Posts by Schizm

147

WT,DEC 1 2005,PP22-23;IS THIS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT?

by badboy in

jw
friends

.

weeks earlier,jews and proselytes from at least 15 regions of the roman empire had packed jerusalem to celebrate the passover.. on the next page,it seems to show arabia ,media,elam and parthenia as part of the roman empire.. i thought the romans never conquered arabia or persia.

am i right?.

Schizm

36 “This is the dream, and its interpretation we shall say before the king. 37 You, O king [of Babylon], the king of kings, you to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the might, and the strength and the dignity, 38 and into whose hand he has given, wherever the sons of mankind are dwelling, the beasts of the field and the winged creatures of the heavens, and whom he has made ruler over all of them, you yourself are the head of gold.
39 “And after you there will rise another kingdom [Medo-Persia] inferior to you; and another kingdom [Greece], a third one, of copper, that will rule over the whole earth.
40 “And as for the fourth kingdom [Rome], it will prove to be strong like iron. Forasmuch as iron is crushing and grinding everything else, so, like iron that shatters, it will crush and shatter even all these.

From the above text (Daniel 2:36-40) it is obvious that even as Babylon exercised universal rule, so did Rome.

"Wherever" it was that mankind might have dwelt Nebuchadnezzar was ruler over them all. The scriptures plainly show that the same was true of Rome.

And what does my opponent, jgnat, have to say about the statement "wherever the sons of mankind are dwelling"? Why the very thing one would expect to hear out of a person who clearly has no respect for the Bible, and who is an atheist to boot. Yes, she says:

It is far more likely that you applied literatism to a bit of prophetic hyperbol [in other words, an exaggeration.

So according to jgnat the word "wherever" must be an exaggeration of the extent of Babylon's and Rome's rule, simply because her understanding of history doesn't support a literal application of the word "wherever". Personally, I don't buy your argument; and I don't expect that I'll someday wind up regretting it.

You can complain that I've attacked you all you want, but the fact that you reject the Bible as well as deny the existance of a Creator explains a great deal regarding the difficulty you have in accepting a plain statement such as this one in the Bible at Daniel 2:38.

.

147

WT,DEC 1 2005,PP22-23;IS THIS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT?

by badboy in

jw
friends

.

weeks earlier,jews and proselytes from at least 15 regions of the roman empire had packed jerusalem to celebrate the passover.. on the next page,it seems to show arabia ,media,elam and parthenia as part of the roman empire.. i thought the romans never conquered arabia or persia.

am i right?.

Schizm

Rome imposed their own form of order wherever they conquered. Roman roads. Roman language. Roman administration. Not until Marco Polo's return in 1295 CE was there an economic/cultural exchange between China and Rome. The impact was immediate and pronounced. All of a sudden, Italians had pasta.

I'm glad that you were there to personally witness all of the above, jgnat; for otherwise we'd all have to rely upon the questionable records of men (so-called "history books") and those "professors" who teach from them. By the way, since it appears that you are prone to accept as truth just about everything that you read from the "history books," are you also inclined to believe that Man is the product of "evolution"? Please tell me that you believe in a Creator! For you, the 'last word' is whatever it is the "history books" have to say, or your perception of what they said. For me, the 'last word' is what the Bible has to say. And, afterall, the Bible DID say "wherever the sons of mankind are dwelling". Of course you're not so concerned about that pesky little fact, because you haven't any respect for the Bible anyway. .

49

JWs are also in the dark regarding the true meaning of Sheol/Hades.

by Schizm in

the watchtower society explains "hades" as being "the common grave of mankind".

christendom's understanding of "hades" is, for the most part, quite different than that of the watchtower society.

the one similarity between the two beliefs is that in both cases "hades" is considered to be a literal place.. the truth of the matter is that neither the watchtower society or christendom has a correct understanding of the terms "hades".

Schizm

If you were really guided by Holy Spirit then why don't you start a religion, you could be worth billions. -- jwfacts.

LOL! I didn't mean to imply my being the recipient of anything miraculous when mentioning the possibility that my success in this endeavor might have been attributable to "holy spirit". I'll have to explain the sense in which I meant that more fully sometime, but basically it has to do with having the proper state of mind. In the meantime, I have no interest at all in 'starting a religion'.

.

49

JWs are also in the dark regarding the true meaning of Sheol/Hades.

by Schizm in

the watchtower society explains "hades" as being "the common grave of mankind".

christendom's understanding of "hades" is, for the most part, quite different than that of the watchtower society.

the one similarity between the two beliefs is that in both cases "hades" is considered to be a literal place.. the truth of the matter is that neither the watchtower society or christendom has a correct understanding of the terms "hades".

Schizm

To all of you who have expressed an interest in the subject of "hades":

I went to my filing cabinet just now and located the document which I sent to the WTS in February 1996, and will be post it as soon as possible. It will likely take me a few days. Counting the introductory letter page, it amounts to slightly over 14 pages in all.

.

49

JWs are also in the dark regarding the true meaning of Sheol/Hades.

by Schizm in

the watchtower society explains "hades" as being "the common grave of mankind".

christendom's understanding of "hades" is, for the most part, quite different than that of the watchtower society.

the one similarity between the two beliefs is that in both cases "hades" is considered to be a literal place.. the truth of the matter is that neither the watchtower society or christendom has a correct understanding of the terms "hades".

Schizm

Leolaia,

If you don't mind receiving some constructive criticism of it....

Please do. It may need some minor refinement without my being aware of it, but I don't think so.

I'm curious to know who the person is in you avatar. Is that you as a child, or is it perhaps your grand daughter?

.

147

WT,DEC 1 2005,PP22-23;IS THIS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT?

by badboy in

jw
friends

.

weeks earlier,jews and proselytes from at least 15 regions of the roman empire had packed jerusalem to celebrate the passover.. on the next page,it seems to show arabia ,media,elam and parthenia as part of the roman empire.. i thought the romans never conquered arabia or persia.

am i right?.

Schizm

You claim that there NEVER was a time when Rome exercised universal rule. You claim that all the while Rome ruled that China had its Kings who were NOT subject to Rome's jurisdiction.
Yes, that's what you CLAIM, but where is the proof?
gnathead replies,
The Chinese dynasties overspanned the Roman ones, and they have a continuous line of Kings, all recorded in their scrolls, graves, and palaces. There was no corruption of Chinese to Latin, nor any exchange of characters. The same with the Americas, Australia, the Pacific Isles.

Which proves absolutely NOTHING!!!

Have you never heard of "Kings" being in subjection to a higher authority. King Herod, of Jerusaleum, was one such King. He was a "King," indeed, but he was subject to Rome.

Is that little stick-horse you ride around on beginning to rub you raw between the legs, Gummy?

.

147

WT,DEC 1 2005,PP22-23;IS THIS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT?

by badboy in

jw
friends

.

weeks earlier,jews and proselytes from at least 15 regions of the roman empire had packed jerusalem to celebrate the passover.. on the next page,it seems to show arabia ,media,elam and parthenia as part of the roman empire.. i thought the romans never conquered arabia or persia.

am i right?.

Schizm

Now Schizm how about some secular evidence that contradicts this or will we just get the usual insults and name calling?
CF.

You never miss a chance when it comes to an opportunity to smite a person, do you CF?

Actually, you went to a lot of work for nothing. You want to know why?

.

49

JWs are also in the dark regarding the true meaning of Sheol/Hades.

by Schizm in

the watchtower society explains "hades" as being "the common grave of mankind".

christendom's understanding of "hades" is, for the most part, quite different than that of the watchtower society.

the one similarity between the two beliefs is that in both cases "hades" is considered to be a literal place.. the truth of the matter is that neither the watchtower society or christendom has a correct understanding of the terms "hades".

Schizm

The Watchtower Society explains "hades" as being "the common grave of mankind". Christendom's understanding of "hades" is, for the most part, quite different than that of the Watchtower Society. The one similarity between the two beliefs is that In both cases "hades" is considered to be a LITERAL place.

The truth of the matter is that neither the Watchtower Society or Christendom has a correct understanding of the terms "hades". Not understanding the true meaning of "hades" has given birth to a pair of completely inaccurate applications when it comes to explaining the parable of "the rich man and Lazarus" of Luke 16. Neither the Watchtower Society nor Christendom has a clear and accurate concept of what that parable is all about. And isn't that truly sad? What is even more sad is that when the leaders themselves don't know the truth of a matter such as this, then, as a rule, neither do the millions-upon-millions of persons who depend upon such leaders.

Several years ago I undertook an in-depth study regarding the subject of sheol / hades. I don't know how I did it, unless it was due to the help of the holy spirit, but I happened upon what I believe to be the true meaning of these terms. I'm actually satisfied that I am now able to really understand what Jesus was getting at when he related the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

Well, considering the fact that we're taught we "must" love our neighbor (and especially our spiritual brothers) I felt it my obligation to present my findings to the writers at Watchtower Headquarters in Brooklyn. To my dismay it resulted in absolutely nothing. "Did they merely throw the written document I sent them in the trash," I wondered. "Perhaps I failed to present the information clearly enough," I wondered. If the problem was the latter, although I doubt it, then maybe I'll get around to re-writing it and send it to them again. I do want to make sure that the fault doesn't lie with me. I truly don't think it's a case of them being stubborn, or being unwilling to consider what I had to say on the subject.

Anyway, if there is anyone in the whole-wide-world (including you lurkers) who reads this post that would appreciate hearing about what I've learned regarding the meaning of "hades" -- if there is anyone here who yearns for the truth regarding this subject -- I will try my best to find the time to re-produce here the document I sent to the Watchtower Society several years ago. (Since my scanner is on the blink, I would have to re-type it all in order to post it here.)

Let your wishes be made known, and I'll see what I can do.

Schizm (of the "know it all" class)

.

147

WT,DEC 1 2005,PP22-23;IS THIS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT?

by badboy in

jw
friends

.

weeks earlier,jews and proselytes from at least 15 regions of the roman empire had packed jerusalem to celebrate the passover.. on the next page,it seems to show arabia ,media,elam and parthenia as part of the roman empire.. i thought the romans never conquered arabia or persia.

am i right?.

Schizm

You're asking jgnat to prove a negative. Skepticism on her part is entirely legitimate.

Skepticism on MY part is entirely legitimate as well. She has made claims that she needs to defend with proof, rather than requiring others to simply take her word for it. All she has to do in order to defeat my argument is to produce solid evidence that will prove the things she claims.

The burden of proof is instead on you to show that Rome DID exercise rule over the Chinese, etc.

Why? Because YOU say so? Who appointed YOU to be the one to make such rules as this, Leolaia? Did someone actually make YOU the referee over this discussion? Please tell.

....if such an extraordinary thing is what you are in fact claiming (i.e. literal universal rule over everything under heaven).

You cause me to wonder if you've really been listening to this discussion. What part of "wherever" is it that you don't understand? If you don't know what I mean with that question, then I know you haven't been paying attention. Instead of trying to play the part of a referee, Leolaia, why don't you have a share in the discussion instead. Think you could do that in an unbiased fashion? .

147

WT,DEC 1 2005,PP22-23;IS THIS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT?

by badboy in

jw
friends

.

weeks earlier,jews and proselytes from at least 15 regions of the roman empire had packed jerusalem to celebrate the passover.. on the next page,it seems to show arabia ,media,elam and parthenia as part of the roman empire.. i thought the romans never conquered arabia or persia.

am i right?.

Schizm

You're really good at ignoring questions that are placed before you, jgnat. As per just two examples: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/102760/1776624/post.ashx#1776624 http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/102760/1776649/post.ashx#1776649

There is no evidence of Roman occupation in those lands. The Chinese dynasties overspanned the Roman ones, and they have a continuous line of Kings, all recorded in their scrolls, graves, and palaces. -- jgnat.

You claim that there NEVER was a time when Rome exercised universal rule. You claim that all the while Rome ruled that China had its Kings who were NOT subject to Rome's jurisdiction.

Yes, that's what you CLAIM, but where is the proof? So far all we have is your word for it. Produce the proof you think you have, and then we'll see just how reliable it is.

.