Posts by smmcroberts

27

You Won't be Resurrected.

by smmcroberts in

i'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but if you die prior to armageddon you won't be resurrected.

please read my latest blog article to find out why this is so according to the watchtower beliefs.. http://smmcroberts.net/blog/you-wont-be-resurrected/.

smmcroberts

Thanks, TD. I don't think I've seen The 6th Day, I'll have to check it out.

20

Did Russell Believe Anything Witnesses Do Now?

by konceptual99 in

this weeks wt study got me thinking as to if there was anything major that pre 1914 bible students believed that would be accepted by modern day witness.. as far as i can tell, they throught:.

1 - the last days had started in 1799.

2 - christ's presence had stated in 1874.

smmcroberts

Also (and probably most important): That the Watchtower publications MUST be read to understand the Bible properly.

27

You Won't be Resurrected.

by smmcroberts in

i'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but if you die prior to armageddon you won't be resurrected.

please read my latest blog article to find out why this is so according to the watchtower beliefs.. http://smmcroberts.net/blog/you-wont-be-resurrected/.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but if you die prior to Armageddon you won't be resurrected. Please read my latest blog article to find out why this is so according to the Watchtower beliefs.
http://smmcroberts.net/blog/you-wont-be-resurrected/

4

"Discreet"???

by smmcroberts in

in a previous blog i showed why the gb cannot be a "slave".

in that blog i promised to review the rest of their infamous claim of being "faithful and discreet".

that blog is now ready for your consideration:.

smmcroberts

Yes, Cold Steel, I know all of that.

They stuck in the name "Jehovah" in Revelation as well, so I maintain that Rev. 22:18 is a pertinent quote. But you could use Deut. 4:2 instead if you prefer: "YOU must not add to the word that I am commanding YOU, neither must YOU take away from it, so as to keep the commandments of Jehovah YOUR God that I am commanding YOU."

But I don't really care what the Bible has to say about it: Translators have a duty to be "faithful" to the document they are translating and not insert their own biases.

The Watchtower took it upon themselves to mistranslate the Greek word for "Lord" (Kurios) into "Jehovah" 237 times. They did this arbitrarily and inconsistently. Wherever Kurios was obviously used in reference to Jesus, they translated Kurios as "Lord".

If they had at least been consistent in their substituting "Jehovah" in place of "Kurios" then Philippians 2:9-11 would read in the NWT:

"Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of those in heaven, and of those on earth and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, to the glory of God the Father."

But that would contradict their preconceived notions about Jesus not being Jehovah, so it's painfully obvious that they let their own doctrine dictate what their Bible translation should say.

So I think this is an excellent example of one way in which they have not been faithful.

And, Yes; "discreet" and "slave" are also stupid translations. But that's what they choose to call themselves, so we have every right to call them on it and show that they have not lived up to their claim. I don't think it's just up to the JWs to decide if the GB has lived up to their claim. Since they broadcast their boast out into the world, the world has a right to judge whether or not the claim is justified.

4

"Discreet"???

by smmcroberts in

in a previous blog i showed why the gb cannot be a "slave".

in that blog i promised to review the rest of their infamous claim of being "faithful and discreet".

that blog is now ready for your consideration:.

smmcroberts

In a previous blog I showed why the GB cannot be a "slave". In that blog I promised to review the rest of their infamous claim of being "faithful and discreet". That blog is now ready for your consideration:

http://smmcroberts.net/blog/whos-a-faithful-discreet-slave-then/

It turns out, based on the evidence, that they can't logically be both discreet and God's channel. They have to be one or the other (or neither.)

41

hello I recently got away from the so called "truth" looking for people to talk to

by LuLu4YouYou in

jw
friends

hello my name is louis.

i have seperated myself from the jws and am looking for people to talk to.

i dont have many people in my life who will even speak to me anymore or even acknowledge that i exist.

smmcroberts

Hey, Louis! Welcome, to the forum, bro.

I'm something of a newbie here myself. I think we've found a good place. Here we freely express our individual opinions, debate, sometimes lose our tempers (just like real people), and laugh quite a bit more than one might expect.

I wrote a poem a few years back about the ex-JW forum experience. I had a different forum in mind at the time, but I think it applies equally to this forum:

http://smmcroberts.net/poetry/forus.html

(Yes, I'm always plugging my site on this forum, but no one has complained as yet!)

49

Did Paul Invent Christianity?

by smmcroberts in

i think the answer is largely yes.

please read my latest blog and see if you agree.. the witnesses had better stock up on goats and stones to make up for lost time!.

smmcroberts

mP: " The story of Jesus ministry is not some fairy tail where the real facts on the ground are irrelevant."

Well, that's certainly debatable. I see no evidence to believe that there ever was a Jesus. But in any case, that's not the topic of this thread, which I feel you have hijacked.

I bow to your superior knowledge regarding the "facts on the ground", but my blog is directed at JWs who will only listen to the Bible itself. Experience has taught me that it's futile to present college-level material to grade-school level minds.

Please start your own thread about your subject.

Thanks!

49

Did Paul Invent Christianity?

by smmcroberts in

i think the answer is largely yes.

please read my latest blog and see if you agree.. the witnesses had better stock up on goats and stones to make up for lost time!.

smmcroberts

MP: "Your blog shows that you have completely ignored the political situation of Judea at that time."

Yes, you are correct; my blog is not about the political situation of Judea. That's why it ignores it.

I welcome your comments and all of the extra-biblical light they shed on the situation, but it goes beyond the intent of my blog, which was to point out the overwhelming influence of Paul from a strictly biblical perspective (which is the perspective I try to assume when in front of JWs, or else I might as well talk to the wall). I think it has served its purpose in bringing together some interesting replies, including yours.

Maybe you should start a new post about the political situation of Judea.

15

The Major Prophets! Were they crazy?

by smmcroberts in

were the major prophets out of their freakin' minds, or what?!.

see why i would ask such a question in my latest blog: http://smmcroberts.net/blog/the-major-prophets/.

smmcroberts

Leolaia,

Well, if we're going to use someone on a bad LSD trip as our touchstone, then I guess the major prophets don't look so crazy.

But I think your point has value: there were so many prophets, and so many false prophecies that people tended to ignore them. So they had to resort to stunts to get attention. Still, the death of Ezekiel's wife would surely have been going too far. Maybe he just capitalized on her natural death at the most opportune time to make his point. Even that seems heartless to me, however.

15

The Major Prophets! Were they crazy?

by smmcroberts in

were the major prophets out of their freakin' minds, or what?!.

see why i would ask such a question in my latest blog: http://smmcroberts.net/blog/the-major-prophets/.

smmcroberts

@ Rip Van: Well, at least you didn't come up with "Sado-Masochism" (I gave that up with my WT subscription!)