Posts by leaving

8

Did God establish His Covenant with the Gentile Nations or the Jews?

by sowhatnow in

im not sure where to post this but i think its telling.

not long but read it closely i get a bit confused on the latter half.

the question is did god establish his covenant with the gentile nations or the jews.. [though i have read from a jewish web source, that the jews have nothing to do with israel and the greek scriptures or half the hebrew scriptures ].

leaving_quietly

This boils down to two questions: What are Christ's commandments? Are we still under the Law today?

The first one is interesting, because Christ boiled the law down to two main commandments: 1) Love God with your whole heart, mind and soul, 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. (Matt 22:37-39) He also gave a "new commandment": I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, you also love one another. (John 13:34)

There are plenty of other "commandments". Just do a Google search on "what are Christ's commandments". You'll find plenty. These aren't talked about in great detail throughout the rest of the NT, although "love your neighbor as yourself" seems the be the one with the most amount of attention.

Rom 13:9,10: For the law code, “You must not commit adultery, you must not murder, you must not steal, you must not covet,” and whatever other commandment there is, is summed up in this saying: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does not work evil to one’s neighbor; therefore, love is the law’s fulfillment.

Rom 15:2: Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up.

Gal 5:13,14: You were called to freedom, brothers; only do not use this freedom as an opportunity to pursue fleshly desires, but through love slave for one another. 14 For the entire Law has been fulfilled in one commandment, namely: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.

James 2:8: If, now, you carry out the royal law according to the scripture, “You must love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing quite well.

1 John 3:21-23: Beloved ones, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have freeness of speech toward God; 22 and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we are observing his commandments and doing what is pleasing in his eyes. 23 Indeed, this is his commandment: that we have faith in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he gave us a commandment.

Now, as for the question, "are we under Law", I hesitate to get into this because it is a hotly debated topic, but here are some relevant passages.

Matt 5:17-20: “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one stroke of a letter to pass away from the Law until all things take place. 19 Whoever, therefore, breaks one of these least commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in relation to the Kingdom of the heavens. But whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in relation to the Kingdom of the heavens. 20 For I say to you that if your righteousness does not surpass that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will by no means enter into the Kingdom of the heavens.

Christ didn't come to "observe" the Law, but to fulfill it. The Greek word for "fulfill" is plerosai (Strong's 4137), which means "I fill, fulfill, complete". Christ came to fulfill, or complete the Law, not end it, but make it complete.

Luke 16:16 - The Law and the Prophets were until John. From then on, the Kingdom of God is being declared as good news, and every sort of person is pressing forward toward it.

Other passages that relate: Romans 7:3-6, all of Galatians 3; 2 Cor 3:7-14; all of Hebrews, but particularly 8:13-10:10

Hope this helps.

8

Did God establish His Covenant with the Gentile Nations or the Jews?

by sowhatnow in

im not sure where to post this but i think its telling.

not long but read it closely i get a bit confused on the latter half.

the question is did god establish his covenant with the gentile nations or the jews.. [though i have read from a jewish web source, that the jews have nothing to do with israel and the greek scriptures or half the hebrew scriptures ].

leaving_quietly

Not all Israel were considered Jews. The Jews were of the two-tribe kingdom (Judah and Benjamin) and the rest of Israel were the other ten tribes. When Jesus was at the well talking to a Samaritan woman, she hinted at what the problem was between Jews and Samaritans:

Our forefathers worshipped on this mountain, but you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where people must worship. (John 4:20)

However, Jesus affirmed something: salvation begins with the Jews (John 4:22)

Why could he say that? Because the covenant with Abraham was not the same as the covenant with Israel. The covenant with Abraham is that he would be father to many nations. (Gen 17:2) The covenant with Israel is mainly about the lineage to the Messiah would coming through him. Even before that covenant was in place, Jacob (Israel) called his sons to him and prophesied that the scepter would come through Judah. (Gen 49:10) Christ was from the tribe of Judah. (Matt 1:3;Luke 3:33).

Christ was sent to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel", and the apostles focused on these. But, Paul was sent to the nations, the "Gentiles".

When the blood of the covenant was poured out, that is, when Christ was executed, the new covenant went into effect. At that time, there was no consideration of the Gentiles. So, that covenant was specifically with Israel.

However, after Christ was raised, this happened:

Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” (Matt 28:18-20)

Why did he say that? Remember, Christ was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matt 15:24) He did not attempt to preach to any Gentiles. At John 10:16, though, he said he had "other sheep" that he must bring in. But then was not the time. It was only after his resurrection that he extended the grace of God to the nations. Why? Because he wanted to. Matt 28:18: "All authority has been given me...Go, therefore..."

Other passages to consider: Gal 3:26-29; Rom 1:16-18; Eph 2:11-22; all of Romans 11

8

Book study next week... was the Mosaic Law perfect?

by StarTrekAngel in

before i get the "no it was not, because god does not exist and this is a writing of man", i am directing this discussion to those that either still believe, or need as many tools as possible to talk to a family member still in.. the purpose of my posting is to discuss what i believe to be a mistake on this book or, in the other hand, be corrected if i am not getting the entire picture.. in the book, chapter 19 "god's wisdon in a sacred secret", paragraph 10, it reads.... 10 second, the law thoroughly demonstrated mankinds need for a ransom.

a perfect law, it exposed the inability of sinful humans to adhere to it fully.

compare this with hebrews 7:11-12. jesus a priest like melchizedek11now if perfection was through the levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of aaron?

leaving_quietly

Let me add that Heb 8:7 found the COVENANT to be faulty, not the Law. The covenant proved faulty because the Israelites breached it, and because it was taught by humans. The NEW covenant would be different. God himself would write it on their hearts, instead of man attempting to instill it in others.

Hebrews 8 continues to cite Jeremiah 31, and it's one the things that I'm continually baffled at regarding the huge amounts of printed literature from WT. The new covenant, in part, says: "‘And they will no longer teach each one his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: “Know Jehovah!” For they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them." And yet, here we are studying a book called, "Draw Close to Jehovah". How's that for irony?

8

Book study next week... was the Mosaic Law perfect?

by StarTrekAngel in

before i get the "no it was not, because god does not exist and this is a writing of man", i am directing this discussion to those that either still believe, or need as many tools as possible to talk to a family member still in.. the purpose of my posting is to discuss what i believe to be a mistake on this book or, in the other hand, be corrected if i am not getting the entire picture.. in the book, chapter 19 "god's wisdon in a sacred secret", paragraph 10, it reads.... 10 second, the law thoroughly demonstrated mankinds need for a ransom.

a perfect law, it exposed the inability of sinful humans to adhere to it fully.

compare this with hebrews 7:11-12. jesus a priest like melchizedek11now if perfection was through the levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of aaron?

leaving_quietly

There is a MASSIVE mis-treatement of the word "perfect" by WT. The word used in the Biblical sense does not mean what WT implies it means. The Greek word eteleiōsen at Heb 7:19 literally means "I complete, accomplish, make perfect". Thus, "perfect" means "complete". This makes sense. The Law could not make ANYTHING complete. That's why they had to sacrifice over and over and over again. But the one sacrifice of Christ could make things complete.

You may also note Hebrews 5:9. Speaking of the Christ, it says: "And after he had been made perfect, he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him," I can almost hear you gasping. WHAT? Christ was NOT PERFECT?????!?!??!?! In the definition of the Greek word for perfect, no. While he was in the flesh, he was NOT complete. This does not mean he sinned, for we are told at Hebrews 4:15 that he was "without sin".

As an interesting aside, the old NWT Reference Bible has a footnote on Hebrews 5:9 on the word "perfect". It reads:

Or, “after he had been inaugurated (installed; empowered; consecrated to office).” Gr., te·lei·o·theisʹ. See Le 21:10 ftn. Compare Le 8:33 ftn.

This is one of the proofs that Christ became King long, long, long before 1914, and in their own Bible.

17

Rev 17:9 - Thoughts?

by leaving_quietly in

rev 17:9 describes something about the "woman", the harlot, babylon the great:.

here is where the intelligence that has wisdom comes in: the seven heads mean seven mountains, where the woman sits on top.

and there are seven kings: five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet arrived, but when he does arrive he must remain a short while.. i was dreaming about this verse last night, so i thought i'd look it up.

leaving_quietly

@Gladiator, wish I could. Working on it. Slowly, slowly, slowly. But, first, I'm busting out of the WT indoctrination. That means asking lots of questions, gathering input from a variety of sources, and forming a conclusion. It's often not the same conclusion as WTBTS (well, duh!)

@Bobcat, once again, thanks. I'm always appreciative of your research.

@Londo111, true, but since Revelation was given to John in signs, what's the saying... things may not be as they appear...

@myelaine, when I get some time and privacy, I'll watch that. Thanks.

@Jonathan Drake, yes, that's a fairly common view. I'm aware of it, but I don't currently share it. I say "currently". Revelation is such a difficult book and with a lifetime of one-sided WT teachings, it's a challenge when considering anything else. I'm trying, though.

@cappytan, you're statement is spot on. I know I don't believe WT anymore. But, just what DO I believe? That is the question I'm working on answering.

@OrphanCrow, I am still a believer. Hard to shake that. You may be completely correct. And it's a conclusion I may eventually come to agree with you on at some future point. For now, though, the journey is interesting, myth or not.

18

Watchtower doctrine: Judges 1:19 (God couldn't defeat the Iron Chariots)

by southwest in

this weeks assigned bible reading is judges 1-4. i have never noticed judges 1:19 before which reads in the nwt as:.

jehovah was with judah, and they took possession of the mountainous region, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain,* because they had war chariots with iron scythes.

but in the kj as:.

leaving_quietly

Thanks, Bloody Hotdogs!

This highlights something very tricky, in my opinion, with the WT Library CD. I usually just click on the verse number and it brings up the list of references. Well, clicking on this verse brings up no references. I usually don't proceed past there. But, this time, I went to both the scripture indexes (1930-1985 and 1986-2014) and again, no references. But, searching for the verse DOES bring up references, but only when searching for Judges 1:19 without quotes. With quotes, no references. And even with quotes around "Jg 1:19", no references, even though there are references to this specific verse, as you found.

17

Rev 17:9 - Thoughts?

by leaving_quietly in

rev 17:9 describes something about the "woman", the harlot, babylon the great:.

here is where the intelligence that has wisdom comes in: the seven heads mean seven mountains, where the woman sits on top.

and there are seven kings: five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet arrived, but when he does arrive he must remain a short while.. i was dreaming about this verse last night, so i thought i'd look it up.

leaving_quietly

Rev 17:9 describes something about the "woman", the harlot, Babylon the great:

Here is where the intelligence that has wisdom comes in: The seven heads mean seven mountains, where the woman sits on top. And there are seven kings: five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet arrived, but when he does arrive he must remain a short while.

I was dreaming about this verse last night, so I thought I'd look it up. I have long thought, ever since I was a child, that the seven mountains might not mean what WTBTS says it means, but that it may mean seven continents or seven seas instead. This is because Rev 17:1 says the harlot sits on "many waters". I don't recall much about my dream, only the words "seven continents" in relation to this verse. So, I thought I'd look into it further this morning. But, this post is not about the seven mountains. Bear with me.

I came across a blog posting about the verse that asked an interesting question:

On what basis can anyone claim that the present tense John wrote is anything other than a reference to a state of affairs existing in his time?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/03/is-revelation-179-10-the-decisive-evidence-against-the-end-times-view-of-revelation.html

WTBTS explanation is this:

The seven heads of that ferocious beast stand for seven “mountains,” or seven “kings.” Both terms are used Scripturally to refer to governmental powers. (Jeremiah 51:24, 25; Daniel 2:34, 35, 44, 45) In the Bible, six world powers are mentioned as having an impact on the affairs of God’s people: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Of these, five had already come and gone by the time John received Revelation, whereas Rome was still very much a world power. This corresponds well with the words, “five have fallen, one is.”
Revelation Climax p. 251 par. 2

Here's my question: Regarding the seven kings, would they be describing kings as seen from John's point of view in his time? Or, would they be describing kings as seen from the point of view in the day of the Lord? At the beginning of the book, at Revelation 1:10, John says that by the spirit, he came to be in the day of the Lord. Does this change the view of who these seven kings are?

12

Books/texts/scriptures mentioned in the bible , though not incorporated in the bible cannon .

by smiddy in

if a bible writer / scribe refers to a particular book text or scripture by name , for one reason or another, shouldn`t that be a legitimate reason for including it in the bible cannon as a part of the bible ?.

just how many texts , books, scriptures are left out of the old testament bible that are mentioned there in and how many, if any are their in the new testament..

leaving_quietly

There's also the letter to the Laodicean congregation.

And when this letter has been read among you, arrange for it also to be read in the congregation of the La·o·di·ceʹans and for you also to read the one from La·o·di·ceʹa. (Col 4:16)

18

Watchtower doctrine: Judges 1:19 (God couldn't defeat the Iron Chariots)

by southwest in

this weeks assigned bible reading is judges 1-4. i have never noticed judges 1:19 before which reads in the nwt as:.

jehovah was with judah, and they took possession of the mountainous region, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain,* because they had war chariots with iron scythes.

but in the kj as:.

leaving_quietly

Yet another verse WTBTS never comments on. However, typing in "Judges 1:19" into Google search yields many interesting results.

18

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses do this?

by runForever in

jw
friends

why do jehovah's witnesses as individual members readily think that apostates are having a sweeping mass delusion?

if some jw's have known you for a long time do they really think you based everything on some random delusion you randomly had instead of confirming the information?.

it's quite retarded even the bible itself is contradicting them in jeremiah about the 70 years.. i know some know, and some choose not to know but what about the rest?.

leaving_quietly

ARS, you seem to have a fascination with SEX. It's not the first post you've accused us as having that as the reason for leaving. I am a married person, so SEX is not the reason for me. Nor is it for quite a number of people here, so quit making these sweeping accusations.

NEVR ONCE have I known a SINGLE PERSON that was "due to doctrines that I disagreed with..." because you cant even be disfellowshipped for that AND THE MAIN thing is, WHAT DOCTRINE is SOOOOOOOOOO bad that you give up the baby with the bathwater?

And you know everyone here? Just because you don't know someone who left for this reason doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It is my PRIMARY reason for wanting to leave. Yes, you can get disfellowshipped for not believing. There's plenty of documented accounts of that. What doctrine is so bad? Does it matter? If we still believe in God (and I still do) then what is it God wants? John 4:23,24 says worshippers must worship with spirit and truth. Doctrines surrounding salvation must be truthful. If they are not, then we are not worshipping with truth.

If there is no paradise earth, then that's a false hope. If there was a paradise earth, don't you think Paul, Peter, James and John would have spoken or written about it BEFORE Revelation? Revelation came around AFTER the rest of them died, so none of them died believing in any paradise earth. Even Revelation doesn't say anything about a paradise earth. For that matter, that phrase isn't in the Bible at all. Paul said that even an angel should be accursed if anything different than the good news he taught was preached (Gal. 1:6-8). If an angel should be accursed, then so should anyone else preaching any other good news, INCLUDING JWs.

leaving_quietly

Posts by leaving_quietly