Posts by Rattigan350

That's what I didn't like about the stories in Nazi Germany. They say they were peaceful and didn't hurt the guards. I'm not impressed. I'd be impressed if they blew away Nazis. The Swaztika is good for target practice.

24

"Keep Doing This In Remembrance Of Me"...keep doing what???

by minimus in

jw
friends

if a witness tells you that jesus commanded you to go to the memorial, how would you respond?.

Rattigan350

The bread was a symbol of his body and the wine of his blood.

But he said to keep doing that in remembrance of him. But we never knew him. We only read stories of him.

The way to keep remembering someone whom we read stories of, is to reread the stories.

It made sense for those back then, but not for us today.

43

Anyone Here Used to Fear Persecution?

by kneehighmiah in

jw
friends

i was thinking today about how i no longer have to fear the attack of satan against the jws.

i used to fear being rounded up and beaten by mobs.

seeing my family tortured.

Rattigan350

Fear it?

I'd welcome it. Any chance to kick some butt is a good opportunity.

If I were an adult who lived earlier than the 1970s, and I saw people abuse blacks, I'd love that opportunity to kick ass.

I hate how people make it a point to ruin others' lives.

58

Evidence of Jesus being Married?

by cantleave in

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/jesus-wife-fragment-is-not-a-fake-scientists-claim-9253395.html.

a harvard professor is claiming a fragment of papyrus seemingly mentioning that jesus had a wife is an ancient document and not a forgery, following a series of tests.. the text is written in coptic and contains a dialogue in which jesus refers to "my wife.

"karen king, a professor at the harvard divinity school, writes in the harvard theological review that the papyrus is almost certainly a product of ancient christians and probably dates to eighth-century egypt, based on carbon dating and chemical tests on the ink.. none of the testing has produced any evidence that the fragment is a modern fabrication or forgery, prof king and her team concluded.. the fragment, which has some legible lines on the front and on the back, contains the words: jesus said to them, my wife .... she will also be my disciple.. james yardley from columbia university, and alexis hagadorn from columbia university libraries, used a technique called micro-raman spectroscopy to determine that the carbon character of the ink matched samples of other papyri that date from the first to eighth centuries ce.. malcolm choat from macquarie university examined the fragment at hds and offered an independent assessment of the handwriting.. prof king first announced the existence of the fragment in september 2012, at the international coptic congress in rome, where she dubbed it "the gospel of jesus's wife.".

Rattigan350

That evidence is filed right next to Obama's birth certificate.

4

Matt 28:19,20 is a poor proof text

by Rattigan350 in

matt 28:19 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,".

has never made sense to me.

where did jesus get this about the name of the father, son & holy spirit?

Rattigan350

Matt 28:19 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,"

has never made sense to me. Where did Jesus get this about the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit? He never mentioned it prior. It was never taught in the Hebrew scriptures. When Jesus taught, it was not original but he taught from the prior scriptures, or he would have to give explanation. His saying was "It is written". There was nothing written about a 3 person God.

The eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood did not make sense, but he explained it at the memorial.

But this "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit," was stated on his ascending but with no explanation as to what it meant. How could they even do it without an explanation of what to do?

The Schaff Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious knowledge that has the same questions and doubts on that.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc01/Page_435.html

Baptism
Origin and Practice

Conybeare has tried to prove that the original text of Matt 28,19 did not contain the baptismal command of the Trinitarian formula,
which were interpolated, according to him, at the beginning of the third century. But since the investigations of Riggenbach, the ordinary
reading may be considered the original. Jesus, however, can not have given his disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after his
resurrection; for the New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16;19:5; Gal 3:27; Rom 6:3; 1 Cor 1:13-15),
which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt 28:19 and then only again
Didache vii, 1 and Justin, Apol i, 61. It is unthinkable that the Apostolic Church thus disobeyed the express command of the Lord,
which it otherwise considered the highest authority. Occurrences like those of Acts 19:1-7 ought to have shown that the prescribed formula of baptism could not have been shortened to "the name of the Lord Jesus", if the character of baptism was to be retained as commanded. Judging from 1 Cor 1: 14-17, Paul did not know Matt 28:19; otherwise he could not have written that Christ had sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.
Moreover, had it been known at the Apostolic Council, the missionary spheres could not have been so separated that Peter was recognized as the apostle of the circumcision, Paul and Barnabas as apostles of the heathen (Gal 2:7,8); rather would the original apostles have claimed the universal apostolate for themselves.

Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula Matt 28:19 is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas. Nevertheless, this baptismal command contains the elements which constitute Christian baptism implies the immediate cooperation of the Father; and from the beginning Christian baptism has been considered the mediating agency of the Holy Spirit. Therefore while the formal authenticity of Matt 28:19 must be disputed, it must still be assumed that the later congregations recognized as the will of their Lord that which they experienced as the effect of baptism and traced it back to a direct word of Jesus."

It is just wrong to build a whole religion based on one scripture, whether it is Matt 28:19,20 or Matt 24:45 likewise or Matt 16 (upon this Rock). All you trinitarians, your support material has no basis. I'd say it is fake.

20

Trinitiarian "proof-text" John 20:28 has some problems for "Trinitarians"

by booker-t in

all through my years as a jws and after i have always wondered about john 20:28 where thomas says "my lord and my god" to jesus.

i just could not find a suitable answer for this text to disprove the trinity doctrine.

i really never swallowed the jws intrepretation of "shock" by thomas something like "oh my god" but at the same time i had a gut feeling trinitarians were hiding something about this verse.

Rattigan350

Why does anyone even care what Thomas said? Who is he to which his sayings matter?

He was an apostle of Jesus. - yeah.

But what gives people the idea that fact would make him knowledgeable about the issue of who Jesus was and God was? And what makes him the EF Hutton of religion, where everyone pays attention to what he says? He was just a man.

And the same thing with Paul.

30

Studied with JW grandma for 3 years and went to meetings, I have now seen the light!

by yogosans14 in

im new here and im 17, going to turn 18 in 1 week.

i studied with my gradma the bible teach book and went to meeting with her and other relatives (considering most my relatives are jw except my parents) and i believe in all of it because i never read the bible for myself.

after reading the gospels i started noticing contradictions in the jw doctrine like when jesus said many would dine with the patriachs in the kingdom of heaven (yet only 144,000 jws can) which would seem odd considering the fact he adressed this to more then the apostles.

Rattigan350

"noticing contradictions in the JW doctrine like when Jesus said MANY would dine with the patriachs in the Kingdom of Heaven (yet only 144,000 Jws can) which would seem odd considering the fact he adressed this to more then the apostles."

Well, you really can't put much faith in what Jesus said.

He also said he would appoint a faithful and discreet slave.

You should not be taking the scripture you cited and many others literally. The patriarchs won't even be in heaven.

25

How do you get through the memorial?

by Gorbatchov in

jw
friends

for family reasons, gorby and his wife and children has to visit the hall at april 14. our family accept that we are faders, but don't accept if we do not visit the memorial.. so, it seems a small investment: one evening love bombing for a year peace and rest.. but i hate the visit.

headache.

meeting the people knowing it's all fake love showing.. how do you get through it?.

Rattigan350

"The annual refusal to do what Jesus asked us to do ? Eat this bread and drink this wine, in remembrance of me,"

Jesus didn't ask us to do anything. And we can't remember him because we were not there to know him. We read stories of him. And since we can continue to read storie, there is nothing to remember. He told the 11 to do that because there were no stories of his life to remind them.

112

Supreme Court ruling- refusing to photo gay wedding is discrimination

by SadElder in

according to bloomberg news:.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-04-07/wedding-photographer-rebuffed-by-top-court-on-same-sex-ceremony.

"the u.s. supreme court turned away an appeal from a new mexico wedding photographer found to have violated a state anti-discrimination law when she refused to take pictures of a commitment ceremony for a same-sex couple.. the photographer, elaine huguenin, argued unsuccessfully that she was being unconstitutionally forced to convey a message conflicting with her religious beliefs.

Rattigan350

"wait Rattigan350 so are you fine with a restuarant owner not allowing black people to eat at his restuarant in this day and age?

But why isn't it the same?"

No shoes, no shirt, no service. Business can set codes of conduct for customers. Forcing people to do work they don't want is slavery.

Photographers are mostly sole proprietors. In which they can refuse to do any work they want. I had a small business and I could make up any reason to not do work for anyone. We don't do that job, we are closed, our equipment can't do that, etc. But then they don't get paid. However as employees, the person can refuse and the company can assign another employee to do the job.

While restaurants can put signs up that say "Whites Only". It is private property and they can do what they want. But it is bad for their business. The Jim Crow laws mandated such things, and did not make it a choice. It is like Branch Ricky hiring Jackie Robinson. He did that because why not get all of that money from the black fans.

Today, if a racist waiter sees blacks at a table, he can refuse to serve them and tell another waiter to server them. If the business did something like that, though, the negative press would shut them down.

America was founded on Freedom of religion. That then became extended to other groups because of bad treatment to them. Women gained the right to vote and equal pay. Blacks gained rights. Now abuses are illegal. If people abused gays, then that is illegal under the assault and battery laws.