Posts by starScream

50

Is JW just another denomination?

by John Vogel in

hello :) i suppose this is my introduction to the forum, though i am not sure if i will actually post and read much here.

i did go through several posts, and didn't find anything helpful, though i did find many posts interesting... anyway, i am not a jehovahs witness.

i hope this doesn't immediatly diqualify me from posting this question here... but basically, i was wondering just what is jw?

starScream

To say so would contradict what Jesus Christ says in John 14:28 " ...for my Father is greater than I." Notice, Jesus himself says "My Father is greater than I".

You should know that the Greek word that is used for greater refers to rank. Naturally as a man he as at the very least obligated to recognize God (his Father) in greater rank. I myself believe that even in his prehuman existence was in submission, therefore lower in rank. However you deny that he is the Son of God if you make him inferior. Do you understand that? A son is naturally lower in rank than his Father yet still equal. You don't seem to understand that.

I can tell you this much, this is no contradiction or bad translation

No, it is not a contradiction for the Father to be greater in rank while at the same time the Son to be his equal.

It isn't I that deny the identity of Yahshua (or Jesus), it is the religion of "Christianity", the various denominations which cannot seem to even agree on the basics, that deny Yahshua

You are wrong. You are denying that he is truly the Son of God. 'Christianity', confessing that Jesus is the Son of God cannot reduce him to a mere finite nature lest they reduce the Father to that as well. You reduce the Son to merely a finite nature and deny that he is truly the Son of God.

I can understand how you might identify Jesus the Christ as the Father,

Like the JWs, apparently you will just never express our position correctly for some reason no matter how many time we tell you THE FATHER IS A DIFFERENT PERSON THAN THE SON.

In one manner of speaking, Jesus IS GOD, but God is not Jesus.

Incredible. You have finally understood the nature of Jesus, or at least confessed it.

God is greater then Jesus, because God is not man, nor is he the son of Man

Wow, you are on a role in understanding the trinity. You ought to try out for trinitarian of the month. I will nominate you.

God is greater then his creation, greater then any man, including Jesus Christ.

Now you have some misunderstanding. God (the Father) is greater than Jesus because he is his father. Jesus was never created and the bible never says he was and actually makes that impossible. Jesus has taken on the form of man and exists in dual status, one as the uncreated Son of God and the other in the form of created man.

I'm sorry, but the appellation I applied to Thomas is quite appropriate. He would not believe that Jesus arose from the grave until he actually SAW Jesus in the flesh:

Why stop there then? Why not just call Peter Satan or Anti-Christ anytime you want to downplay something he said. Jesus called Peter Satan. Peter denied ever knowing Jesus three times! How about just call Paul a Christ killer when it suits you. Jesus said to him that he was persecuting him. Paul had Christians killed. How about call John the braggart. Shall we go on?

I really meant no disrespect, just to state that Thomas went from doubting that he even rose from the dead (as he said he would) to (supposedly) claiming he was God.

No you had a specific reason for using the title doubting Thomas. Its okay, I accept your apology I'm sure he does also.

Could it be possible that Thomas was not referring to Jesus Christ when he said "My God"?

at john 20:28 it says: In answer to HIM not them. The body of scripture supports such a confession and there is no basis in the passage to say that Thomas was not speaking to him, it directly says he was speaking to HIM.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I do not understand how the Spirit of God can possibly be bound by the flesh

I don't either. No one has said the spirit of God was bound by the flesh. It was the person of the Son that was.

I don't understand how we can not see God in his very being, and yet it would seem to me, if you say Jesus is God, then you are saying that Jesus is the very being of God

No one has said (the person of the Son)Jesus IS the very being of God. He exists out of the very being of God and now also out of the very being of man. Both Son of God and Son of Man. The very being of God is different than the Person of the Son. The very being of God is how the Son exists, not the Son himself. Your intangible perosn, John, is different than the very being of John, which is just like any flesh and blood man.

I know God is in us, but I wouldn't go so far as to say we are God.

Of course we are not God. At the same time the bible doesn't say the Father is in us. So either you confess Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God or you deny God is in us.

believe that Jesus is God and that we are sinners, who will burn in hell if we do not believe in Him. I think that's pretty standard Christian teaching, and I think it's very misinformed teaching, not from the Word of God, but from the teachings of man.

It is from the word of God. It's not a misinformed teaching. The only part that can be said another way is the burining in hell would not be literal because it is described in other ways. To say it is misinformed is inaccurate.

I know that sounds pretty arrogant, but it's my honest opinion,

It is not as arrogant as it is ignorant but that is okay, like you said, it's your honest opinion.

I don't think very many people really take the time to know the bible, the nuances of the Greek and Hebrew, the idioms of the respective languages,

You seem to have missed a few yourself.

"You ought to not reject it before you understand it." pertaining to reading the bible without bias, you hit a nerve.

Well I can appreciate the fact that I hit a nerve but you do not understand it. You see contradictions that don't exist and then lower Jesus to prevent contradiction which does not exist. You don't understand how Jesus can be God in the flesh. You say Thomas was talking to two people at john 20:28 when it says he spoke to one, all because you don't understand.

My only real bias, when I read the bible, is the truth.

That is the truth from your point of view. I'm not accusing you of being dishonest, and if I accused you of being biased then I was wrong. You still are not accepting that Jesus is truly the Son of God though because you making a TRUE father/son situation that has never existed in the history of the universe.

My very reason for reading the bible, is that I might understand His will in or for me, to follow where he leads, and not where some man-made religion leads me.

I can certainly appreciate that.

I have really studied both sides of this issue,

there are more than two. I assure you. Unfortunately you don't understand the right one. It is not your fault. You just have't had certain things explained to you so that you would not discount scriptures that support the right side.

and I have prayed on this issue very hard,

I'm sure we all have.

I know that in one sense Jesus is God,

very good. Now you just have to understand how that is the case.

but in that same sense so are you and I.

Wow, now you have totally reduced Jesus to being no more the Son of God than you are.

I also know that Jesus, himself, made a distinction between God and himself, as well as made it clear that he was "one with the Father" (spiritually I believe).

Yes, there is distinction between Jesus and God, particularly between Jesus and the Father. Now you just have to understand how that is true.

I don't think it has anything to do with who or what I want Jesus to be. I want to know Him as he is, not as I want Him to be.

I think you think you are being honest. IMO you are afraid to let him be all that he truly is. You are being honest in your endeavor. That is okay, I was afraid to let him be all that he was at one time. I was afraid that I would offend the Father to let his Son be equal to him. I was afraid that to believe Jesus is God and not the Father was polytheism. You may still deal with these fears if you aren't already. There is nothing wrong with that.

Understanding comes from God, and if you are correct about Jesus being God, I have no doubt that God will make this clear to me.

Me neither. You seem to have done a massive amount of studying. You have been very candid so far. You have confessed you believe Jesus is God. You just don't yet understand it.

At this point in time, everything I see points to ONE God.

I don't see any more than one myself either. And there in lies the problem for those that deny Jesus is God, not those that confess it. If Jesus is not God then you have either a second true God or Jesus is not the True Son of God.

I don't believe we were ever meant to worship Jesus,

now I know you have seen this Heb. 1:6. There are plenty of others as Im sure you are aware. The Father is not jealous of his Son.

Would this make us God? I don't believe so, it would only make us a part of God, a part of the whole, which is greater then all of the parts.

We are not part of God.

I don't get your argument here

ok... Jesus claims to be the "Good Shepherd." Later a man calls him "Good Teacher." Then Jesus says why do you call me Good? No one is Good but God. If Jesus is saying that this man calling him Good Teacher is calling him Good then Jesus calling himself Good Shepherd is calling himself God.

Nowhere do I see Jesus accepting their accusation that he is making himself out to be God.

Nowhere is he denying that he is God. He can't say, "yes I am God." They would kill him. Because he is God and he isn't going to let them kill him all he can do is throw it back in their faces and that is what he did. You don't even consider what he would do if he was God. If he was God he would do exactly what he did. It tells me you don't even consider that he could be God.

(not saying he is God, but that in the scripture others were called "gods".)

Well duh, he isn't going to come right out and say he is god. I mean no disrespect but come on man. He is throwing it in their faces. I'm not saying he is claiming to be God with all of these statements (although in my opninon this one is borderline here that you have mentioned) but he doesn't deny it.

Then he says, he merely claims to be "the son of God"

That was the foundation of their accusation! MERELY the son of God? Then his Father was a mere Father. Fathers do not have mere sons. They have sons. Mere fathers have mere sons.

They wanted to stone him several times, because they believed that he made himself out to be God.

and he wouldn't deny it but throw it in their faces

I believe that in a spiritual sense he was God with us,

no, he simply was God with us.

that the Word of God did dwell in the person of Yahshua,

The person of Yshua is the Word of God. All the fullness of the Godship did not dwell within him but dwells in bodily form. col 2:9

I take great offense at your implication that I would try to lower Jesus, as if I could or would ever desire to do such.

Pardon me but if Thomas answered to Him (as it says he did, to Him) "my Lord and My God." and was calling Jesus His God and you say he was not, You are in fact lowering him if you deny his deity.

Personally, I think many Christians lower Jesus every time they open their mouth and spout off nonsense without any inkling of wisdom or understanding,

if you can't "lower Jesus, as if I could" how can they. Your words are true though. People do lower Jesus when they deny he is truly the Son of God.

I just recognize (as did Yahshua) that Yahweh is greater then he is.

That isn't what he said. He said the Father (not YHVH) was greater than he is. You make him inferior to the Father, whereas Jesus made himself subordinate -- big difference.

Perhaps I could now accuse you of lowering the status of God?

You lower the status of God or you deny Jesus is the True Son of God. I do neither. I confess Jesus is subordinate to the Father as Jesus claimed his Father had greater rank. You invent this notion of his inferiority which makes him either not the true Son of God or makes the Father a creature as well. You can't accuse me of lowering the status of God because I haven't. I have only given Jesus his full status as the True Son of God. If that lowers the Father you don't know the similarity between a Father and Son.

God bless and keep you in Him,

God bless by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

27

Will the Watchtower cease the door to door work SOON ???

by run dont walk in

.

can you see the watchtower saying, no more door to door preaching, lets say within the next ten years ?.

starScream

the last thing the WTS wants is a bunch of JWs with free time. No they won't stop going door to door if for no other reason than to keep the R&F trudging along.

15

Dances with wolves ???

by Brummie in

was there a wtower book or mag that suggested that jah brought all the animals in front of adam in order for him to choose a sexual partner from amongst them?

yuck.

i swear i read one when i was a jw, i'm trying to find the documentation.

starScream

I don't doubt the Watchtower is that dumb but I think we would have heard about it if it really happened.

50

Is JW just another denomination?

by John Vogel in

hello :) i suppose this is my introduction to the forum, though i am not sure if i will actually post and read much here.

i did go through several posts, and didn't find anything helpful, though i did find many posts interesting... anyway, i am not a jehovahs witness.

i hope this doesn't immediatly diqualify me from posting this question here... but basically, i was wondering just what is jw?

starScream

I can't tell if you are a JW or are saying their interpretations to get their doctrines are wierd but since you cited scriptures I am obligated to refute them. (or did you just cut and paste from a JW website to be helpful?)

God's name is Jehovah

No such word was ever found in the bible.

Christ is God's Son and is inferior to him

That is a rather odd thing for a Son to be but the scriptures cited don't show that.

Christ was first of God's creations

Rev. 3:14, he was the first thing created for being the ORIGIN of God's creation?

Col. 1:15 according to the chapter the 'firstborn' (pre-eminent one) created All that was created so the assertion is proven wrong with the "proof-texts."

Christ died on a stake, not a cross

Even the Watchtower has now confessed it is inconclusive.

Christ's human life was paid as a ransom for obedient humans

Actually it was for all but was recieved by those that believe.

Christ was raised from the dead as an immortal spirit person

With a physical body

Christ's presence is in spirit

While he is also still a man. Col 2:9

People God approves will receive eternal life

That is those that believe

There is only one road to life

and his name is Jesus Christ.

The human soul ceases to exist at death

Not according to Jesus. matt 10:28

Hope for dead is resurrection

And is the curse for those that died in their sins. Heb 9:27

Only a little flock of 144,000 go to heaven and rule with Christ

"Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, HYPOCRITES! Because you shut up the Kingdom of Heaven from men; for you yourselves do not go in, neither do you permit those on their way in." - Jesus, Matt 23:13

It doesn't even say the 144,000 go to heaven.

The 144,000 are born again as spiritual sons of God

They're all Jewish male virgins and have never told a lie. rev 14:4

Taking blood into body through mouth or veins violates God's laws

Making blood more important than a human life is sacrilege

A clergy class and special titles are improper

Such as John Class, Governing body, Presiding Overseer, Circuit Overseer, District Overseer, Watchtower President.

72

Sex in the New Book "Learn from the Great Teacher"

by AlanF in

i just obtained a copy of one of the new releases from the summer jw district conventions, learn from the great teacher.

this book is oriented towards children, and frankly, is a stereotypical piece of propaganda from the "faithful and discreet slave".

in some ways the book is incredibly revealing, since it has to break down a number of ridiculous jw teachings into a form that even jw children can swallow, and when those teachings are put into simplest form their ridiculousness is evident to everyone but small children and stereotypically braindead jws.

starScream

I can't find a text in the OT that specifically comdemns premarital sex

Neither can I. Like I said before certain laws cast serious questions to such a notion all together.

at least not on the level that adultery is condemned.

You have already stated for a fact that it wasn't condemned on the same level. All it would take is to show it condemned at all.

The fact that property sanctions were attached to fornication, however, at least shows that God did not approve of it.

It does nothing of the sort. Property is property. The violation of someone's property is what God does not approve of in those verses.

Argument to authority. The fact that one other person, even a learned Rabbi, agrees with you proves nothing.

The fact that he agrees with me for the same reasons proves something.

I suspect that you are looking at a text where he is trying to tell us not to marry at all, if we can avoid it

So you are saying we shouldn't marry if we can avoid it. Is it a sin to marry if we can avoid it?

In fact, unlike the Greek porneia, the English word "fornication" is generally restricted to that meaning

The english word fornication was in the Greek texts?

that is exactly what we mean by the term, "fornication."

What we white man? I already know that you consider is sexual immorality, Im not trying to prove what you believe.

If, as you assert, the case of the two sixteen-year-olds is not included in the meaning of porneia, then Bible translators have done us a grave disservice over the years by translating porneia as "fornication."

So the bible translators translating a non-specific word to a word with one specific meaning proves more than when I claim a Rabbi agrees with my take on OT law? I wouldn't call it a grave disservice for several reasons, unless that is you feel you have been severly injured by thinking it is a sin to have premarital sex. In addition there is no reason to conclude they intentionally mistranslated the word.

It would be a gross mistranslation.

Still, not neccessarily. It could be that we have in our minds and speech modified the meaning of "fornication" through its usage. This is an imperfect example but terrific used to mean horrifying, now it means fantastic. Of course fantastic originally meant something seemed ficticious.

It isn't a question of what the Mosaic Law prohibited, since, as we have seen, Christianity expands upon the Mosaic Law in several areas.

I don't know about several areas but the ones that are, I'm sure are clearly noted. You are at this point playing the Simpson defense. That is using multiple theories that are in contradiction to make the same defense. On the one hand you say that in the OT, though you can't find it, pre-marital sex is condemned as sin. Then on the other hand you say that the NT has expanded the law so therefore pre-marital sex is now a sin whereas it wasn't before.

Your reasoning is that sexual immorality has been translated into an English word that makes people think of pre-marital sex. You know it covers a multitude of things and is a vague refference. Both of your assertions can't be correct and you have yet to prove either one.

I am simply arguing that in the OT pre-marital sex by itself is not condemned as a sin. Furthermore, the laws stated in the NT cover the laws that remain in existence, and if something was added or modified it is specifically noted. The word you translate as fornication, you have already admitted means more than just one thing. Most things it refers to aren't in the NT. So I say, go to the OT and find out what it covers.

You really can't say that sexually immorality means xyz in the OT, if the bible only specifically forbids xy in the OT.

IMO it is ethical to discourage behavior such as pre-marital sex under the wisdom that not all things permissable are profitable.

Of course not all things permissable are profitable. But then if that is true some things that are not profitable are, as much as you might not like it, permissable.

Who is shouting you down? Certainly not me.

I may have been worked up over another post while I was responding to yours. I still welcome you to prove my assertions wrong. I don't have a persectution complex. I have in the past recieved some very harsh words for questioning far less concerning OT law even though I was right then too.

All you have to do is find the scripture in the OT that says pre-marital sex by itself is a sin. You must admit that pre-marital sex is vastly more common than beastiality, homosexuality, incest, adultery, prostitution, orgies, rape..... but this thing that is so common is never called a sin by itself in the OT. All those other things are specifically condemned in the bible.

- whereas divorce for any reason had previously been allowed, now the only grounds were to be porneia.

no, that is wrong. Divorce is still allowed for any reason. It is the re-marriage for any other reason that is prohibited. Be careful you are actually getting into an area which adds further support to my argument.

16

WARNING from JW - you never know who's posting

by Tashawaa in

jw
friends

i found this at h2o - lmao!!!

but the person posting was serious.

"actually thats a good metaphor for true christian soldiers.

starScream

wolfgirl,

Only in the organisation would 2 + 2 = the demons are using a realtor's laptop to post apostate information on a JW-only website.

I can't believe I didnt think of that. Nice work

5

Astronomy Vision

by refiners fire in

self deluded channels and the justifications they concoct to excuse their false prophecies are a thing of fascination.

the most striking thing about these prophets is their predictability.

they all fall into the very same trap, they all get trapped by their own totalistic words .

starScream

A radical experiment in churchianity.

a radical success at that.

12

Jehovah dissassociates self!

by czarofmischief in

deity resigns post.

in a press conference this morning, jehovah god announced his intention to remove himself from association with the watchtower organization, citing "irreconcilable differences" and "personality clashes" with senior witness leadership.. "they kept on bugging me, taking my ideas and then twisting them, and then hogging all the credit!

" said god.. "the final straw was when they told me my son had to cut his hair," said god.

starScream

Im glad to see Jehovah finally came to his senses.

All joking aside (and the best to date I might add) I can only hope God will play along and really pull such a stunt. Now that would be REALLY funny.

and reduced restrictions on handgun ownership."

its a start anyway.

CA's 1999 sb23, 1994 "assault" weapons ban.... next thing ya know we will have a "sniper" weapons ban.

18

When A Friend Lies....

by pettygrudger in

i have a question for you - what do you do when you catch a "friend" in a lie.

i have a friend who i haven't known for a long time....and so far i have "caught" this person in 2 lies (no one on this board, or any board for that matter).

lies that weren't necessary.

starScream

pettygrudger,

it is refreshing to see someone who hates lies and dishonesty and much as I do.

Personally I make it my policy to NEVER lie. If a friend tells a lie to me to conceal embarrasment or something that isn't my business, I can forgive that. If they tell a lie because they swore to keep a secret I can forgive that also.

I'm not going to be friends with someone very long if they are just making stuff up especially for their own glory.

I think of the example of one former Met's coach that would tell 'Nam stories. One player in particular was so moved by his fibs he bought the man a Harley. Imagine the poor guy's heartbreak when the coach's wife who knew nothing of his stories revealed that the guy was never even in Combat.

To make a long story short that coach never coached again. No one will touch him.

3

Is the Watchtower's Jesus really Jesus?

by Tower Man in

jw
friends

i just put 2 new audios from walter martin on my site.

they're awesome!!

if you never heard him you're missing out!

starScream

is the "Alberto's Tacos' " Jesus down the street really Jesus?