Kingdom Hall with WT-style parapet near Manila in the Philippines
Posts by fjtoth
-
58Watchtower logo on side of kingdom hall
by cyberdyne systems 101 inmy old kingdom hall has the watchtower logo built into the brick work on the side that faces the road - to me for a hall that is supposed to be dedicated to god, its a bit wrong to have a corporation logo on the side of it.
maybe its there to show they and not the congregation own it???
cs 101.
-
-
-
58
Watchtower logo on side of kingdom hall
by cyberdyne systems 101 inmy old kingdom hall has the watchtower logo built into the brick work on the side that faces the road - to me for a hall that is supposed to be dedicated to god, its a bit wrong to have a corporation logo on the side of it.
maybe its there to show they and not the congregation own it???
cs 101.
-
-
fjtoth
Kingdom Hall in Kremz, Austria
-
58
Watchtower logo on side of kingdom hall
by cyberdyne systems 101 inmy old kingdom hall has the watchtower logo built into the brick work on the side that faces the road - to me for a hall that is supposed to be dedicated to god, its a bit wrong to have a corporation logo on the side of it.
maybe its there to show they and not the congregation own it???
cs 101.
-
-
-
58
Watchtower logo on side of kingdom hall
by cyberdyne systems 101 inmy old kingdom hall has the watchtower logo built into the brick work on the side that faces the road - to me for a hall that is supposed to be dedicated to god, its a bit wrong to have a corporation logo on the side of it.
maybe its there to show they and not the congregation own it???
cs 101.
-
-
fjtoth
Nice sign! . . . And it even portrays the ramparts of a Watchtower stronghold.
-
58
Watchtower logo on side of kingdom hall
by cyberdyne systems 101 inmy old kingdom hall has the watchtower logo built into the brick work on the side that faces the road - to me for a hall that is supposed to be dedicated to god, its a bit wrong to have a corporation logo on the side of it.
maybe its there to show they and not the congregation own it???
cs 101.
-
-
-
58
Watchtower logo on side of kingdom hall
by cyberdyne systems 101 inmy old kingdom hall has the watchtower logo built into the brick work on the side that faces the road - to me for a hall that is supposed to be dedicated to god, its a bit wrong to have a corporation logo on the side of it.
maybe its there to show they and not the congregation own it???
cs 101.
-
-
fjtoth
Blondie,
Here's one, but it's not very clear. The WT logo is at the top of the sign. Tonight I'll see if I can find a better one.
Frank
-
58
Watchtower logo on side of kingdom hall
by cyberdyne systems 101 inmy old kingdom hall has the watchtower logo built into the brick work on the side that faces the road - to me for a hall that is supposed to be dedicated to god, its a bit wrong to have a corporation logo on the side of it.
maybe its there to show they and not the congregation own it???
cs 101.
-
-
-
58
Watchtower logo on side of kingdom hall
by cyberdyne systems 101 inmy old kingdom hall has the watchtower logo built into the brick work on the side that faces the road - to me for a hall that is supposed to be dedicated to god, its a bit wrong to have a corporation logo on the side of it.
maybe its there to show they and not the congregation own it???
cs 101.
-
-
-
50
JW's and John 5:23
by UnDisfellowshipped inhas anyone on this board ever used john 5:23 when talking to jw's?.
unfortunately, one of my friends is currently in a "bible" study with the jw's (and has been since last year).
i asked my friend to ask the jw what john 5:23 means, so my friend did ask the jw who was conducting the "bible" study.
-
-
fjtoth
Undf'd,
With due respect for your lengthy effort, I got lost trying to zero in on a specific answer to my question.
Several times I've been in a room where a Trinitarian and a non-Trinitarian argued back and forth, each one spouting off tons of texts that seem to support his point of view and neither one giving in an inch. I tend to think that we are all in for a big surprise when we no longer see things in a hazy mirror. (1 Cor. 13:12)
My question was perhaps not as clear as I intended. I'll try again.
In the psalm referred to by Jesus, God addressed the men of ancient Israel as "gods" and as "sons of the Most High." (Ps. 82:6) God designated them as such because they represented and spoke for him. He did not mean they were in reality Almighty God himself. So there is such a thing as "legal agency," mentioned by Narkissos.
Wasn't Jesus simply stating that he was "God" in the same "legal" sense that "the Law" spoke of those ancient men as "gods"? It seems to me he wasn't talking about apples in connection with those ancients and talking about oranges in connection with himself. The "gods" and "sons of the Most High" in Psalms and "Son of God" in John 10 had to be such in the same sense of the words, imo. On more than one occasion he showed the Jews that they were wrong for accusing him of blasphemy. And here in John 10 he chides them again. He claimed to be God's "sanctified" Son who was doing the work the Father sent him to do, but they twisted his meaning.
On another occasion when they accused him of blasphemy, Jesus asked, "Why are you thinking evil in your hearts?" (Matt. 9:4) Imo, the correct view is stated in verse 8: "But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men."
I don't see the evidence you seem to see that "son of God" means "God". As proof that he was God's Son, as he had claimed, he said, "The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me." (John 10:25) The miracles did not necessarily mean he was God. Angels are "sons of God." Adam was "the son of God." Those ancient Israelites were "sons of the Most High." Christians are "sons of God." And not all scholars agree that "Son of God" means "God" himself.
Frank
-
50
JW's and John 5:23
by UnDisfellowshipped inhas anyone on this board ever used john 5:23 when talking to jw's?.
unfortunately, one of my friends is currently in a "bible" study with the jw's (and has been since last year).
i asked my friend to ask the jw what john 5:23 means, so my friend did ask the jw who was conducting the "bible" study.
-
-
fjtoth
Narkissos,
To the author, the "Jews" did not construe Jesus' "equality with God" as something acceptable to them as a prophet's "legal agency" would be.
But didn't Jesus go on to point out that he actually was speaking of himself as "God's Son" in that "legal agency" sense?
Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?" (John 10:34-36)
Jesus said he was "sanctified and sent into the world" just as those prophets had been. (Jer. 1:5; John 1:6) He wasn't claiming anything more for himself than the Scriptures claimed for those prophets. His defense gives me the impression that he was saying, "The prophets were gods. Your own Law says so. The Law was not blasphemous and neither am I. I didn't claim to be one of the 'gods' but that I am God's 'Son'. So where's the evidence of blasphemy?"
If Jesus had actually made the claim that he was God, what was the point of seemingly denying it or minimizing it by now saying instead "I am the Son of God."
I do believe the "Jews" misconstrued what he said about "equality with God," and it seems to me that his explanation makes a point of their wrong interpretation.
Maybe my view is the same as yours. Maybe not. At any rate, I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Frank