is 31:yet he also is wise and will bring disaster and does not retract his words.. 1 sam 15: furthermore, the eternal one of israel does not lie or change his mind, for he is not man who changes his mind.. numbers 23: god is not a man who lies, or a son of man who changes his mind.
does he speak and not act, or promise and not fulfill?.
when the god you worship pronounces judgement, is he, really just issuing a warning or has the matter been determined through all the godly powers of insight, foresight and perfect judgement?
Man created gods in their image
Why would man do that? Why would he undermine himself by claiming someone was greater than man?
Wether done intentionally or haphazardly it would point to some innate and instinctive awareness on the part of man that there is something greater than him.
is 31:yet he also is wise and will bring disaster and does not retract his words.. 1 sam 15: furthermore, the eternal one of israel does not lie or change his mind, for he is not man who changes his mind.. numbers 23: god is not a man who lies, or a son of man who changes his mind.
does he speak and not act, or promise and not fulfill?.
when the god you worship pronounces judgement, is he, really just issuing a warning or has the matter been determined through all the godly powers of insight, foresight and perfect judgement?
Too bad he wasn't able to just "read their hearts" and skip all the drama with the "fish.
He did, that is why he condemned them in the beginning.
This is an interesting conversation, and I believe it revolves around the age old question of free will.
If we truly are created in God's image, with his capacity to feel all the emotions he feels, why is it surprising then to read God being angry, happy or upset?
If we accept that God is greater than his creation, including us human beings, then we can understand that we are left with being able to interpret God's actions at best. As peacefulpete asked, is it a non retractable judgment, or is it a warning? I think arguments can be made for both.
However, if we cannot accept that God is greater than his creation, we'll attempt to bring him down to our convoluted and confused level.
secret recording 14th april:ralph walls: more changes are coming!.
( broadcasted to all british congregations today).
https://youtu.be/owg4bqj7pd0?si=yvfpkkos_qoy9u10.
Listener-They further state in the article that as Jesus has his own source of life, he is the power to resurrect and was given those keys.
It makes sense that God would bestow this ability to his Son, for obvious reasons.
Earnest -in the September 15, 2003 Watchtower it distinguishes between Jesus as having "life in himself" (John 5:26), meaning he can impart life to others, and his followers as having "life in themselves" (John 6:53
This interpretation is more straight forward and clear, life simply meaning existing vs not existing.
Ty Listener for further clarifying that no actual Scriptures were used by the speaker. The notion that God would ascend the 144k to such a degree so as to be just like him is rather neoplatonist.
It's saying that if God chooses to destroy you, you can just regenerate yourself back to existence. What an absurd idea.
secret recording 14th april:ralph walls: more changes are coming!.
( broadcasted to all british congregations today).
https://youtu.be/owg4bqj7pd0?si=yvfpkkos_qoy9u10.
nicolau- its not the JW's fault, it's the source material. Taking several steps back and observing Christians debating and disagreeing on interpretations of scripture you soon realise what the real problem is. No-one is rooted in reality, it's all a house of cards, sandcastles, pie in the sky.
The source material is pretty uniform, it's the interpretations that are all over the place.
The scriptures clearly state God is one, and created all things. We are created in his image. And so it follows that we all have a measure of his divinity in us. The scriptures, however, never claim that we will ascend to be as equal to God in generating our own life source.
secret recording 14th april:ralph walls: more changes are coming!.
( broadcasted to all british congregations today).
https://youtu.be/owg4bqj7pd0?si=yvfpkkos_qoy9u10.
Ty slimboyfat and disgruntled
If these were the verses the speaker used to support his claim then it's once again unfortunate misinterpretation. In neither of these verses do we get human beings becoming like God, able to independently generate their own life source.
I suppose JW can interpret scriptures any way they want, but sometimes they really stretch it and go out on a limb.
secret recording 14th april:ralph walls: more changes are coming!.
( broadcasted to all british congregations today).
https://youtu.be/owg4bqj7pd0?si=yvfpkkos_qoy9u10.
Listener- He says that the anointed will have incorruptible bodies and be given what even the angels don’t have, only jehovah and Jesus - their own source of life and energy.
What a claim. What scriptures did he use to support this?
How willing are we, normally, to lend credence to claims that have little to no corroboration? Do we approach similar claims differently based only on which ones we favor? We should be able to establish a pretty comprehensive sets of norms that most people can easily agree on.
Most people of faith have moved beyond what can be corroborated or not. Matters of faith have little to do with logic and appealing to the senses. Jesus himself said to Thomas, "because you see you now believe... blessed are those that believe without seeing".
Faith is tied to the heart and spirit, just as Jesus said. If one can believe that the heart and spirit exists (as opposed to nothing existing outside of hard solid tangible matter) then it's not a stretch to believe in the effect the gospels can have on that heart and spirit.
Tonus-In a situation where the only accounts are of undetermined origin, where the original accounts have not been found, where the only copies are literally that- hand-copied accounts that come with the caveats of such a process... it is natural to express doubts, even if those accounts reported normal or mundane happenings.
This is precisely why we are left with having to make our own call.
If these accounts also report on supernatural events, possibly involving actual deities, our skepticism must be ratcheted up. Otherwise, we are left with many, many such claims from people throughout the past that are suddenly possible.
Yes, and this is where we reach that additional layer of consideration that we call faith.
It is a unique layer because it now involves our personal life experience. As you indicated above, when the accounts seem scant you either believe or not. What will determine which? Your personal life experience. You'll look at your life and see none of the gospels in it, or you'll see enough of them to compel you to believe.
So julius caesar made up events and told lies, I see a pattern forming here.
Imagine that, the most powerful and advanced nation in the world.... making stuff up. What hope was there for little ole Judea?
If written history and 'witness' accounts can't be trusted (you can argue that this is more true today than ever) then you're left with having to make your own call.
Touchofgrey-You can't report on something (miracles)that never happened. So no historical accounts will exist.
Are you sure about this?
Not long before Christ, Julius Caesar had written his own Commentaries on the Gallic wars. His own first hand account of his victories on behalf of the Republic, with plenty of witnesses and historians that were right there in his camp writing on the events.
In his Commentaries, he claimed that at one battle his legions faced 430,000 Gauls...and defeated them... without losing ONE SINGLE Roman soldier. After their defeat, Julius claims the remaining Gauls were so emotionally defeated that most proceeded to commit suicide thereafter.
These amazing feats were written down and delivered in chapters and posted on the Forum for all of Rome to read in awe of Julius prowess. Not only that, these Commentaries were considered infallible by historians all the way up until the 20th century, when these claims were finally refuted.
Written history, it seems, is not quite so black and white.
