will change their views is not for any of us to decide or ridicule. There are academic standards, there are theologic and scientific ones, and there are people who will never leave the shadows of the Watchtower cult.

But if you are in the shadows, know that you are still in the dark.

55

Trinity Statements in the Dead Sea Scrolls

by Sea Breeze in

dr. ken johnson has identified several statements in the dead sea scrolls that predict that god would visit the earth as a man... as the messiah.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljrfvytjhve&ab_channel=kenjohnson%28biblefacts%29 .

KalebOutWest

Duran:

To say, 'son of destruction' is in keeping with saying 'son of Satan'.

How does Satan make a "son"?

Destruction cannot make a son, so Satan cannot make a son.

Therefore you have proven my argument with your own words, using "son of X" meaning characteristics of X.

Satan cannot reproduce and make literal children.

55

Trinity Statements in the Dead Sea Scrolls

by Sea Breeze in

dr. ken johnson has identified several statements in the dead sea scrolls that predict that god would visit the earth as a man... as the messiah.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljrfvytjhve&ab_channel=kenjohnson%28biblefacts%29 .

KalebOutWest

Duran writes:

First off, I never said it always means it. Also, it is not just the NWT that changes it to 'friend' but also others say, 'anyone', 'man', 'person', 'someone', etc.

You are just repeating my argument that I wrote in my first post. I stated that you never said this and that the Watchtower changed it and that other translations do this--and I used this to prove some of what I was saying. And I asked you to explain this...which you have not. You just repeated it.

Just posting it again without explaining it shows you are not very good at defending your points-just sort of dense.

But it is generally agreed that "Son of God" means that Jesus is God, not God's child:

Jesus is not God’s Son in the sense of a human father and a son. God did not get married and have a son. God did not mate with Mary and, together with her, produce a son. Jesus is God’s Son in the sense that He is God made manifest in human form (John 1:1, 14)....The Jewish leaders responded by accusing Jesus of blasphemy (Matthew 26:65-66). Later, before Pontius Pilate, “The Jews insisted, ‘We have a law, and according to that law He must die, because He claimed to be the Son of God’” (John 19:7). Why would His claiming to be the Son of God be considered blasphemy and be worthy of a death sentence? The Jewish leaders understood exactly what Jesus meant by the phrase “Son of God.” To be the Son of God is to be of the same nature as God. The Son of God is “of God.” The claim to be of the same nature as God—to in fact be God—was blasphemy to the Jewish leaders; therefore, they demanded Jesus’ death, in keeping with Leviticus 24:15. Hebrews 1:3 expresses this very clearly, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being.”

What Does It Mean That Jesus Is The Son of God?--Another example can be found in John 17:12 where Judas is described as the “son of perdition.” John 6:71 tells us that Judas was the son of Simon. What does John 17:12 mean by describing Judas as the “son of perdition”? The word perdition means “destruction, ruin, waste.” Judas was not the literal son of “ruin, destruction, and waste,” but those things were the identity of Judas' life. Judas was a manifestation of perdition. In this same way, Jesus is the Son of God. The Son of God is God. Jesus is God made manifest (John 1:1, 14)

Why Is Jesus Called the Son of God?--Like the Father, Jesus is God. He always was, always is, and always will be. But unlike the Father, Jesus is also a human being. Though charged with blasphemy and crucified for claiming to be one with the Father, Jesus' resurrection validates his claim to be God's Son in a unique way. When we confess our belief that Jesus is the Son of God, we share in the love the Father has for the Son, becoming adopted children of God.

How Can Jesus Be Both God and the Son of God?--When we say that Jesus is God (John 1:1, 14; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8), we are saying that Jesus possesses the divine nature (as well as human nature, see hypostatic union). But the term “Son of God” does not mean that Jesus is not God. Think about it. If the term “Son of God” meant that Jesus is not God, then does the term “Son of Man” mean that Jesus is not a man? Of course not. Likewise, if the term “Son of Man” means that Jesus is a man, then does it not imply that when it says Jesus is the “Son of God” that he is God? We ought not look at the ancient words found in Scripture and judge them by modern thinking.

What Does "Son of God?" Mean?--The phrase “son of” doesn’t mean that someone literally has to be born from someone. In fact, around when the Greek New Testament was written, Caesar was referred to as the Son of God Himself. What that phrase literally meant was, “the nature of.” Caesar was expressing the nature of. In fact, when you read the phrase “son of” within the Bible you find that that is true. In Acts 4, Barnabas is called the “son of encouragement”. In Mark 3, James and John are called the “sons of thunder.” Judas is referred to as the “son of perdition.” The nature of encouragement is seen in Barnabas. The nature of thunder is seen in James and John. The nature of hell is seen within Judas. So when Jesus is referred to as the “son of,” it’s not in reference to him being born from the father. It’s actually a claim of his deity.

I can keep going on, but nothing will change your mind. You won't believe me even if I were Jesus himself and Jesus told you himself that He was God.

You would just give him the JW teaching because you have to be right. I have nothing more to say to you.

55

Trinity Statements in the Dead Sea Scrolls

by Sea Breeze in

dr. ken johnson has identified several statements in the dead sea scrolls that predict that god would visit the earth as a man... as the messiah.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljrfvytjhve&ab_channel=kenjohnson%28biblefacts%29 .

KalebOutWest

Just to further my point how "son of" doesn't mean the same thing and to use your own texts, Duran...

Mark 6:3 reads:

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him.--NRSVue.

Straightforward, right? Do the words you read in English mean what you think they mean? You are reading a Greek translation of a conversation that was happening in Aramaic among Jews.

According to The Annotated New Testatment, the footnote to this verse explains that there is no word in Hebrew or Aramaic for "cousin," so they called everyone who was a relative or even someone who was treated as family and lived in your household a "brother or sister."

Duran,

Yes, there are times the word "son" refers to a male child, but there are times where I pointed out above in my previous post, like Luke 10:6, where the NWT changed "son of peace," covered up the "son of" and changed it to something else because they know that "son of" doesn't mean "son" all the time.

Why would they do that? Explain that.

Compare both the 1984 NWT and its footnote at Luke 10:6 with the revised NWT and notice what I am talking about.

Why is "son of peace" covered up if "son of peace" is what it says in the Greek?

υἱὸς εἰρήνης = a son of peace

That is the trope that I am pointing to, the "son of X" that I am talking about. Why did the NWT change it to "friend" if "son" always means "son" like you are saying?

The JWs obviously are playing around with the rules on how they translate "son of X" whenever they want. Your argument can't be right if they can change the way they translate "son" at Luke 10:6 to "friend" all of a sudden.

I stand by what academics say and not by what a cult and its stupid NWT translation says.