Jehovah God is not a Trinity
dell12345
Gen 17:1 states “, then Jehovah appeared to A´bram and said to him: “I am
God Almighty”
Do you use the phrase “I am” for THREE persons or you only use it for ONE
Person?
If God is composed of THREE persons, God should have said “WE ARE God” but
you cannot find that it the Bible.
You never use the phrase “I am” for THREE Persons. I am is only used for
one person.
JESUS said to the Father also in John 17:3, that the Father is the “ONLY
True God”, this means there is one and only one person who is God, the
Father. and this is confirmed in 1 Cor 8:5 where is states “6 there is
actually to us one God the FATHER”.Notice the Father only. Notice also in
John 17:3 Jesus excluded himself as the only true God. Instead of saying
“We are the only true God” JESUS said “YOU (referring to the Father), and
not US” as the only true God. Now are you against Jesus?
Now, if the Son is Jehovah, the Father is Jehovah and the holy spirit is
Jehovah according to the Trinity doctrine, then these THREE PERSONS, are
THREE Jehovah.
But the Bible says in Deut 6:4 Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is ONE
Jehovah.
--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutreligion.com/group/alt.religion.jehovahs-witn/
More information at http://www.talkaboutreligion.com/faq.html
trevor.ribbands
> Is God composed of THREE PERSONS?
>
> Gen 17:1 states “, then Jehovah appeared to A´bram and said to him: “I am
> God Almighty”
>
> Do you use the phrase “I am” for THREE persons or you only use it for ONE
> Person?
> If God is composed of THREE persons, God should have said “WE ARE God” but
> you cannot find that it the Bible.
>
> You never use the phrase “I am” for THREE Persons. I am is only used for
> one person.
>
> JESUS said to the Father also in John 17:3, that the Father is the “ONLY
> True God”, this means there is one and only one person who is God, the
> Father. and this is confirmed in 1 Cor 8:5 where is states “6 there is
> actually to us one God the FATHER”.Notice the Father only. Notice also in
> John 17:3 Jesus excluded himself as the only true God. Instead of saying
> “We are the only true God” JESUS said “YOU (referring to the Father), and
> not US” as the only true God. Now are you against Jesus?
>
> Now, if the Son is Jehovah, the Father is Jehovah and the holy spirit is
> Jehovah according to the Trinity doctrine, then these THREE PERSONS, are
> THREE Jehovah.
>
> But the Bible says in Deut 6:4 Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is ONE
> Jehovah.
Just for the sake of argument, as I'm very wary of man-made doctrines, how
would you interpret the sentence "I am water"
Does it mean that I am steam, gas, ice, or liquid?
If God does have 3 parts, then that would put an end to the WTS
NWT translation of John 1:1 which claims that there is more than
one God, no matter how much you titty up the title, and if Michael is
Jesus, then Michael is also "a" God - isn't this polytheism? (not to
mention Jehovah God's clear statement on what happens to false
Gods).
regards
brian M
dell12345
Why do you think Jehovah is called “God of gods” acc to Deut 10:17? Who
are these “gods”? If the “gods” are false gods, then are you saying that
Jehovah is the God of “false” gods? Are “false gods” part of the world?
What does the Bible says about friendship with the world? Who is the ruler
of this present world? Jehovah is NOT Satan because Satan is the god of
the wicked system of things (including the false gods/idols).
The Bible won’t even use the phrase “God of gods” if other “gods” do not
exist at all.
Example:
You won’t say “President of United States” if US does not exist. You won’t
say “Head of the congregation” if no congregation exists. You won’t use the
phrase “ God of heaven and earth” if heaven and earth do not exist.. So
you won’t say “Lord of lords” if other “lords” do not exist. The Bible
won’t say “King of kings” if no other “kings” exist. This is the true with
the phrase “God of gods”. Indeed there is only one true God, one Creator,
the Father, whom Jesus prayed to and glorified. But this doesn’t mean that
the Father did not cause other “gods” which are lower than/not equal to
him to exist.
Trinitarians believe that the three persons in the Trinity are WHOLE God
and not JUST PARTS. A cup of water, is still a cup of water, even if it
changes form (ice, etc).
Sam Taylor
<noe...@protected.com> wrote:
>Thanks for the reply.
>
>Why do you think Jehovah is called “God of gods” acc to Deut 10:17? Who
>are these “gods”? If the “gods” are false gods, then are you saying that
>Jehovah is the God of “false” gods? Are “false gods” part of the world?
>What does the Bible says about friendship with the world? Who is the ruler
>of this present world? Jehovah is NOT Satan because Satan is the god of
>the wicked system of things (including the false gods/idols).
>The Bible won’t even use the phrase “God of gods” if other “gods” do not
>exist at all.
>
>Example:
>You won’t say “President of United States” if US does not exist. You won’t
>say “Head of the congregation” if no congregation exists. You won’t use the
>phrase “ God of heaven and earth” if heaven and earth do not exist.. So
>you won’t say “Lord of lords” if other “lords” do not exist. The Bible
>won’t say “King of kings” if no other “kings” exist. This is the true with
>the phrase “God of gods”. Indeed there is only one true God, one Creator,
>the Father, whom Jesus prayed to and glorified. But this doesn’t mean that
>the Father did not cause other “gods” which are lower than/not equal to
>him to exist.
>
>
>Trinitarians believe that the three persons in the Trinity are WHOLE God
>and not JUST PARTS. A cup of water, is still a cup of water, even if it
>changes form (ice, etc).
did I mention the EGG it has 4 parts
1 Shell
2 the protective Membrane that the shell emerges from by
Catalytic Conversion from Methane.
which hold the white, and the Yoke.
could G-D be an Egg?
or since He covers you with his shelter under his wings,
be a Chicken?
DärFläken
"dell12345" <noe...@protected.com> wrote in message
news:93c1fca9dd4f5240...@localhost.talkaboutreligion.com...
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> Why do you think Jehovah is called "God of gods" acc to Deut 10:17? Who
> are these "gods"? If the "gods" are false gods, then are you saying that
> Jehovah is the God of "false" gods? Are "false gods" part of the world?
> What does the Bible says about friendship with the world? Who is the ruler
> of this present world? Jehovah is NOT Satan because Satan is the god of
> the wicked system of things (including the false gods/idols).
> The Bible won't even use the phrase "God of gods" if other "gods" do not
> exist at all.
>
> Example:
There is no EVIDENCE that any of the gods exist or ever existed.
dell12345
yoke are parts of an Egg. God is not composed of different persons. He is
just one person. That\'s why he says \"I Am\".
Black
says the woman who celebrates Christmas.
skyeyes
> DärFläken wrote:
>
> > "dell12345" <noem...@protected.com> wrote in message
Does she celebrate Christmas qua Christmas? Or does she merely
celebrate the ancient Yuletide? Maybe she celebrates the Winter
Solstice, like I do, which the christers co-opted and falsely claimed
was Jebus's birthday? Please be specific. Enquiring minds want to
know.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
Mark K. Bilbo
So taking Saturday off is celebrating Saturnalia also?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“Communism, like any other revealed religion,
is largely made up of prophecies.”
- H. L. Mencken
DärFläken
"Black" <stra...@purple.org> wrote in message
news:fi25ns$qqk$1...@news.albasani.net...
Says the man eaten up with jealousy because he can't even have a wreath in
the window.
DärFläken
"skyeyes" <sky...@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:1286c747-f239-44c0...@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
I celebrate the Winter Solstice. ;-) The uneducated semi-literate Black
aka JABRIOL, a Jehovah's Witless would not know of such things.
Uncle Vic
with this:
Even Pat Robertson admits Christmas is a Pagan celebration. It corresponds
directly to the Winter Solstice. Nowadays it is just tradition, hijacked
by businesses as a shot in the arm to fiscal sales. The feelings behind
it, cheer, giving, are not even religious in nature. My in-laws are all
Jewish, and they prefer to celebrate Christmas instead of Hannukah.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
The Most Reverend Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN.
Christmas is just the name of a holiday, jerk. Religion means nothing
to most people, if it did and they were bothered about the religious
meaning of everything, they wouldn't use the names they do for the
days of the week, the same as you do, hypocrite.
Ask yourself also how hypocritical it is for a sick, twisted criminal
to bang on about religion and morality.
che...@flapper.net
>Is God composed of THREE PERSONS?
>
>Gen 17:1 states “, then Jehovah appeared to A´bram and said to him: “I am
>God Almighty”
>
>Do you use the phrase “I am” for THREE persons or you only use it for ONE
>Person?
>If God is composed of THREE persons, God should have said “WE ARE God” but
>you cannot find that it the Bible.
>
>You never use the phrase “I am” for THREE Persons. I am is only used for
>one person.
Gen 1:26-28
26 Then God said,"Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our
likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the
birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over
every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man
in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female
He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them,"Be
fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion
over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every
living thing that moves on the earth."
NKJV
This contradicts your theory and makes it fall flat on its face. The
personal pronouns "US" and "OUR" are PLURAL, but are speaking of ONE
God. How do you "explain" that with your own private theory?
>
>JESUS said to the Father also in John 17:3, that the Father is the “ONLY
>True God”,
John 17:1-5
Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said:
"Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may
glorify You, 2 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that
He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 And
this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and
Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4 I have glorified You on the earth.
I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 And now, O
Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had
with You before the world was.
NKJV
Yep, Jesus IS glorified with His Father (the Glory of BEING God) as He
was before he "took on the form of a servant" (Philippians 2).
>this means there is one and only one person who is God, the
>Father.
Only in your imagination. The Bible does not say that. Not in
anything you present here either.
>and this is confirmed in 1 Cor 8:5 where is states “6 there is
>actually to us one God the FATHER”
1 Cor 8:4-6
4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know
that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God
but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or
on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there
is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and
one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom
we live.
NKJV
>.Notice the Father only.
What I "notice" is that you like to quote little snippets, partial
sentences, with no CONTEXT at all to try to "prove" your points.
And I also notice that you PURPOSFULLY NEGLECT the passages that say
Jesus IS GOD:
John 1:1-2
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.
NKJV
John 1:14
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory,
the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and
truth.
NKJV
Of course the Word here is Jesus. HE became flesh and dwelt among us
and we beheld His glory.
Col 2:8-10
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit,
according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles
of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the
fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is
the head of all principality and power.
NKJV
Of course, you would like that one to go away, ESPECIALLY since the
"the Godhead" in that passage in the original language texts is a
Greek word that means literally, "The STATE OF BEING ALMIGHTY GOD."
>Notice also in
>John 17:3 Jesus excluded himself as the only true God. Instead of saying
>“We are the only true God” JESUS said “YOU (referring to the Father), and
>not US” as the only true God. Now are you against Jesus?
John 17:1-4
Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said:
"Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may
glorify You, 2 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that
He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 And
this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and
Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
NKJV
No such "exclusion" exists there! You have to READ THAT INTO THE
TEXT.
Are YOU against Jesus?
>
>Now, if the Son is Jehovah, the Father is Jehovah and the holy spirit is
>Jehovah according to the Trinity doctrine, then these THREE PERSONS, are
>THREE Jehovah.
NOBODY believes the Holy Spirit to be "Jehovah" (a Word that does NOT
EXIST IN THE HEBREW LANGUAGE). There have been disagreements over the
concept of Jesus being YHWH or the Fahter being YHWH, but NOBODY
believes both are YHWH.
The three PERSONS are ONE God.
>
>But the Bible says in Deut 6:4 Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is ONE
>Jehovah.
There is only ONE God, but the Bible CLEARLY states (as we Christians
have demonstrated from scripture over and over again) that:
The Father is God
Jesus is God
and
the Holy Spirit is God
and the three are ONE GOD.
You jws are confused and badly taught. We Christians pray for you
regularly.
in the Name of YHWH,
Checker
che...@flapper.net
<noe...@protected.com> wrote:
>Thanks for the reply.
>
>Why do you think Jehovah is called “God of gods” acc to Deut 10:17? Who
>are these “gods”? If the “gods” are false gods, then are you saying that
>Jehovah is the God of “false” gods? Are “false gods” part of the world?
>What does the Bible says about friendship with the world? Who is the ruler
>of this present world? Jehovah is NOT Satan because Satan is the god of
>the wicked system of things (including the false gods/idols).
>The Bible won’t even use the phrase “God of gods” if other “gods” do not
>exist at all.
So you are a polytheist, huh?
And of course the Bible must be wrong for your theory to work:
Isa 43:10-11
10 "You are My witnesses," says the LORD,
"And My servant whom I have chosen,
That you may know and believe Me,
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
Nor shall there be after Me.
11 I, even I, am the LORD,
And besides Me there is no savior.
NKJV
Isa 44:6-8
"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
'I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God.
7 And who can proclaim as I do?
Then let him declare it and set it in order for Me,
Since I appointed the ancient people.
And the things that are coming and shall come,
Let them show these to them.
8 Do not fear, nor be afraid;
Have I not told you from that time, and declared it?
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.'"
NKJV
OOOOh, but jws claim you BELIEVE the Bible, don't they?
Oooh, they have a PROBLEM!
<snipped your analogy that doesn't work>
God exists. So do FALSE deities. But there is only ONE REAL GOD,
according to the passages above.
>
>Trinitarians believe that the three persons in the Trinity are WHOLE God
>and not JUST PARTS. A cup of water, is still a cup of water, even if it
>changes form (ice, etc).
Yep, we Trinitarians do believe that.
in the Name of Jesus,
Checker
Ips-Switch
"The Most Reverend Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN." <hugh....@heathens.org.uk> wrote
in message
news:9ba6bb51-0ac3-45f2...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Jabriol is indeed a jerk and a hypocrite. He claims to be a Jehovah's
Witness, a man of morals and of god, yet he obsesses over child porn and
other people's sex lives and marriages. He slanders people and net-stalks
women. He's a well known pathological liar with zero credibility. That's
what religion and cults do to some people. Most of the other JWs are ashamed
of him but can't seem to have anything done about him. His cult hesitates to
disfellowship him because their numbers have been shrinking for years.
Ask yourself also how hypocritical it is for a sick, twisted criminal
to bang on about religion and morality.
In his warped feverish mind he's a man of god with excellent morals. But
many criminals justify what they do.
Ips-Switch
<che...@flapper.net> wrote in message
news:4k9bk3t6brthbg9f7...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:47:03 +0100, "dell12345"
>
> 26 Then God said,"Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our
> likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the
> birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over
> every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
And once again the bible is wrong. Man does not have dominion over all
these things.
che...@flapper.net
wrote:
Oh? Who does? You? Naah, I don't think so.
Checker
Ips-Switch
<che...@flapper.net> wrote in message
news:j0gbk35i6mg879eh5...@4ax.com...
No one does which means once again the bible is wrong. :-)
>
> Checker
trevor.ribbands
> Is God composed of THREE PERSONS?
> Gen 17:1 states “, then Jehovah appeared to A´bram and said to him: “I am
> God Almighty”
> Do you use the phrase “I am” for THREE persons or you only use it for ONE
> Person?
> If God is composed of THREE persons, God should have said “WE ARE God” but
> you cannot find that it the Bible.
> You never use the phrase “I am” for THREE Persons. I am is only used for
> one person.
> JESUS said to the Father also in John 17:3, that the Father is the “ONLY
> True God”, this means there is one and only one person who is God, the
> Father. and this is confirmed in 1 Cor 8:5 where is states “6 there is
> actually to us one God the FATHER”.Notice the Father only. Notice also in
> John 17:3 Jesus excluded himself as the only true God. Instead of saying
> “We are the only true God” JESUS said “YOU (referring to the Father), and
> not US” as the only true God. Now are you against Jesus?
> Now, if the Son is Jehovah, the Father is Jehovah and the holy spirit is
> Jehovah according to the Trinity doctrine, then these THREE PERSONS, are
> THREE Jehovah.
> But the Bible says in Deut 6:4 Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is ONE
> Jehovah.
Regarding multiple Gods/polytheism, is the following still current WTS
doctrine:
Watchtower 12/1881, p. 301
Now we appear like men, and all die naturally like men, but in the
resurrection we will rise in our true character as Gods."
regards
brian M
trevor.ribbands
> Is God composed of THREE PERSONS?
>
> Gen 17:1 states “, then Jehovah appeared to A´bram and said to him: “I am
> God Almighty”
>
> Do you use the phrase “I am” for THREE persons or you only use it for ONE
> Person?
> If God is composed of THREE persons, God should have said “WE ARE God” but
> you cannot find that it the Bible.
>
> You never use the phrase “I am” for THREE Persons. I am is only used for
> one person.
>
> JESUS said to the Father also in John 17:3, that the Father is the “ONLY
> True God”, this means there is one and only one person who is God, the
> Father. and this is confirmed in 1 Cor 8:5 where is states “6 there is
> actually to us one God the FATHER”.Notice the Father only. Notice also in
> John 17:3 Jesus excluded himself as the only true God. Instead of saying
> “We are the only true God” JESUS said “YOU (referring to the Father), and
> not US” as the only true God. Now are you against Jesus?
>
> Now, if the Son is Jehovah, the Father is Jehovah and the holy spirit is
> Jehovah according to the Trinity doctrine, then these THREE PERSONS, are
> THREE Jehovah.
>
> But the Bible says in Deut 6:4 Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is ONE
> Jehovah.
Did you know that the Watchtower Society created it's own
(distorted) version of the Trinity.
(1915 Convention Report, p. 123)
"Heavenly Father is the first and foremost, the greatest part of that
wonderful trinity. We find that the Lord Jesus was to be the second person
in that marvelous trinity. We find that the third person in that trinity
was not to be an influence, disposition or power merely, nor was the third
part to be a single individual. The Bible gives us to understand that the
third member in the trinity will be those who have faithfully followed in
the footsteps of our dear redeemer...'That they may all be one, as thou
Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.' There
is the trinity,' there we have three in one- the Father, the Son and those
who follow in the footsteps of the Son. No wonder the Word of God exalts
the hope of the church as it does. We could not believe this unless the
Word of God told us it was so."
Don't JW's read their own history?
regards
brian M
che...@flapper.net
wrote:
>
><che...@flapper.net> wrote in message
>news:j0gbk35i6mg879eh5...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:10:26 -0600, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><che...@flapper.net> wrote in message
>>>news:4k9bk3t6brthbg9f7...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:47:03 +0100, "dell12345"
>>>>
>>>> Gen 1:26-28
>>>> 26 Then God said,"Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our
>>>> likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the
>>>> birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over
>>>> every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
>>>
>>>And once again the bible is wrong. Man does not have dominion over all
>>>these things.
>>
>> Oh? Who does? You? Naah, I don't think so.
>
>No one does which means once again the bible is wrong. :-)
>
Nonsense.
Checker
Ips-Switch
<che...@flapper.net> wrote in message
news:36ndk35u8i5vkaan3...@4ax.com...
Yep... the bible is indeed all NONSENSE. :-)
>
> Checker
dell12345
Our likeness..”
Does this verse make God composed of THREE persons?
Please notice this.
The Mother said “Let US make a cake”, Is the Mother composed of THREE
PERSONS? Or Is the Mother THREE Mothers?
Or The Mother is only talking to someone else, which let’s say is a
daughter.
dell12345
God, or being filled with it does not mean that the one filled with the
fullness of God , will become God himself nor make the Christian fully God
himself. What the Christians will be filled is the fullness, not of BEING
God, but of the divine qualities of God. This is the same in Jesus, what he
is filled is the fullness of the divine qualities of his God, the Father.
What are these divine qualities? Love, kindness, etc.
Trinitarians are also wrong to say that when Jesus is described as having
the qualities and title of God, with fullness of God, that he is God
himself. Please notice that Jesus is never called Jah, Jah Jehovah, God of
gods etc. At a certain point Jesus obedience was not yet
perfect/complete, he needs to learn obedience.(Heb) If it is true that
Jesus has all the fullness of being the Almighty God, then he should also
have those titles/names/qualities all the time. But the Bible tells that
Jesus have the fullness of divinity (divine qualities ) coming/given by
God.
Egbert
"dell12345" <noe...@protected.com> wrote in message
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> You won't say "President of United States" if US does not exist. You won't
> say "Head of the congregation" if no congregation exists. You won't use
> the
> phrase " God of heaven and earth" if heaven and earth do not exist.. So
> you won't say "Lord of lords" if other "lords" do not exist. The Bible
> won't say "King of kings" if no other "kings" exist. This is the true with
> the phrase "God of gods". Indeed there is only one true God, one Creator,
> the Father, whom Jesus prayed to and glorified. But this doesn't mean that
> the Father did not cause other "gods" which are lower than/not equal to
> him to exist.
>
>
> Trinitarians believe that the three persons in the Trinity are WHOLE God
> and not JUST PARTS. A cup of water, is still a cup of water, even if it
> changes form (ice, etc).
Nice talk, really, appriate.
But please stop to represent 'the governing body' of Jehovah's Witnesses, a
collective pope-dom, they are calling themselves faithfull and 'directing'
jehovah's people, while Jesus said: "Let _nobody_ call yourselves leaders."
The greatest among you,should be the most humble.
Is your 'governing body' humble? NO.
If they were, they would not _excommunicate_ anyone, who doubts that they
are who they say they are.
dell12345
Jehovah”. There is only one God whose name is Jehovah.
For Trinitarians, that will be THREE Jehovah.
Deut 6:4 Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is ONE
Jehovah.
trevor.ribbands
> Eph 3:19 will explain to you what Col 2:9 means. Having the fullness of
> God, or being filled with it does not mean that the one filled with the
> fullness of God , will become God himself nor make the Christian fully God
> himself. What the Christians will be filled is the fullness, not of BEING
> God, but of the divine qualities of God. This is the same in Jesus, what he
> is filled is the fullness of the divine qualities of his God, the Father.
>
> What are these divine qualities? Love, kindness, etc.
>
>
> Trinitarians are also wrong to say that when Jesus is described as having
> the qualities and title of God, with fullness of God, that he is God
> himself. Please notice that Jesus is never called Jah, Jah Jehovah, God of
> gods etc. At a certain point Jesus obedience was not yet
> perfect/complete, he needs to learn obedience.(Heb) If it is true that
> Jesus has all the fullness of being the Almighty God, then he should also
> have those titles/names/qualities all the time. But the Bible tells that
> Jesus have the fullness of divinity (divine qualities ) coming/given by
> God.
au contraire, according to the Bible.
Jehovah is God (Deut 6:4) - Jesus is God (John 20:28).
Jehovah is King (Ps. 95:3) - Jesus is King (Rev. 17:14)
Jehovah is Light (Ps. 27:1) - Jesus is Light (John 8:12)
Jehovah is the Rock (Ps. 89:26) - Jesus is the Rock (1 Pet. 2:4-8)
Jehovah is Shepherd (Ps. 23:1) - Jesus is Shepherd (John 10:11)
Jehovah is Husband (Isa. 54:5) - Jesus is Husband (2 Cor. 11:2)
Jehovah is Creator (Isa 44:24) - Jesus is Creator (Col. 1:15-20)
Jehovah is eternal (Ps. 102:26-27) - Jesus is eternal (Isa. 9:6)
Jehovah forgives sin (Ex. 34:6-7) - Jesus forgives sin (Mark 2:5-7)
Jehovah is called the First and Last (Isa. 48:12) - Jesus is called the First and Last (Rev. 2:8)
regards
brian M
che...@flapper.net
<noe...@protected.com> wrote:
>You don\'t understand Deut 6:4. What this states is that God is “ONE
>Jehovah”. There is only one God whose name is Jehovah.
>
>For Trinitarians, that will be THREE Jehovah.
Your religion has lied to you. Trinitarians do not believe that.
Your REDEFINITION of what you wrongly think Trinitarians believe makes
your whole theory fall in a hole.
>
>Deut 6:4 Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is ONE
>Jehovah.
There is NO GOD with the REAL Name, "Jehovah." Jehovah cannot be
pronounced with the Hebrew alphabet. His REAL Name is "Yahweh," as
recorded in GREEK by Josephus, who heard it outside the tent.
Checker
che...@flapper.net
<noe...@protected.com> wrote:
>Gen 1:26 states “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to
>Our likeness..”
>
>Does this verse make God composed of THREE persons?
Hmm. The argument that was originally made here was that the words "I
Am" in Genesis 17 were singular. I pointed out that in Genesis 1:26
the words "Us" and "Our" are NOT singular.
>
>Please notice this.
>
>The Mother said “Let US make a cake”, Is the Mother composed of THREE
>PERSONS? Or Is the Mother THREE Mothers?
>Or The Mother is only talking to someone else, which let’s say is a
>daughter.
Your analogy does not work. The mother is not God.
And the claim that the Bible does not use the plural for Almighty God
is a false claim, as I and others have shown.
Checker
che...@flapper.net
<noe...@protected.com> wrote:
>Eph 3:19 will explain to you what Col 2:9 means. Having the fullness of
>God, or being filled with it does not mean that the one filled with the
>fullness of God , will become God himself nor make the Christian fully God
>himself. What the Christians will be filled is the fullness, not of BEING
>God, but of the divine qualities of God. This is the same in Jesus, what he
>is filled is the fullness of the divine qualities of his God, the Father.
>
>What are these divine qualities? Love, kindness, etc.
>
Your theory SOUNDS good until you look at the Greek text the passage
is translated from.
The term "the fullness of the Godhead" is literally "the STATE OF
BEING GOD."
It says NOTHING of "divine qualities," things with qualities of God,
but it SAYS THE STATE OF BEING GOD.
>Trinitarians are also wrong to say that when Jesus is described as having
>the qualities and title of God, with fullness of God, that he is God
>himself.
Colossians 2:9 says nothing about "having qualities" Or "title" of
anything. Your religion has lied to you.
>Please notice that Jesus is never called Jah, Jah Jehovah, God of
>gods etc.
John 20:26-28
26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas
with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst,
and said, "Peace to you!" 27 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your
finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put
it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing."
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God !"
NKJV
Try again. Thomas called Jesus, "my God."
And Jesus' response? As a rabbi, He should have REBUKED Thomas for
what would have been blasphemy were it not true. Instead, Jesus said:
John 20:29
29 Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have
believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
NKJV
Believed what? That the risen Jesus is Lord and God.
>At a certain point Jesus obedience was not yet
>perfect/complete, he needs to learn obedience.(Heb) If it is true that
>Jesus has all the fullness of being the Almighty God, then he should also
>have those titles/names/qualities all the time. But the Bible tells that
>Jesus have the fullness of divinity (divine qualities ) coming/given by
>God.
There is nothing at all about "divine qualities" in Colossians 2:9.
Anyone who claims that has not read the Greek text or is simply lying.
Checker
che...@flapper.net
Excellent post!
Checker
trevor.ribbands
There are quite a few others that I found:
Jehovah is Mighty God (Psm 89:26) Jesus is Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6)
Jehovah is True God (Jeremiah 10:10) Jesus is True God (1 John 5:20)
Jehovah is Almighty God (Henesis 17:1) Jesus is Almighty God (Rev 1:8 with
22:20)
Jehovah is Only God (Isaiah 45:22 Jesus is Only God (1 Tim 1:16,17)
Jehovah is Lord of Lords (Deut 10:17)` Jesus is Lord of Lords (Rev 17:14)
Jehovah is "I am" (Exodus 3:14) Jesus is "I am" (John 8:58)
Jehovah is Father (Matt 6:9) Jesus is Father (isaiah 9:6)
and there are others that I haven't added here.
regards
brian M
trevor.ribbands
> Eph 3:19 will explain to you what Col 2:9 means. Having the fullness of
> God, or being filled with it does not mean that the one filled with the
> fullness of God , will become God himself nor make the Christian fully God
> himself. What the Christians will be filled is the fullness, not of BEING
> God, but of the divine qualities of God. This is the same in Jesus, what he
> is filled is the fullness of the divine qualities of his God, the Father.
>
> What are these divine qualities? Love, kindness, etc.
>
>
> Trinitarians are also wrong to say that when Jesus is described as having
> the qualities and title of God, with fullness of God, that he is God
> himself. Please notice that Jesus is never called Jah, Jah Jehovah, God of
> gods etc. At a certain point Jesus obedience was not yet
> perfect/complete, he needs to learn obedience.(Heb) If it is true that
> Jesus has all the fullness of being the Almighty God, then he should also
> have those titles/names/qualities all the time. But the Bible tells that
> Jesus have the fullness of divinity (divine qualities ) coming/given by
> God.
I can see where you're coming from dell12345, and you present an
interesting argument.
We learn new things every day and I certainly did when talking with
Gordie here on this group - it gave me a better understanding
of the RCC, and some of the scriptures, so I am reading what you
write. Will you do a little Scriptural exercise with me in two parts?
Part 1:
In Revelation 1:8; who is the "Alpha and the Omega"
Answer:
In Revelation 21:6-7; who is the "Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega"
Answer:
In Revelation 22:12-13; who is the "First and Last"
Answer:
regards
brian M
curtjester1
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:47:03 +0100, dell12345 wrote:
> > Is God composed of THREE PERSONS?
>
> > Gen 17:1 states ", then Jehovah appeared to A´bram and said to him: "I am
> > God Almighty"
>
> > Do you use the phrase "I am" for THREE persons or you only use it for ONE
> > Person?
> > If God is composed of THREE persons, God should have said "WE ARE God" but
> > you cannot find that it the Bible.
>
> > You never use the phrase "I am" for THREE Persons. I am is only used for
> > one person.
>
> > JESUS said to the Father also in John 17:3, that the Father is the "ONLY
> > True God", this means there is one and only one person who is God, the
> > Father. and this is confirmed in 1 Cor 8:5 where is states "6 there is
> > actually to us one God the FATHER".Notice the Father only. Notice also in
> > John 17:3 Jesus excluded himself as the only true God. Instead of saying
> > "We are the only true God" JESUS said "YOU (referring to the Father), and
> > not US" as the only true God. Now are you against Jesus?
>
> > Now, if the Son is Jehovah, the Father is Jehovah and the holy spirit is
> > Jehovah according to the Trinity doctrine, then these THREE PERSONS, are
> > THREE Jehovah.
>
> > Jehovah.
>
> Just for the sake of argument, as I'm very wary of man-made doctrines, how
> would you interpret the sentence "I am water"
> Does it mean that I am steam, gas, ice, or liquid?
>
> If God does have 3 parts, then that would put an end to the WTS
> NWT translation of John 1:1 which claims that there is more than
> one God, no matter how much you titty up the title, and if Michael is
> Jesus, then Michael is also "a" God - isn't this polytheism? (not to
> mention Jehovah God's clear statement on what happens to false
> Gods).
>
> regards
> brian M- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That would not put an end to the translation at John 1:1 because not
only the NWT translates "god", others have the word "divine", and
there are also more. They do that because it's not in the correct
context or sentence structure to do otherwise. And many put forth
lengthy supports for doing so with many citations.
Anyway, it would not be necessary or especially make sense to say with
one who was "in the beginning" with God, as God had no beginning. The
scriptures do say that Satan was sinning "from the beginning" which
means by one who likes 'trinity thinking' to make God the originator
of sin by making Satan to sin from an onset. Of course further
reading of the Bible makes that false as it gives the sequence of
faulty thinking that lead to Satan's demise. Of course the Trinity
doctrine is so totally false on this issue as it states in Corinthians
and Revelation that Jesus is 'the firstborn of all creation", and
later in the 1st chapter of John, he is noted as God's "only-begotten"
Son. That means produced. In Proverbs 8 Jesus is the "earliest of
God's achievements" The scriptures are so explicit and uniform in all
the descriptions of angels, Jesus, and God so as not to confuse, but
it does take some imaginative thinking and sleight of hand by
Trinitarians to pull it off. Job 38:7 describes also the creation and
how the sons, the morning stars, came to applaud the greatness of the
event. Jesus in Revelation is clearly The Bright and Morning Star.
Could there be any more clarity?
CJ
trevor.ribbands
> On 20 Nov, 21:19, "trevor.ribbands" <tre...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:47:03 +0100, dell12345 wrote:
>> > Is God composed of THREE PERSONS?
>>
>> > Gen 17:1 states ", then Jehovah appeared to A惑ram and said to him: "I am
Ah, a learned man and a very persuasive argument. We could dive into
Greek and debate the translation of "firstborn", however you will be
able to easily answer my questions in a later thread.
In Revelation 1:8; who is the "Alpha and the Omega"
In Revelation 21:6-7; who is the "Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega"
In Revelation 22:12-13; who is the "First and Last"
regards
brian M
curtjester1
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:59:31 -0800, curtjester1 wrote:
> > On 20 Nov, 21:19, "trevor.ribbands" <tre...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:47:03 +0100, dell12345 wrote:
> >> > Is God composed of THREE PERSONS?
>
The trouble with Title labeling is that so many people and entities
can claim a title on how one wants to apply....Moses could be God for
example in Exodus.
There are four speakers in Revelation...the angel, God, Christ and
John.
Alpha and Omega in Rev 1:8 is Jehovah God
First and Last of of Rev 22 would be Jesus Christ.
I don't have a Bible with me but too many verses in Revelation are so
definite in separating God and Jesus...rev. 3:12..."my God" is Jesus'
reference. Rev. 1:1 separation and God is the giver to the ones in
line to receive. It's just so plain, especially in the book of
Revelation.
The trouble is, one tries to match titles only to make a theory. I
think just from that precept, that is a wrong way to go about it.
And how are you going to try to use word usage to make creation and
creating different? We begat like was written in Genesis applies to
how we create a family. Now God begat's in 'another way'? Do you
think God wanted to be so confusing that he would have one go to a
lexicon for understanding a whole theory? Don't you think he would
have laid out the groundwork for a doctrine such as equality or a
trinity if it were important by just stating explicitly what it was
and would entail? Don't you think there would be statutes or some
kind of markers made by the apostles and the first century believers
if that was a viable doctrine?
CJ
dell12345
have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and
authority.\"(COLOSSIANS 2:9-10)
Liddell and Scott’s A Greek-English Lexicon, in its new ninth edition,
completed in 1940 and reprinted in 1948, Volume I, defines Theiótes as
“divine nature, divinity” (page 788). Theótes it defines in exactly the
same way, as “divinity, divine nature,” and then cites as an example
Colossians 2:9.
It is also of interest to note that both Weymouth and An American
Translation render the passage, “the fullness of God’s nature.”
“The fullness” that dwells in Jesus is the decision of someone else, that
is the Father Colossians 1:19 (KJ, Dy).
Again In Col 2:9, Strong’s dictionary defined theotēs also as
divinity . Divinity means “the QUALITY or state of being DIVINE”
.www.m-w.com , so it is correct to translate theotes as “divine
quality”.
According to the KJ version : And to know the love of Christ, which
passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. Eph
3:19
Eph 3:19 will explain to you what Col 2:9 means. Having the fullness of
God, or being filled with it does not mean that the one filled with the
fullness of God , will become God himself nor make the Christian fully God
himself. What the Christians will be filled is the fullness, not of BEING
God, but of the divine qualities of God. This is the same in Jesus, what he
is filled is the fullness of the divine qualities of his God, the Father.
What are these divine qualities? Love, kindness, etc.
trevor.ribbands
Interesting reply CJ, thank you.
Being without Bible puts you at a disadvantage so here is Rev
22:12-13 from the New World Translation:
12 "Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me,
to render to each one as his work is. 13 I am the Alpha and the
Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end"
According to the NWT, Jehovah God is all three of the above - can you
see the connection?. You may be wondering if there is a point, well yes
there is, to show you what happens when an organization changes the
Scriptures to fit in with their doctrines.
Continuing the use of the NWT, let us look at Rev 1:17-18
17 "And when I saw him, I fell as dead at his feet. And he laid his right
hand upon me and said: "Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last,
18 and the living one; and I became dead, but, look! I am living forever
and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Hades"
When did Jehovah God die?
regards
brian M
curtjester1
Like I said, you can accuse them of doing 'that' when you are doing
the same thing. You can go to the Gospels and see where the disciples
are depicted as the first and the last too. So one does 'have to'
make decisions on which applies to whom. One could go to the index
under first and last to find a reference, I believe in Luke. Like I
say you are willing to JUMP on the chance to make a title label, but
ignore quite a bit of other stuff. And with four speakers going back
and forth throughout The Revelation, don't you think that is a
dangerous precedent?
CJ
trevor.ribbands
> On 27 Nov, 17:07, "trevor.ribbands" <tre...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:31:22 -0800, curtjester1 wrote:
>> > On 26 Nov, 19:46, "trevor.ribbands" <tre...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:59:31 -0800, curtjester1 wrote:
>> >> > On 20 Nov, 21:19, "trevor.ribbands" <tre...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:47:03 +0100, dell12345 wrote:
>> >> >> > Is God composed of THREE PERSONS?
>>
>> >> >> > Gen 17:1 states ", then Jehovah appeared to A惑ram and said to him: "I am
I don't jump on chances to score brownie points CJ. The
passages are relevant and clear as to who is talking in respective Bibles,
and it is about the speaker's identity.This change of Holy Scripture from
a dubious source should be of concern to all JW's. Thus in the NWT
Rev 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says Jehovah God,
"the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty."
Rev 21:6-7 And he said to me: "They have come to pass! I am the Alpha
and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will
give from the fountain of the water of life free. 7 Anyone conquering
will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son."
Rev 22:12 "Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with
me, to render to each one as his work is. 13 I am the Alpha and the
Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
I don't see any change of speakers in the above three chapters - you
yourself said that Rev 22 would refer to JC, if so, would the real Alpha
and Omega please stand up and be identified!.
regards
brian M
curtjester1
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:27:55 -0800, curtjester1 wrote:
> > On 27 Nov, 17:07, "trevor.ribbands" <tre...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:31:22 -0800, curtjester1 wrote:
> >> > On 26 Nov, 19:46, "trevor.ribbands" <tre...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:59:31 -0800, curtjester1 wrote:
> >> >> > On 20 Nov, 21:19, "trevor.ribbands" <tre...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:47:03 +0100, dell12345 wrote:
> >> >> >> > Is God composed of THREE PERSONS?
>
interesting', and then drop that particular commentary, and then to
call a change of scripture a dubious source is what exactly? I mean
if you are going to talk about a dubious source you must put the KJV
first when it took a forged document to put in I John 5:7 from a known
'adder'. Anyway, it seems that to satisfy yourself, you want to try
to trap instead, in the match the adjective game. I did offer that
this can be dangerous when one speaks of firsts and lasts and applies
them to disiciples in Luke. No offer of an explanation, so this puts
you in a light of trying to prove a theory if 'I can just prove one
scripture'.
> Rev 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says Jehovah God,
> "the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty."
>
Obvious Jehovah, since he is the Almighty, and all other scriptures
describe him to be, and no others do the same for Jesus.
> Rev 21:6-7 And he said to me: "They have come to pass! I am the Alpha
> and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will
> give from the fountain of the water of life free. 7 Anyone conquering
> will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son."
>
Obviously couldn't be Jesus could it.
> Rev 22:12 "Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with
> me, to render to each one as his work is. 13 I am the Alpha and the
> Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
>
Rev. 22:12 could be Jehovah or Jesus, and 13 would have to be Jehovah.
> I don't see any change of speakers in the above three chapters - you
> yourself said that Rev 22 would refer to JC, if so, would the real Alpha
> and Omega please stand up and be identified!.
>
How is it that you don't 'see' changes in speakers? When is it
relevant for any determination for a change? I did say that about
Rev. 22, and applying to Jesus, but I like I said don't have a Bible,
and don't know exactly what verses do and don't. And it's probably
been 20 years since I analyzed the scriptures you have brought up.
There was quite a bit of material on those scriptures in the 70's from
the WTBS when I did.
CJ
trevor.ribbands
<< mild ad hominem snipped >>
>> I don't see any change of speakers in the above three chapters - you
>> yourself said that Rev 22 would refer to JC, if so, would the real Alpha
>> and Omega please stand up and be identified!.
>>
> How is it that you don't 'see' changes in speakers? When is it
> relevant for any determination for a change? I did say that about
> Rev. 22, and applying to Jesus, but I like I said don't have a Bible,
> and don't know exactly what verses do and don't. And it's probably
> been 20 years since I analyzed the scriptures you have brought up.
> There was quite a bit of material on those scriptures in the 70's from
> the WTBS when I did.
>
> CJ
I'm disappointed CJ, I expected better reasoning. I've posed the same
question to field service people at the door and had them promply change
the subject, smokescreen, and then run away. To your credit you stuck
around, even without a Bible.
My only object is to let others see how the WTS has altered the Scriptures
to downgrade Jesus from His rightful place. The dubious source you
questioned is the 5 GB men none of whom was a Greek scholar who altered
the Bible, assisted by the well-known demon-spiritist Johannes Greber. No
church or organization I know of, except Jehovah's Witnesses, uses or even
recognizes the NWT. Dubious source is an understatement - I would call it
demonic. There has been plenty of other discussion on this group about
that.
The JW spectators will form their own opinion about this thread -
they are the best judges - and good on them - it takes real courage to go
online in defiance of the GB.
Shortly I am away camping for a few weeks, and I will check this group
when I get back, in the meantime, happy holidays, whatever you do,
wherever you are, and may God bless you and keep you, and Christ's love be
with you always.
regards
brian M
Sam Taylor
will be CAST IN HELL and be tortued and burned up forever, and ever,
and ever, and ever, and ever.
The scriptures go on to state if one tries TOO HARD to understand the
Holy trinity they WILL GO CRAZY, and end up in the looney bin!
curtjester1
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:05:59 -0800, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> << mild ad hominem snipped >>
>
> >> I don't see any change of speakers in the above three chapters - you
> >> yourself said that Rev 22 would refer to JC, if so, would the real Alpha
> >> and Omega please stand up and be identified!.
>
> > How is it that you don't 'see' changes in speakers? When is it
> > relevant for any determination for a change? I did say that about
> > Rev. 22, and applying to Jesus, but I like I said don't have a Bible,
> > and don't know exactly what verses do and don't. And it's probably
> > been 20 years since I analyzed the scriptures you have brought up.
> > There was quite a bit of material on those scriptures in the 70's from
> > the WTBS when I did.
>
> > CJ
>
> I'm disappointed CJ, I expected better reasoning. I've posed the same
> question to field service people at the door and had them promply change
> the subject, smokescreen, and then run away. To your credit you stuck
> around, even without a Bible.
I suspect that you pose this to field service people because you don't
want to listen or examine other scriptures like here. Nobody would go
to a door with the scriptures you had in mind.
Anyway, let's look at some.
In Rev. 22:3 when there is no more curse. "The throne of God and of
the Lamb will be in the city."
verse 8 is interesting since John is the speaker..and he fell down to
worship, but is admonished because one must worship God. Worshipping
God in Revelation is permeated throughout and not once is ascribed to
Jesus.
verse 16. I, Jesus sent my angel to bear witness. Could this mean
this was a change of speakers that you ascribe Jesus as speaking of
himself in verse 13? You might want to rethink that one.
In Rev. 21. Jehovah God is the temple and The almighty, and also the
Lamb is (sans the Almighty).
Rev. 20:6...but they will be priests of God AND of the Christ.
Rev. 19:10 Worship God; for the bearing witness to Jesus is what
inspires prophesyings."
Rev. 15: 3,4 And they are singing the song of Moses, and the song of
the Lamb: "Great and wonderful are your works, Jehovah God, the
Almighty..
Rev. 14:7 FEAR God and give him glory....so worship the One who made
the heaven and the earth and seas and mountains of waters.
Rev. 11:16-17. the twenty-four elders seated on their thrones fell
upon their faces and worshiped God. saying thank you Jehovah God, the
Almighty, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling.
Rev. 5:5 one of the 24 elders says to me. "Look! The Lion that is of
the tribe of Juday, the root of David has conquered so as to open the
scrolls." Rev. 10: 1,2 I saw another strong angel...descending from
heaven, and he cried out with a loud voice as when A LION ROARS.
Rev. 4:8 holy, holy, holy is Jehovah God, the Almighty, who was and
who is and who is coming.
Rev. 1:8 I am Alpha and the Omega, says Jehovah God, 'the one who is
and who was and who is coming, the Almighty."
Rev. 1:6 and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to HIS God and
Father. Verse 7. Look HE is coming with the clouds.
God is always in Revelation depicted as Almighty, and separated from
Jesus.
> My only object is to let others see how the WTS has altered the Scriptures
> to downgrade Jesus from His rightful place. The dubious source you
> questioned is the 5 GB men none of whom was a Greek scholar who altered
> the Bible, assisted by the well-known demon-spiritist Johannes Greber. No
> church or organization I know of, except Jehovah's Witnesses, uses or even
> recognizes the NWT. Dubious source is an understatement - I would call it
> demonic. There has been plenty of other discussion on this group about
> that.
Of course you won't go on about the apostasy and who might have
influenced the King James version will you? Could this be because of
your pre-dispostion and willing only to prove a scripture you like and
that could only influence your side?
> The JW spectators will form their own opinion about this thread -
> they are the best judges - and good on them - it takes real courage to go
> online in defiance of the GB.
Let them decide. The scriptures are on the side of Jehovah being the
only true God, and One, and Jesus Christ a created free moral agent
that could rightfully be a ransom for Adam because of the test in the
garden being a test for created beings. God couldn't have been a
ransom could he, judgers of the thread?
> Shortly I am away camping for a few weeks, and I will check this group
> when I get back, in the meantime, happy holidays, whatever you do,
> wherever you are, and may God bless you and keep you, and Christ's love be
> with you always.
>
Jehovah's Witnesses don't 'Happy Holiday' especially Xmas because we
know how much Satan was involved in it.
CJ
> regards
> brian M
curtjester1
There are many other scriptures in Revelation that support God being
One, and Jesus Christ being in subjection to that one, whether it
being not knowing all that God would know, or being an angel, or just
plain being separated by the verses themselves. People in Christendom
and people like brian like to play the Demean card, by saying that the
position of not making Jesus God, is taking away from his character
and rightful position. But isn't the argument that God would be
demeaned if others usurped his status and sovereignty as being God,
also?
Anyway, let's look at Revelation 1:1. A revelation by Jesus Christ,
which God GAVE him. If one were God, wouldn't they have absolute
knowledge of everything, and not need to be given anything?
And here is brian's big thing about First and Last in Rev. 1:17. John
falls at Jesus' feet, and Jesus says do not be fearful, I am the First
and the Last....and the living one (18), and I became dead, but I am
living forever and I have the KEYS of death and Hades. Obviously
Jesus has conquered sin and death and has been approved by God by
ressurecting him and giving him a even more exalted postition than he
already had, and for mankind it meant that there would be no other
need for a ransom or at any time a precedent like what transpired by
Jesus' sacrifice. Hence, it would be the First time that would ever
have to take place and the Last time that would ever have to take
place. In Rev. 3:7 it speaks again in similar terms about Jesus who
is holy, who is true, who has the KEY of David, who opens so that no
one will shut, and shuts that no one opens. Now in Rev. 9 chapter 1
we have this fifth angel, and a star (term for angel) fall that had
fallen from heaven to the earth, and the KEY of the pit and of the
abyss was given to him. Sound familiar? It should. Rev. 7:2. And I
saw another angel ascending from the sunrising, having the SEAL OF THE
LIVING GOD. Who would be worthy to have the seal of the living God?
Only Jesus would. And in verse 10 of the same chapter, the great
crowd crys out with loud voices, "Salvation we owe to our God, who is
seated on the throne, AND to the Lamb (Jesus Christ).
Rev. 12:7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and HIS angels
battled with the dragon (Devil and Satan)....verse 10.."and I heard a
loud voice in heaven say: "Now have come to pass the salvation and
the power and the kingdom of our God AND the authority of HIS Christ.
All throughout Revelation, Jesus is the chief battler for God and his
unfolding purposes in the establishment of the Kingdom. There is no
way one can divorce Jesus and his exalted position as Son, and head
angel to fullfill that purpose.
Rev. 22:16 "I, Jesus sent my angel to bear witness to you people of
these things for the congregations. I am the root and offspring of
David, and the bright and morning star." It just dovetails with all
the other scriptures that describe Jesus in the book of Revelation.
CJ
ResLight
says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
We find the phrase -- Alpha and Omega -- in Revelation 1:8; 21:6; 22:13 --
all three of which, if we examine the scriptures closely, can be seen to
refer to Yahweh, the God and Father of Jesus. This phrase is therefore not
used of Jesus.
Regarding Revelation 1:8:
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and
who is to come, the Almighty."
Revelation 1:8 -- New American Standard Version
The scripture itself, the context, as well as other scriptures, show that it
is the God of Jesus who is being quoted as speaking in Revelation 1:8, not
Jesus himself. The Revelation is from the God and Father of Jesus, who, in
turn gives the message to his angel, who in turn gives the message to John.
(Revelaton 1:1) There are four persons involved in the transmission of the
Revelation, and sometimes it is Jesus who is being quoted, and sometimes it
is John who is speaking, and sometimes it is the angel who is quoted, and
sometimes it is the God and Father of Jesus who is quoted.
The Alexandrian manuscripts, the Complutensian edition, and the Latin
Vulgate, the Syriac, and Arabic versions, all read, "the Lord God"; and the
Ethiopic version only has "God". Most modern translations have "the Lord
God", which became the Greek substitute for the expression "Yahweh God",
that appears many times in the Old Testament. This can be seen by comparing
Acts 3:22; 7:37 with the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 18:15. In all instances where
the phrase occurs in the NT, it is in reference to Yahweh, the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus. -- Luke 1:32; 1 Peter 3:10-15; Revelation
11:17,19; 15:3; 16:7; 18:8; 21:11; 22:6.
http://tinyurl.com/y3kock
Likewise, with the phrases "the Lord our God" and "the Lord your God": These
phrases are always used in reference to Yahweh, the God and Father of our
Lord Jesus. -- Matthew 4:7 (Deuteronomy 6:16); Matthew 4:10 (Deuteronomy
6:13; 10:20); Matthew 22:37 (Deuteronomy 6:5); Mark 12:29 (Deuteronomy 6:4);
etc.
Jesus is differentiated from "God, who is and who was and who is to come" in
Revelaton 1:4,5. Verses 5 and 6 refer to Jesus and the church members who
are made a kingdom and also priests to "his God and Father" (World English
Bible translation), that is, the God and Father of Jesus, which gives
further differentiation between Jesus and his God and Father. Verse 7 refers
to Jesus coming with clouds. Verse 8 turns to quoting Yahweh. In verses 9-10
John begins to write of himself. In verse 11, John begins to quote Jesus. In
verses 12 through 16, John himself is writing of what he saw. In verse 17,
John reports that he falls before Jesus as dead, and tells of what Jesus
does and says.
Thus, in a nutshell, Revelation 1:8 does not at all apply "Almighty" to
Jesus, but rather to the God and Father of Jesus.
More detail on this can be found at:
http://godandson.reslight.net/rev-1-8.html
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=139.0
Christian love,
Ronald
ResLight
new." He said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true." Revelation
21:6 He said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning
and the End. I will give freely to him who is thirsty from the spring of the
water of life. Revelation 21:7 He who overcomes, I will give him these
things. I will be his God, and he will be my son.
If these are the words of Jesus, then they could only be applied to him in a
manner similar to Isaiah 9:6, concerning the time when he will be the Mighty
Power and Everlasting Father to the regenerated human race in the age to
come. -- Matthew 19:28; Romans 8:19-21.
Nevertheless, he who sits on the throne in the book of Revelation is spoken
of as the God of Jesus (Revelation 2:7; 3:2,12), and is distinguished from
the Lamb. (Revelation 5:1-7; 5:13, 6:16, 7:10,15) Applying this to the One
sitting on the throne in Revelation 21:5 would mean that these words are the
words of the God of Jesus, not Jesus himself, although they were delivered
by Jesus to the angel who delivered them to John. (Revelation 1:1,2) Many,
if not most, trinitarian Bible scholars acknowledge that the words of
Revelation 1:5 are spoken by God the Father as distinguished from the Lamb,
but some vaguely, and often without any reason for doing so, will claim that
the one being quoted in verses 6 and/or 7 is Jesus. It should be apparent
that the one being quoted verses 5-7 are all the "one who sits on the
throne".
These words of Revelation 21:7 are not directed to the believers of this
age, but to the world in the age to come, in the day of judgment and
regeneration of the world, although indirectly they are applicable, since
the believers in this age are reckoned, counted, imputed (Strong's #3049)
with the blessings and powers of the age to come, having received the spirit
as a token, earnest, as first fruits, of that which is to come. --Romans 4;
6:11; 1 Corinthians 1:21,22; 5:17; 2 Corinthians 5:5; Ephesians 1:3-14;
Hebrews 6:5; 12:23; James 1:18.
Now we come to Revelation 22:13. Many feel sure that this is Jesus speaking,
since the one speaking tells of his "coming", and in Revelation 22:20, Jesus
says: "I come quickly." And John exclaims: "Amen! Come, Lord Jesus." This
overlooks the fact that the scriptures speak of Yahweh coming, and also of
Jesus coming, and that the two are closely associated. This does not mean
that Jesus is Yahweh. Yahweh, the God and Father of Jesus, comes to judge
the world, not only with and by means of Jesus, but also the saints. --
Malachi 3:1-6; Psalm 96:13; 98:9; Daniel 7:18,22; Isaiah 40:10,11; Micah
1:3; Zechariah 14:5; Acts 17:31; 2 Peter 3:7,8; 1 Corinthians 6:2; Psalm
90:4; Jude 1:14,15; Revelation 1:1; 20:4,11-13; 22:6.
Below I quote Revelation 22:6-21 with my comments in brackets [].
Revelation 22:6 He [The angel mentioned in Revelation 21:9] said to me,
"These words are faithful and true. The Lord [Yahweh], the God of the
spirits of the prophets, sent his angels to show to his servants the things
which must happen soon." [This agrees with Revelation 1:1-5, that the
revelation is from God through Jesus, and delivered by an angel.]
Revelation 22:7 [Note the abrupt change; the angel suddenly quotes someone
as coming:] "Behold, I come quickly. Blessed is he who keeps the words of
the prophecy of this book." [Many claim that the one coming is Jesus;
however, this could also be speaking of Yahweh. More than likely, since the
angel was just referring to Yahweh, the God of the spirits of the prophets,
the angel is quoting Yahweh.]
Revelation 22:8 [John again changes and speaks of himself:] Now I, John, am
the one who heard and saw these things. When I heard and saw, I fell down to
worship before the feet of the angel who had shown me these things.
Revelation 22:9 He [the angel] said to me, "See you don't do it! I am a
fellow bondservant with you and with your brothers, the prophets, and with
those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
Revelation 22:10 He [The angel] said to me, "Don't seal up the words of the
prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.
Revelation 22:11 He who acts unjustly, let him act unjustly still. He who is
filthy, let him be filthy still. He who is righteous, let him do
righteousness still. He who is holy, let him be holy still."
Revelation 22:12 [Very abrupty the angel begins to quote someone else
again:] "Behold, I come quickly. My reward is with me, to repay to each man
according to his work. [The God of Jesus judges the world through Jesus, and
each man will get his praise from God. -- Acts 17:31; Romans 2:16; 1
Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy 4:1]
Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the
Beginning and the End."
Revelation 22:14 [This is evidently the angel speaking:] "Blessed are those
who do his [God's] commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of
life, and may enter in by the gates into the city.
Revelation 22:15 Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral,
the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices
falsehood."
Revelation 22:16 [Now the angel quotes Jesus:] "I, Jesus, have sent my angel
to testify these things to you for the assemblies. I am the root and the
offspring of David; the Bright and Morning Star."
Revelation 22:17 [This is probably the angel speaking:] "The Spirit and the
bride say, 'Come!' He who hears, let him say, 'Come!' He who is thirsty, let
him come. He who desires, let him take the water of life freely."
Revelation 22:18 [John suddenly quotes Jesus:] "I testify to every man who
hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to them, may
God add to him the plagues which are written in this book.
Revelation 22:19 If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, may God take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the
holy city, which are written in this book." Revelation 22:20 [John writes]
He [Jesus] who testifies these things says, "Yes, I come quickly." [John
responds:] Amen! Come, Lord Jesus. Revelation 22:21 The grace of the Lord
Jesus be with all the saints. Amen. -- World English Bible translation, with
quotation marks slightly adjusted from that used in the World English.
But let us assume that Jesus is the one speaking in Revelation 22:12,13, as
many have claimed. All this would mean is that these titles or phrases
applied to Yahweh are also applied to Jesus. Does this mean that Jesus is
Yahweh, the God who is identified also as the Father and God of Jesus?
Absolutely not! One must admit that just because the same title is applied
to individuals, this does not make these two individuals one individual.
Else every ruler who has ever used the title "king" would have to be the
same individual as every other ruler who has used the title "king." Each
ruler who uses this title, however, uses it with respect to his peculiar
realm of domain and time. Thus just because the same titles are given to
both the Father and the Son does not mean they are the same being, or that
the titles would be applied with the exact same meaning.
We should also note that none of the passages say that the Father is the
Son, or even that the Son equals the Father. Nor do any of these passages
directly say anything about the non-creation of either the Father or the
Son.
However, there are some scriptures in which Jesus is recorded as declaring
himself as "the first and the last"? Was Jesus claiming to Yahweh?
Revelation 1:17
When I saw him, I fell at his feet like a dead man. He laid his right hand
on me, saying, "Don't be afraid. I am the first and the last,
Revelation 1:18
and the Living one. I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore.
The thought many would like to read into this evidently is that when Jesus
refers to himself as "the first and the last" that this somehow means that
Jesus is Yahweh, who says in Isaiah 44:6: "I am the first, and I am the
last." Additionally, the assumption is usually made that Jesus' reference to
himself as "the first and the last" means that Jesus is, has always been and
always will be. One site plainly says that Jesus, by using that expression
of himself, was claiming to by Yahweh.
What does Jesus himself indicate regarding his reference to himself? Did he
say he has always been -- that he was uncreated, and that he could never
cease to exist? No, he, as the first and the last, plainly says: "I was
dead." Thus he is telling us of a time when he -- the first and the last --
was not. By such Jesus is, in effect, denying that he is Yahweh, who never
ceases to be. But Jesus says, in reference to his being brought out of the
death condition, "I am alive forevermore."
This is reiterated in Revelation 2:8 where Jesus refers to himself as: "The
first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life." For him to come to
life would mean that he, the first and the last, had no life while dead. If
he was actually alive while dead then he never was actually dead.
Of course, our trinitarian neighbors would tear what Jesus said apart and
have the expression "the first and the last" apply to the the alleged "God"
nature of Jesus while they would separate the expression "who was dead" as
not meaning God whom they allege Jesus is claiming to be in the expression
"the first and the last", but rather only the body/flesh/humanity of Jesus.
The First and the Last, they claim is God, who did not die, but rather it
was the "man" Jesus who died. In effect, they would end up denying what
Jesus actually said, that 'the first and the last' was indeed dead. In
reality, there is no reason to divide this up so, except to satisfy the
added on trinitarian concepts. It was Jesus himself who died, ceased to have
sentiency, and it was Jesus himself who came back to life.
The contextual evidence is that Jesus is speaking about his being the first
and last in some way concerning his being dead and brought back to life. How
could this be?
Revelation 1:5 refers to Jesus as the "firstborn" of the dead. No one had
been brought back to life directly by Yahweh, never to die again, except
Jesus. Jesus was the first. At the time of the writing of the Revelation,
Jesus was also the last that had been actually brought back to life, never
to die again. Believers are now "counted" or "reckoned" as justified and
alive, but are not actually raised to life until the "last day" -- the day
of the world's judgment. Jesus was also the "last" to be directly brought
back to life by Yahweh, since God has given the authority of the
resurrection and judgment to Jesus. -- John 5:19-30; 6:39,40,44,54; 11:24;
12:47,48; Acts 17:31.
http://hereafter.reslight.net/cdj.html
Yahweh, of course, is the first and last EL/ELOHIM (strength, power, might)
in the universe. (Isaiah 44:6) No one can have any power or might aside from
him. Even the demons have to depend on Yahweh for any power they have (which
power they misuse). They have no power (strength, might) of their own,
except that they have received such power from God. Yahweh, the God and
Father of Jesus, is the only ultimate Supreme Being. Additionally, none of
the idol-gods of men were formed before Him, since He had no beginning of
existence, nor can any be formed after Him, since he has no ending of
existence.
Christian love,
Ronald
curtjester1
are just too many other things also, like no one can see God and live,
and not knowing all God would know like in the ''day or the hour" of
the great tribulation, and the Revelation itself which "God gave him"
Rev. 1:1 (which is after his resurrection if trinitarians claim that
while he was on earth his lack of God qualities was temporarily
removed somehow.). Of course as you quoted Isaiah 44:6 states also
that besides me, "there is no God.", so that should suffice in further
explanation of Rev. 1:17-18 too, besides the scripture giving a self-
explanation while in use of the first and last. First and last also
used to describe disciples can be further looked at Matt. 19:30 and I
believe there are more similar type of scriptures in Luke somewhere.
http://bible.cc/isaiah/44-6.htm
CJ
> 12:47,48; Acts 17:31.http://hereafter.reslight.net/cdj.html
che...@flapper.net
<noe...@protected.com> wrote:
>\"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you
>have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and
>authority.\"(COLOSSIANS 2:9-10)
>
>
>Liddell and Scott’s A Greek-English Lexicon, in its new ninth edition,
>completed in 1940 and reprinted in 1948, Volume I, defines Theiótes as
>“divine nature, divinity” (page 788). Theótes it defines in exactly the
>same way, as “divinity, divine nature,” and then cites as an example
>Colossians 2:9.
L & S is often wrong. Besides, the word used in Col 2:9 is a
DIFFERENT FORM OF THE WORD, hence a different meaning.
The fullness (Col 1:19; John 14:10) of the Godhead. [Theoteetos
(NT:2320) means the ESSENCE of the Godhead; not merely the divine
perfections, 'theiotes.'] He, as man, was not merely God-like, but
GOD. We have but an earnest of God's Spirit.
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database.
Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)
Godhead theoteetos (NT:2320). Only here in the New Testament. See the
note at Rom 1:20, where theiotees (NT:2305) "divinity or godhood" is
used. Appropriate there, because God "personally" would not be known
from His revelation in nature, but only His attributes-His majesty and
glory. Here Paul is speaking of the
(from Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, Electronic
Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)
>
>It is also of interest to note that both Weymouth and An American
>Translation render the passage, “the fullness of God’s nature.”
Two aberrant translations.
Col 2:9
9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form
NIV
Col 2:9
9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
NKJV
Col 2:9
9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
NASU
Col 2:9
9 For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily
RSV
Col 2:9
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
KJV
NOTE that all of these RECOGNIZED translations use terms that DO NOT
MEAN "divine qualities" such as divinity or divine nature, but DO use
terms that mean DEITY.
Sure you can find a few aberrant files that match your aberrant
beliefs, but you cannot change the fact that RESPONSIBLE and ACCURATE
translators show you to be wrong.
>
>“The fullness” that dwells in Jesus is the decision of someone else, that
>is the Father Colossians 1:19 (KJ, Dy).
Col 1:19-20
For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell,
20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether
things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the
blood of His cross
NKJV
By using only half a sentence you forced it to "look like" it said
something it did not say.
Sure it pleased the Father that the fullness of God should dwell in
Jesus. That does not describe the NATURE of that fullness here, as it
does in Col 2:9
>
>Again In Col 2:9, Strong’s dictionary defined theotēs also as
>divinity . Divinity means “the QUALITY or state of being DIVINE”
>www.m-w.com , so it is correct to translate theotes as “divine
>quality”.
As above, you are defining the GENERAL TERM (theotes), and NOT the
form of the word used in the passage, (Theotees). Different form;
different meaning.
>
>According to the KJ version : And to know the love of Christ, which
>passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. Eph
>3:19
>
>Eph 3:19 will explain to you what Col 2:9 means. Having the fullness of
>God, or being filled with it does not mean that the one filled with the
>fullness of God , will become God himself nor make the Christian fully God
>himself.
Col 1:19-20
For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell,
20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether
things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the
blood of His cross.
NKJV
Col 1:19
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
KJV
There IS NO WORD for "the Father" in the Greek text; those words are
"inserted words," if you would bother to check.
You are confused. "The fullness" can refer to DIFFERENT THINGS.
"Fullness" of a basketball is NOT "fullness" of a gas tank.
We can be filled with the Holy Spirit. We cannot be filled with
"theotees," the state of being almighty Jehovah God.
What you did was similar to saying, "I have a pen in my pocket," so
the State pen (meaning penitentiary) cannot be anything larger than my
pocket.
It makes no sense. DIFFERENT things being filled with DIFFERENT
STUFF.
>What the Christians will be filled is the fullness, not of BEING
>God, but of the divine qualities of God. This is the same in Jesus, what he
>is filled is the fullness of the divine qualities of his God, the Father.
>
>What are these divine qualities? Love, kindness, etc.
You need to learn to read with understanding instead of "reading into
the text" stuff that is not there.
in the Name of Jehovah God,
Checker
trevor.ribbands
> On 29 Nov, 18:19, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 10:37 pm, "trevor.ribbands" <tre...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:05:59 -0800, curtjester1 wrote:
>>
>> Jehovah's Witnesses don't 'Happy Holiday' especially Xmas because we
>> know how much Satan was involved in it.
>>
>> CJ
Glad you brought up satanism/paganism - what does the history
of the WTS show.
-The NWT, demon-inspired (per Johannes Greber). No self-respecting
Greek scholar would touch it with a barge pole. e.g when "translating"
Proskuneo, Satan gets "worship" while Jesus gets "obesience", what does
that tell us about their preference of the pecking order.
-Not paying close attention to pagan rituals, the WTS celebrated
Christmas up to about 1926 with the apparent approval of God, and some
time shortly after that the Bible students experienced "a flash of light"
"Golly, we didn't know THAT was pagan" - nor did the faithful and
discreet slave it seems as he opened his many Christmas prezzies. Had
these men been faithful and wise and did God suddenly do a back flip? of
course not, only men do that and the WTS has a long backflipping
history.
-Founder CT Russell, up to his ears in the Masons, the occult,
pyramidology. -Pagan symbols on WTBS magazines.
-Idolatries - worshipping Jesus's replacement in Brooklyn.
Baptism is an ancient pagan ceremony predating Christianity.
-WTS calendar - using pagan gods names for the names of the months
and days.
-Wedding rings, another pagan tradition.
What was that again about JW's and paganism ?
Back on topic - the Trinity - summed up as:
Not applicable to the WTS organization because they are not Christians.
Instead they embraced Arianism, turned their backs on Christ, substituted
themselves in His place and went down that broad path via
Jeremiah 14:14-16 and 2Peter 2:1-3 taking their hoodwinked followers with
them.
At this time of year I really feel for the JW kids - growing up surrounded by
the constant threat of apocalyptic death and destruction instead of being
surrounded by happiness and security - the responsibility of good parents.
Child abuse isn't always physical and begins in the home at an early
age - no wonder they grow up with emotional disorders living in this climate
of fear promoted by the leaders of an evil doomsday cult.
To the JW lurkers out there, think about this. Contrary to what the WTS
would have you believe, there is still a choice, another way. Instead of
asking yourself "If I left the organization where would I go?"
ask yourself "to whom" would I go.
Happy Birthday Jesus
regards
brian M
ResLight
news:pan.2007.12.19....@bigpond.com...
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:41:17 -0800, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> Glad you brought up satanism/paganism - what does the history
> of the WTS show.
>
> -The NWT, demon-inspired (per Johannes Greber). No self-respecting
> Greek scholar would touch it with a barge pole. e.g when "translating"
> Proskuneo, Satan gets "worship" while Jesus gets "obesience", what does
> that tell us about their preference of the pecking order.
I am not with the JWs, but if the NWT is to be faulted for its rendering of
proskuneo, then practically every other translation of the Bible into
English should also be faulted for the way they render the Hebrew
equivalent, Shachah. The KJV, for example, renders "Shachah" as worship when
speaking of various false gods, but when it is used in reference to David or
some other person, it is usually rendered as "bow down", prostrate,
obeisance, or some similar word. According to the BDBG Lexicon as provided
by Studylight.org, "Shachah" occurs 172 times in the Hebrew, and the KJV
renders it as following: bow, 31; bow down, 18; crouch, 1; fall down, 3;
misc, 3; obeisance, 9; reverence, 5; stoop, 1; themselves, 2; worship, 99.
Thus out of the 172 times it occurs, it is rendered as "worship" only 99
times.
> -Not paying close attention to pagan rituals, the WTS celebrated
> Christmas up to about 1926 with the apparent approval of God, and some
> time shortly after that the Bible students experienced "a flash of light"
> "Golly, we didn't know THAT was pagan" - nor did the faithful and
> discreet slave it seems as he opened his many Christmas prezzies.
Russell, of course, was only a human who disclaimed that what he wrote or
believed was infallible, accepted the common view of the churches concerning
1 Corinthians 8 and 10, and thus evidently never realized the idolatry and
occultism associated with much of Christmas and other celebrations. Russell
knew that December 25 was not the birth date of Jesus. Russell pointed out
some of the pagan origins of Easter, including the name Easter itself, but,
having accepted the common view of the churches, he simply stated that no
one today associates the practices with heathen idolatry.
It was Edgar Morton, one of the Bible Students who refused to recognize
Rutherford's new organization, who pointed out the pagan idolatry regarding
Christmas. Rutherford reproduced what Morton wrote.
http://idolatry.reslight.net/m-b.htm
However, whether something is of pagan origin or not should not be the real
concern; whether a Christian enters into some form of idolatry or heathen
ritualistic occultism, forms of witchcraft (crafty wisdom) is another
matter.
"You cannot drink of the cup of Yahweh, and the cup of demons; you cannot be
partakers of Yahweh's table, and of the table of demons. Do we provoke
Yahweh to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?" -- 1 Corinthians 10:21,22
"The things that the nations sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to
God. I do not wish you to have fellowship with demons." -- 1 Corinthians
10:20-21
A truly informed Christian knows that an idol is nothing, and that there is
nothing that God has made that is, of itself, idolatrous. Nevertheless,
while a Christian may do this or that in mimicking heathen idolatry and
occultism without any thought of actually participating in such (such as
eating food that has been offered to an idol), the real question is whether
the Christian's actions leads another into the sin of idolatry or occultism.
It is not whether the Christian's conscience approves of this or that, for,
as Paul shows in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, it is not the Christian's
conscience that is of importance, but rather the conscience of others who
might view such actions as actually, in the case of Paul's example, eating
food as sacrificed to an idol. Paul explains that offerings to idols are
actually offerings to demons, and so if food (or anthing else) is presented
as a offering to an idol, a Christian should refuse that, not because of his
own conscience, but because of the conscience of the one who would consider
the offering as to an idol. The only exception he offers for eating food
that had been sacrificed to an idol is when the heathen person does not say
that the food was sacrificed to an idoly. To knowingly give assent to food
as sacrifice to an idol, Paul argues, would place the Christian in communion
with demons, even though the Christian might consider the idol as nothing;
thus he says: Flee from idolatry!.
There are many aspects of Christmas that are definitely idolatrous and
occultic. The exaltation of the Christmas tree (O Christmas Tree) and Santa
Claus (he sees you while you're sleeping; he knows when you're awake) to
positions that only belong to God should be evident. The presenting of
presents under the Christmas tree directly mimics the presenting of presents
to idols. Seeking blessings by kissing under the mistletoe is directly an
occultic (witchcraft) practice. Santa Claus is presented by pagan occult
terminology, an elf who is something like a king of elves. I have even seen
"nativity" scenes with presents presented to the image of Jesus, again
directly mimicking the heathen idoltrous practices. I have seen several
instances of "Christians" bowing down, and even praying to the image of the
baby Jesus, whom they claim to God Almighty Himself. By there claim that
Jesus is the Most High Yahweh, such would be in direct disobedience to God's
commands not to make an image of Himself, or the stars, or anything else, so
as to bow to, or offer service to such. Since it is claimed that the
Christmas tree is claimed to be representation of Jesus, or a carnal
reminder of the life given through him, "the spirit of Christmas, etc., the
same application of scripture should also apply to the Christmas tree. Of
course, the true Christian who worships in spirit and truth should need no
carnal reminder.
Add to this the fact that pagans today point to Christmas as being *their*
religious ritual adopted by Christians. Of course, not even the pagans claim
to be participating in idolatry -- it is the Bible, however, that calls
their rituals idolatry, regardless of what they claim.
Christians, however, are free to observe or not observe any day as long as
it done as to God. (Romans 14:5,6) Nevertheless, this does not give us
liberty to bring idolatrous or demonic occultic practices into our worship.
(Romans 1:21-23,25; Acts 15:20; 21:25; 1 Corinthians 10:14; 2 Corinthians
6:15,16; Galatians 5:19,20; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; 1 Peter 4:3; 1 John 5:21;
Revelation 2:14,20) In this regard we might think of the day and the
celebration itself as two different things. All days of our life belong to,
and are given to us by our Heavenly Father (Ecclesiastes 5:18; 8:15), and
are appropriate for thanksgiving and praise to Yahweh through his Son (Psalm
9:1; 18:49; 30:12; 57:9; 61:8; 79:13; Isaiah 30:28; Matthew 5:16; Romans
1:8; 7:25; 14:5,6,26; 15:6; 1 Corinthians 10:30; 15:57; 2 Corinthians 2:14;
9:12-15; Ephesians 5:20; Philippians 1:11; Colossians 3:17; 1 Thessalonians
5:18; Hebrews 13:15,21; 1 Peter 2:5; 4:11).
Idolatry Denounced
See: Deuteronomy 12:31; 27:15; Job 31:26-28; Psalm 44:20,21; 97:7; Isaiah
42:17; 45:16; Jeremiah 3:1-11; 32:34,35; Ezekiel 16:16-63; 43:7-9; Hosea
1:2; 2:2-5; 4:12-19; 5:1-3; 9:10; 13:2,3; Jonah 2:8; Amos 4:4,5; Habakkuk
1:16; Acts 17:16-29; Romans 1:25; 1 Corinthians 6:9,10.
Idolatry Forbidden
See Genesis 35:2; Exodus 20:3-6,23; 23:13,24,32,33; 34:14,17; Leviticus
19:4; 26:1,30; Deuteronomy 4:15-28; 5:7-9; 7:2-5,16; 14:1-8; 16:15-28;
5:7-9; 7:2-5,16; 11:16,17; 16:21,22; Psalm 81:9; Ezekiel 8:8-18; 14:1-8;
16:15-63; 20:7,8,16,18,24,27-32,39; 23:7-49; Acts 15:20-29; 1 Corinthians
10:14,20-22; 1 John 5:21.
Idolatry and the Dead
Deuteronomy 14:1; Isaiah 8:19,20; Ecclesiastes 9:5,10; Leviticus 19:31;
20:6,27; 1 Corinthians 10:20.
Offerings to Idols
Exodus 32:6; Deuteronomy 32:38; Judges 10:14; 16:24; 1 Kings 12:33; 18:26; 2
Chronicles 30:14; 34:25; Jonah 1:5: Psalm 16:4; Isaiah 57:6; 44:17; 45:20;
46:7; 65:3,11; Jeremiah 1:16; 7:18; 11:12,17; 19:13; 32:29; 44:3,17,19,25;
48:35; Ezekiel 16:18,19; 20:28; 23:41; Daniel 5:4; Hosea 11:2; Zechariah
9:7; Acts 14:13; 1 Corinthians 10:20.
Idolatrous Partying
Exodus 32:1-19; Daniel 3:5-7; 11:38; 1 Kings 18:28; 19:18; 2 Kings 5:18;
23:11; Jeremiah 41:5; Hosea 13:2; Job 31:27; Amos 4:4,5.
Idolatry to Supposedly Honor Yahweh
Exodus 32:1-35; 1 Kings 12:26-13:5; 2 Kings 18:4.
> Had
> these men been faithful and wise and did God suddenly do a back flip? of
> course not, only men do that and the WTS has a long backflipping
> history.
> -Founder CT Russell, up to his ears in the Masons, the occult,
Russell did not believe in the Masons' organization nor the occult. He
actively preached against the Christian becoming involved with either.
> pyramidology.
Nothing wrong with the study of the Great Pyramid as it relates to the
Bible.
> -Pagan symbols on WTBS magazines.
What "pagan" symbols were on the magazines?
> -Idolatries - worshipping Jesus's replacement in Brooklyn.
Russell actively preached against this.
http://ctr.reslight.net/fws.html
Of course, after Russell died, Russell had no control over what Rutherford
did with WTB&TS.
> Baptism is an ancient pagan ceremony predating Christianity.
Again, whether there was an ancient pagan ceremony involving some kind of
baptism, I have no reason to believe that John's baptisms, or the various
baptisms mentioned in the New Testament had anything to such pagan
ceremonies.
Of course, John's baptism, representing repentance toward Yahweh in regard
to the Law of Moses, predates Christianity. His baptism was related to the
Law of Moses, not to some pagan ritual.
The word baptize simply means to immerse, symbolizing a cleansing or a
washing away, and not necessarily in water. 1 Corinthians 10:1,2 tells us
that the Israelites were immersed when they crossed the Red Sea.
I know of no ancient pagan ceremony that speaks of baptism in the senses
that it is used in the New Testament.
Nevertheless, ceremonial washings for purification took place in Israel long
before John began his baptisms (immersions, washings).
There is a study by one of the "Jews for Jesus" along this line that is
worth considering:
http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/2_10/baptism
> -WTS calendar - using pagan gods names for the names of the months
> and days.
Of course, using the names provided by the world, even names of pagan gods,
generally does not promote worship of those gods. If I say I will do
something after Easter, most people know I am not speaking of the pagan god
by that name, but rather of the event of that is called by that name.
> Back on topic - the Trinity - summed up as:
> Not applicable to the WTS organization because they are not Christians.
Since the Bible no where says that a Christian has to add to the scriptures
a doctrine called trinity in order to be a Christian, a Christian does not
have to add such a doctrines to their beliefs in order to be a Christian.
> Instead they embraced Arianism,
I doubt Brother Russell had any thought of embracing Arianism; he simply
wished to show what the scriptures say. Of course, except a few letters
reproduced by the trinitarians, all of what Arius wrote was destroyed, so
that we really don't know what Arius himself taught. He evidently was
correct in that Jesus was a created deity. Outside of that teaching, we
don't know much else about what he taught.
> turned their backs on Christ,
True Bible Students have never turned their back on Christ. Evidently,
however, the above refers to the leaders of the JWs. Russell knew nothing of
a heirarchy as the Rutherford produced after Russell died. He actively
preached against such an organization.
> substituted
> themselves in His place and went down that broad path via
> Jeremiah 14:14-16 and 2Peter 2:1-3 taking their hoodwinked followers with
> them.
Similar notices have been issued by various authors amongst the Bible
Students, actually beginning around 1917, concerning the leadership of the
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society from that time forward.
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/An%20Open%20Letter%201917.htm
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/harvest%20sifitings%20reviewed.htm
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/facts%20for%20shareholders.htm
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/another%20harvest%20siftings%20reviewed.htm
(I do not necessarily agree with all the views of the authors)
> At this time of year I really feel for the JW kids - growing up surrounded
> by
> the constant threat of apocalyptic death and destruction instead of being
> surrounded by happiness and security -
God's kingdom will bring happiness and security. Trying to find happiness
and security by becoming part of the world dominated by Satan and his demons
actually only brings deception.
> the responsibility of good parents.
The responsibility of Christian parents is to "nurture them in discipline
and instruction of" Yahweh. (Ephesians 6:4)
> Child abuse isn't always physical and begins in the home at an early
> age - no wonder they grow up with emotional disorders living in this
> climate
> of fear promoted by the leaders of an evil doomsday cult.
I agree with this.
> To the JW lurkers out there, think about this. Contrary to what the WTS
> would have you believe, there is still a choice, another way. Instead of
> asking yourself "If I left the organization where would I go?"
> ask yourself "to whom" would I go.
Many, indeed, leave the JW organization, and seek to find another
"organization" to be their leader, or another human leader other than Jesus.
The apostles of Jesus showed use where we should to, and that is to Jesus,
the one sent into the world by the only true God. -- John 6:68; 10:36;
17:1,3.
If such a person truly belongs to Christ, and has stumbled into serving men
rather than serving God through Jesus, the fact that they have stumbled will
not make them feel like going back into sin, if their hearts are of the
right stamp. On the contrary, they will feel like Peter, who, when others
were stumbling, said, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of
eternal life." (John 6:68.) The true people of God have no desire to go to
any one but the one sent by the true God. If they stumble, they recover
themselves, avail themselves of His arrangements for forgiveness and press
on. Rather than drag bitterness and hatred with them they simply kick the
dust off their shoes and go forth into a better service. By these stumblings
they learn of their own weaknesses, and then fortify themselves so that they
may be strong in Yahweh, and in the power of His might. -- Galatians
5:19-22.26; Ephesians 4:31; 6:10; Hebrews 12:15.
Christian love,
Ronald
trevor.ribbands
Hi Ronald. I find your comprehensive reply a bit of a paradox.
"Russell did not believe in the Masons' organization nor the occult"
His tombstone has the Knights Templar symbol of the cross and crown on
it. This is the equivalent symbol for the York Rite of Freemasonry.
What "pagan" symbols were on the magazines?
The image of the winged disk (Egyptian sun-god RA) on the
covers of the early Watchtower books "Studies in the Scriptures".
"God's kingdom will bring happiness and security. Trying to find happiness
and security by becoming part of the world dominated by Satan and his
demons actually only brings deception."
That reads like text-book WTS.
"Since the Bible no where says that a Christian has to add to the
scriptures a doctrine called trinity in order to be a Christian, a
Christian does not have to add such a doctrines to their beliefs in order
to be a Christian".
Nor does scriptures say to deny the deity of Christ, his physical
resurrection, and salvation by Grace as the WTS
practices and these alone rule them out from being Christian. What are
the essentials of a Christian? The Bible reveals the doctrines that are
essential to the Christian faith are the deity of Christ; Salvation by
Grace; Resurrection of Christ; The gospel. These are the only ones
declared by Scripture to be essential. If the WTS claims to be Christian
(note: no mention of the Trinity in the essentials above) then they adhere
to those essentials, and we both know that 'aint so.
"I doubt Brother Russell had any thought of embracing Arianism; he simply
wished to show what the scriptures say. Of course, except a few letters
reproduced by the trinitarians, all of what Arius wrote was destroyed,
so that we really don't know what Arius himself taught. He evidently was
correct in that Jesus was a created deity. Outside of that teaching, we
don't know much else about what he taught"
Brother Russell was deeply involved with Adventists and they were
followers of the Christian heretic Arius.
"He evidently was correct in that Jesus was a created deity" is also
WTS teaching.
"The responsibility of Christian parents is to "nurture them in discipline
and instruction of" Yahweh"
Nothing in there about love or caring.
I have visited your website - correct me if I'm wrong - it appears to be a
Russellite splinter group so I can understand why you defend him. Many
such groups formed after the death of Russell and the way Rutherford
forcibly changed the BTS into the parody of what it is today, a
non-Christian doomsday cult. Russell would be justifyably dismayed. "A new
view of truth never can contradict a former truth. "New Light" never
extinguishes older "light" but adds to it," (CT Russell Zion's Watch
Tower, February 1881, p. 188).
Ronald I don't give a damn if Russell enjoyed Christmas or any other form
of paganism; I do give a damn about the WTS pot calling the
Christian kettle black, its denial of satanism or paganism, its we
are holier than thou arrogance, plus the abysmal treatment of its
followers - those people I care about.
Thank you for your reply and Merry Christmas
regards
brian M
ResLight
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 13:11:06 -0500, ResLight wrote:
>
> Hi Ronald. I find your comprehensive reply a bit of a paradox.
> "Russell did not believe in the Masons' organization nor the occult"
> His tombstone has the Knights Templar symbol of the cross and crown on
> it. This is the equivalent symbol for the York Rite of Freemasonry.
First, I need to point out that Russell's tombstone does not have a cross
and crown emblem on it.
http://tinyurl.com/36k4hb
http://www.pastor-russell.com/images/grave.jpg
Many churches, both Catholic and Protestant, have used the cross and crown
symbol for centuries. (The order of Masons called Knights Templar, who
profess to be Christians, state that they obtained the symbol from the
traditional churches. The Knights Templar do not represent the Masons as a
whole. One does not have to claim to be Christian to be a Mason. One does
have to claim to be Christian to be a member of the Knights Templar.) I have
seen similar symbols in Christian book stores.
To Russell, the cross and crown symbol symbolizes the Christian's taking of
the cross in sacrifice in order to receive a crown in the last day. The
palms leaves represent servitude to God through Christ as their Lord and
King. Nothing at all associated with the Freemasons. -- Matthew 16:24; Mark
8:34; Luke 9:23; John 12:13; 1 Corinthians 9:25; 2 Timothy 4:8; James 1:12;
1 Peter 5:4; Revelation 2:10; 7:9.
The Knights Templar appear to have adopted the cross and crown in the sense
of Constantine's words: "in this sign you shall conquer."
http://cemeteries.wordpress.com/category/knights-templar/
The cross and crown emblem that Russell used was not exactly the same as
that used by the Knights Templar.
The Bible Students' versions:
http://www.labiblestudents.org/Images/CrossAndCrown1.gif
http://www.fresnobiblestudents.com/CrossAndCrown.jpg
http://www.quotes-watchtower.co.uk/Watchtower_Cross_and_Crown.JPG
The Knights Templar cross and crown:
http://www.nvo.com/lauterer/nss-folder/pictures/si_UEw80h80_KT14.jpg
http://www.dystopia.org/swords/templarhistory/ktsword.gif
http://www.porterlodge137.org/YorkRite/index_files/Page398.htm
The cross and crown symbol, in various forms, has been used for centuries by
Christians, without any thought of it being associated with the Freemasons
organization.
http://cemeteries.wordpress.com/2006/09/01/cross-and-crown/
http://encycl.opentopia.com/term/Cross_and_Crown
http://christianity.about.com/od/symbolspictures/ig/Christian-Symbols-Glossary/The-Cross-and-Crown.htm
http://www.renaissance-church.com/html_files/crosscrown.html
http://www.stdavidsepiscopal.org/stainglass.htm
http://encycl.opentopia.com/term/Cross_(crown)
http://www.hmamec.net/Liturgical_Symbols.jpg
http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/photoshopbrushes/ss/christianbrush.htm
http://www.shatteredpanesstainedglass.com/panelwindows.html
http://www.paintedlight.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=7&products_id=6
http://www.daughtersofisabella.org/main.asp
http://www.longyear.org/Store/product.asp?id=798
http://www.chappellhillumc.org/newpages/windows.html
http://www.ermoore.com/products/church/embroidery.do.htm
http://www.fahnenversand.de/fotw/flags/ie-stpat.html
just for a few sites; I could add many, many more.
I at one time thought of the "cross" as pagan, and that was that. However,
after greater study, I realized that the symbol itself is not pagan, but
pagans, as well as many professed Christians, have certainly used the symbol
as an object of worship. The symbol, indeed, is part of the Hebrew alphabet,
the letter "Tau".
In the context of the pagan usage of the symbol in their paganistic
idolatrous practices, we can refer to "the pagan cross". I know that
traditional Christianity has adopted a lot of pagan practices and beliefs
involving the cross symbol. However, does this make the symbol itself pagan?
Should we remove the Tau from the Hebrew alphabet and the letter "T" symbols
from our alphabets, so as to refrain from using a "pagan" symbol? The letter
"X" may also have to removed, since this symbol has also been used in pagan
worship.
Along this line, there are many things that have been and are worshiped, or
used in ritual magick, by pagans and occultists: the sun, the moon, the
stars, trees, cows, snakes, chickens, cakes, candles, incense, forms of the
word "Jehovah", and even the Bible itself, to name just a few. Should we
remove all these from our presence? In the case of the sun, moon, stars,
trees, this might be difficult.
I personally do not like to use the "cross and crown" symbol, because many
do worship the "cross", pray to the cross, offer gifts to the cross, and
many use the cross in what is actually ritualistic occultism. Even the
"Christian" practice of exorcism often uses the "cross" in an occult
ritualistic manner. I do not, however, regard the cross symbol itself to be
pagan. However, many do similar things with many of God's creations, such
the kissing under the mistletoe, worship of the sun, etc. The mistletoe
itself is not an pagan or occultic simply because it is used in an occultic
manner. The sun itself does not "pagan" simply because some pagans have
worshiped the sun. The moon itself is not "pagan" simply because some
worship the moon, and so forth.
> What "pagan" symbols were on the magazines?
> The image of the winged disk (Egyptian sun-god RA) on the
> covers of the early Watchtower books "Studies in the Scriptures".
The word "pagan" does not appear in the scriptures. It is a word that was
used after the apostles died by the Christian apologists as denoting those
"of the country", that is, outside the city, evidently referring to the New
Jerusalem.
At any rate, the winged sun disk is thought to have originated from the
Hebrews, as designating the promised son of the man David, who was likened
to coming as a sun with healing in his wings. Whether the Egyptians adopted
this symbol of the Hebrews and used for their sun-God, or whether Yahweh
Himself adapted the symbol from the Egyptians, as a symbol of Christ, I
don't know. At any rate, the Bible does use such symbology of the
Messiah. -- Malachi 4:2.
At any rate, this is all that Russell saw in the emblem.
I will have to go for now. God willing, I will return to post more later.
Ronald
ResLight
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 13:11:06 -0500, ResLight wrote:
>
> "Since the Bible no where says that a Christian has to add to the
> scriptures a doctrine called trinity in order to be a Christian, a
> Christian does not have to add such a doctrines to their beliefs in order
> to be a Christian".
> Nor does scriptures say to deny the deity of Christ, his physical
> resurrection, and salvation by Grace as the WTS
> practices and these alone rule them out from being Christian.
I don't know if the WTS of today denies the deity of Christ or not. I assume
that they do not deny the deny of Christ, since their translation renders
theos as related to the Logos as "a god".
I know Russell did not deny the deity of Christ, nor do Bible Students. That
Russell was not denying the deity of Christ, should be seen from his book,
*The Atonement Between God and Man*. He did, however, show that deity in
light of Hebraic usage, not in terms of trinitarian usage.
I know I don't deny the deity of Christ. Neither did Arius deny the deity of
Christ, as can be seen in the two preserved letters.
http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/arians/arius1.htm
http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/arians/arius2.htm
> What are
> the essentials of a Christian? The Bible reveals the doctrines that are
> essential to the Christian faith are the deity of Christ; Salvation by
> Grace; Resurrection of Christ; The gospel.
I agree with all of the above. Russell, as well as most Bible Students of
today, agree with all of the above.
> These are the only ones
> declared by Scripture to be essential. If the WTS claims to be Christian
> (note: no mention of the Trinity in the essentials above) then they adhere
> to those essentials, and we both know that 'aint so.
As I said, I don't know if the WTS leaders of today deny the deity of Christ
or not. Perhaps one of them might comment.
> "I doubt Brother Russell had any thought of embracing Arianism; he simply
> wished to show what the scriptures say. Of course, except a few letters
> reproduced by the trinitarians, all of what Arius wrote was destroyed,
> so that we really don't know what Arius himself taught. He evidently was
> correct in that Jesus was a created deity. Outside of that teaching, we
> don't know much else about what he taught"
> Brother Russell was deeply involved with Adventists and they were
> followers of the Christian heretic Arius.
The word "Adventists" covers a lot of ground representing many different
beliefs, and there were/are many different viewpoints amongst "Adventists"
concerning who Jesus is as related to his Father. I do not know of any
Adventist group that claimed to be followers of Arius, nor do I know how
there could be, except that they could find Arius' writings so as to claim
to be following what he wrote. As I said, except for the letters preserved
by the trinitarians, all of Arius' works were destroyed by the trinitarian
sect.
Arius, however, claimed that the trinitarian dogma was "heretical".
Christian love,
Ronald
John B. Bothrithson
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:51:08 -0500, Black wrote:
> > DärFläken wrote:
>
> >> "dell12345" <noem...@protected.com> wrote in message
If you have friend who been raped by sicko porn addict like jabriol
and wife and want to rid
the world of these filthy perverts who exploits women and children,
start here:
Antonio L Santana and Norma I Santana
1064 Everett St, Camden NJ
Phone 856-968-0004
Both perverts attend the Spanish Speaking congragation of
Jehovahs Witnesses in Camden NJ.
>
> news:93c1fca9dd4f5240...@localhost.talkaboutreligion.com...
>
>
>
> >>> Thanks for the reply.
>
> >>> Why do you think Jehovah is called "God of gods" acc to Deut 10:17?
> >>> Who are these "gods"? If the "gods" are false gods, then are you
> >>> saying that Jehovah is the God of "false" gods? Are "false gods" part
> >>> of the world? What does the Bible says about friendship with the
> >>> world? Who is the ruler
> >>> of this present world? Jehovah is NOT Satan because Satan is the god
> >>> of the wicked system of things (including the false gods/idols). The
> >>> Bible won't even use the phrase "God of gods" if other "gods" do not
> >>> exist at all.
>
> >>> Example:
>
> >> There is no EVIDENCE that any of the gods exist or ever existed.
>
> > says the woman who celebrates Christmas.
>
> So taking Saturday off is celebrating Saturnalia also?
>
> --
> Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
> EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> "Communism, like any other revealed religion,
> is largely made up of prophecies."
>
> - H. L. Mencken
Decker Diehard
> On Nov 21 2007, 6:10 pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:51:08 -0500, Black wrote:
>>> DärFläken wrote:
>>>> "dell12345" <noem...@protected.com> wrote in message
>
> If you have friend who been raped by sicko porn addict like jabriol
> and wife and want to rid
> the world of these filthy perverts who exploits women and children,
>
> start here:
>
> Antonio L Santana and Norma I Santana
> 1064 Everett St, Camden NJ
>
> Phone 856-968-0004
>
> Both perverts attend the Spanish Speaking congragation of
> Jehovahs Witnesses in Camden NJ.
>
>
trevor.ribbands
>>>>ad hominem snipped>>>>
> How is it that you don't 'see' changes in speakers? When is it
> relevant for any determination for a change? I did say that about
> Rev. 22, and applying to Jesus, but I like I said don't have a Bible,
> and don't know exactly what verses do and don't. And it's probably
> been 20 years since I analyzed the scriptures you have brought up.
> There was quite a bit of material on those scriptures in the 70's from
> the WTBS when I did.
>
> CJ
I'm disappointed CJ, I expected better reasoning. I have asked exactly the
same questions of field service people knocking at the door and had them
change the subject, put up a smokescreen and then finally run
away. You stuck around to your credit.
My object was to give some food for thought about the WTS altering the
Scriptures to downgrade the status of Jesus in the NWT. No church or
organization I know of, other than Jehovah's Witnesses uses the NWT
because of this.
I'm sure the JW spectators on this group will form their own opinion -
they are the best judges, and good on them - it takes real courage to go
online in spite of the dire warnings from the GB.
regards as always
brian M
curtjester1
Are you Rip Van Winkle? Did you just wake up for this. Any Bible
teaches Jesus is an angel, and Jehovah is Jesus' Father. The only
place this was even remotely addressed was in John 10:30-36. Jesus
set them straight when he stated since they were gods, they would be
stoning themselves for such an accusation. He said he was merely,
God's Son. You cannot take this any other way, it's so plain and
concise! Jesus is the bright and morning star...Rev. 22:16. Morning
stars are angels. Job. 38:7. There are so many corroborating
scriptures that dovetail to that. It's such a pity you have to make
up a definition for your tenet that isn't even defined by any source
of the Bible. You would think if it were true and were important,
that it would be set down and explained in simple terms. It isn't.
It's a false doctrine. Just like hell fire, instaneous salvation. and
just about anything that mainline Christianity adopts and adheres to.
CJ
Profit-of-Gloom
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0c7621cb-074e-493e...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Are you Rip Van Winkle? Did you just wake up for this.
= Why are you always so rude? Has becoming a JW done this to you?
Any Bible
teaches Jesus is an angel, and Jehovah is Jesus' Father. The only
place this was even remotely addressed was in John 10:30-36. Jesus
set them straight when he stated since they were gods, they would be
stoning themselves for such an accusation. He said he was merely,
God's Son.
= The bible says we're all God's children.
You cannot take this any other way, it's so plain and
concise! Jesus is the bright and morning star...Rev. 22:16. Morning
stars are angels. Job. 38:7. There are so many corroborating
scriptures that dovetail to that. It's such a pity you have to make
up a definition for your tenet that isn't even defined by any source
of the Bible.
= You've fallen for the WTS's nonsense hook, line and sinker. You don't
need a book publishing house for salvation, just your bible. ;-)
You would think if it were true and were important,
that it would be set down and explained in simple terms. It isn't.
It's a false doctrine. Just like hell fire, instaneous salvation. and
just about anything that mainline Christianity adopts and adheres to.
= Because the wicked evil self-serving GB says so............
CJ
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0c7621cb-074e-493e...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Are you Rip Van Winkle? Did you just wake up for this.
>
> = Why are you always so rude? Has becoming a JW done this to you?
>
poster picks a spot from a year and a half ago, and just blurts
something that has no real sense of order of being there. It's
usually how I confront trolls. Has being a satanist inspired you to
enter these religious groups?
> Any Bible
> teaches Jesus is an angel, and Jehovah is Jesus' Father. The only
> place this was even remotely addressed was in John 10:30-36. Jesus
> set them straight when he stated since they were gods, they would be
> stoning themselves for such an accusation. He said he was merely,
> God's Son.
>
> = The bible says we're all God's children.
>
> You cannot take this any other way, it's so plain and
> concise! Jesus is the bright and morning star...Rev. 22:16. Morning
> stars are angels. Job. 38:7. There are so many corroborating
> scriptures that dovetail to that. It's such a pity you have to make
> up a definition for your tenet that isn't even defined by any source
> of the Bible.
>
> = You've fallen for the WTS's nonsense hook, line and sinker. You don't
> need a book publishing house for salvation, just your bible. ;-)
>
Sorry, it's just a casual reading of the Scriptures. It's in any
Bible, and if you picked one up and read it, you might be able to
contribue to the discussion.
> You would think if it were true and were important,
> that it would be set down and explained in simple terms. It isn't.
> It's a false doctrine. Just like hell fire, instaneous salvation. and
> just about anything that mainline Christianity adopts and adheres to.
>
> = Because the wicked evil self-serving GB says so............
>
Any many agree, many that are not JW's also. So what is your reason
for offering an opinion when you have nothing of one to offer?
CJ
> CJ
Profit-of-Gloom
On Aug 5, 1:57 pm, "Profit-of-Gloom" <G...@invalid.net> wrote:
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0c7621cb-074e-493e...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Are you Rip Van Winkle? Did you just wake up for this.
>
> = Why are you always so rude? Has becoming a JW done this to you?
>
I don't quite call it rude, I call it poignant confronting.
= And anyone else would call it utter rudeness.
The
poster picks a spot from a year and a half ago, and just blurts
something that has no real sense of order of being there. It's
usually how I confront trolls. Has being a satanist inspired you to
enter these religious groups?
= Produce proof anyone trying to help JWs escape from the WTS cult a
Satanist. That's the same old WTS nonsense we've all heard before.
>
> = You've fallen for the WTS's nonsense hook, line and sinker. You don't
> need a book publishing house for salvation, just your bible. ;-)
>
Sorry, it's just a casual reading of the Scriptures. It's in any
Bible, and if you picked one up and read it, you might be able to
contribue to the discussion.
= I've read the bible cover to cover TWICE! You don't need a book
publishing house for salvation, just your bible. Try reading it without a
JW at your back giving you the GB's interpretation. Use your own mind.
> You would think if it were true and were important,
> that it would be set down and explained in simple terms. It isn't.
> It's a false doctrine. Just like hell fire, instaneous salvation. and
> just about anything that mainline Christianity adopts and adheres to.
>
> = Because the wicked evil self-serving GB says so............
>
Any many agree, many that are not JW's also. So what is your reason
for offering an opinion when you have nothing of one to offer?
= You already have my opinion.
CJ
> CJ
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6d89999e-7fa8-4c4a...@f33g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 5, 1:57 pm, "Profit-of-Gloom" <G...@invalid.net> wrote:> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:0c7621cb-074e-493e...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > Are you Rip Van Winkle? Did you just wake up for this.
>
> > = Why are you always so rude? Has becoming a JW done this to you?
>
> I don't quite call it rude, I call it poignant confronting.
>
> = And anyone else would call it utter rudeness.
>
When a person is arrogant, and gets challenged, this is a typical
childish retort.
> The
> poster picks a spot from a year and a half ago, and just blurts
> something that has no real sense of order of being there. It's
> usually how I confront trolls. Has being a satanist inspired you to
> enter these religious groups?
>
> = Produce proof anyone trying to help JWs escape from the WTS cult a
> Satanist. That's the same old WTS nonsense we've all heard before.
>
>
Notice, it has nothing to do with a Bible doctine, that he steers
himself away from. You can't even offer a reason that one should not
be a JW much less leave. If one tries to take away what God might
deem his own as in the form of a follower, anyone can read the
Scriptures on what God's opinion of that is on the matter. Being
called a satanist would be very mild from God's viewpoint.
>
> > = You've fallen for the WTS's nonsense hook, line and sinker. You don't
> > need a book publishing house for salvation, just your bible. ;-)
>
> Sorry, it's just a casual reading of the Scriptures. It's in any
> Bible, and if you picked one up and read it, you might be able to
> contribue to the discussion.
>
> = I've read the bible cover to cover TWICE! You don't need a book
> publishing house for salvation, just your bible. Try reading it without a
> JW at your back giving you the GB's interpretation. Use your own mind.
>
If you read it, then you will know that one has to endure to the end,
and that there are many scriptures for people that had initial faith
and enthusiasm for it, and fell by the wayside. You might try reading
Jesus' parable of the Sower and the Seed.
Salvation is for those who pass the final test at the end of the 1,000
year reign, and by those earlier who are part of a gov't to lead those
people to it. The scriptures are plain. The teachings of mainline
Christianity are not of that, so it wouldn't matter how much casual
reading they did. They simply got it wrong, as you apparently do
also.
> > You would think if it were true and were important,
> > that it would be set down and explained in simple terms. It isn't.
> > It's a false doctrine. Just like hell fire, instaneous salvation. and
> > just about anything that mainline Christianity adopts and adheres to.
>
> > = Because the wicked evil self-serving GB says so............
>
> Any many agree, many that are not JW's also. So what is your reason
> for offering an opinion when you have nothing of one to offer?
>
> = You already have my opinion.
>
Your opinion is hardly worthy when it is only mere assertions without
backing. You claim you read the Bible twice. Show us that you
actually believe what you read, and back it up with supporting
scriptures if you do. You won't. Sorry for being 'rude', but I
rather you see your folly and use truth as a guideline rather than
what you want a pat-on-the-back personality to be.
CJ
> CJ
>
>
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
Steve S
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Aug 6, 1:36=A0am, "Profit-of-Gloom" <G...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I've read the bible cover to cover TWICE! You don't need a book
>> publishing house for salvation, just your bible. Try reading
>> it without a JW at your back giving you the GB's interpretation.
>> Use your own mind.
>>
>
>If you read it, then you will know that one has to endure to the end,
>and that there are many scriptures for people that had initial faith
>and enthusiasm for it, and fell by the wayside. You might try reading
>Jesus' parable of the Sower and the Seed.
>Salvation is for those who pass the final test at the end of the 1,000
>year reign, and by those earlier who are part of a gov't to lead those
>people to it. The scriptures are plain. The teachings of mainline
>Christianity are not of that, so it wouldn't matter how much casual
>reading they did. They simply got it wrong, as you apparently do
>also.
Do you honestly believe that major Christian religions came by their creeds by
'casual reading?' Do you have any idea how much schooling it takes to become a
recognized theologian? That's right - years of advanced studies including the
original language itself. You see, they not only read the Bible, they read it
in its original tongue and study it at an advanced level for their entire life.
What about the JWs? Let's start with Charles Taze Russell who founded the JW
organization. Pastor Russell was not only not a pastor but he had no advanced
schooling or theological or seminary studies or degrees. He was nothing more
than a rich young kid who personally disagreed with the hellfire doctrine.
That's it - just his own personal opinion. He didn't arrive at his opinion
because of strict Biblical discipline - it was just a seat-of-the-pants personal
hunch of his. Since he couldn't find any church that agreed with his opinions,
he dropped out of church and studied various Oriental religions but was not
satisfied with any of them. He finally found an Adventist preacher who said
what he wanted to hear and then he was off to the races. All this is right in
the Proclaimers book. Read it.
Next came Judge Rutherford who was no more of a Judge than Russell was a pastor.
He too had no formal theological schooling, yet he introduced many new JW
beliefs - changing much of what Russell had borrowed from the Adventists and
others.
Russel even admitted in court that he didn't know Greek. He was forced to admit
that he only knew the letters of the Greek alphabet.
What you are basing your hopes on are a bunch of charlatans who masqueraded as
Biblical scholars. How many Biblical scholars can you name who are/were JWs?
Profit-of-Gloom
On Aug 6, 1:36 am, "Profit-of-Gloom" <G...@invalid.net> wrote:
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6d89999e-7fa8-4c4a...@f33g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 5, 1:57 pm, "Profit-of-Gloom" <G...@invalid.net> wrote:>
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:0c7621cb-074e-493e...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > Are you Rip Van Winkle? Did you just wake up for this.
>
> > = Why are you always so rude? Has becoming a JW done this to you?
>
> I don't quite call it rude, I call it poignant confronting.
>
> = And anyone else would call it utter rudeness.
>
When a person is arrogant, and gets challenged, this is a typical
childish retort.
= No one here is arrogant. At your age you should be able to tell the
difference.
Stop making excuses for yourself.
> The
> poster picks a spot from a year and a half ago, and just blurts
> something that has no real sense of order of being there. It's
> usually how I confront trolls. Has being a satanist inspired you to
> enter these religious groups?
> = Produce proof anyone trying to help JWs escape from the WTS cult a
> Satanist. That's the same old WTS nonsense we've all heard before.
Notice, it has nothing to do with a Bible doctine, that he steers
himself away from. You can't even offer a reason that one should not
be a JW much less leave.
= Many reasons have been offered. You failed to read or comprehend what
people write.
If one tries to take away what God might
deem his own as in the form of a follower, anyone can read the
Scriptures on what God's opinion of that is on the matter. Being
called a satanist would be very mild from God's viewpoint.
= Then you are a Satanist for following the GB who are also Satanists. Not
only Satanists, but FALSE PROPHETS.
> > = You've fallen for the WTS's nonsense hook, line and sinker. You don't
> > need a book publishing house for salvation, just your bible. ;-)
>
> Sorry, it's just a casual reading of the Scriptures. It's in any
> Bible, and if you picked one up and read it, you might be able to
> contribue to the discussion.
> = I've read the bible cover to cover TWICE! You don't need a book
> publishing house for salvation, just your bible. Try reading it without a
> JW at your back giving you the GB's interpretation. Use your own mind.
>
If you read it, then you will know that one has to endure to the end,
and that there are many scriptures for people that had initial faith
and enthusiasm for it, and fell by the wayside.
= Which is totally irrelevant to that we're discussing. You choose to
believe old myths and fables. I choose to believe 150 years of solid
science.
You might try reading
Jesus' parable of the Sower and the Seed.
= Which has nothing to do with the WTS and it's GB. The bible also warns us
of the False Prophets, yet you choose to follow them. Why do you chose to
follow FALSE PROPHETS?
Salvation is for those who pass the final test at the end of the 1,000
year reign, and by those earlier who are part of a gov't to lead those
people to it. The scriptures are plain. The teachings of mainline
Christianity are not of that, so it wouldn't matter how much casual
reading they did. They simply got it wrong, as you apparently do
also.
= They didn't all get it wrong. Your wicked GB, the FALSE PROPHETS got it
wrong. Yet you choose to follow these wicked Satanists FALSE PROPHETS and
liars.
>
> = You already have my opinion.
>
Your opinion is hardly worthy when it is only mere assertions without
backing.
= Where is you backing? There are hundreds of websites backing my
assertions, complete with pictures of your cult's literature going back many
years.
You claim you read the Bible twice. Show us that you
actually believe what you read, and back it up with supporting
scriptures if you do. You won't.
= Read about the FALSE PROPHETS in your bible. Start there, then get back
to me.
Sorry for being 'rude', but I
rather you see your folly and use truth as a guideline rather than
what you want a pat-on-the-back personality to be.
= The FALSE PROPHETS, i.e. the WTS's GB do not have the truth.
CJ
Sockie
Brevity Snipped -
Your opinion is hardly worthy when it is only mere assertions without
backing. You claim you read the Bible twice. Show us that you
actually believe what you read, and back it up with supporting
scriptures if you do. You won't. Sorry for being 'rude', but I
rather you see your folly and use truth as a guideline rather than
>what you want a pat-on-the-back personality to be.
In case you missed Steve's reply to your BS post:
Profit-of-Gloom
"Steve S" <Steve_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:h5esd...@drn.newsguy.com...
As you know Steve, they'll believe anything the WTS tells them to believe.
Casual reading? That should be an insult to the intelligence of every JW
it's told to and should be rejected. My Mormon neighbor and her kids spend
hours studying the bible and Book of Mormon each week. Same with my
catholic Aunt and Uncle. Same with all truly religious people. My JW
neighbor spends hours and hours studying the WTS literature and seldom picks
up her WTS bible. She said it was required reading (the rags and books)
which of course I already knew. It's a form of cult reinforcement.
>
> What about the JWs? Let's start with Charles Taze Russell who founded the
> JW
> organization. Pastor Russell was not only not a pastor but he had no
> advanced
> schooling or theological or seminary studies or degrees. He was nothing
> more
> than a rich young kid who personally disagreed with the hellfire doctrine.
> That's it - just his own personal opinion. He didn't arrive at his
> opinion
> because of strict Biblical discipline - it was just a seat-of-the-pants
> personal
> hunch of his. Since he couldn't find any church that agreed with his
> opinions,
> he dropped out of church and studied various Oriental religions but was
> not
> satisfied with any of them. He finally found an Adventist preacher who
> said
> what he wanted to hear and then he was off to the races. All this is
> right in
> the Proclaimers book. Read it.
If they do read it and question anything, they're told it's "old light" or
it's denied. Excuses are made. As long as something is called "old light"
they're taught to ignore it. I'm sure the hide-the-pedophile problem is
also called "old light" now. I'm also sure they still don't warn parents
when there are complaints against someone in the Cong, or if a member was
charged with child sexual abuse.
>
> Next came Judge Rutherford who was no more of a Judge than Russell was a
> pastor.
> He too had no formal theological schooling, yet he introduced many new JW
> beliefs - changing much of what Russell had borrowed from the Adventists
> and
> others.
Trust me on this.... they don't want to know the TRUTH. They want to hear
what "tickles their ears" to use one of their own phrases.
>
> Russel even admitted in court that he didn't know Greek. He was forced to
> admit
> that he only knew the letters of the Greek alphabet.
They see no problem with lying for God. They come to believe God accepts
such lies and deceit. Their minds are slowly warped and their thinking
twisted.
>
> What you are basing your hopes on are a bunch of charlatans who
> masqueraded as
> Biblical scholars. How many Biblical scholars can you name who are/were
> JWs?
>
None! There aren't any. No cult has Biblical scholars in charge. But as you
know, the JWs are told there is no need to be a Biblical scholar to be an
elder or GB member. They're told Biblical scholars have it all wrong and are
Satanists, all following the Father of the lie when in fact they're
following the worst group of men who ever ran a Book Publishing House using
religion for tax exemption. Let's not forget they also use religion so they
don't have to pay their employees any wages or benefits.
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fe45fcb7-529d-492e...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Brevity Snipped -
>
> Your opinion is hardly worthy when it is only mere assertions without
> backing. You claim you read the Bible twice. Show us that you
> actually believe what you read, and back it up with supporting
> scriptures if you do. You won't. Sorry for being 'rude', but I
> rather you see your folly and use truth as a guideline rather than
>
> >what you want a pat-on-the-back personality to be.
>
> In case you missed Steve's reply to your BS post:
>
I don't read Steve, and he knows why. Now if you consider my take on
Biblical doctrine or how people view them and rely on them, not
relevant, then use the Bible and make it so. Don't try to off
knowledge or religious relevance by cheerleading for your support.
Actually try to support it.
CJ
Sockie
On Aug 6, 1:38 pm, "Sockie" <Sockie-1...@Socksland.com> wrote:
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fe45fcb7-529d-492e...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Brevity Snipped -
>
> Your opinion is hardly worthy when it is only mere assertions without
> backing. You claim you read the Bible twice. Show us that you
> actually believe what you read, and back it up with supporting
> scriptures if you do. You won't. Sorry for being 'rude', but I
> rather you see your folly and use truth as a guideline rather than
>
> >what you want a pat-on-the-back personality to be.
>
> In case you missed Steve's reply to your BS post:
>
I don't read Steve, and he knows why.
-- Educate yourself, make an exception.
Now if you consider my take on
Biblical doctrine or how people view them and rely on them, not
relevant,
-- What is it relevant to? Salvation? Not according to Jesus himself.
then use the Bible and make it so. Don't try to off
knowledge or religious relevance by cheerleading for your support.
Actually try to support it.
-- Educate yourself before it's too late.
CJ
Steve S
>
>
>"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:45423f5a-832f-47be...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>On Aug 6, 1:38 pm, "Sockie" <Sockie-1...@Socksland.com> wrote:
>> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:fe45fcb7-529d-492e...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Brevity Snipped -
>>
>> Your opinion is hardly worthy when it is only mere assertions without
>> backing. You claim you read the Bible twice. Show us that you
>> actually believe what you read, and back it up with supporting
>> scriptures if you do. You won't. Sorry for being 'rude', but I
>> rather you see your folly and use truth as a guideline rather than
>>
>> >what you want a pat-on-the-back personality to be.
>>
>> In case you missed Steve's reply to your BS post:
>>
>
>I don't read Steve, and he knows why.
>
>-- Educate yourself, make an exception.
'religion' started or the nuts and bolts of how it operates.
The Bible can be used to say anything you want it to say. How about Christians
taking up arms?
Luke 22:36
"Then he said to them: 'But now let the one that has a purse take it up,
likewise also a food pouch; and let the one having no sword sell his outer
garment and buy one.'"
And that is even the NWT version. You see, Jesus commanded his apostles to arm
themselves with weapons. I can just vision these meek, humble apostles going
from door to door armed to the teeth with swords.
Since curtjester can't think or reason for himself, he will be scrabbling
through Watchtower publications trying to figure this one out. The real truth,
of course, is that the Bible is totally fucked up and makes no sense to an
intelligent, rational person.
Sockie
> In article <hWkfm.65240$O23....@newsfe11.iad>, Sockie says...
>>
>>
>>"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:45423f5a-832f-47be...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>On Aug 6, 1:38 pm, "Sockie" <Sockie-1...@Socksland.com> wrote:
>>> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:fe45fcb7-529d-492e...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Brevity Snipped -
>>>
>>> Your opinion is hardly worthy when it is only mere assertions without
>>> backing. You claim you read the Bible twice. Show us that you
>>> actually believe what you read, and back it up with supporting
>>> scriptures if you do. You won't. Sorry for being 'rude', but I
>>> rather you see your folly and use truth as a guideline rather than
>>>
>>> >what you want a pat-on-the-back personality to be.
>>>
>>> In case you missed Steve's reply to your BS post:
>>>
>>
>>I don't read Steve, and he knows why.
>>
>>-- Educate yourself, make an exception.
>
> I see these JWs who post here don't want to be reminded about how their
> 'religion' started or the nuts and bolts of how it operates.
-- You got that 100% right. I don't think most of them actually KNOW the
truth how the WTS started. I was never told. I found out from an elder who
started to see the real TRUTH about the WTS operates after years of slavery
to the GB/WTS. The JWs don't want to know how it actually operates. They
want to stay in their protective bubble, the fantasy the WTS sold them. To
look at how it operates, to them, would be like staying awake and watching a
Dr do surgery on them. They don't want to see, to know the bloody painful
truth.
>
> The Bible can be used to say anything you want it to say. How about
> Christians
> taking up arms?
>
> Luke 22:36
> "Then he said to them: 'But now let the one that has a purse take it up,
> likewise also a food pouch; and let the one having no sword sell his outer
> garment and buy one.'"
-- They will tell you the scribe didn't really MEAN what he said, then
they'll tell you what they were told, by the WTS, the scribe really said.
It's insane! They just change the meaning of scripture at will, to agree
with the WTS beliefs.
> And that is even the NWT version. You see, Jesus commanded his apostles
> to arm
> themselves with weapons. I can just vision these meek, humble apostles
> going
> from door to door armed to the teeth with swords.
>
> Since curtjester can't think or reason for himself, he will be scrabbling
> through Watchtower publications trying to figure this one out. The real
> truth,
> of course, is that the Bible is totally fucked up and makes no sense to an
> intelligent, rational person.
-- Although true, they will not accept that.
Steve S
>> 'religion' started or the nuts and bolts of how it operates.
>
>-- You got that 100% right. I don't think most of them actually KNOW the
>truth how the WTS started. I was never told.
I wasn't either.
>I found out from an elder who
>started to see the real TRUTH about the WTS operates after years of slavery
>to the GB/WTS.
I'm surprised that even he knew. He must have researched that on his own.
>The JWs don't want to know how it actually operates.
That's so true and if a JW goes poking around trying to find the real truth
about the org, he will be labeled as a troublemaker.
>They want to stay in their protective bubble, the fantasy the WTS sold them.
That's curtjester. He loves to philosophize about crap that will never happen,
but I'm betting that he's not turning in his time every month. Oh, oh! Now I'll
be accused of gambling.
>To look at how it operates, to them, would be like staying awake and watching >a
>Dr do surgery on them. They don't want to see, to know the bloody painful
>truth.
They don't want to know that they've flushed years of their life down the
toilet.
>> The Bible can be used to say anything you want it to say. How about
>> Christians
>> taking up arms?
>>
>> Luke 22:36
>> "Then he said to them: 'But now let the one that has a purse take it up,
>> likewise also a food pouch; and let the one having no sword sell his outer
>> garment and buy one.'"
>
>
>-- They will tell you the scribe didn't really MEAN what he said, then
>they'll tell you what they were told, by the WTS, the scribe really said.
>It's insane! They just change the meaning of scripture at will, to agree
>with the WTS beliefs.
When I did my weekly Bible readings, I would sometimes find crazy stuff that
didn't make any sense. When I was alone with an elder in field service, or
whatever, I would ask what verse such and such meant. I would always get a
blank stare. Most of the time they hadn't even read it but when they had, they
weren't even aware of the verse that I was referring to.
That's what cults do. They condition their members to believe only information
that is presented by the cult as 'truth.' All other information, no matter how
contradictory, can no longer be processed by the cult member. It is completely
ignored as if it never existed. They become like zombies and respond only to
trigger words like 'apostate.'
Notice how the person posting as Ghent thought that I must be a 'swinger' or be
'gay' or be a drunkard or whatever because I am no longer a JW. Even curtjester
believes that anyone outside the org does not have the ability to control their
own life. He believes that we must all be under strict control and supervision
by the org to be decent individuals. He believes it because that's what the WT
preaches.
>> And that is even the NWT version. You see, Jesus commanded his apostles
>> to arm
>> themselves with weapons. I can just vision these meek, humble apostles
>> going
>> from door to door armed to the teeth with swords.
>>
>> Since curtjester can't think or reason for himself, he will be scrabbling
>> through Watchtower publications trying to figure this one out. The real
>> truth,
>> of course, is that the Bible is totally fucked up and makes no sense to an
>> intelligent, rational person.
>
>-- Although true, they will not accept that.
They can't accept it - not as long as they remain in the cult.
Sockie
> Notice how the person posting as Ghent thought that I must be a 'swinger'
> or be
> 'gay' or be a drunkard or whatever because I am no longer a JW. Even
> curtjester
> believes that anyone outside the org does not have the ability to control
> their
> own life. He believes that we must all be under strict control and
> supervision
> by the org to be decent individuals. He believes it because that's what
> the WT
> preaches.
Yes, I have noticed. I was also taught that anyone who left the Org went
immediately into a life of debauchery and sin, drugs and sex. I couldn't
buy much of their teachings, that's why I avoided being Baptized into their
Org. Yet, most of them do come believe whatever drips down to them from
mother WT's toxic teats, no matter how outrageous the lies and half truths.
They come to believe anyone not under the control of the WTS cannot live a
happy healthy productive life free of these things. The truth of course, is
most people who leave their Book Publishing House join legitimate Churches
or simply go on with their lives. I never knew one person who left the WTS
in all those years turn to a life of crime.
Steve S
>
>
>"Steve S" <Steve_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:h5nb4...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> Notice how the person posting as Ghent thought that I must be a 'swinger'
>> or be
>> 'gay' or be a drunkard or whatever because I am no longer a JW. Even
>> curtjester
>> believes that anyone outside the org does not have the ability to control
>> their
>> own life. He believes that we must all be under strict control and
>> supervision
>> by the org to be decent individuals. He believes it because that's what
>> the WT
>> preaches.
>
>Yes, I have noticed. I was also taught that anyone who left the Org went
>immediately into a life of debauchery and sin, drugs and sex.
Oh, hell yes. But, if per chance, the person is successful, they are being
blessed by the Devil. There is no way to honorably leave the cult. If
something bad happens to them, Jehovah is punishing them for leaving. But if
they should leave and live a happy, normal life, they are receiving their
rewards in full now, in lieu of living forever in paradise.
>I couldn't buy much of their teachings, that's why I avoided being
>Baptized into their Org. Yet, most of them do come believe whatever
>drips down to them from mother WT's toxic teats, no matter how
>outrageous the lies and half truths.
If cults didn't offer something attractable, then there would never be any cult
members. I, like most others, was in a vulnerable period of my life when I
started studying with the witnesses. Their basic doctrines was attractive to
me. They offered what I wanted to hear. It was the other bullshit that I had
problems with - the rules, rules, and more rules that didn't have a goddamn
thing to do with the Bible. They are the Pharisees of the 21st century.
>They come to believe anyone not under the control of the WTS cannot live a
>happy healthy productive life free of these things. The truth of course, is
>most people who leave their Book Publishing House join legitimate Churches
>or simply go on with their lives. I never knew one person who left the WTS
>in all those years turn to a life of crime.
Curtjester is Dr. A.J. He is a brilliant man with a PhD under is belt from a
prestigious university. He is also a film maker, painter, photographer,
recording artist, and author of several books.
I have no idea why such a brilliant, educated man would believe the bullshit
that originated from a basically uneducated American who piecemealed together a
'religion' from the dregs of the American Second Great Awakening.
I would love to communicate with such an intelligent, artistic, and articulate
man. I hope he continues to post here.
Profit-of-Gloom
> In article <OA3gm.70004$nL7....@newsfe18.iad>, Sockie says...
>>immediately into a life of debauchery and sin, drugs and sex.
>
> Oh, hell yes. But, if per chance, the person is successful, they are
> being
> blessed by the Devil. There is no way to honorably leave the cult. If
> something bad happens to them, Jehovah is punishing them for leaving. But
> if
> they should leave and live a happy, normal life, they are receiving their
> rewards in full now, in lieu of living forever in paradise.
Right. They can't win no matter what they do. That's why we came to call it
a snare. No matter which way a JW turns, they're trapped. This is why I
truly believe the GB are a group of self-serving evil selfish men with an
agenda. No matter what harm comes to a JW, no matter if his life is ruined
and marriage destroyed, they always have the cong play the "blame the
victim" game. When I finally left they wished me well and came to visit for
some time, until the realized I was not going back, would never get baptized
and was much happier away from their endless depressing talk.
> If cults didn't offer something attractable, then there would never be any
> cult
> members. I, like most others, was in a vulnerable period of my life when
> I
> started studying with the witnesses. Their basic doctrines was attractive
> to
> me. They offered what I wanted to hear. It was the other bullshit that I
> had
> problems with - the rules, rules, and more rules that didn't have a
> goddamn
> thing to do with the Bible. They are the Pharisees of the 21st century.
There you go my friend. You are exactly right. Pharisees fits them to a T.
And as the years passed more rules were added. All designed to CONTROL them
like slaves. I slowly watched my friends become empty shells of themselves.
I saw the what this cult did to their children.
Being obedient to the WTS/GB was like being obedient to Jah himself.
"Obedience" was beat into everyone's head week after week after week.
>
> Curtjester is Dr. A.J. He is a brilliant man with a PhD under is belt
> from a
> prestigious university. He is also a film maker, painter, photographer,
> recording artist, and author of several books.
Then what the heck is he doing on Usenet? May I ask how you got that
information?
> I have no idea why such a brilliant, educated man would believe the
> bullshit
> that originated from a basically uneducated American who piecemealed
> together a
> 'religion' from the dregs of the American Second Great Awakening.
>
> I would love to communicate with such an intelligent, artistic, and
> articulate
> man. I hope he continues to post here.
He may be running scared now and leave for good. He will fear you will out
him as others here have been outed, then threatened in various ways.
Thomas King
studied the JW's for 40 years. They are the most dangerous cult I've ever
encountered. I have a degree in Psychology and have met many GB members in
person. They harbor pedophiles and even hide wanted murderers who seek to be
baptized. The proof of this is on www.silentlambs.org. I have helped counsel
thousands of abuse victims who were harmed by this sick, baby-raping Gestapo
cult. Curtjester, Obves, Elijehovah, and old man joe are ignorant,
brainwashed, emotionally sick people. JW's have one of the highest rates of
mental illness and suicide of any religion. Curt is no scholar. If he were,
he wouldn't defend the WT. It's history and actions are more than
well-documented. No one can prove any god exists. Neither can they prove
Jesus or Satan exist. You cannot blame non-JW's for the condition of this
world. Curt keeps trying to evade the obvious crimes of the WT by saying
opposers are worse since they belong to the world. The WT also belongs to
the same world. Since there is no god, the WT cannot be used by any god to
do his work. There is no honorable way to leave the WT. In virtually all
cases, they hunt you down and make you tell them that you believe in the WT
or not. If not, you get DF'd. Then many young people will commit suicide
since no one, including their parents, will speak to them. If anyone thinks
this fictional Jesus taught that this was love, he is a maniac. I'm sure
I'll be blasted by the above-named "experts", but they are wrong and that is
final.
"Profit-of-Gloom" <G...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:h5r1rn$a3a$1...@news.albasani.net...
Profit-of-Gloom
"Thomas King" <tkin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a81c44f$0$23954$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> I'm top posting since I'm not going to wade through the bullshit. I've
> studied the JW's for 40 years. They are the most dangerous cult I've ever
> encountered.
They're well known as wolves in sheep's clothing. That bright shiny face
hides the misery and agenda behind it.
I have a degree in Psychology and have met many GB members in
> person. They harbor pedophiles and even hide wanted murderers who seek to
> be
> baptized. The proof of this is on www.silentlambs.org. I have helped
> counsel
> thousands of abuse victims who were harmed by this sick, baby-raping
> Gestapo
> cult.
Anywhere pedophiles are protected, they will gather to prey on the innocent
children.
Curtjester, Obves, Elijehovah, and old man joe are ignorant,
> brainwashed, emotionally sick people. JW's have one of the highest rates
> of
> mental illness and suicide of any religion.
This is indeed true. Someone already posted the statistics here a few years
ago.
Curt is no scholar. If he were,
> he wouldn't defend the WT.
I believe some JWs are shrewd enough to brainwash even scholars under the
right conditions. They do it slowly and insidiously, as one lures a fish to
the hook.
It's history and actions are more than
> well-documented. No one can prove any god exists. Neither can they prove
> Jesus or Satan exist. You cannot blame non-JW's for the condition of this
> world.
They don't until they're snared by the wicked WTS/GB and it's pounded into
their heads several times a week. Then reinforced by the required reading
of the same WTS toxic trash several times a month.
Curt keeps trying to evade the obvious crimes of the WT by saying
> opposers are worse since they belong to the world.
Because he has no logical argument.
The WT also belongs to
> the same world. Since there is no god, the WT cannot be used by any god to
> do his work. There is no honorable way to leave the WT. In virtually all
> cases, they hunt you down and make you tell them that you believe in the
> WT
> or not. If not, you get DF'd. Then many young people will commit suicide
> since no one, including their parents, will speak to them.
Older JWs have also commit suicide for the same reasons. It's very sad.
The JWs will always play the blame-the-victim game when someone's life
crashes because of the WTS teachings. They even tried, for a while in the
1970s, to blame the elders for the 1975-fiasco.
Steve S
says...
>
>I'm top posting since I'm not going to wade through the bullshit. I've
>studied the JW's for 40 years. They are the most dangerous cult I've ever
>encountered. I have a degree in Psychology and have met many GB members in
>person. They harbor pedophiles and even hide wanted murderers who seek to be
>baptized. The proof of this is on www.silentlambs.org. I have helped counsel
>thousands of abuse victims who were harmed by this sick, baby-raping Gestapo
>cult. Curtjester, Obves, Elijehovah, and old man joe are ignorant,
>brainwashed, emotionally sick people. JW's have one of the highest rates of
>mental illness and suicide of any religion. Curt is no scholar. If he were,
>he wouldn't defend the WT. It's history and actions are more than
>well-documented. No one can prove any god exists. Neither can they prove
>Jesus or Satan exist. You cannot blame non-JW's for the condition of this
>world. Curt keeps trying to evade the obvious crimes of the WT by saying
>opposers are worse since they belong to the world. The WT also belongs to
>the same world. Since there is no god, the WT cannot be used by any god to
>do his work. There is no honorable way to leave the WT. In virtually all
>cases, they hunt you down and make you tell them that you believe in the WT
>or not. If not, you get DF'd. Then many young people will commit suicide
>since no one, including their parents, will speak to them. If anyone thinks
>this fictional Jesus taught that this was love, he is a maniac. I'm sure
>I'll be blasted by the above-named "experts", but they are wrong and that is
>final.
baby-raping Gestapo cult?' As much as I would like to believe you, what you say
seems improbable. Where and how did you counsel 'thousands' of victims of the
JW cult?