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

There you go again. The Bible does refer to Jesus being the "Son of God" not "God the Son."

Jesus refered to himself as the Son of Man. I guess that means he was sub-human. Not. True Man from True Man, True God from True God. Son of Man/Son of God. If Son of Man = Man then True Son of God = God. You can hate it if you want to but it means you reject the True Son of God for a lesser version.

John 20:28 Thomas proclaims that Jesus is not only the Lord of him but also his God. So he is truly the Son of God, therefore God the Son. So you are admitting you believe that he is a second God or not truly the Son of God.

Jesus stated that his followers may be one, as Jesus and God are one.

That is not what he said at John 10:30. Jesus said I and my Father are One. Then the Jews picked up stones to stone him again. WHY?

"For blashpemy...You being a mere man claim to be God." - the Jews.

Are Jesus Followers part of the Trinity too?

Of course not, he said that they will be one. That doesn't we are the same person. The Son is not the same person as the Father either. Jesus said, I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE. I believe that. You don't seem to.

Any decent history book will show that the Trinity is truly just another man made doctrine after the falling away.

Well I think the bible is a decent History book. The Unity of the Father and Son was spoken of by Jesus Himself. So how it can be called a manmade doctrine would depend on the status of the bible as a manmade book.

Paul said that with him all the fullness of the Godship dwells in body form. Col 2:9

The Son created all that was created. Col 1:16, John 1:3

God says that he created all things alone without help. Isa 44:24

Thomas Calls him His God. John 20:28

Jesus calls himself the First and the Last. Rev 1:17, 2:8

The First and the Last calls himself The Alpha and the Omega. Rev 22:13

The Alpha and the Omega calls himself Almighty God. Rev 1:8

Clearly Jesus is God. Jesus says he and his Father are one.

Those that deny his deity have a problem. In the Bible there are three things a sentient being can be. God, angel or man. Jesus existed prior to being a man and the only thing he is identifed as being is God. MANMADE DOCTRINE!!!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?! How about bible made truth.

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia Vol XIV p.299., admits this was not a concept of the first century Christians.

I admit that an angel Jesus was not a first Century concept so there :p I admit the Catholics don't know there own history that well. You know what was a first century concept? "I and my Father are One," John 10:30 "If you have seen me you have seen the Father."- Jesus

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

Yehaw! See them floodgate burst wide open baby.

Your entire argument seems to be built on this concept, that "fornication" in the Christian sense of the term can only refer to acts that were specifically prohibited under the Mosaic Law.

If that is how you want to look at it. But then you are addmitting that under the mosaic law no such commandment existed.

Fornication was also condemned in the NT. Under the Law, it was also condemned, but not at the same level as adultery, incest or bestiality

If by fornication you mean premarital sex then chapter and verse in the OT will suffice. I have looked at the so-called prooftexts other fundamentalists have given me. It never says it in the OT. There is always something else attached to it several times their is no attonement prescribed because it only dealt with property issues.

Recently I have read the writings of a Rabbi on the matter and he came to the same conclusions that I did.

As you have pointed out, the law against hating one's enemy was added, too.

That is not what I pointed out. I pointed out that the Golden rule was already in existence. The Law of hating one's enemy was simply done away with. It was not a new Law. I did bring up polygamy which is a new command, I have not done any research on that one but if it was indeed added it was specifically noted. However if it was specifically condemned I would need to see it chapter and verse myself.

Paul said to not marry a women if she is a virgin.

I just read an instance where Paul said to marry a virgin so I will leave out the other one where he said not to for now. BTW I wasn't trying to say that we don't have to listen to the commands from the Apostles with that scripture I mentioned. My point was that he said not to do something but no one considers that prohibition a sin.

The word they used to describe prohibited sexual acts clearly include premarital sex within their meaning.

The OT is clear. You know how clear they made things in the OT. They didn't let you guess as to their meaning. The OT says "DONT GO TO YOUR MOTHER TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HER."

What do you think is going to come up more often, premarital sex or having sex with your mother? So then why is the "sin" that is a billion times as common not mentioned? I have been looking for it. I have searched the OT. I have read fundamentalist proof-texts. I'm sorry I can't condemn my friend for having sex with his girl-friend if the bible doesn't. But hear we go, as soon as someone questions this mystery Law they are shouted down.

Yet you freely admit, "fornication" means a lot more than simply pre-marital sex. It means a lot of things. So to say it clearly includes all pre-marital sex is only your opinion. The word "fornication" is properly translated as sexual immorality.

You may well be honest in your conclusions, but your logic is flawed,

I appreciate that you give me the benefit of the doubt. My logic is not flawed though. If something is added as Law in the NT it is clearly noted. You claim that the ban on "sexual immorality" makes this new addition clear. Well if it is indeed something new as you are leaning towards accepting by saying that new Laws are added then it is you who has the weaker argument.

If in fact the OT never prohibits premarital sex universally then I am right and this "Law" is pretty vague for how frequently it is violated compared to having sex with your mother, or even another man's wife.

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

ThiChi apparently believes that either,

Jesus is not the True Son of God, or in a second God and denies that Jesus said, "I and my Father are one."

People reject the CONCEPT and TRUTH of the unity of the Father and Son for various reasons, however it is directly biblical.

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

ty stinky pantz,

I guess i did.

sorry, John

I will say that all these things the JW do teach and are very wrong.

They teach Jesus is Michael the Archangel. So do Mormons. It is wrong and not found in the bible.

They teach that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will not go to heaven. That is wrong matt 8:11

They teach that Jesus is Abaddon, the fallen angel king of the smokey firey abyss in Rev 9. That is wrong. They used to teach that person was SATAN. Interesting change.

They teach that only a few christians are to eat the bread and wine of the "communion". That is wrong.

They teach that Jesus died on a pole, not a cross. They officially and quietly altered that recently and say that it is inconlusive if he died on a cross. That is wrong, crosses were you to execute people.

They deny salvation by grace but when you challenge them on it they will say they can't earn their salvation. It is very hard to tell what they teach on salvation when you talk to them but in their literature they say you have to become a member of their organization.

They deny that God can see the future. This is wrong.

They say the soul dies when the body dies. This is wrong.

They say that all those that have died in their sins will get a chance to get saved during the millenial reign. This is wrong.

If a JW takes a blood transfusion or allows their child to take a transfusion under any circumstance even to save their life they are kicked out of the Org and condemned. This is wrong.

They claim you must condemn Christians for being in the military. This is wrong.

That is just a few things they teach.

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

BTW John,

This is an anti-JW site. Most of us here are ex-JWs.

I was raised JW myself. A few years ago I was born again and found Jesus. I quickly discovered from the bible that the JWs were totally filled with error and false prophecies from there literature.

Much of my family is JW. Only my father and I have left to find Jesus.

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

Hi John Vogel, welcome aboard.

The JWs are not a denomination of Christianty. They are a non-Christian cult like Mormonism. They have invented numerous non-biblical dogmas to lead people away from the truth in the bible. They have gone so far as to change what the bible says so that it doesn't seem to contradict their teachings.

I'm sorry to inform you John but the JWs claims to have exposed the errors of "Christendom" are false. The JWs teach that Jesus was just an angel that came to earth as a man. The Mormons and a number of other cults teach this as well.

The bible teaches that Jesus IS NOT AN ANGEL. Jesus said that "I and my Father are One." Jesus being the True Son of God is Equal with God and in his very Nature is God. Yes, Jesus is Almighty God, the eternal Son of the Father. The JWs constantly confuse the trinity and just erroneously claim it to be a Pagan Doctrine. Well allow me to clear it up for you.

THE TRINITY IS NOT GOD. It is a biblical concept that explains the Unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Father is God. He has a Son from eternity. God begets God. A second God? The JWs say yes a second God. They are polytheists. Christians say no, not a second God. Jesus said he and his Father (God) are one. The JWs claim the bible says Jesus was created though. The bible does not say that at all. There is no account of a creation of the Son. The bible teaches that ALL things that came into existence were by the Son, several times.

The JWs also go to great lengths to convince people that the bible was only written for 144,000 Christians and that you must go to them to get salvation, not Jesus. Many times the JWs will claim that something you show them in the bible only applies to the 144,000.

The Founder of WTS CT Russel was raised Presbysterian. He left Christianity because he couldn't believe in Hell. He hooked up with some SECOND Adventists (not 7th Day) because they told him they don't believe in Hell. Their theology is similar to 7th Day. He later went to work for a Newsletter that taught Adventist theology. From their he took it over and the Watchtower was born.

You don't have to believe in "Hell" or eternal conciuos punishment for the wicked to be a Christian, but that is what is taught in the bible so if someone wants to say we aren't Christians for just making it up they ought to go take that up with God for putting it in the book. Hell is not a place of literal fire but it is a place, Jesus said it was a place that was prepared for the devil and his angels.

The bulk of Russel's preaching revolved around predicting when Armaggedon would come and uses occult methods of determining such.

The JW doctrines go directly against the bible. They have been changing their doctrines since they came into existence. They have had false prophecies go bad as recent as 2001. They predicted that armageddon would come in the 20th century.

They claim that you must be a member of the WTS to survive armageddon and that if you aren't you will never be resurrected or recieve salvation.

They also teach that you can pay for your own sins by dying and then be resurrected and recieve salvation even if you died in your sin. So there is really no urgency to become Christian other than dying at armaggedon if you are alive when it happens.

I'm not surprised that you agree with them on some things they talked about. The cults have been very successful at accusing "Christendom" of straying from the truth and perpetuating false ideas about the bible in pop culture.

Their errors go on and on. Their deciet and covering up the past does also.

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

funkyderek,

Thanks for the contribution. Notice that there are a few differences in the scenario you brought. One is of a slave girl promised to be married.

In the instance you bring up it envolves, rape and virginity. So in terms of the slave girl not promised to be married it is silent. The consequences of that circumstance are not given. The rape of a man's virgin daughter is another scenario entirely. I actually considered using it in my original post but decided it was a little irrelevant to my theme.

But thanks anyhow

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

hi neonmadman

He was an apostle chosen by God, wasn't he?

yup

Wouldn't that mean that commandments he gave were really from God?

It most certainly could, but he admitted that his admonitions were not always commands from God.

If you are really a "fundamentalist," as you claim, why would you doubt this portion of scripture, unless it's just that you don't want to believe what it says?

AHAH! Im not the one that is being inconsistent though! Paul said to not marry a women if she is a virgin. It is not I that has decided that it was not a command from God. When was the last time you heard a Christian condemn someone for marrying a virgin? I have NEVER heard it. Paul specifically said not to do it. SPECIFICALLY. He couldn't be more clear. It is obviously not a sin to marry a virgin though. It violates no Law from God to do so. Paul freely admits that not everything he says to do is a command from God. But in this instance he just said DO NOT MARRY A WOMAN IF SHE IS A VIRGIN. If you ask the question as to why he said that you will realize where he is coming from and why he says a lot of things. But to conclude that it is a sin to marry a virgin is inconsistent with scripture and doesn't make any sense and any fundamentalist in the world would agree with me on that.

So, if the Bible says something is a sin, it's a sin.

That is precisely my point. That is what I am saying. I thought you read my post. The OT is very specific about sin. It is not vague. They get into all the gory details about what God prohibits.

There are clear commandments against fornication in the Bible.

Absolutely, and "fornication" as translated is a non-specific sin. It is used to cover all the sexual sins beyond adultery and homosexuality. They were already given in the OT. There was no need to rehash the entire list for the NT.

Are you really prepared to dismiss them simply because they aren't found in Leviticus?

I am not dismissing them at all. "Fornication" covers all those sexual sins that were specifically stated in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. I am not dismissing anything but dogma. Nowhere in the OT will you simply find premarital sex universally condemned. The Law was given in the OT. I can't even recall one Law that was added in the NT except perhaps the elimination of hating one's enemy. However, the golden rule is clearly stated in the OT and that does address such an item. So it was not a new Law. It just did away with an existing Law to hate an enemy. Even the Laws that people think were added in the NT were actually contained in the OT. I have not done a study on the elimination of Polygamy so I cannot comment on such an idea.

There is no commandment against premarital sex in the bible. There is always something attached to it that is forbidden. Such as another man's fiance, a relative, the ex-wife of a Father....

Provided, of course, that you can pick and choose which commandments are really commandments.

Not at all. I consider my study in the matter to be completely honest. I have searched the proof texts given by other fundamentalists. They are the ones that are picking and choosing. They ignore it when Paul says to not marry a virgin (not that it's a sin to do so), and then add this nonexistent Law against premarital sex. There have been plenty of unbiblical "laws" people have clung to for whatever reason over the centuries.

So, if the Bible says something is a sin, it's a sin. If you have a problem with that, maybe you ought not to call yourself a fundamentalist.

Indeed. So I am a fundamentalist because when something is called a sin I call it a sin. How can I judge and condemn someone as a fundamentalist for something that isn't even a sin? Maybe I should start condemning people for being in the military or drinking alcohol or marrying virgins. I would be wrong to do THAT wouldn't I? It would be a sin for me to condemn someone for something that isn't a sin.

48

Jehovah & the Military

by MMTP in

i'm not quite sure how to start this one, i'm new here and feel a bit of an outsider.

my sisters and mother are jehovah's witnesses and have been as long as i can remember.

i however, chose to follow a different path.

starScream

Hi MMTP, welcome. I have some knowledge on the subjects in which you have proposed

Joker,

One must be a follower of Christ, not just a believer. So, yes, joining the military is not correct.

That is exactly the type of unsupported statement that could lead MMTP to his present concern which may conflict with his ability to execute his position and possibly lead to a court martial. Way to go joker!

Let us see what Jesus Himself said.

A ROMAN ARMY OFFICER approaches him for a miracle. Matt 8:5-11. The Centurion explains that he knows if Jesus just says the word his servant shall be healed. Jesus praises this man's FAITH. He said he has seen no faith as great as this anywhere in Israel. How is it we are saved? Jesus goes on. The very next thing he says is that many from eastern parts and western parts will sit down at the talble with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven. The only way to explain that statement is that he was saying this officer would be in the kingdom.

Did Jesus say, "away from me ye military dog!!!" no he did not. He praised the man as the one with greatest faith!!!

John 20:27 "stop doubting and believe." -Jesus

John 20:28 "My Lord and My God." -Thomas expressing his faith in Jesus.

John 20:29 "Because you have seen you have believed? Blessed are those who have not seen yet have believed." -Jesus

So those that have believed are not cursed they are blessed. Jesus praises the Roman Army Officer. He does not curse him. He announces that he shall sit down at the table in the kingdom. Wheras the JWs would simply curse people for being in the military.

If when your term is up you decide that the military is not for you or that God does not want you in the military then move. Until then realize you have taken an oath and Jesus is not against that oath.

MMTP, if you are still reading this I encourage you to get a good bible translation. Not the JW bible. Get an NASB (new american standard bible).

The JW doctrines are totally wrong and are not in the bible. The JWs have altered the bible so that the true doctrines are cloudy. However a legitimate translation demonstrates the orthodox teachings of Christianity. The JWs doctrines for the most part aren't even in their bible. As a matter of Fact the JW bible still teaches the orthodox version of Christianity.

You want to know that you are saved MMTP? Ask Jesus that the blood he shed forgive your sins and that he be the Lord of your life. Ask him to dwell in you. Realize that he is the TRUE SON OF GOD and THE TRUE SON OF MAN. He is God in the flesh, one with the Father.

20

What's your ideal scenario for the fall of the WTBTS?

by doodle-v in

i've seen a few posts where someone states that they want the org to "go to hell" or "burn in hell".

the org has always had a "likely" chain of events for the armegeddon, you know, babylon the great being destroyed and by the wild beast and the the wild beast turning on the witnesses, the start of the great tribulation, armegeddon, and then the thousand year reign (or something like that).

so... what would you like to see happen to the org?

starScream

shamus,

It's not that I want to see violence done to them. All Im saying is let them be hyposcrites for accusing the Government of not going to war to protect them while accusing Christians of going to war to protect them. I would prefer the simple exposure myself but I don't think any amout of exposure would reduce their numbers by more than 75% and even that is probably a stretch.

The situation i came up with was meant as poetic justice. The US can avoid going to war and losing lives by simply not stopping the enemy from overrunning an ORG that condemns it for stopping an enemy with force to begin with. The Government would basically be doing what the ORG tells it that it should do. Not go to war. The ORG has to deal with the reality of what happens to a nation that refuses to protect itself.