Posts by anointed1

6

Isn’t teaching of grace (undeserved kindness) a great apostasy?

by anointed1 in

in the old testament the basic teaching is that no sin would go unpunished.

suddenly, it takes an opposite turn in the new testament where grace is shown as flowing through jesus to sinners who put faith in the sacrificial death of jesus.

interestingly, new testament writers admit that both the teachings are in opposition to each other.

anointed1

slimboyfat,

What I provided was the internal evidence. Jesus came to reinforce the Law and urged more ‘violent’ or intense action. (Mathew 5:17; 11:12)

Yet much more striking is the external evidence. Teaching of Grace was very prominent in Mithraism, and Church Fathers feared that people might suspect later that Christianity borrowed from pagans, hence they blamed it on Satan (as though he is teaching truth well in advance through pagan leaders so that future generation would see no value to truth when it arrives through Jesus); hence Tertullian wrote:

"The Devil, too, baptizes some that is, his own believers and faithful followers; he promises the putting away of sins by a layer (of his own); and if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown.

What also must we say to (Satan's) limiting his chief priest to a single marriage? He, too, has his virgins; he, too, has his proficients in continence. "

– Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics

6

Isn’t teaching of grace (undeserved kindness) a great apostasy?

by anointed1 in

in the old testament the basic teaching is that no sin would go unpunished.

suddenly, it takes an opposite turn in the new testament where grace is shown as flowing through jesus to sinners who put faith in the sacrificial death of jesus.

interestingly, new testament writers admit that both the teachings are in opposition to each other.

anointed1

In the Old Testament the basic teaching is that no sin would go unpunished. Suddenly, it takes an opposite turn in the New Testament where grace is shown as flowing through Jesus to sinners who put faith in the sacrificial death of Jesus. Interestingly, New Testament writers admit that both the teachings are in opposition to each other. (Galatians 5:4)

Here some difficult questions arise. What was the need for such an opposite turn for God? Even if it would produce good result, would a God of integrity opt for it? But in this case, after the teaching of Grace was introduced, it has no effect on the habit of people’s sinning—even religious leaders themselves are caught for various heinous crimes such as child-abuse. That would mean it is a change of teaching for the benefit of religious leaders because they flouted all the possibilities of Grace and acted in OT style when it came to donation to the church (which means teaching of Grace is to attract people to church, not for the leaders)—Acts 5:1-11

Such great opposite turn is not even alluded to in the great prophecy about Jesus (Deuteronomy 18:18, 19) Jesus too has no idea about a teaching of Grace which is seen till his last words. (Revelation 22:12) Teaching of Grace cannot originate from God because He knows that those who want to do right will always do right even when there is no law given (eg. Joseph resisted temptress when there was no law) and those who want to do wrong will always do wrong even when there is law given (eg. David’s murder and adultery)—especially so God has already declared that grace is ineffective (Isaiah 26:10)

35

The Governing Body are doubling down on dogma!

by DATA-DOG in

in case you were wondering if the governing body we're going to become kinder and gentler, the answer is a big "no!!!

in the current study edition of the wt magazine, the sheeple are reminded of some very important key points.

1) god has an organization ( corporation ) that you must respect.. 2) only the gb/faithful slave can dispense spiritual food and only the gb/faithful slave can interpret the bible.. 3) individual dubs absolutely cannot learn "truth" on their own.. 4) god requires "unity of doctrine.

anointed1

When they finally drop 1914 doctrine, they will have proved themselves as being not appointed by God to dispense food at the proper time.

35

The Governing Body are doubling down on dogma!

by DATA-DOG in

in case you were wondering if the governing body we're going to become kinder and gentler, the answer is a big "no!!!

in the current study edition of the wt magazine, the sheeple are reminded of some very important key points.

1) god has an organization ( corporation ) that you must respect.. 2) only the gb/faithful slave can dispense spiritual food and only the gb/faithful slave can interpret the bible.. 3) individual dubs absolutely cannot learn "truth" on their own.. 4) god requires "unity of doctrine.

anointed1

3) Individual Dubs absolutely cannot learn "truth" on their own.

This claim has no biblical support because we have Joseph resisting the attempt of the temptress when there was no law given against adultery, and we have David murdering his faithful friend to steal his wife in spite of having many wives and concubines when there was law given against adultery.

9

Did Jesus really say: “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also”? (Mathew 5:39)

by anointed1 in

if we apply to the above verse jesus’ own criterion (“every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit”—mathew 7:17) we will know that it is unlikely that jesus did say it.. when i practiced it, i found that i was encouraging others to slap (whether in its literal or figurative sense) me more and more.

the same is happening in large scale when countries practice tolerance.

we know many countries who “turn the other cheek” when attacked, and it only invites more trouble (which means jesus’ advice is counterproductive).. but see what happens if you return more than what you receive in view of the principle god himself follows.

anointed1

megaboy

In the second point, you resort to threat which is not necessary if you take other things Jesus said. He himself warned that after he would leave, wasteful additions will be made to his teachings. (Mathew 13:24-26). Hence weed out the Bible and take only what appeals to “reason” which is what true worship means (Romans 12:1, 2; 1Thess 5:21) Hence what I am doing is something that Jesus would surely commend.

9

Did Jesus really say: “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also”? (Mathew 5:39)

by anointed1 in

if we apply to the above verse jesus’ own criterion (“every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit”—mathew 7:17) we will know that it is unlikely that jesus did say it.. when i practiced it, i found that i was encouraging others to slap (whether in its literal or figurative sense) me more and more.

the same is happening in large scale when countries practice tolerance.

we know many countries who “turn the other cheek” when attacked, and it only invites more trouble (which means jesus’ advice is counterproductive).. but see what happens if you return more than what you receive in view of the principle god himself follows.

anointed1

megaboy

So, you mean to say those who understand will understand, and others will not.

Here I agree with you because we have Joseph resisting the attempt of the temptress when there was no law given against adultery, and we have David murdering his faithful friend to steal his wife in spite of having many wives and concubines when there was law given against adultery.

This would mean that there is no need of anyone instructing others—especially using parable and exaggeration.

11

Jesus ransom or the sanctification of God's name the most important?

by Yesu Kristo Bwana Wangu in

some time ago, during the mid-week meeting, the sanctification of god’s name was being discussed (chapter 4 in ‘god’s kingdom rules’).

in paragraph nine we read that in the early period the jw’s viewed jesus ransom sacrifice as the most important teaching of the bible.

then they said they gave overbalanced importance to jesus, and nowadays, they say the sanctification of god’s name is the most important thing in the bible.. .

anointed1

If sanctification of God's name was the most important subject, Jesus would have used all his superhuman skills to teach this subject, and all his illustrations would have centered around it. Interestingly, his parable about Kingdom of God has nothing to do with sanctification of God's name but it looks alike almost counterproductive to this very concept because he said: “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.” (Mathew 13:33) And, he did not explain it.

This leaves the reader to make his own conclusion: Vices work like yeast or leaven, thus Bible presents leaven as symbol of sin. (Luke 12:1; 1Corinthians 5:6-8; Galatians 5:9) Does it mean sin would appear again?

9

Did Jesus really say: “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also”? (Mathew 5:39)

by anointed1 in

if we apply to the above verse jesus’ own criterion (“every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit”—mathew 7:17) we will know that it is unlikely that jesus did say it.. when i practiced it, i found that i was encouraging others to slap (whether in its literal or figurative sense) me more and more.

the same is happening in large scale when countries practice tolerance.

we know many countries who “turn the other cheek” when attacked, and it only invites more trouble (which means jesus’ advice is counterproductive).. but see what happens if you return more than what you receive in view of the principle god himself follows.

anointed1

scratchme1010

There are people who care about this because for them every verse of the Bible is "inspired and beneficial"

21

Theme of this year's series of Conventions

by MrTheocratic in

it was announced this week that the theme for the 3 day convention is "do not give up".

these are the words that are spoken to someone who is struggling and is in the process of giving up.

this theme tells me that many in the organization are tiring out and slowing down.

anointed1

If the world was Sooo bad and the organization was sooooo good why the exorortation not to give up?

excellent question

9

Did Jesus really say: “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also”? (Mathew 5:39)

by anointed1 in

if we apply to the above verse jesus’ own criterion (“every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit”—mathew 7:17) we will know that it is unlikely that jesus did say it.. when i practiced it, i found that i was encouraging others to slap (whether in its literal or figurative sense) me more and more.

the same is happening in large scale when countries practice tolerance.

we know many countries who “turn the other cheek” when attacked, and it only invites more trouble (which means jesus’ advice is counterproductive).. but see what happens if you return more than what you receive in view of the principle god himself follows.

anointed1

megaboy

You say “What he was saying is that a person should seek to make peace over seeking revenge. It was a fancy way of saying "you would seek revenge, but at what cost?"

If this is what Jesus originally meant,

1) What was the difficulty for Jesus to say the same by using the simple words such as ‘seek peace because revenge would bring a cycle of violence.

2) Why should Jesus set one standard for humans, and totally different for him as in Rev 22:12?

Even if we take it as you say, still we will have to ask “but at what cost?” Look at what India do. It goes on ‘turning the other cheek’ and others go on using it to their benefit.