Posts by Rattigan350

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Rattigan350

Jesus being the first or beginning of God's creation would go along with his being the only-begotten son of God.

It's that simple. No need for 8 pages of comments.

73

JWN, 23 years posting Blondie

by blondie in

jw
friends

can i call you friends, i think so after 23 years posting here.

i am dismayed how jwn is being "dominated" or taken over by a few posters, peppering the comments.

in the past, the admin did not approve of this and did remove some posters from jwn.

Rattigan350

"People are pissed because it affected their whole lives"

Why? Whose fault is that?

It's nice to blame others for our choices. I know. I've looked in my past from 40 years ago and if so many things have happened differently then my life would be so much better today. But I don't know if I can say better, it would be different. I can blame God because he should know what the future holds. But the decisions ultimately were mine.

Also, unlike so many Witnesses who want the kingdom to come because they want Jehovah to fix all of their problems, I have never been one to look to the kingdom like that. I have this life to live , I'm good with it and then when that is done, I'll live the next one. The kingdom has so many unknowns, that I'd rather go with what I know.

73

JWN, 23 years posting Blondie

by blondie in

jw
friends

can i call you friends, i think so after 23 years posting here.

i am dismayed how jwn is being "dominated" or taken over by a few posters, peppering the comments.

in the past, the admin did not approve of this and did remove some posters from jwn.

Rattigan350

TonusOH. No one lied to you. Just because a writer in the past had more faith of expectation than actually happened, does not make it a lie.

Lie -

1 - to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

2 - to create a false or misleading impression

The writers in the past did neither to create a lie. They didn't create false or misleading impressions just because it didn't happen. I understand that which is why I'm not bothered by anything they printed in the past. The writers' faith is the writers' faith and I've never ridden on their coattails.

7

FOR ACTIVE JW's: January 2025 Study Watchtower: Where is JESUS?

by BoogerMan in

didn't jehovah assign christ all power & authority?

so why no mention of him?.

from the january 2025 study watchtower: .

Rattigan350

Why are you making an issue out of something that is not a problem?

The yeartext is from the Psalms where there was not Jesus yet. So how can it mention him?

FYI, In Acts 1:6 Jesus said "you will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Ju·deʹa and Sa·marʹi·a, and to the most distant part of the earth" because the people to whom he was speaking, actually witnessed him say and do things.

Thus it would not apply to us today, because we didn't witness him do or say anything. Reading it in a book does not make any of us witnesses to what Jesus said and did. It's hard to believe that people don't understand that simple concept. Which is a totally different concept from Isaiah 43:10-12 of being Witnesses of Jehovah. But hey, people will complain just to complain.

60

1/25 WT: Oral and Anal sex are a go - if she's ok with it

by neat blue dog in

he will not pressure her to engage in sexual acts that make her feel uncomfortable, that are demeaning, or that bother her conscience..... the bible does not provide details as to what sexual practices between a husband and a wife should be considered clean or unclean.

a christian couple must make decisions that reflect their resolve to honor jehovah, to please each other, and to maintain a clean conscience.

generally speaking, a couple would not discuss with others this intimate aspect of their marriage..

Rattigan350

"This was a problem in my marriage. Elders telling us what was acceptable."

Why were you seeking advise or listening to the elders?

60

1/25 WT: Oral and Anal sex are a go - if she's ok with it

by neat blue dog in

he will not pressure her to engage in sexual acts that make her feel uncomfortable, that are demeaning, or that bother her conscience..... the bible does not provide details as to what sexual practices between a husband and a wife should be considered clean or unclean.

a christian couple must make decisions that reflect their resolve to honor jehovah, to please each other, and to maintain a clean conscience.

generally speaking, a couple would not discuss with others this intimate aspect of their marriage..

Rattigan350

"With this comment, they are saying if his decisions make her feel uncomfortable, are demeaning or that bother her conscience he should not pressure her to agree to them."

That's called love.

1 Peter 3:7 "You husbands, in the same way, continue dwelling with them according to knowledge. Assign them honor as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one,"

But then sex is not fun unless it is naughty.

73

JWN, 23 years posting Blondie

by blondie in

jw
friends

can i call you friends, i think so after 23 years posting here.

i am dismayed how jwn is being "dominated" or taken over by a few posters, peppering the comments.

in the past, the admin did not approve of this and did remove some posters from jwn.

Rattigan350

"Stopping believing in the WTS/GB does not = stopping believing in Jehovah, Jesus and the Bible."

Here's my position on this:

Have you ever heard the phrase: 'While I may not like my family (mother, father, brother, sister, inlaws, aunts, uncles, whatever), if anyone attacks them, I'll defend them. Family is still family.'

While I may not like the elders or the Watchtower in how things are done, if anyone attacks them, I'll defend them. There is a difference between disliking someone and having them or making them as an enemy.

I told a person on another site that all that attacking of the GB is making him an enemy of the JWs. What good does that do? It doesn't accomplish what he thinks it does. It just makes people with that agenda feel better. So does throwing eggs at your neighbor's house.

If there are problems in the organization or religion, then fix them. We don't need to wait for the Governing body permission. Just do what needs done.

The elders in Israel went to Samuel and demanded a king. Jehovah was against that but he gave them that.
David wanted to build the temple. Jehovah didn't need that but he had Solomon build it.

But I guess people would rather call names and sit by and insult. That's the problem I have with people who leave working at the WTS because of their consciences. What does that do? Ray Franz had the power and authority to fix many things. It's like jury nullification. The people have the power. The power resides with the people even in a theocracy.

"I get that the disappointment and wrong doings of the WTS/GB led to the anger/hatred of them."

I don't get that.

Why is there so much stupid stuff out there like people complaining that in 1969 an Awake article said that we won't grow old in this system. As if everything hinges on an Awake article. As if the organization shatters because a writer was overzealous in his faith. They didn't have a governing body back then, just the President and VP and the board of directors. Yeah, mistakes have been made, but the ones that made them are dead and gone.

Why do people talk about Beth Sarim, Russell, Rutherford, etc as if that changes anything.

Or the current governing body. They didn't start anything, they inherited it all. They are taking a more liberal stance and are overruling long held precedent. Rowe vs Wade was overruled by a Supreme Court that inherited it, when they don't like to overrule precedent. Give it time. The main problem is that they are constrained from changing things because Damned if they do, damned if they don't. IF they change 607 or blood transfusions, they will get so much flack from that, it is better to leave things alone.

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

Rattigan350

" the NWT, which deliberately mistranslates to support the theological agenda of the WTS."

What is the agenda of the WTS? And how can it mistranslate when the result is correct?

As for Matt 28:19. I forgot to quote Eusebius "“Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.”"

But I find that the main problem with that is that if Jesus said to baptize in the name of the 3, why is there no record of anyone doing that. But on the contrary, just 10 days later in Acts 2:34 "Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ". He has a short memory because he forgot about the name of the father and Holy spirit.

That says alot right there.

"Is the phrase “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” used elsewhere in Scripture? NOT ONCE!

Did Jesus use the phrase “in my name” on other occasions? YES! 17 times! (Matthew 18:5, 20; 24:5; Mark 9:37, 39, 41; 13:6; 16:17; Luke 9:48; 21:8; John 14:13, 14, 26; 15:16; 16:23, 24, 26, etc..) "

Evidence of Parallel Accounts

Now it happens that Matthew was not alone in recording the words of Jesus before his ascension. Let us compare the parallel accounts of Luke and Mark.

Luke, who writes in the third person: “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached IN HIS NAME among all nations” —Luke 24:46-47. This passage therefore restores the correct text to Matthew 28:19 “in my name.”

Furthermore, Mark records the last discourse of Jesus before His ascension. Here, we have yet another witness to the correct text, for Mark, after using similar words to Matthew: “go ye ...all the world ...preach ....Every creature...baptize...” (Mark 16:15-17), includes not the triune formula but the phrase—“in my name.

I'm getting this information from a Catholic Bishop who wrote "As uncomfortable as it is for this writer, doctrinal integrity compels us to look at the canonicity of both texts, but especially Matthew 28:19."

You rely on (which I denounced) "The Jewish leaders clearly understood Jesus' claim to divinity here, as evidenced by their immediate reaction to stone Him for blasphemy (John 8:59). Jesus' "I AM" statement is an explicit claim to eternal existence and divine identity."

The Jewish leaders are your teachers you are saying.

"In Exodus 3:14, God reveals His name to Moses as “I AM” (YHWH), expressing His eternal and self-existent nature. When Jesus uses the same phrase, “I AM,” in John 8:58,"

Jesus never said "I AM" as he did not speak English.

"He is directly identifying Himself with YHWH. The reaction of the Jewish leaders confirms that they understood His claim to be God, which is why they sought to stone Him. This connection is not "made up," but deeply rooted in both Jewish and Christian understanding."

Again, the reliance on "The reaction of the Jewish leaders".

I didn't say that Ps 110:1 denies his divinity. I stated that it shows Jesus, Peter and Paul recognizing that Jesus is not Jehovah in that passage.

You said " Peter’s confession does not contradict the deity of Jesus." Ah, but son of God means that he is not the God that begot him. That's the difference. I'm not mixing in words like deity in the equation.

""the overwhelming majority of translations and biblical scholars agree that John 1:1 affirms the deity of Jesus."

And those translators have agendas too. Right.

"select interpretations and supposed spurious texts,". No. I dismiss the trinity because it does not go along with the equation for salvation. I heard that statement that under no temple arrangement, whether Pre-Christian, Christian or pagan has God ever acted as his own high priest. And Paul affirmed that in Heb 5-10 and that agrees with the what was given in Lev-Deut about the function of the priests and the 1500 year use of the temple which overshadows anything that Jesus or the apostles said.

John 10:30-33??? Really? Heb 8:5 holds more weight. "They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”"

18

NEW LIGHT ON THE 144,000 EXPLAINED

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/heulwyd00ku?si=9az0zrsquy67v74g.

the watchtower’s approach to "new light" is, frankly, a masterclass in manipulation.

when they introduce a new interpretation or change their teachings, it's presented as a revelation, showcasing just how guided and spiritually in-tune the governing body is.

Rattigan350

There is no new light on the 144,000. The anointing or sealing ended around 1995 (which also happens to be the end of 6000 years of human history) when the number of partakers stopped going down and that all meant nothing after that.

"Instead of the numbers going down, they started to go up." That is not because God chose more people, that is because people think that they are anointed or want to be and are partaking.

But then again, the whole bread and wine thing is not supposed to be done today. That does not help us to remember Jesus, that was for the 11 apostles only.

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

Rattigan350

To scholar and aqwsed12345.

Why are you talking about the NWT and the trinity?

I can and do disprove the trinity without using the NWT at all. The KJV has so many spurious added text to support the trinity. 1 John 5:7; Matt 28:19; Rev 1:11; 1 Tim 3:16 to name a few. Many other translations point that out with footnotes and the exclusions of those texts.

The trinitarians have their pet scriptures.

They connect John 8:58 with the I AM with Ex 3:14 I AM. I ask people who was the first person to make that connection. No one knows. I know that the apostles didn't make that connection. Many times the apostles will add commentary stating that Jesus was quoting scripture. But they don't do that with this, because there was no connection. It's all made up.

But yet they ignore the connections that have many supports.

Such as Ps 110:1 ASV "Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

Jesus, Peter and Paul quoted that several times, acknowledging that Jesus was the Lord in that sentence, not Jehovah. Stephen said " I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

(Standing, sitting. Even spirit beings need to change positions every once in a while.)

I hold Jesus, Peter and Paul above some unknown pastor in their references.

They use such weak support such as the Jews and pharisees wanted to kill him from what he said. The pharisees wanted to kill him because he overturned the tables in the temple and was a threat to their lifestyle. They just needed to invent a means to have him killed by the Romans. But why would people accept the reasonings of non-believers?

They say that Thomas' statement 'My Lord and My God' proves that Jesus was God. Again, why take the statement of a doubter? Jesus' identity wasn't the topic there. They say because Jesus didn't refute that. Jesus didn't go around correcting everything and everyone. He mainly corrected the pharisees.

However they dismiss Matt 16:15,16 where Jesus directly asks Peter who he thought Jesus was and "Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”". I give that much more weight than the statement by Thomas.

So forget John 1:1 and the NWT. There are numerous translations other than the NWT that do not translate it as 'the Word was God'.