Did You Know JW's Are Russelites?
leviathan
ARE FROM CHARLES TAZE RUSSELL;
THE WORDS OF RUSSELL PROVE OTHERWISE!
I paraphrase from "The Kingdom of the Cults" by the late and great Walter
Martin, founder of the "Infamous", among Anti-Christ's, group: the Christain
Research Institute. (www.equip.org).
What Russell had to say about the Triune Godhead!
"This view [the Trinity] suited well 'the dark ages' it helped produce"
(Studies in Scriptures, 5:166).
Watchtower teaching:
"Does this [John 1:1] mean that Jehovah God (Elohim) and the . . . Son are
two persons but at the same time one God and members of a so-called
'trinity' or 'triune god'? When a religion so teaches it violates the Word
of God, wrests the Scriptures to the destruction of those who are misled,
and insults God-given intelligance and reason" (The Truth Shall Makes You
Free, p45).
Russell:
"This theory...is as unscriptural as it is unreasonable"(Studies,5:166).
Watchtower:
"The confusion is caused by the improper translation of John 1:1-3...such
translations being made by religionists who who tried to manufacture proof
for their teaching of a 'trinity'"(The Truth, 45-46).
Russell:
"If it were not for that fact that this trinitarian nonesense was drilled
into us from earliest infacy, and the fact that it is so soberly taught in
Theological Seminaries by gray-haired professors...nobody would give it a
moment's serious consideration"(Studies, 5:166)
Watchtower:
"The obvious conclusion is, therefore, that Satan is the originator of the
'trinity doctrine'" (Let God Be True, 101).
Russell:
"How the great Adversary [Satan] ever succeeded in foisting [the Triune
Godhead] upon the Lord's people to bewilder and mystify them, and render
much of the Word of God of none effect, is the real mystery"(Studies,5:166)
Watchtower:
"The testimony of history is clear: the trinity teaching is a deviation from
the truth, an apostatizing it"(Should You Believe?, electronic version)
ON THE DEITY OF CHRIST!
Russell:
"Our Lord Jesus Christ is a God...still the united voice of Scripture still
empatically states that there is but one Almighty God, the Father of
all"(Studies,5:55).
Watchtower:
"The true Scriptures speak of God's Son, the Word, as 'a god'. He is 'a
mighty god', but not the Almighty God, who is Jehovah - Isaiah 9:6" (The
Truth,47)
Russell:
"Our Redeemer existed as a spirit being before he was made flesh and dwelt
amongst men. At that time, as well as subsequently, he was properly known as
'a god' - a mighty one" (Studies,5:84)
Watchtower:
"At the time of his beginning of his life he was created by the everlasting
God, Jehovah, without the aid or instrumentality of any mother. In other
words, he was the first and direct creation of Jehovah God...He was the
start of God's creative work...He was not an incarnation in flesh but was
flesh, a human Son of God, a perfect man, no longer a spirit, although
having a spiritual or heavenly past or background" (The Kingdom is At
Hand,46-47,49).
Russell:
"The Logos [Christ] himself was the 'beginning of the creation of
God'"(Studies,5:86).
Watchtower:
"This One was not Jehovah God, but was 'existing in God's form...' He was a
spirit person...he was a mighty one, although not the Almighty God, who is
Jehovah"(Let God Be True, 32-33).
Russell:
"As chief of the angels and next to the Father, he [Christ] was known as the
Archangel (highest angel or messenger), whose name, Michael, signifies 'Who
is God' or 'God's Representative'"(Studies,5:84).
Watchtower:
"Being the only begotten Son of God...the Word would be a prince among all
other creatures. In this office he [Christ] bore another name in Heaven,
which name is 'Michael'...Other names were given to the Son in the course of
time"(The Truth,49)
Russell:
OTHER THINGS NOT IN THE BIBLE! RUSSELL TEACHES WATCHTOWER
ABOUT THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST!
RUSSELL:
"Our Lord was put to death in the flesh, but was made alive in the spirit;
he was put to death as a man, but was raised from the dead a spirit being
of the highest order of the divine nature"(Studies,5:453)
Watchtower:
"In his resurrection he was no more human. He was raised as a spirit
creature"(THIAH,258).
Russell:
"It could not be that the man Jesus is the Second Adam, the new father of
the race instead of Adam; for the man Jesus is dead, forever
dead"(Studies,5:454).
Watchtower:
"Having given up the flesh for the life of the world, Christ could never
take it again and become a man once more. For that basic reason his return
could never be in the human body that he sacrificed once for all time" (You
Can Live Forever in Paradise On Earth, 143).
Russell:
"[Christ] instantly created and assumed such a body of flesh and such
clothing as he saw fit for the purpose intended"(Studies,2:127).
Watchtower:
"Therefore, the bodies in which Jesus manifested himself to his disciples
after his return to life were not the body in which he was nailed to the
tree. They were merely materialized for the occasion, resembling on one or
two occasions the body in which he died"(TKIAH,259).
Russell:
"Our Lord's human body... did not decay or corrupt...whether it was
dissolved into gasses or whether it is still preserved somewhere...no one
knows"(Studies,2:129).
Watchtower:
"This firstborn of the dead was raised from the grave not a human creature,
but a spirit"(Let God Be True,276).
THE TEACHINGS OF RUSSELL PERSIST THROUGH HIS WATCHTOWER,TODAY; ON THE
PHYSICAL RETURN OF CHRIST!
Russell:
"And in this like manner as he went away (quietly, secretly, so far as the
world the world was concerned, and unknown except to his followers), so, in
this manner, he comes again"(Studies,2:154).
Watchtower:
"Christ Jesus returns, not as a human, but as a glorious spirit person"(Let
God Be True,276).
Russell:
[Russell's idea of what Christ is saying, and his teaching on the matter.]
"He comes to us in the early dawn of the Millenial Day. [Jesus] seems to
say...'Learn that I am a spirit being no longer visible to human
sight'"(Studies,2:191).
Watchtower:
"Since no earthly men have ever seen or can see the Father, they will not
able to see the glorified Son."(LGBT,197).
Russell:
[Christ] "does not come in the body of his humiliation, a human body, which
he took for the suffering of death..but in his glorious spiritual
body"(Studies,2:108).
Watchtower:
"It is a settled scriptural truth, therefore, that human eyes will not see
him at his second coming, neither will he come in a fleshy body"(The
Truth,295).
Hey! Wait a minute! My bible says the exact opposite of these things!
And, my bible does not say anything like what these guys are saying! Is it
true?
Is it true they say these things? Yes.
Beware of the yeast of this kind of logic that they espouse.
Search your bible for any of these phrases, and you will find a
plentiful amount to the contrary. Jehovah Witnesses would have you believe
these things: Because they are opposed to Christ as well as to men. For
their Father really is Satan, and statements like these prove it to be a
trustworthy fact.
Of course, liars as they are, they would not present themselves to
you, or anyone; except their closest friends and family; their true nature;
even, though we have been able to expose their true nature, here on the
Internet. What Con Man claims to be a Con Man? And, that is what they are.
They are slaves, as a prostitute is enslaved to her demeaning
job. Once you have whored yourself, nothing else matters. They are genuine
servants of Satan in that is what you will see them doing, trying to impede
the Good News of Christ, the Lord God Almighty.
Why do they hate being called 'Russellites?' I suppose there are
many reasons. Russell was a proven in court perjurer, for one thing. Russell
taught a number of things that the Watchtower no longer finds as deviously
devilish as the things they teach now. Things that would make you crack up
laughing, if it was not such a serious breach of ethic. (He had none).
Russell was proven, not only in court, but everywhere else to
have a most dubious character. His writings and predictions show a great
number of contradictions and errors, like Koresh's.
Take, for instance, 1974; the Watchtower today will answer you
that it never happened. But, it did, and we have the evidance. The people
who were there know the evidance. But, like this Clinton scandal, it is
deny,deny,deny. Like the Communists, the Watchtower Society operates with an
absolute disdain for God, Scrtipture, historical fact, or what they
themselves say in regards to truth.
Do not let them fool you.
Believing blasphemous lies will make you a blasphemous
tongued liar.
Why take chances with your life, your family, your career?
Don't you have enough things to deal with already, then trying very hard to
see if God will intervene in your life with terrible justice and awesome
vengaence? Why try and argue against God and Scripture?
Say, you get away with it here. You are still going to die.
Do you really think you can escape eternal Hell?
Stop letting people talk you into their way of thinking,
against good conscience. Look up their claims in Scripture yourself. And,
see what you find.
Lastly, I will again paraphrase from Walter Martin's strong
and sobering evidance, that Russell was the original teacher to Watchtower
about their beliefs on eternal condemnation:
Russell:
"Many have imbibed the erroneous idea that God placed our race on trial for
life with the alternative of eternal torture, whereas nothing of its' kind
is even hinted at in the penalty"(Studies,1:127).
Watchtower:
"The bible Hell is mankinds 'common grave'"(Let God Be True, 92).
Russell:
"Eternal torture is nowhere suggested in the Old Testament Scriptures, and
only a few statements in the New Testament can be so misconstrued as to
appear to teach it"(Studies,1:128).
Watchtower:
"Hell could not be a place of eternal torment because such an idea never
came into the mind or heart of God. Additionally, to torment a person
eternally because he did wrong on earth for a few years is contrary to
justice. How good is it to know the truth about the dead! It can trully set
one free from fear or superstition" (You Can Live Forever in Paradise on
Earth, 89).
I will not joke or jest when I say that every one of these
statements I have quoted from this group is absolutely in error. Even when
they admit Jesus is called by God, "Mighty God"; they would have you
believe, therefore, that God is advocating the worship of another God.
That, I need not say is a terrible misunderstanding of the even
the most basic Old and New Testament theolgy.
Their contention that the Old Testament makes no mention of an
eternal punishment, is also absolutely wrong; though a common mistake made
by scholars and taught to the laypeople. The Old Testament mentions many
times the "everlasting destruction" and "everlasting shame" of the wicked;
in the context that they will know this. One verse has them being sent off
to eternal perdition, cursing God.
In the New Testament, Jesus made many such references, as did
John the Baptist and every one of the Apostles. While they would have you
ignore such plain and blatant facts, do not. At least, do not make your bet
against it, until you have studied the facts...by yourself. And, not with
their "guides", or with any "teacher" other than Christ:
"You do not need anyone to teach you", 1 John.
As to Jesus not bodily resurrecting, the Bible nowhere states or
implies the contrary. If you will notice the Watchtower would have you
belief a doctrine that is absolutely seperate from Scripture.
Their "proof" is that Mary and the two disciples on the road to
Emmaus did not immediately recognize Jesus. But, that is because they were
unable to believe such a terrifying and awesom thing as seeing their good
friend who had just died and been buried before their eyes.
There is absolutely no mention whatsoever of the Body of Jesus
being destroyed, or disapearing, contrary; the Bible clearly states, 'He
Shall Not See Decay'. 'His bones shall not be broken': Yet, they would have
you believe his body was destroyed, or is kept in some vault in Heaven.
Their statements that Jesus was created have absolutely no
parallel whatsoever in Scripture. They would have you believe that there is,
though. But, all of their time is taken up in telling us that the Scriptures
we quote them do not say what they plainly do.
Jesus said, "I will be you God, and you will be my Son", in
Revelations, 21:7. They will deny that was Jesus speaking, but verse, 16,
says, "I, Jesus..."
Jesus also has said, in Revelations, "I overcame and sit
with my Father in his Throne".
But, they would have you believe that this does not mean
what it says.
They would also have you believe the first commandment does
not mean what it says, "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt,
you shall have no other Gods." Yet, they call Jesus, "another god".
When Peter and John and James were fishing, after Jesus had
bodily resurrected, which is also directly implied and not stated to the
contrary, by the fact that His Body was gone: he calmed them by sitting and
partaking of food with them.
Yet, they would have you believe he can not really eat, that
this would be only an illusion. Something they are masters at, and can speak
of. And, do, quite often.
When Thomas was doubting that Jesus resurrected bodily, Jesus
came and let him feel the holes in his hands. They would also say this is an
illusion.
Yet, none of the miracles of our Lord, throughout the New and
Old Testament were ever illusions! Yet, their "God", Satan, is the teacher
of all illusions, and they themselves are sorcerer's...more so than modern
men and women who claim to be!
More importantly, they even say that the "Second Coming" has
already happened. But, Paul speaks directly about that matter, in
2Thessalonians: "Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus and our being
gathered to him, we ask that you not become alarmed or easily unsettled by
some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that
the day of the Lord has already come. Don't let anyone decieve you in any
way..."
Notice the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father, the Spirit
of Jesus, speaks though Paul, carefully indicating, "In Any way."; as in,
"Do not let anyone deceive you in any way."
Paul continues, "...for that day will not come, until the
rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to
destruction..."
The Anti-Christ has not been revealed. He says, the Anti-Christ
will be revealed. Do you know who the Anti-Christ is? The Jehovah Witnesses
must say "he was" for, Paul goes on and says, that Jesus destroy him "with
the breath of his mouth and the splendour of his coming".
This is contray to what the Watchtower would say, because they
say Jesus has come, and has come invisibly.
Yet, Scripture says, 'All eyes shall see Him.'
Of the coming of Jesus, the Bible nowhere states, "He will
come invisbly", or "He will come two more times", nor does it ever even
begin to imply such a thing! Rather, we are given images of 'everyone being
being killed and the birds of the sky feasting on their flesh'...
Revelations 19: 21.
Immediately after this, the Scripture says, "Earth and sky
fled from His presence, and there was NO place for them".
No place means no place. The Old Testament states it quite
simply, as well, saying that this earth and these heavens will be discarded
like clothes, and there will be a New Earth and a New Heaven!
It says of Jesus, in Revelation 21:5:"'I am making everything
new!' Then he said, 'write this down, for these words are trustworthy and
true!'"
Jehovah Witnesses and the Watchtower are skeptical of this,
obviously.
The Watchtower would have you believe that somewhere in
Scriprture is evidance to their bold claims and "speculative quotes of what
Jesus would say" about Jesus rising, not bodily from the dead, but as some
sort of "invisible" "spirit being". The Scripture no where says or even
implies this, or that Jesus did not rise, bodily, from the dead as even a
seen spirit being.
Rather, Scriptures are filled with instances of men rising
from the dead, bodily, with the sole exception of Samuel. To say Jesus rose
from the dead, not bodily, would be the same exact thing as saying he rose
as a ghistost; and therefore, did not rise from the dead at all!
Brothers and sisters in the Lord, skeptics and scholars,
common people and ex-JW's or family members who are concerned for the Lord:
We will defeat and expose them on every front. In the
streets, on the air, in publications, and when they go to our doors. We will
defeat them continually, and we will press on to victory, until every single
one of them is given this testimony.
They would have you believe I am "near raving", that I am
"conceited", and that my "problem is my marriage". They would have you
believe I am a lying Devil, an anti-christ, and a con. That I do not
properly answer their questions, and that my entire moral life is suspect.
They would have you believe you and I are misinformed
about what Scripture plainly and simply teaches. That we are misinformed
about basic morality, common sense, and that our conscience does not speak
rightly. They would have us believe we will be annhiliated in wrath by an
angry "Jesus", at "Armageddon".
They would not have you hear my opinon. They would not
have Christians be allowed the freedom of Speech to declare their religion a
fraud, a slander, and a blasphemy against theirs. They would condemn all of
"Christiandom", as being of Satan.
They would have you believe their religion is the fastest
growing in the world, unparralled even to the first century Church. Yet,
they can work not the least of miracles. And, have proven this in no way.
There are billions of people who have never even heard of them.
For every one of them, there are thousands of
Christians; in every neighborhood, and behind one out of fifty doors they
knock apon. We outnumber their children in the schools. We outnumber them
everywhere. And, they never will outnumber us. In fact, just as the 1974
incident almost destroyed them completely, know this:
There will be no "Jehovah Witness", nor "Watchtower" in
the coming future. But, this does not mean we should sit back and wait. We
must zealously counterattack them, again and again, exposing their every
little slander; pounding them with the loud voice of conscience and truth;
as they are pounded with the loud voice of propaganda and Satan!
We will meet them on every front, and when one of us goes
on to more important duties, another will take their place. We act as one,
defending the Truth, exposing their lies, and causing them to lose all hope
in their silly little manuals made by mere human printing presses!
Already, here, on the newsgroup, they have been
discussing about how to rid us out. They have been talking about starting a
moderated list. People who come here say, "It seems there are only ex-JW's".
And, their words, above all, especially prove against
themselves; signalling to their conscience and the public's: exactly what
dark depths of the Abyss they will sink to!
Now, let's see. Will they totally ignore this, going,
"We can't answer him!". Or, will they foolishly try to answer this point by
point, with a few slanderous and uncalled for remarks about the nature of my
character? I encourage you not to be discouraged, no matter what depths they
sink to slander me; I enjoy seeing their futile and laughable attempts at
striking at me with their words. They slanderous curses are merely 'gnats
flying about'.
Absolutely powerless!
We will see victory, here. As we are and have been. The
Name of the Lord Jesus Christ Almighty is being glorified, and his enemies
are being put down, hastening His Coming!
God Alone Is Holy!
Drew.
Reslight
> WHILE JW'S DENY ALL OF THEIR PRIMARY DOCTRINES
> ARE FROM CHARLES TAZE RUSSELL;
> THE WORDS OF RUSSELL PROVE OTHERWISE!
>
>I paraphrase from "The Kingdom of the Cults" by the late and great Walter
>Martin, founder of the "Infamous", among Anti-Christ's, group: the
Christain
>Research Institute. (www.equip.org).
The book "Kingdom of the Cults" is hardly an authoritative source of
information on Charles Taze Russell or the JWs. Much of what is quoted is
quoted out of context and distorted.
For more on Charles Taze Russell, see:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2713/l-russell.htm
(Most of Russell's works are online and one can verify what he says in the
context of which he was speaking. This is not a JW site.)
For more on the trinity, see:
http://www.reslight.addr.com/l-trinity.html
(not a JW site)
For more on Death, Hell and eternal punishment, see:
http://www.geocities.com/~reslight/l-life.htm
(not a JW site)
Yours in the Master's service,
Ronald R. Day
Restoration Light
http://www.reslight.addr.com/keystudybible.html
Pappa Jerk
againt the Witnesses on this NG.
I'll ask him tonight in prayer and see what new light he and Brothers
Rutherford can come up with!
Bloody comedians.
Reslight <resl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:753n0c$hva$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>leviathan wrote in message <751565$d3h$1...@news.onr.com>...
>> WHILE JW'S DENY ALL OF THEIR PRIMARY DOCTRINES
>> ARE FROM CHARLES TAZE RUSSELL;
>> THE WORDS OF RUSSELL PROVE OTHERWISE!
>>
>>I paraphrase from "The Kingdom of the Cults" by the late and great Walter
>>Martin, founder of the "Infamous", among Anti-Christ's, group: the
>Christain
>>Research Institute. (www.equip.org).
>
Born Again
Look at his tomb, a pyramid with the sybol of the Templars on it,
a cross with a crown. It is the exact symbol of the Templars.
On Sun, 13 Dec 1998 13:37:37 -0600, "leviathan" <stlh...@onr.com>
wrote:
Born Again
<Jesus Christ was, is, and will be for evermore, Lord of All>
Allen
Institute held an M.A. and was a PH.D. He had impeccable credentials in
research. As far as is known his character has not been brought into question
by anyone of his contemporary professors. His book "KINGDOM OF THE CULTS" has
been reprinted multiple times and the information in it regarding any of the
cults has never been able to refuted.
So... Mr. Martin, a learned Christian researcher, is likened to be less than
Russell. And, you are not a JW - you just happened to find sites that proclaim
a heretic and his heresies to be truth.
Who is like Mr. Russell? In June 1912 the Reverend J. J. Ross, who was pastor
of the James Street Baptist Church in Hamilton, Ontario, wrote a pamphlet
"Some facts about the self-styled 'Pastor' Charles T. Russell". He denounced
Russell soundly and called into question that man's qualifications to be
called a minister or his being a moral example of someone called "pastor".
Mr. Russell, being a very good Christian example, immediately sued Ross for
"defamatory libel". Ross called, on return of this suit being brought, Mr.
Russell's teachings as being from one who is neither a scholar or a
theologian. He accused Russell of lack of schooling in the Bible languages,
lack of teaching in philosophy, of having no background in systemic or
historical theology.
Mr. Russell lost that suit in a court of Law: High Court of Ontario - Russell
VS Ross - "defamatory libel"; March 17, 1913.
Mr. Russell's very own court reported statements led to this huge Waterloo.
During a five (5) hour thorough cross examination the below running exchange
that took place in that court of law and is self-explanatory:
Q: (All by Ross' lawyer Staunton) "Do you know the Greek alphabet?"
A: (All by Russell) "Oh yes."
Q: "Can you tell me the correct letters if you see them?"
A: "Some of them, I might make a mistake on some of them."
Q: "Would you tell me the names of those on top of the page, page 447 that I
have here?"
A: "Well, I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO." (emphasis mine)
Q: "You can't tell what those letters are, look at them and see if you know?"
A: "My way...." (interrupted by court and not allowed to proceed)
Q: "Are you familiar with the Greek language?"
A: "NO." (emphasis mine).
This just a sample of the exchange. Again this was a five hour, thorough cross
examination. Mr. Charles Taze Russell is a proven liar in a court of law, the
record is available to any JW who wants to find truth.
This liar begot other lies that twist the scriptures, destroys souls of men
and women, and his like are destined, according to the Word of God, to that
hell that he, Russell, so desperately refused to believe existed. You, Mr.
Day, support and propagate a known liar. Please justify this strange need you
have to do so. Justify it by giving bona fide credentials for Mr. Russell.
Justify it. You are not a liar, are you Mr. Day? You would resist mightily
should someone accuse you of such, wouldn't you? If you feel being called a
liar is such a horrid thing, why follow the teachings and be an apologist for
a PROVEN LIAR - Charles Taze Russell? Is Jesus Christ a liar? Are all the
apostles liars?
Q: "Is it true you were never ordained?"
A: "It is not true."
At this point in the examination, recalling shades of William Jefferson
Clinton, another proven liar of note, presently facing possible impeachment -
the attorney had to appeal to the judge to force Mr. Russell to be forthright
in his answers...
Q: "Now, you never were ordained by a bishop, clergyman, presbytery, council,
or any body of men living?"
A: (Very long pause on the part of Russell) "I NEVER WAS."
He lied Mr. Day. He lied and lied and lied and lied. He was just caught in a
lie. He just kept right on lying after he got caught. He lost a court case by
his very own words. Liars are going where? Where do liars go, Mr. Day,
according to Jesus Christ? Are you a liar, Mr. Day. If you are not a liar,
then why are you partaking in the sins of a KNOWN LIAR, Charles Taze Russell?
He lied in a court of law in front of witnesses. He lied to his followers. He
lied and go away with it because there were not very many means of getting the
truth out to the population at the time. Now the truth is made known. It is
old truth, like the Bible itself is old, but is still truth.
Now, Mr. Day, will you simply do what those who are masters over you wish for
you to do? Will you proudly go before your JW friends and announce you have
been "persecuted" by an Christian or will you really use your own heart and
mind and really begin to try to find out just what your belief system is based
on. If it is based on the principles of an unprincipled man, how firm a
foundation are you resting on?
--
In Jesus forever
Allen
http://members.xoom.com/glory2him/
http://home1.gte.net/mrgoose/walk.html
(allow this site to load - it takes a minute or so, but you will not be
disappointed!)
------------------------------------------------
Reslight wrote in message <753n0c$hva$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>leviathan wrote in message <751565$d3h$1...@news.onr.com>...
>> WHILE JW'S DENY ALL OF THEIR PRIMARY DOCTRINES
>> ARE FROM CHARLES TAZE RUSSELL;
>> THE WORDS OF RUSSELL PROVE OTHERWISE!
>>
>>I paraphrase from "The Kingdom of the Cults" by the late and great Walter
>>Martin, founder of the "Infamous", among Anti-Christ's, group: the
>Christain
>>Research Institute. (www.equip.org).
>
leviathan
Open Letter:
I had expected as much attention to this; all the more will others
read this. And, it is absolutely true.
They treated Christ this way, of course, they will treat Christ's
followers!
Luke 11:53,54;
"When he left the house, the scribes and Pharisees began a furious
attack on him and tried to force answers from him on innumerable questions,
setting traps to catch him out in something he might say."
Notice how they are not answering, yet; the verses I have given
them from Scripture on these things. In a single post each.
God Alone Is Holy,
Drew.
Reslight
Born Again wrote in message <36761fb...@news.tref.nl>...
>Did you know Russell was a Knights Templar?
This lie continues?
>Look at his tomb, a pyramid with the sybol of the Templars on it,
>a cross with a crown.
The Templars may use it, so have many other groups and churches. Charles
Taze Russell was never a Templar.
Ronald R. Day
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2713/l-russell.html
Reslight
Let me see... Walter Martin was the director of the Christian Research
Institute held an M.A. and was a PH.D. He had impeccable credentials in
research. As far as is known his character has not been brought into
question
by anyone of his contemporary professors. His book "KINGDOM OF THE CULTS"
has
been reprinted multiple times and the information in it regarding any of the
cults has never been able to refuted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
See: THE LATE WALTER MARTIN'S SHAM SCHOLARSHIP AND FALSE ORTHODOXY
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2713/l-russell.htm
This was written by James Penton, an ex-JW.
Allen continues:
So... Mr. Martin, a learned Christian researcher, is likened to be less than
Russell. And, you are not a JW
My response:
Neither was Charles Taze Russell ever a JW. There was not JW organization
while he lived, and he preached against forming such an organization until
the day he died.
See "Pastor Russell Not the Founder of Jehovah's Witnesses"
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2713/l-russell.htm
I have spent many years in association with people who knew Charles Taze
Russell personally. I have almost everything he ever wrote in my library. I
also have all of Paul S. L. Johnson's books and some of his other writings.
My own writings and edits are at:
http://www.reslight.addr.com/
Paul S. L. Johnson, a Hebrew and Greek scholar, worked many years with
Charles Taze Russell up until Russell died. With few exceptions, he verified
what Russell wrote concerning the Hebrew and Greek. Anyone with just a
little education and common sense can verify that Hell is the condition of
being dead, that the trinity is not true, and that man's hope lies in the
resurrection of the dead, not in the false hope that the dead are still
alive somewhere even while they are dead.
This is from Penton's document:
What happened is that Russell had brought charges against a Canadian Baptist
minister, the Rev. J. J. Ross, because Ross had written a booklet attacking
Russell's integrity as a religious leader. So scathing were Ross's remarks
that Russell wanted him brought into court on charges of criminal libel.
However, after a magistrate's court heard the matter and referred it to a
grand jury of the High Court of Ontario, that body ruled that if Russell
wanted to pursue it further, he would have do so by way of a civil suit
rather than through criminal action. Thereupon, Ross wrote a second booklet
entitled Some Facts and More Facts about the Self-Styled "Pastor" Charles T.
Russell,5 in which he accused Russell of having committed perjury.
----End of quote
Let the court record show that Russell had already stated that he had not
had formal training in Hebrew or Greek before he was asked about the Greek
letters. Nor did Russell ever say he knew Greek.
Question: "You don't profess, then, to be schooled in the Latin language?"
Answer: "No, Sir."
Question: "Or in Greek?"
Answer: "No, Sir."
It was after asking the above questions, that Russell was asked about the
Greek alphabet.
Russell was interrupted from explaining what he meant, but he later said
that his way of knowing the Greek alphabet was by use of Greek concordances,
etc.
Did he lie, or was he misunderstood by those who later claimed he lied? No
one at the trial seemed to think that Russell had perjured himself or that
the lied.
This is quoted from Penton's online document:
Russell explained later what he had meant when he indicated that he "knew"
the Greek alphabet. He had simply developed a schoolboy's ability to
recognize Greek words in Strong's and Young's concordances of the Bible.
(Zion's Watch Tower, 1914, pp. 286-91) William Whalen, an advocate of the
perjury theory, says as much. [William J, Whalen, *Armageddon around the
Corner* (New York: John Day Company, 1962), pp. 42-43] Probably, too,
Russell could repeat from memory the names of the Greek letters from alpha
to omega. More importantly, before Lynch-Staunton showed him certain Greek
letters in Westcott and Hort's recension of the New Testament, he had
already stated that he might not be able to recognize all of the letters of
the Greek alphabet in print. What can therefore be said with assurance is
that when Ross stated that Russell had "claimed to know the Greek" in court,
it was Ross, not Russell, who was lying. The most that Russell claimed was
that he "knew" the Greek alphabet-not a very outstanding claim-and he
admitted that he might not recognize all the letters in print.
End of quote
Actually Ross later published a book in which he gave this distorted account
of what happened in the courtroom:
"Do you know the Greek?" asked the Attorney. "Oh, yes," was Russell's reply.
Here he was handed a copy of the New Testament in Greek, by Westcott & Hort,
and asked to read the letters as they appear on the top of page 447. He did
not know the Greek alphabet. "Now," asked Mr. Staunton [sic], "Are you
familiar with the Greek language?" "No," said Mr. Russell without a blush.
-----J. J. Ross, Some Facts and More Facts about the Self-Styled "Pastor"
Charles T. Russell (Philadelphia: Philadelphia School of the Bible, 1913),
page 18.
No one had thought Russell had committed perjury until Ross claimed such in
the above-mentioned book. It was from this mistatement of the account of
what really happened in the courtroom that the so-called perjury accusations
developed.
Martin and Klann continued Ross' mistatement of the trial account in the
1953 edition of *Jehovah of the Watchtower*, page 19, after which he states:
"Here is conclusive evidence, the "Pastor" under oath perjured himself
beyond question." The later edition of 1974 corrected the court account, but
still tried to continue the perjury charge against Russell.
True ordination for the ministry comes from God, not man. Thus was Charles
Taze Russell, believing he had been ordained by God, lying when he said he
had been ordained? Charles Taze Russell had been chosen as pastor by many
congregations of Bible Students.
I do not blindly accept what Russell wrote; indeed I do not agree with
everything he wrote. I am constantly refining what I believe as I learn more
and more about the Bible. I am in agreement with the basic teachings that he
taught, especially concerning the "ransom for all", as are many thousands of
Bible Students all over the world.
Allen, have you yourself read any of Russell's books? Or do you just depend
on the quotes offered by others?
Jason
Institute held an M.A. and was a PH.D. He had impeccable credentials in
research. As far as is known his character has not been brought into
question
by anyone of his contemporary professors. His book "KINGDOM OF THE CULTS"
has
been reprinted multiple times and the information in it regarding any of the
cults has never been able to refuted.
I believe I read the section he wrote on JW years ago. To my memory the
scriptures he used to show how we arrived at our doctrines were absurb, or
used seldom, or he only showed one scripture when five would be needed to
explain an understanding. As I recall he wasn't wrong on the doctrines, but
he hardly gave an unbiased view either.
So... Mr. Martin, a learned Christian researcher, is likened to be less than
Russell. And, you are not a JW - you just happened to find sites that
proclaim
a heretic and his heresies to be truth.
Hmm.. I don't think is going to be a fair and unbiased view either.
But's let's see what appears.
Who is like Mr. Russell? In June 1912 the Reverend J. J. Ross, who was
pastor
of the James Street Baptist Church in Hamilton, Ontario, wrote a pamphlet
"Some facts about the self-styled 'Pastor' Charles T. Russell". He denounced
Russell soundly and called into question that man's qualifications to be
called a minister or his being a moral example of someone called "pastor".
Mr. Russell, being a very good Christian example, immediately sued Ross for
"defamatory libel". Ross called, on return of this suit being brought, Mr.
Russell's teachings as being from one who is neither a scholar or a
theologian. He accused Russell of lack of schooling in the Bible languages,
lack of teaching in philosophy, of having no background in systemic or
historical theology.
And why are any of those 'requirments' for a person to understand the
bible? I mean, because historical thoeology says it is right, does not make
it accurate. In fact history often shows how many of the 'christian'
beliefs filtered in over time from other faiths. And philosophy is the
reasoning and thinking of man, which while it has clearly influenced
'christianty' over time, has no biblical bases. But you are right that a
knowledge to some level of the original languages is good, but that is only
a part.
Mr. Russell lost that suit in a court of Law: High Court of Ontario -
Russell
VS Ross - "defamatory libel"; March 17, 1913.
Mr. Russell's very own court reported statements led to this huge Waterloo.
During a five (5) hour thorough cross examination the below running exchange
that took place in that court of law and is self-explanatory:
Q: (All by Ross' lawyer Staunton) "Do you know the Greek alphabet?"
A: (All by Russell) "Oh yes."
Q: "Can you tell me the correct letters if you see them?"
A: "Some of them, I might make a mistake on some of them."
Q: "Would you tell me the names of those on top of the page, page 447 that I
have here?"
A: "Well, I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO." (emphasis mine)
Q: "You can't tell what those letters are, look at them and see if you
know?"
A: "My way...." (interrupted by court and not allowed to proceed)
Q: "Are you familiar with the Greek language?"
A: "NO." (emphasis mine).
This just a sample of the exchange. Again this was a five hour, thorough
cross
examination. Mr. Charles Taze Russell is a proven liar in a court of law,
the
record is available to any JW who wants to find truth.
Actually I have looked at the record, have you? If you had you would
have seen Russel later explain himself, where he was cute of by the opposing
lawyer. He basically explained he could look up the words in a dictonary,
by looking at the letters and I believe knowing the order they came in. The
the dictionary gave him the english meanings. It's funny but every book
I've ever seen denouncing Russel has always shown those exact lines, not one
before, not one after. The reason? Quite simply Russel only appears to be
a liar if you take those few lines out of context. Put them in with the
rest and he doesn't look like one.
This liar begot other lies that twist the scriptures, destroys souls of men
and women, and his like are destined, according to the Word of God, to that
hell that he, Russell, so desperately refused to believe existed. You, Mr.
Day, support and propagate a known liar. Please justify this strange need
you
have to do so. Justify it by giving bona fide credentials for Mr. Russell.
Justify it. You are not a liar, are you Mr. Day? You would resist mightily
should someone accuse you of such, wouldn't you? If you feel being called a
liar is such a horrid thing, why follow the teachings and be an apologist
for
a PROVEN LIAR - Charles Taze Russell? Is Jesus Christ a liar? Are all the
apostles liars?
Why don't you discuss what he actually taught instead of attacking the
man? I mean if he was so out to lunch you shouldn't have any problems now
should you? As well i don't recall anyone claiming he was perfect, just not
quilty of the crimes you accuse him off.
Q: "Is it true you were never ordained?"
A: "It is not true."
At this point in the examination, recalling shades of William Jefferson
Clinton, another proven liar of note, presently facing possible
impeachment -
the attorney had to appeal to the judge to force Mr. Russell to be
forthright
in his answers...
Q: "Now, you never were ordained by a bishop, clergyman, presbytery,
council,
or any body of men living?"
A: (Very long pause on the part of Russell) "I NEVER WAS."
Russel was proclaimed a pastor by his congregation. Is it not from God
that ordination comes? As well if Russel was clearly against the teachings
of the faiths around him because he belived they had left the path to God,
why would he wish to be ordained by them? The problem I have with
arguements like this is that when you look to the bible you find very few of
the faithful men that could say yes to this question asked like that. Yet
no one questions that they were ordained by God.
He lied Mr. Day. He lied and lied and lied and lied. He was just caught in a
lie. He just kept right on lying after he got caught. He lost a court case
by
his very own words. Liars are going where? Where do liars go, Mr. Day,
according to Jesus Christ? Are you a liar, Mr. Day. If you are not a liar,
then why are you partaking in the sins of a KNOWN LIAR, Charles Taze
Russell?
He lied in a court of law in front of witnesses. He lied to his followers.
He
lied and go away with it because there were not very many means of getting
the
truth out to the population at the time. Now the truth is made known. It is
old truth, like the Bible itself is old, but is still truth.
Hey friend, repetion once or twice for emphasis is Good, ten or twelve
is kinda overdoing it.
Not many ways? He didn't seem to have any problem getting his message
out. If they had cared to their were plenty of methods back then. And this
at a time when your religion could be tried in court.
Now, Mr. Day, will you simply do what those who are masters over you wish
for
you to do? Will you proudly go before your JW friends and announce you have
been "persecuted" by an Christian or will you really use your own heart and
mind and really begin to try to find out just what your belief system is
based
on. If it is based on the principles of an unprincipled man, how firm a
foundation are you resting on?
Mr. Day in not a JW, and again JW will not claim Russel was a perfect
man by any means. Let's talk about doctrines rather than worrying about a
man who has been dead what 80 years now? This would seem to make more sense
to me.
Born Again
by Fritz Springmeier titled: "The Watchtower and the Masons."
Read about the connection between them.
There are even on the internet hidden subliminal pictures of demon
faces in the pictures in their literature. If you want I can give you
the URL to PROVE it.
On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:35:47 -0500, "Reslight"
<resl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Born Again wrote in message <36761fb...@news.tref.nl>...
>>Did you know Russell was a Knights Templar?
>
>This lie continues?
>
>>Look at his tomb, a pyramid with the sybol of the Templars on it,
>>a cross with a crown.
>
>The Templars may use it, so have many other groups and churches. Charles
>Taze Russell was never a Templar.
>
>Ronald R. Day
>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2713/l-russell.html
>
>
>
>
Born Again
Born Again
Click on subliminal images and browse through it.
You will be AMAZED.
On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:35:47 -0500, "Reslight"
<resl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Born Again wrote in message <36761fb...@news.tref.nl>...
>>Did you know Russell was a Knights Templar?
>
>This lie continues?
>
>>Look at his tomb, a pyramid with the sybol of the Templars on it,
>>a cross with a crown.
>
>The Templars may use it, so have many other groups and churches. Charles
>Taze Russell was never a Templar.
>
>Ronald R. Day
>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2713/l-russell.html
>
>
>
>
Born Again
leviathan
situation, both sides need to be properly heard. It is typically very
difficult to get a hold of such material; however I would like no one to
read anything into that.
Drew.
leviathan
>Look at his tomb, a pyramid with the sybol of the Templars on it,
>a cross with a crown. It is the exact symbol of the Templars.
>
I think that I have heard something like that, but since I do not
know much about the Templars; and, also there was, I thought Joseph Smith;
or Brigham; or somebody, that had a pyramid tombstone; so, I likely would
not have remembered Russells situation there. He had a long, long story full
of weirdness, a lot I can just remember my surprise when reading of it.
Drew.
Reslight
Born Again wrote in message <36779d2...@news.tref.nl>...
>You believe what you want.
I don't have to believe what I want. I absolutely *know* Charles Taze
Russell was not with the Freemasons.
See:
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=381348875
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=353958485
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=355441363
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=357481110
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=357696175
>There is a good book
>by Fritz Springmeier titled: "The Watchtower and the Masons."
>Read about the connection between them.
>There are even on the internet hidden subliminal pictures of demon
>faces in the pictures in their literature.
Whose literature? The freemasons? The "Jehovah's Witnesses"?
I have a book (Hour of Darkness, by Darek Barefoot), an ex-JW who believes
that the Watchtower has demonic symbols within the drawings that appear in
the Watchtower. I have read it. I don't remember anything in there about
Charles Russell. I don't put much weight on it, however. I could take
drawings from other publications and find "hidden" symbols in them also, if
I looked hard enough.
However, I can say that if the experiences reported by Darek in his book
while he was with the witnesses are true, that matters were not dealt with
by scripture.
>If you want I can give you
>the URL to PROVE it.
Prove what? the "demon" pictures? or that Charles Taze Russell was a
freemason?
I have visited several sites that promote this *freemason* idea, such as the
one at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8988/templar.htm. None of them "prove"
anything. All I see are a lot of insinuations. If you have a URL that
actually *proves* something, I would be willing to look at it. However, as I
have said before, I have known and worked with people who lived and worked
side-by-side with Charles Taze Russell; Russell advocated that a true
Christian should *not* be a member of that organization nor any other
organization similar. He considered such activities a 'waste of consecrated
time.'
Truth..
thus acting as ambassadors for God’s established kingdom during the years
1914-1916 was a fully dedicated, baptized Christian named Charles Taze
Russell. He was then president of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society with
its headquarters in Brooklyn, New York. Christians who associated with this
Mr. Russell in proclaiming the end of the Gentile Times and the full
establishment of God’s kingdom in the heavens were reproachfully called
“Russellites” by their enemies. They continued to be called such even after
Russell died on October 31, 1916, after which Joseph F. Rutherford became
president of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society and the foremost
spokesman for these international Christian Bible students. At that time the
religious clergymen of Christendom actively joined in supporting both sides
in World War I in the enormous spilling of blood. However, the Kingdom
ambassadors conscientiously refused to be combatants in the international
war over political world domination. For this they became objects of hatred
among all the nations, as Matthew 24:9 had foretold.
Born Again
producing the New World Translation, were occultists? They were
members of "The Ghostly Guild."
There names are in CHRISTIAN Bibles .... AND .... in the New World
Translation. Strange eh?
Truth..
Did you know that the famous Westcott & Hort, who ALSO helped producing the
New World Translation, were occultists? They were members of "The Ghostly
Guild." There names are in CHRISTIAN Bibles .... AND .... in the New World
Translation. Strange eh?
Reply:
Can you prove what you have stated?
Born Again
wrote:
I can. There was a piece on it on the internet by some pastor who
defended the KJV. I have to look it up. May take a while.
Born Again
wrote:
>Born Again wrote:
>Did you know that the famous Westcott & Hort, who ALSO helped producing the
>New World Translation, were occultists? They were members of "The Ghostly
>Guild." There names are in CHRISTIAN Bibles .... AND .... in the New World
>Translation. Strange eh?
>
>
>Reply:
>Can you prove what you have stated?
>
>
But anyway, it is strange enough to find their names in both the NWT
and christian bibles, for the NWT does not say Jesus is God and that
we need Him as savior to get eternal life. Look in the NWT and you'll
find their names.
Richard B. Morgan
pastor said it.....humm let me see who was it???? Give me a break!!!!
Born Again wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 21:48:29 +1300, "Truth.." <Pe...@The.New.World>
> wrote:
>
> >Born Again wrote:
> >Did you know that the famous Westcott & Hort, who ALSO helped producing the
> >New World Translation, were occultists? They were members of "The Ghostly
> >Guild." There names are in CHRISTIAN Bibles .... AND .... in the New World
> >Translation. Strange eh?
> >
> >
> >Reply:
> >Can you prove what you have stated?
>
> I can. There was a piece on it on the internet by some pastor who
> defended the KJV. I have to look it up. May take a while.
>
Richard B. Morgan
and the NWT does definitely say that we need him for Salvation.
Born Again wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 21:48:29 +1300, "Truth.." <Pe...@The.New.World>
> wrote:
>
> >Born Again wrote:
> >Did you know that the famous Westcott & Hort, who ALSO helped producing the
> >New World Translation, were occultists? They were members of "The Ghostly
> >Guild." There names are in CHRISTIAN Bibles .... AND .... in the New World
> >Translation. Strange eh?
> >
> >
> >Reply:
> >Can you prove what you have stated?
> >
> >
>
> But anyway, it is strange enough to find their names in both the NWT
> and christian bibles, for the NWT does not say Jesus is God and that
> we need Him as savior to get eternal life. Look in the NWT and you'll
> find their names.
Born Again
the very outset. The nominal head of the WT Society for many years was
their president Fred Franz. Yet, Franz had grown very old, was blind,
and stayed in bed. Natheer Salih was supposedly Fred Franz's bodyguard
and helper, but all communications to WT President Franz had to go
through 6'2'' Natheer Ssalih, who would supposedly ask Franz and then
come back with an answer. Apparently Salih may be from an Iraqi Jewish
bloodline. He wears big rings and has expensive tastes. Salih was the
channel through whom the Illuminati could pass their decisions for the
WT Soc. onto the Governing Body and Bethel staff.
Born Again
<rickm...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>The NWT does not say that Jesus is God, because he isn't he is the SON of God,
>and the NWT does definitely say that we need him for Salvation.
Jesus is God, He is God the Son (Hebrews 1 and 2), the second Person
in the Godhead. And by the way, nobody can save human beings but God.
Since God was the One offended, only He could forgive humanity. So
what did God the Son do? He became a Man, took the punishment upon
Himself, and at the same time through His work, He could forgive
humanity the sins which had hurt Him and seperated them from Him. The
Savior MUST be both God and Man. There is NO other way.
If you are a JW, you need to renounce that cult, open your eyes and
think for yourself, instead of swallowing the lies from the illuminati
governed WTS.
>Born Again wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 21:48:29 +1300, "Truth.." <Pe...@The.New.World>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Born Again wrote:
>> >Did you know that the famous Westcott & Hort, who ALSO helped producing the
>> >New World Translation, were occultists? They were members of "The Ghostly
>> >Guild." There names are in CHRISTIAN Bibles .... AND .... in the New World
>> >Translation. Strange eh?
>> >
>> >
>> >Reply:
>> >Can you prove what you have stated?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> But anyway, it is strange enough to find their names in both the NWT
>> and christian bibles, for the NWT does not say Jesus is God and that
>> we need Him as savior to get eternal life. Look in the NWT and you'll
>> find their names.
Born Again
<rickm...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>My, my......why it just must be so if it was on the internet.......and if some
>pastor said it.....humm let me see who was it???? Give me a break!!!!
My, my, of course every pastor on the internet must be a fake eh?
Born Again
because the lodge of which he was a member of (part of the Grand
Commandery of Knights Templar of Pennsylvania) received its authority
from a charter from ireland.
The name Watchtower could very well be taken from the Hebrew word
Mizpah (watchtower). One of the important types of magick used by the
illuminati, secret societies and New Agers is Enochian Magick.
Interestingly, three Knights templar lodges that have the Hebrew name
Mizpah, were oeprating in C.T. Russell's area. Russell does have some
bent towards Enochian Magick. Likewise, the name jehovah used by JW
was originally created by Jewish Kabbalist magicians.
He also used the symbol of the winged sun disk a lot. And CLEARLY, the
symbol on his tomb is the symbol of the Knights Templar.
Russell studied masonic literature, and was very much interested in
Egyptology. Not only that, there are a lot of similarities between
masonic beliefs and the beliefs of Russell.
More later ......
Michael J. Rogers
Born Again <victo...@merlins-cave.com> wrote in message
367af87...@news.tref.nl...
>The membership records of pastor Russell are kept in Dublin, England,
>because the lodge of which he was a member of (part of the Grand
>Commandery of Knights Templar of Pennsylvania) received its authority
>from a charter from ireland.
Isn't that meant to be Dublin, Eire and not England?
Born Again
Born Again
Richard B. Morgan
and source of quotation and some information that will establish that persons
credibility. Just because someone posts on the Internet does not endow them with
instant creditability. Otherwise you would have to believe what I say without
question. Your response make no more sense than your original post.
Born Again wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 17:50:26 -0500, "Richard B. Morgan"
> <rickm...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >My, my......why it just must be so if it was on the internet.......and if some
> >pastor said it.....humm let me see who was it???? Give me a break!!!!
>
> My, my, of course every pastor on the internet must be a fake eh?
>
Richard B. Morgan
Son. God said Jesus was his son. The Apostles said that Jesus was God's Son. You
need to believe what the Bible says, and not try to twist the scriptures to say
something that they don't say. If Jesus and God are one then the ransom is the
biggest fraud ever perpetuated on mankind. God cannot die. If God died as a ransom
and then resurrected himself then he could not have been dead. It was all a fraud,
if that were true. To the contrary Jesus, as the Son of God could and did die, and
his death was a sufficient price to redeem mankind. It's a simple Bible truth. The
doctrine that Jesus and God are one and the same was not taught or believed by the
first century Christians. It was introduced into the apostate church some centuries
later. It is an anti-Christian, God defaming doctrine, and appears nowhere in the
Bible. To believe or proclaim the doctrine that God and Jesus are one and the same
is to call God a deceiver and a fraud.
Born Again wrote:
Richard B. Morgan
please and a little less hot air.
Born Again wrote:
Born Again
<rickm...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Au contraire. The Bible never says that Jesus is God. Jesus said he was God's
>Son. God said Jesus was his son. The Apostles said that Jesus was God's Son. You
>need to believe what the Bible says, and not try to twist the scriptures to say
>something that they don't say. If Jesus and God are one then the ransom is the
>biggest fraud ever perpetuated on mankind. God cannot die. If God died as a ransom
>and then resurrected himself then he could not have been dead. It was all a fraud,
>if that were true. To the contrary Jesus, as the Son of God could and did die, and
>his death was a sufficient price to redeem mankind. It's a simple Bible truth. The
>doctrine that Jesus and God are one and the same was not taught or believed by the
>first century Christians. It was introduced into the apostate church some centuries
>later. It is an anti-Christian, God defaming doctrine, and appears nowhere in the
>Bible. To believe or proclaim the doctrine that God and Jesus are one and the same
>is to call God a deceiver and a fraud.
Sorry, but read Hebrews 1:8 where God the Father says: "But unto the
Son He saith, Thy Throne, o God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of
righteousness .... " And verse 10: "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning
hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works
of thine hands." Here we see Christ is the Creator God.
John 1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word WAS WITH God, and
the Word WAS God."
The Lamb is worshipped in the same way as God the Father: "Blessing,
and honour, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the
throne, AND unto the Lamb for ever and ever.
Jesus and the Father are One. Three in One, just as you are a triune
person composed of spirit, soul, and body, each having different tasks
and abilities, but equally important, and together forming ONE human
being
Richard B. Morgan
from the Bible. Read on:
Born Again wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 19:20:54 -0500, "Richard B. Morgan"
> <rickm...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >Au contraire. The Bible never says that Jesus is God. Jesus said he was God's
> >Son. God said Jesus was his son. The Apostles said that Jesus was God's Son. You
> >need to believe what the Bible says, and not try to twist the scriptures to say
> >something that they don't say. If Jesus and God are one then the ransom is the
> >biggest fraud ever perpetuated on mankind. God cannot die. If God died as a ransom
> >and then resurrected himself then he could not have been dead. It was all a fraud,
> >if that were true. To the contrary Jesus, as the Son of God could and did die, and
> >his death was a sufficient price to redeem mankind. It's a simple Bible truth. The
> >doctrine that Jesus and God are one and the same was not taught or believed by the
> >first century Christians. It was introduced into the apostate church some centuries
> >later. It is an anti-Christian, God defaming doctrine, and appears nowhere in the
> >Bible. To believe or proclaim the doctrine that God and Jesus are one and the same
> >is to call God a deceiver and a fraud.
>
> Sorry, but read Hebrews 1:8 where God the Father says: "But unto the
> Son He saith, Thy Throne, o God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of
> righteousness .... " And verse 10: "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning
> hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works
> of thine hands." Here we see Christ is the Creator God.
If you will refer to the Greek texts which are considered the most reliable you will find
that a direct translation of Hebrews 1:8 would read: "toward but the son The throne of
you the God into the age of the age are the staff of the straightness staff of the
kingdom of him". Considering the rules of Greek grammar in expressing it in English it
would go like this: "But with reference to the Son: "God is your throne forever, and the
scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness".
With reference to verse 10 it does show that Christ did the creative work, but this does
not prove that he is God. He is the WORD. The scripture shows that God created the WORD
and then the worked created all other things. But that does not, and would not have to
mean, that he is or was GOD. Proverbs 8:22-31.
> John 1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word WAS WITH God, and
> the Word WAS God."
Even trinitarian scholars realize that John 1:1 proves nothing. According to the rules
of Greek grammar (and according to trinitarian scholars admittedly a possible
translation) John 1:1 reads: "In the beginning the word was, and the word was with God,
and the word was a god". Note: This is NOT the New World Translation that I am
quoting. This is reading from the Greek text applying the rules of Greek Grammar. The
translation you used which most often appears is actually a specious translation in which
the rules of Greek grammar are ignored to purposely mislead.
> The Lamb is worshipped in the same way as God the Father: "Blessing,
> and honour, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the
> throne, AND unto the Lamb for ever and ever.
Au contraire. The Lamb is given power and authority by God as King of the Kingdom.
Nowhere does this text say, or imply in any way, that they are one and the same. In
fact, it is very evident that two separate individuals are referred to here.
> Jesus and the Father are One. Three in One, just as you are a triune
> person composed of spirit, soul, and body, each having different tasks
> and abilities, but equally important, and together forming ONE human
> being
That's your personal opinion. It has no basis in fact.
>
>
>
Born Again
intimately involved with secret societies designed to create a One-
World-State, created the Rhodes Scholarship with the view that
scholars would be collected to learn the ruling concepts of the
Rhodes' One-World-State vision. Frederick Franz, now watchtower
president, claims he was selected to join the Rhodes's scholarship
program. Evidently early in life Franz was slated to play an important
role in the creation of a One-World-State One-World-Religion.
I don't know wheather you are a JW or not. If you are that surprises
me, because the JW are advised to stay of the internet, because there
is so much proof that refutes their many errors.
Richard B. Morgan
rubbish and still do. I have no knowledge whether Franz was selected as a
Rhodes scholar and I couldn't care less. However, I don't think that Rhodes'
motivations can be attributed automatically to all recipients. To do so
would be ridiculous. Would one have to be a JW to be fair minded enough to
recognize and object to bigotry?
Reslight
Born Again wrote in message <367af87...@news.tref.nl>...
>The membership records of pastor Russell are kept in Dublin, England,
>because the lodge of which he was a member of (part of the Grand
>Commandery of Knights Templar of Pennsylvania) received its authority
>from a charter from ireland.
Where do you get this from?
>The name Watchtower could very well be taken from the Hebrew word
>Mizpah (watchtower). One of the important types of magick used by the
>illuminati, secret societies and New Agers is Enochian Magick.
>Interestingly, three Knights templar lodges that have the Hebrew name
>Mizpah, were oeprating in C.T. Russell's area. Russell does have some
>bent towards Enochian Magick. Likewise, the name jehovah used by JW
>was originally created by Jewish Kabbalist magicians.
Proves nothing.
>He also used the symbol of the winged sun disk a lot. And CLEARLY, the
>symbol on his tomb is the symbol of the Knights Templar.
The winged sun disk appeared on the cover of the *Studies in the
Scriptures.* I don't know who authorized its use, or if Russell was even
aware of its use in idol worship. Later editions of the *Studies in the
Scriptures* printed by the Dawn and other Bible Students do not have this
symbol; a few editions being printed by the Laymen's Home Missionary
Movement does contain the symbol. After Russell's death, Morton Edgar wrote
his book "Mythology and the Bible" and showed the origin of the winged sun
symbol. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2713/mytho.htm
However, it proves nothing about whether Russell was a freemason or not.
>Russell studied masonic literature,
What do you base this on? (Of course, Russell studied Catholic, Methodist
and other literature. It doesn't prove that he was a Catholic, etc.)
> and was very much interested in
>Egyptology.
He was interested in the pryramids of Egypt, and Egypt's relationship to the
Bible. His interest and teachings on this had nothing to do with the occult
or masonic teachings.
> Not only that, there are a lot of similarities between
>masonic beliefs and the beliefs of Russell.
I wonder what that could be? The teachings of Russell are greatly at odds
with the teachings of the freemasons. Of course, if you look hard enough you
can find some teachings of Jesus that are similar to that of the Buddha. It
doesn't mean that Jesus was a Buddhist (although some have claimed this).
Charles Taze Russell was definitely NOT a freemason. He did write several
things about free masonry, in which he advised that a Christian should not
belong to such.
For instance, in 1895 he wrote:-------------
We note also that the Order of Free Masons, if judged by its past history,
has some secret object of scheme, more than fraternity and financial aid in
time of sickness or death. And, so far as we can judge, there is a certain
amount of *profane* worship or mummery connected with the rites of this
order and some others, which the members do not comprehend, but which, in
many cases, serves to satisfy the cravings of the natural mind for worship,
and thus hinders it from seeking the woship of God in spirit and in truth
-- through Christ, the only appointed Mediator and Grand Master.
In proportion as such societies consume valuable time in foolish, senseless
rites and ceremonies, and in substituting the worship of their officers,
and the use of words and symbols which have no meaning to them, for the
worship of God, in his appointed way -- through Christ, and according to
knowledge and the spirit of a sound mind -- in that proportion these
societies are grievious evils, regardless of the financial gains or losses
connected with membership in them.
__________ Zion's Watch Tower, June 15, 1895, page 144.
I will now give two replies that Russell received from ones who had been in
the Masons:-------------
Dear Brother Russell: -- Your remarks under caption of *Secret and
Beneficial Societies* in TOWER, of June 15, '95, seemed rather funny to me.
You hit the nail very fairly considering that you were hammering so much in
the dark. I am glad that you defend the principle of protection as afforded
by legitimate or old line companies, life, fire and accident. With you,
however, I think their days are numbered. No human business was ever
organized with broader and more philanthropic intentions than insurance,
and no business has been so abused and divereted from its real purposes.
When insurance fails (as it has failed) from the effect of selfishness, we
can not hope that any human work will succeed.
As to the secret societies, they use a ritual applicable to each different
degree, which is fully as reasonable as that of many of the churches, and
like those of the churches, it usually is of heathen origin. The worship of
the Sun appears prominently in Masonry, and so it does in the service of
Catholic and Episcopal churches. The term "Worshipful," as used in masonry,
is now practically obsolete, but was formerly and generally used as a term
of respect. I occupied the station of "Worshipful Master" for three years,
but I never received the adoration of my fellow mortals, and I certainly
never gave it to others. Your suggestion, that it is done ignorantly, is a
good suggestion, but it does not apply in that case. Perhaps no man in my
state, during the twenty odd years I was a member of the fraternity, gave
more careful study to the symbolism of Masonry, its moral teaching, and its
jursisprudence.
While Masonry does not inculcate the worship of its officers, it does what
is worse; for in its essence the symbolism used in the ceremonies are
derived from *devil worship.*
Although no longer unequally yoked with those unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14-17),
I do not want to say for those who still in bondage that they have much
excuse. Masonry consists very largely in a series of moral instructions,
taught agreeably to ancient usage, by types, symbols and allegorical
figures. It is a system, and a very beautiful system -- as is very much of
Satan's work -- when seen from the worldly standpoint.
Your fellow-worker in the best [not the worst] of bonds.* * *
Another brother writes: ----
"Masonry is not Christianity; and he who is so deluded as to think it is,
is led thereby into a labyrinth of grievous errors. I think I know what I
am talking about, for I was for seven years 'Master' of a 'Lodge,' and
conferred hundred of degrees. Masonry will not take away sins, or save a
soul from death; and it is a grave question whether or not a child of God
has any business spending time and money in any wordly institution. There
is nothing *pure* that is earthly, but purity comes down from above."
------End of quotes from *Zion's Watch Tower*, August 1, 1895.
In the September 1, 1895 issue of *Zion's*, Russell wrote:------------
Free masonry was an attempt at the religious military movement. The Boston
newspapers tell that at their recent Conclave there the saloons did a
thriving business, and that many of the Sir Knights carried their crosses
upside down as they crowded each other in and out of the saloons. The
papers tell also of their religious services; we quote:--
"After the Deuw Misereatur, the Eminent Commander Seymore gave the orders:
'Attention, Sir Knights! Draw swords!' The Apostles' Creed was then
repeated. Then followed:"Eminent commander -- 'Return swords.'
"Prelate -- 'The Lord be with you.'
"Knights -- 'And with thy spirit.' At this point the Sir Knights knelt.
Prelate -- 'O Lord, show thy mercy upon us.'
Knights -- 'And grant us thy salvation.'Prelate -- 'Let us pray.'
"The prayers that followed included the collect for the 11th Sunday after
Trinity, the collect for peace, the collect for and against perils, and the
prayer for the President of the United States and all in civil authority.
"The commemoration of the order followed. After the prayer of St.
Chrysostom and the Grace, was the hymn. 'My Faith Looks Up to Thee.'"
As Christ was crucified by his kinsman according to the flesh, so he is
frequently put to an open shame and wounded afresh "in the house of his
friends." Alas! how many have taken his name in vain, -- to no purpose, to
the dishonor of his cause! Let each one of us who has named the name of
Christ put on Christ and walk in him; clothed, not with showy symbols, but
with humility and true devotion.
Yet according to the course of this world there are few organizations that
can boast as many noble men as the Sir Knights, and concerning them one of
their number, a chaplain, preaching, said:
"All these men have vowed by heart and hand to uphold Christ and
Christianity. Remember also that these are only a vanguard of the mighty
army that, when Christianity or education need assistance, are bound to
protect them."
As God sometimes uses the wrath of man to praise him, so he has used human
antagonisms and superstitions t keep the world in general equilibrium
during the period in which he is selecting, polishing and testing his
"little flock" for his kingdom. When it is complete and exalted to power,
the scene will change radically. Truth will then be mighty, and error shall
no longer prevail. The world knew not our Captain, and likewise knows not
his real "soldiers of the cross." "As he is, so are we in this world." -- 1
John 4:17.
-----------End of quote.
While in the last quote Russell gives some favorable comments toward the
freemasons, he still recommends that a Christian not be a member of the
freemasons.
In the book, *The New Creation*, pages 580, 581, Russell wrote the
following:
----------------
This brings before us the whole question of orders, societies, etc., and
what privileges the New Creation has in connection with such organizations.
Is it right for them to be members of these societies? We answer that while
Church associations are purely religious, and labor and beneficial
organizations in general are purely secular, there are still other orders
which combine the religious and the secular features. As we understand the
matter, for instance, the Free Masons, Odd Fellows, Knights of Pythias,
etc., perform certain rites and ceremonies of a religious kind. Let it be
understood that we are not waging any warfare upon those who hold membership
in these various orders, even as we are not waging warfare against the
various sectarian religious systems. We place upon one level all of those
which have any religious ceremonies, teachings, etc., and consider them all
as parts of Babylon, some quarters or wards of which are cleaner, and others
less clean, but all, nevertheless, full of confusion, error--contrary to the
divine intention, as displayed in the organization of the primitive Church
and the instructions, by word and example, given to it by the inspired
Founder, and his twelve apostles.
We admonish the New Creation to have nothing whatever to do with any of
these semi-religious societies, clubs, orders, churches; but to "Come out
from amongst them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing." (`2
Cor. 6:17`) Their things, their worship, their teachings, their doctrines,
are unclean to us, though they may not be unclean to themselves. The eyes of
our understanding have been opened, and now to us all things appear in a new
light, so that things which we once loved now we hate, and things which we
once hated now we love.
-----------
For more on Russell, see:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/l-russell.html
quietone
because all denominations do is divide people, none of them unite.
Since there is no scripture where Jesus says that he is the second person
in any kind of 3 in 1 trinity, then the only way one can say that is
through interpretation.
right now there are over 28,000 different interpretations. This is due to
the over 28,000 cults within the cult of Christianity.
I use it in that fashion because christianity was called a cult by both the
Romans and the Jews of the time.
Cult is nothing more than a personal opinion.
Also, there is nothing in the bible that says we have an immortal soul, so
your saying we are 3 parts is also just a personal interpretation or
opinion.
Jesus always said that His Father was greater. Jesus said there were
things that he did not know, but only his Father knew.
Also, Peter said, "Thou art the Christ, the SON OF THE LIVING GOD".
The saying that Jesus and his Father are one does not mean they are the
same person because God said that a man and woman shall be one, but they
are still two separate people. I can also say that I and my father are
one, yet we are two people as well.
So, it does come down to how a person reads and interprets what they have
read.
Jesus said that if we call upon his name we'll be saved. That all who
honestly search for him will find him.
No doctrine there, just the two commands Jesus gave us, plus what Paul gave
us at Romans 10:9.
No doctrine there, just some clear and straight forward instructions. Even
Acts 15:29 is quite clear.
So to me the specific doctrine doesn't matter. What matters is accepting
Christ.
Born Again <victo...@merlins-cave.com> wrote in article
<367d219...@news.tref.nl>...
> John 1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word WAS WITH God, and
> the Word WAS God."
>
> The Lamb is worshipped in the same way as God the Father: "Blessing,
> and honour, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the
> throne, AND unto the Lamb for ever and ever.
>
> Jesus and the Father are One. Three in One, just as you are a triune
> person composed of spirit, soul, and body, each having different tasks
> and abilities, but equally important, and together forming ONE human
> being
>
> >
> >Born Again wrote:
Michael J. Rogers
quietone <dqui...@email.com> wrote in message
news:01be2cb4$558ea620$6d34...@dquiet.casagrande.com...
>This is due to the over 28,000 cults within the cult of Christianity.
>I use it in that fashion because christianity was called a cult by both the
>Romans and the Jews of the time.
>Cult is nothing more than a personal opinion.
Are you sure you share the same personal opinion with the Romans and the
Jews?
Richard B. Morgan
think he showed a great deal of reasonableness and intelligence in his answer.
His points on the trinity should be obvious to all reasoning people who are not
blinded by religious tradition. As to cults there are many sects in Christendom
who do fit the description of cults. Very surprisingly, one of the most obvious
is the Roman Catholic Church which sets the Pope up as the "Holy Father" who
expects and receives the adulation of his followers. Also the worship of saints
brings them within that category. Also, surprisingly, Jehovah's Witnesses, who
many call a cult have nothing in their worship, practice or name that would
identify them as a cult. They follow only the creator and his son. Rick
"Michael J. Rogers" wrote:
> quietone <dqui...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:01be2cb4$558ea620$6d34...@dquiet.casagrande.com...
> >This is due to the over 28,000 cults within the cult of Christianity.
> >I use it in that fashion because christianity was called a cult by both the
> >Romans and the Jews of the time.
> >Cult is nothing more than a personal opinion.
>
quietone
in 1966.
I had troubled thoughts because of all the honor saints received, and that
we were taught to pray to individual saints for different situations.
It reminded me of the pagan religions that had a different god for almost
anything one could think of.
The statement from Christ saying that he was the only mediator between God
and man seemed to have little meaning.
Then the stuff about making Mary a co-savior was unreal.
Yes, Mary was His mother in order to give Jesus the blood line he needed.
Mary was a religious person, but still was nothing more than a human
female, not the "mother of God".
I understand Richard's point of view and it took some courage to say what
he did because of the hateful antis that lurk around here.
And for that, I thank him very much.
Richard B. Morgan <rickm...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
<367EDD0C...@mediaone.net>...
> Although I disagree with Quietone on the matter of Cults to a large
degree I do
> think he showed a great deal of reasonableness and intelligence in his
answer.
> His points on the trinity should be obvious to all reasoning people who
are not
> blinded by religious tradition. As to cults there are many sects in
Christendom
> who do fit the description of cults. Very surprisingly, one of the most
obvious
> is the Roman Catholic Church which sets the Pope up as the "Holy Father"
who
> expects and receives the adulation of his followers. Also the worship of
saints
> brings them within that category. Also, surprisingly, Jehovah's
Witnesses, who
> many call a cult have nothing in their worship, practice or name that
would
> identify them as a cult. They follow only the creator and his son.
Rick
>
> "Michael J. Rogers" wrote:
>
> > quietone <dqui...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:01be2cb4$558ea620$6d34...@dquiet.casagrande.com...
> > >This is due to the over 28,000 cults within the cult of Christianity.
> > >I use it in that fashion because christianity was called a cult by
both the
> > >Romans and the Jews of the time.
> > >Cult is nothing more than a personal opinion.
> >
Michael J. Rogers
news:367EDD0C...@mediaone.net...
>Also, surprisingly, Jehovah's Witnesses, who
>many call a cult have nothing in their worship, practice or name that would
>identify them as a cult. They follow only the creator and his son. Rick
IMO no religion can follow the creator and son but can only follow the
Scriptures and any other religious literature (I won't mention the name!)
Bobby Holland
BLH
Born Again <victo...@merlins-cave.com> wrote in message
news:367adfdf...@news.tref.nl...
|The Illuminati control the Watchtower Society and have done so from
|the very outset. The nominal head of the WT Society for many years was
|their president Fred Franz. Yet, Franz had grown very old, was blind,
|and stayed in bed. Natheer Salih was supposedly Fred Franz's bodyguard
|and helper, but all communications to WT President Franz had to go
|through 6'2'' Natheer Ssalih, who would supposedly ask Franz and then
|come back with an answer. Apparently Salih may be from an Iraqi Jewish
|bloodline. He wears big rings and has expensive tastes. Salih was the
|channel through whom the Illuminati could pass their decisions for the
|WT Soc. onto the Governing Body and Bethel staff.
Richard B. Morgan
is how one knows how to follow the father and the son - the instructions are in
the Bible. There is no other way. Rick
Richard B. Morgan
Aircontrol
Patch
wind") rather than a being (who comforts, commands, grieves, etc. as a being
does) cannot fall into the category of "Christian", IMO. Patch
Michael J. Rogers wrote in message <75p2d6$vv6$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Rod
the Greek pneu'ma (spirit) from pne'o, meaning “breathe or blow,” and the
Hebrew ru'ach (spirit) believed to come from a root having the same
meaning. Ru'ach and pneu'ma, then, basically mean “breath” but have extended
meanings beyond that basic sense. ( Hab 2:19; Re 13:15.) They can also mean
wind; the vital force in living creatures; one’s spirit; spirit persons,
including God and his angelic creatures; and God’s active force, or holy
spirit. ( Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros,
Leiden, 1958, pp. 877-879; Brown, Driver, and Briggs’ Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1980, pp. 924-926; Theological Dictionary of
the New Testament, edited by G. Friedrich, translated by G. Bromiley, 1971,
Vol. VI, pp. 332-451.) All these meanings have something in common: They all
refer to that which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of
force in motion. Such invisible force is capable of producing visible
effects.Doesnt fall into the trinity though,huh?
--
Patch wrote in message <75r7le$4pi$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Richard B. Morgan
but sometimes I'm just too lazy. On second thought I'm glad I didn't because I
would have just duplicated you and probably wouldn't have done such a thorough
job.
Rod wrote:
> The original Greek and Hebrew words representing the word spirit come from
> the Greek pneu'ma (spirit) from pne'o, meaning “breathe or blow,” and the
> Hebrew ru'ach (spirit) believed to come from a root having the same
> meaning. Ru'ach and pneu'ma, then, basically mean “breath” but have extended
> meanings beyond that basic sense. ( Hab 2:19; Re 13:15.) They can also mean
> wind; the vital force in living creatures; one’s spirit; spirit persons,
> including God and his angelic creatures; and God’s active force, or holy
> spirit. ( Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros,
> Leiden, 1958, pp. 877-879; Brown, Driver, and Briggs’ Hebrew and English
> Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1980, pp. 924-926; Theological Dictionary of
> the New Testament, edited by G. Friedrich, translated by G. Bromiley, 1971,
> Vol. VI, pp. 332-451.) All these meanings have something in common: They all
> refer to that which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of
> force in motion. Such invisible force is capable of producing visible
> effects.Doesnt fall into the trinity though,huh?
> --
>
> Patch wrote in message <75r7le$4pi$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Rod
considering the crossposting going on. I have been posting from
alt.religion.jehovahs-witn I Guess a few read my posts.<g
--
Richard B. Morgan wrote in message <368183E1...@mediaone.net>...
Gary
Michael J. Rogers wrote in message <75p2d6$vv6$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>Richard B. Morgan <rickm...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
>news:367EDD0C...@mediaone.net...
>>Also, surprisingly, Jehovah's Witnesses, who
>>many call a cult have nothing in their worship, practice or name that
would
>>identify them as a cult. They follow only the creator and his son. Rick
>
>IMO no religion can follow the creator and son but can only follow the
>Scriptures and any other religious literature (I won't mention the name!)
The JW's are consider a cult by ALL CHRISTIANS!
The JW's deny the Savior. They deny God. They deny
all cardinal fundamental doctrines of the Bible. So
if any organization is a cult, they are by overwhelming
evidence!
Sincerely, Gary
g...@iag.net See Trinity vs. Heresy
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/3186/
Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
"In things necessary, unity; in things doubtful, liberty; in all things,
charity." --Augustine of Hippo
Gary
original Greek and Hebrew words representing the word spirit come from
>the Greek pneu'ma (spirit) from pne'o, meaning “breathe or blow,” and the
>Hebrew ru'ach (spirit) believed to come from a root having the same
>meaning. Ru'ach and pneu'ma, then, basically mean “breath” but have
extended
>meanings beyond that basic sense. ( Hab 2:19; Re 13:15.)
SO WHAT! The meaning of the words HOLY SPIRIT as used
in the Scriptures are defined in the Scriptures! The Holy Spirit
is revealed by God in the Scriptures as having ALL THE
PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES THAT THE FATHER AND THE
SON HAVE! HE IS REFERRED TO AS A HE, AGAIN AND AGAIN!
Doesn't it surprise any of your JW's that your doctrines can be
shown to run afoul of the Scriptures at EVERY JUNCTURE!
A school boy can prove that your doctrines are wrong,
all of them!
When you begin your life and base your entire religion
on a lie, the result is the everything you believe is a lie.
Your entire religion is a masterpiece of Satan! He has
you believing doctrines which contradict every basic
doctrine of the Bible! Amazing simply amazing!
>They can also mean
>wind; the vital force in living creatures; one’s spirit; spirit persons,
>including God and his angelic creatures; and God’s active force, or holy
>spirit. ( Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros,
>Leiden, 1958, pp. 877-879; Brown, Driver, and Briggs’ Hebrew and English
>Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1980, pp. 924-926; Theological Dictionary of
>the New Testament, edited by G. Friedrich, translated by G. Bromiley, 1971,
>Vol. VI, pp. 332-451.) All these meanings have something in common: They
all
>refer to that which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of
>force in motion. Such invisible force is capable of producing visible
>effects.Doesnt fall into the trinity though,huh?
>--
>
>
>
>Patch wrote in message <75r7le$4pi$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>>Any religious following that believes the Holy Spirit is a force ("like
>>wind") rather than a being (who comforts, commands, grieves, etc. as a
>being
>>does) cannot fall into the category of "Christian", IMO. Patch
>>
>>
>>
Rod
Richard B. Morgan
God, they believe in Christ Jesus and the value of his ransom sacrifice. They
are not considered a cult by all Christians or Christian Religions. They do not
deny ANY BIBLICAL doctrine. Some of the doctrines that some religions claim are
Biblical have no Biblical support at all such as the trinity (not a shred of
support in the Bible). Where is your 'overwhelming evidence'? You certainly
have not provided any, let alone 'overwhelming'. All you have presented is the
opinion of a BIGOT. If you want a cult start with the Catholic Church which
adulates the Pope and Mary (a human). They and many so called Christian
Religions actually are cults in that they worship God and Jesus as God in heaven
in human form (claiming that Jesus is God, that he was raised in the flesh and
ascended into heaven in that bloodless body). The Catholic Church also claims
that Mary ascended into heaven in her fleshly body and is there in that form and
they worship her. Do some HONEST checking and take off your BIGOT's glasses
when you read and you will find it's all true. Rick
Gary wrote:
> Michael J. Rogers wrote in message <75p2d6$vv6$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >Richard B. Morgan <rickm...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> >news:367EDD0C...@mediaone.net...
> >>Also, surprisingly, Jehovah's Witnesses, who
> >>many call a cult have nothing in their worship, practice or name that
> would
> >>identify them as a cult. They follow only the creator and his son. Rick
> >
> >IMO no religion can follow the creator and son but can only follow the
> >Scriptures and any other religious literature (I won't mention the name!)
>
Richard B. Morgan
schoolboy. Answer the question. If the holy spirit is a person why is 'he'
ignored in John 1:l. And now, show me a scripture that says the holy spirit is
a person. You haven't produced a shred. You have just made statements without
proof. Give some citations and we will talk about them. You have just made
some rambling bigoted statements, the very sort of things that are written by
those who have no proof and are simply bigots.
Gary wrote:
Jason
Gary wrote in message
>
>The JW's are consider a cult by ALL CHRISTIANS!
>The JW's deny the Savior. They deny God. They deny
>all cardinal fundamental doctrines of the Bible. So
>if any organization is a cult, they are by overwhelming
>evidence!
>
Hey Gary, Christianty has nothing to do with being a cult or not.
Are you claiming Islam, Buddism, shinto, and all other faiths are cults too?
By your idea about 85% of the planet is in a cult. At least make the
argument based on what a cult actually is.
Richard B. Morgan
you are the repository of truth and knowledge which you seem to represent you
wouldn't have to resort to such bigoted claims and accusations. You could
present some reasoned arguments. You have presented none. You didn't even give
a reasoned response to the good research that Rod presented. He is, in fact,
absolutely correct in his presentation of the facts about the holy spirit. The
Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, and he correctly presented the thought in
the original language. If you are so right why don't you present some
intelligent rebuttal instead of resorting to bigoted statements. I am a
professional man of 67 years and have studied both Hebrew and Greek and can
personally vouch to the correctness of Rod's statement. How about you? With
reference to the original languages in which the Bible was written please
present support for your statements.
Born Again
> And you are amazingly one of the biggest BIGOTS in existence. Go ahead
> schoolboy. Answer the question. If the holy spirit is a person why is 'he'
> ignored in John 1:l. And now, show me a scripture that says the holy spirit is
> a person. You haven't produced a shred. You have just made statements without
> proof. Give some citations and we will talk about them. You have just made
> some rambling bigoted statements, the very sort of things that are written by
> those who have no proof and are simply bigots.
>
The Holy Spirit can be GRIEVED. And only a Person can be grieved.
Born Again
> Born Again wrote in message <367af87...@news.tref.nl>...
> >The membership records of pastor Russell are kept in Dublin, England,
> >because the lodge of which he was a member of (part of the Grand
> >Commandery of Knights Templar of Pennsylvania) received its authority
> >from a charter from ireland.
>
> Where do you get this from?
I got this from a book by Fritz Springmeier titled The Watchtower and the
Masons.
Born Again
> Au contraire. The Bible never says that Jesus is God. Jesus said he was God's
> Son. God said Jesus was his son. The Apostles said that Jesus was God's Son. You
> need to believe what the Bible says,
O but I do ...
> and not try to twist the scriptures to say
> something that they don't say.
I don't ...
> If Jesus and God are one then the ransom is the
> biggest fraud ever perpetuated on mankind. God cannot die.
What is death? There are several kinds of death. Do you mean the death of the spirit,
the soul,
or the body? Because the body of Jesus died. God was the Word made flesh, and as such
He could die, as a Man, see?
> If God died as a ransom
> and then resurrected himself then he could not have been dead.
I fail to see the logic here, sorry, explain yourself.
> It was all a fraud,
O?
> if that were true.
It is true.
> To the contrary Jesus, as the Son of God could and did die, and
> his death was a sufficient price to redeem mankind. It's a simple Bible truth. The
> doctrine that Jesus and God are one and the same was not taught or believed by the
> first century Christians. It was introduced into the apostate church some centuries
> later.
Nonsense.
> It is an anti-Christian, God defaming doctrine, and appears nowhere in the
> Bible. To believe or proclaim the doctrine that God and Jesus are one and the same
> is to call God a deceiver and a fraud.
Nonsense. I'll get back to you with some proof.
B.A.
Fredericka
<snip>
> > The
> > original Greek and Hebrew words representing the word spirit come from
> > >the Greek pneu'ma (spirit) from pne'o, meaning “breathe or blow,” and the
> > >Hebrew ru'ach (spirit) believed to come from a root having the same
> > >meaning. Ru'ach and pneu'ma, then, basically mean “breath” but have
> > extended
> > >meanings beyond that basic sense. ( Hab 2:19; Re 13:15.)
Do you think the Sadducees intended to deny that people breathe?: "For
the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor
spirit: but the Pharisees confess both." (Acts 23:8).
Fredericka
Rod
mns newsgroups here is the server to add to your "accounts" "
msnnews.msn.com " They need a good shakin up over there.But it is a
moderated NG,No foulmouth.
--
quietone wrote in message
<01be2d50$242cc520$6234...@dquiet.casagrande.com>...
>> brings them within that category. Also, surprisingly, Jehovah's
>Witnesses, who
>> many call a cult have nothing in their worship, practice or name that
>would
>> identify them as a cult. They follow only the creator and his son.
>Rick
>>
Richard B. Morgan
Jesus' parables and illustrations. Look at Proverbs chapter 8 where WISDOM is said
to CRY ALOUD in the street. Does that mean that wisdom is a person and part of a
TRINITY. Ridiculous! Use the WHOLE Bible and the POWER OF REASON and get those
blinders off.
Richard B. Morgan
repeat such garbage. There are a lot of books out there in which a lot of things
are stated that are lies and without any substance. Please do your research by
checking the sources and such statements and then present the support for your
statements other than that "someone said it or wrote it in a book. Who is Fritz
Springmeier? What are his credentials? What are his sources? If you repeat lies
and misrepresentations without checking them out just because you WANT to believe
them then you are lust as guilty of the lie and misrepresentation as he is.
Born Again wrote:
Richard B. Morgan
> "Richard B. Morgan" wrote:
>
> > Au contraire. The Bible never says that Jesus is God. Jesus said he was God's
> > Son. God said Jesus was his son. The Apostles said that Jesus was God's Son. You
> > need to believe what the Bible says,
>
> O but I do ...
Meaningless statement. What you write proves only that you believe a lot of religious
teaching that has been handed down to you by a sect. Respond to the point with scriptural
proof and spare us the waste of time and space
> > and not try to twist the scriptures to say
> > something that they don't say.
>
> I don't ...
Another meaningless statement. Can't you respond with some support for your statement?
> > If Jesus and God are one then the ransom is the
> > biggest fraud ever perpetuated on mankind. God cannot die.
>
> What is death? There are several kinds of death. Do you mean the death of the spirit,
> the soul,
> or the body? Because the body of Jesus died. God was the Word made flesh, and as such
> He could die, as a Man, see?
Yes, and you can die as a man. Can you then resurrect yourself? Rubbish.
> > If God died as a ransom
> > and then resurrected himself then he could not have been dead.
>
> I fail to see the logic here, sorry, explain yourself.
Well that is a revealing statement. You can't see that if you died and then brought
yourself back to life that it would be clear evidence to everyone that you were not dead
at all but were faking?????
> > It was all a fraud,
>
> O?
Meaningless. Can't you come up with something more substantive than that? You can't
because there are no proof for the myths and fables you substitute for truth.
> > if that were true.
>
> It is true.
Come on. How many people do you think you are going to convince with that stuff. Let's
hear some support. You seem to be totally a windbag and nothing more.
> > To the contrary Jesus, as the Son of God could and did die, and
> > his death was a sufficient price to redeem mankind. It's a simple Bible truth. The
> > doctrine that Jesus and God are one and the same was not taught or believed by the
> > first century Christians. It was introduced into the apostate church some centuries
> > later.
>
> Nonsense.
Well, then come up with some scriptural support and some sound reasoning.
> > It is an anti-Christian, God defaming doctrine, and appears nowhere in the
> > Bible. To believe or proclaim the doctrine that God and Jesus are one and the same
> > is to call God a deceiver and a fraud.
>
> Nonsense. I'll get back to you with some proof.
> B.A.
That's what I've been waiting for all along. Why don't you cut the meaningless garbage
and do it!
>
>
Richard B. Morgan
Actually Rod wrote that post. But I am happy to respond. You cannot take one
scripture to support an argument. Any scripture has to be viewed in connection
with all scripture. The resurrection occurs by means of the USE of spirit. The
Sadducees also denied the existence of spirit creatures. Although the Pharisees
proclaimed the existence of spirit creatures this does not mean that they stated
that there was a spirit that was equal to or part of God. Because they believed
in the resurrection it is evident that they believed in the operation of God's
holy spirit in that act. This was what the Sadducees were denying. The scripture
says that God SENT the holy spirit. Thus he used it. There is no indication in
the scripture that the holy spirit is a person or that it is equal to God. In
fact the scriptures clearly show that GOD IS ONE GOD with no equal. Any doctrine
that teaches otherwise is anti Christian and anti GOD. If you read the Gospels
and Acts up to that point, focusing upon this aspect, you would then see that.
Richard B. Morgan
replies on this NG. Rick
Herman Eickleberry
>
> Pictorial terms are often used in the Bible. Look at the SONG OF SOLOMON and some of
> Jesus' parables and illustrations. Look at Proverbs chapter 8 where WISDOM is said
> to CRY ALOUD in the street. Does that mean that wisdom is a person and part of a
> TRINITY. Ridiculous! Use the WHOLE Bible and the POWER OF REASON and get those
> blinders off.
Ah, don't look now, but there are people who are supposedly Christians
-- Sophia worshippers -- who teach exactly that.
eickman
Herman Eickleberry
> There is no indication in
> the scripture that the holy spirit is a person or that it is equal to God. In
> fact the scriptures clearly show that GOD IS ONE GOD with no equal. Any doctrine
> that teaches otherwise is anti Christian and anti GOD.
Any doctrine that teaches that God ISN'T one person (woe, woe, woe unto
the inhabitors of the earth) as opposed to the One-God-In-Three-Persons
(holy, holy, holy Lord God Almighty) is antichristian and antigod.
eickman
Herman Eickleberry
>
> Born Again wrote:
>
> > "Richard B. Morgan" wrote:
> >
> > > Son. God said Jesus was his son. The Apostles said that Jesus was God's Son. You
> > > need to believe what the Bible says,
And the Bible says:
Titus 2:13b
Our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ...
2 Pet 1:1b
Our God and Savior Jesus Christ...
John 20:28
My Lord and my God!
Rom 9:5
Christ, who is God over all...
John 1:1b
The Word was God.
Isa 9:6
Unto us a Son is given...
And His name will be called...
Mighty God...
Heb 1:8
To the Son He says:
Your throne, O God, is forever...
eickman
Aircontrol
Know that JW's are Russelites!
Richard B. Morgan
wrong. The trinity doctrine is nowhere taught in scripture and is the most God
dishonoring anti Christian doctrine that can be found. There is absolutely not one
scripture that teaches any such doctrine and so the teaching itself is anti Bible,
anti Christian, anti Christ and anti God. Rather than make personal statements that
mean nothing to anyone and prove nothing please give us some scriptures that support
such a view. Speaking of woe, you should read Revelation 22:18 which shows the woes
that will come to those who try to add to the scriptures what is not there.
Herman Eickleberry wrote:
Richard B. Morgan
Herman Eickleberry wrote:
> "Richard B. Morgan" wrote:
> >
> > Born Again wrote:
> >
> > > "Richard B. Morgan" wrote:
> > >
Richard B. Morgan
Aircontrol wrote:
Aircontrol
>
> Then you have been living in a fog of deception (or self deception).
Then show me where they aren't Russelites!
Fredericka
<snip>
> > > > The
> > > > original Greek and Hebrew words representing the word spirit come from
> > > > >the Greek pneu'ma (spirit) from pne'o, meaning “breathe or blow,” and the
> > > > >Hebrew ru'ach (spirit) believed to come from a root having the same
> > > > >meaning. Ru'ach and pneu'ma, then, basically mean “breath” but have
> > > > extended
> > > > >meanings beyond that basic sense. ( Hab 2:19; Re 13:15.)
> >
> > Do you think the Sadducees intended to deny that people breathe?: "For
> > the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor
> > spirit: but the Pharisees confess both." (Acts 23:8).
>
> scripture to support an argument.
The scripture in question rebuts the fanciful JW claim that 'spirit'
means 'breath'. That's not a viable Biblical definition.
> Any scripture has to be viewed in connection
> with all scripture. The resurrection occurs by means of the USE of spirit. The
> Sadducees also denied the existence of spirit creatures. Although the Pharisees
> proclaimed the existence of spirit creatures this does not mean that they stated
> that there was a spirit that was equal to or part of God. Because they believed
> in the resurrection it is evident that they believed in the operation of God's
> holy spirit in that act. This was what the Sadducees were denying. The scripture
> says that God SENT the holy spirit. Thus he used it. There is no indication in
> the scripture that the holy spirit is a person or that it is equal to God.
Don't tell me, tell the Holy Spirit, who has somehow gotten under the
impression that He's entitled to refer to Himself as "me": "As they
ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate *me*
Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." (Acts
13:2).
The Holy Spirit can be vexed, or grieved: "But they rebelled, and vexed
his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he
fought against them." (Isaiah 63:10); "And grieve not the holy Spirit of
God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." (Ephesians
4:30).
> In
> fact the scriptures clearly show that GOD IS ONE GOD with no equal.
Why do all the anti-trinity cults endlessly argue with a straw man? You
can't argue against the Biblical truth, so you make something up
instead. Christians believe in ONE GOD; always have, always will. And
we learn from the Bible that that one God has eternally manifested
Himself in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
And just why is it, BTW, that the Watchtower Society preaches
polytheism? If you are even familiar enough with the Bible to realize
that it teaches monotheism - and it does - how can you stand to hear the
Watchtower Society tell you 'there are many gods' without clamping your
hands over your ears to stop out the blasphemy?
Fredericka
> Any doctrine
Richard B. Morgan
proof for your statement. By the way, if the Lutherans are named after
Martin Luther does that make them a cult or a sect? Does it make them
"Lutherites" instead of Lutherans? Does it per se make them false? Does
it thereby make them fair game for bigotry? Because the first modern day
Jehovah's Witness was Russell does that make all JW's "Russellites"? By
the way, are all Presbyterians "Calvinites", are all Methodists
"Weslyites"? Are all Baptists "Williamites"? And if all the above is
true, what does it prove? You need only to follow your own reasoning
through to its conclusion to see how ridiculous it is.
Richard B. Morgan
>Richard Morgan wrote
> > Actually Rod wrote that post. But I am happy to respond. You cannot take one
> > scripture to support an argument.
>
> The scripture in question rebuts the fanciful JW claim that 'spirit'
> means 'breath'. That's not a viable Biblical definition.
What in the world are you talking about? That makes no sense in connection with what
was said and below
> > Any scripture has to be viewed in connection
> > with all scripture. The resurrection occurs by means of the USE of spirit. The
> > Sadducees also denied the existence of spirit creatures. Although the Pharisees
> > proclaimed the existence of spirit creatures this does not mean that they stated
> > that there was a spirit that was equal to or part of God. Because they believed
> > in the resurrection it is evident that they believed in the operation of God's
> > holy spirit in that act. This was what the Sadducees were denying. The scripture
> > says that God SENT the holy spirit. Thus he used it. There is no indication in
> > the scripture that the holy spirit is a person or that it is equal to God.
>
> Don't tell me, tell the Holy Spirit, who has somehow gotten under the
> impression that He's entitled to refer to Himself as "me": "As they
> ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate *me*
> Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." (Acts
> 13:2).
>
> The Holy Spirit can be vexed, or grieved: "But they rebelled, and vexed
> his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he
> fought against them." (Isaiah 63:10); "And grieve not the holy Spirit of
> God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." (Ephesians
> 4:30).
Yes, and in Proverbs 8 we find that wisdom "calls aloud in the street". Does that mean
that wisdom is a person? The scripture use descriptive language such as "their blood
cries out for vengeance". Does that mean the blood is a person? See Song of Solomon
and the parables and illustrations of Jesus.
> > fact the scriptures clearly show that GOD IS ONE GOD with no equal.
>
> Why do all the anti-trinity cults endlessly argue with a straw man? You
> can't argue against the Biblical truth, so you make something up
> instead. Christians believe in ONE GOD; always have, always will. And
> we learn from the Bible that that one God has eternally manifested
> Himself in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
So you are saying you believe in ONE God? And yet you say he is THREE. Doesn't make
any sense. The Trinity worshippers are a CULT established in the fourth century.
Along with the trinity they worshipped MARY as a human ascended bodily into heaven, and
JESUS as a God of flesh ascended in flesh to heaven and worship him a fleshly GOD.
> And just why is it, BTW, that the Watchtower Society preaches
> polytheism? If you are even familiar enough with the Bible to realize
> that it teaches monotheism - and it does - how can you stand to hear the
> Watchtower Society tell you 'there are many gods' without clamping your
> hands over your ears to stop out the blasphemy?
The Bible teaches that there is one true supreme GOD, and that he has a Son who is
second to him. It also teaches that "there are many Gods, and many Lords" as you well
know. It also shows than mankind can make "a god of his belly". Yes there is ONE TRUE
GOD and he is not a trinity.
Fredericka
> The following stands:
quietone
did someone let Lancie out of his cage?
Rod all you spout is unchristian.
Get off the mountain, come back down to the solid ground, and put your
thinking cap on instead of being a shill for Lance and Joe#7.
Rod <AHemOk?@hotmail.com> wrote in article <75sf35$6il$1...@remarQ.com>...
>
>
> --
> Crybaby
>
>
>
> Gary wrote in message <75s9v8$g5c$2...@news.iag.net>...
> >Rod<AHEMOK?@HOTMAIL.COM wrote in message
<75rtri$8q2$1...@remarQ.com>...>The
> >original Greek and Hebrew words representing the word spirit come from
> >>the Greek pneu'ma (spirit) from pne'o, meaning “breathe or blow,” and
the
> >>Hebrew ru'ach (spirit) believed to come from a root having the same
> >>meaning. Ru'ach and pneu'ma, then, basically mean “breath” but have
> >extended
> >>meanings beyond that basic sense. ( Hab 2:19; Re 13:15.)
> >
> >>>>Richard B. Morgan <rickm...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:367EDD0C...@mediaone.net...
> >>>>>Also, surprisingly, Jehovah's Witnesses, who
> >>>>>many call a cult have nothing in their worship, practice or name
that
> >>>would
> >>>>>identify them as a cult. They follow only the creator and his son.
> >>Rick
> >>>>
Jason
Aircontrol wrote in message <36826B...@infoave.net>...
>Richard B. Morgan wrote:
>>
>> Then you have been living in a fog of deception (or self deception).
>
>Then show me where they aren't Russelites!
Two things. First we follow Jesus, not Russel, nor anyother man. Second
we would be poor followers of his when you consider how many things he held
on to, we no longer do as an organization.
Richard Vizzutti
In article <3682614E...@mediaone.net>, "Richard B. Morgan"
<rickm...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>That is a personal opinion to which you are entitled. Nevertheless it is
blatantly
>wrong. The trinity doctrine is nowhere taught in scripture and is the most God
>dishonoring anti Christian doctrine that can be found. There is
absolutely not one
>scripture that teaches any such doctrine and so the teaching itself is
anti Bible,
>anti Christian, anti Christ and anti God. Rather than make personal
statements that
>mean nothing to anyone and prove nothing please give us some scriptures
that support
>such a view. Speaking of woe, you should read Revelation 22:18 which
shows the woes
>that will come to those who try to add to the scriptures what is not there.
>
Trinity
EXODUS
3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt
thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you...this is
my memorial unto all generations.
JOHN
8:24 (Jesus speaking to the Jews) I said therefore unto you, that ye
shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I AM, ye shall die in
your sins.
8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man,
then shall ye know that I AM, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my
Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
13:19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye
may believe that I AM
8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and
hast thou seen Abraham?
8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was,
I AM.
8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and
went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed
by..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him,
he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
9:36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
9:37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that
talketh with thee.
9:38 And he said, Lord (Jehovah), I believe. And he worshipped Him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that
I might take it again.
10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power
to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I
received of my Father.
10:19 There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.
10:20 And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?
10:21 Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can
a devil open the eyes of the blind?
10:22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
10:23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
10:24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long
dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works
that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish,
neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is
able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Two hands??? Whose hand are we in? Jehovah the Fatherąs, or Jesus Christ
the Son? We canąt be in both hands at once??? Not unless the two are the
ONE God.
10:30 I and my Father are one.
10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my
Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not;
but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
PHILIPPIANS
2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a
servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name
which is above every name:
2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in
heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord
(Jehovah), to the glory of God (singular/plural) the Father.
REVELATION
1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they
also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because
of him. Even so, Amen.
1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith Jehovah,
which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
22:20 łSurely I am coming quickly.˛ Amen...come Lord Jesus!
2 PETER
PETER 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them
that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness
of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
ISAIAH 45:21-24
And there is no other God besides Me, a just God and a Savior. There is
none besides Me. Look to Me and be saved...for I am God and there is no
other...To Me every knee shall bow and every tongue shall take an oath.
PHILIPIANS
2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in
heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is
Lord (Jehovah), to the glory of God (singular/plural) the Father.
The name Jesus Christ in the Greek translated is; Jehovah is Salvation
His name Emanual means God With Us
REVELATION 22
And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal,
proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. (Two people but only
one throne!)
10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is
able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Two hands??? Whose hand are we in? Jehovah the Fatherąs, or Jesus Christ
the Son? We canąt be in both hands at once??? Not unless the two are the
ONE God.
And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the
tent door in the heat of the day;
2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and
when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed
himself toward the ground,
3 And said, My LORD, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not
away, I pray thee, from thy servant: (Notice that he refers to all three
men as Lord ie: Jehovah)
4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your (singular)
feet, and rest yourselves (plural) under the tree:
5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after
that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they
said, So do, as thou hast said.
>Herman Eickleberry wrote:
>
>> "Richard B. Morgan" wrote:
>>
>> > There is no indication in
>> > the scripture that the holy spirit is a person or that it is equal to
God. In
>> > fact the scriptures clearly show that GOD IS ONE GOD with no equal.
Any doctrine
>> > that teaches otherwise is anti Christian and anti GOD.
>>
>> Any doctrine that teaches that God ISN'T one person (woe, woe, woe unto
>> the inhabitors of the earth) as opposed to the One-God-In-Three-Persons
>> (holy, holy, holy Lord God Almighty) is antichristian and antigod.
>>
>> eickman
--
*KENNEDY and BEYOND*
http://www.angelfire.com/me/carcano/index.html
Rod
are in English.I dont suppose it matters whether they are in modern or 11th
century English,does it Gary? I have News for you,the Bible was in other
languages,therefor the original meaning is quite important.Dont let the
facts get in the way.
--
quietone wrote in message
<01be2f06$c2bf9fc0$5b34...@dquiet.casagrande.com>...
Rod
For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or
on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is
actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for
him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and
we through him.1 Corinthians 8:5-6
--
Fredericka wrote in message <3682718E...@pivot.net>...
>"Richard B. Morgan" wrote:
>
><snip>
>> > > > The
>> > > > original Greek and Hebrew words representing the word spirit come
from
>> > > > >the Greek pneu'ma (spirit) from pne'o, meaning “breathe or blow,”
and the
>> > > > >Hebrew ru'ach (spirit) believed to come from a root having the
same
>> > > > >meaning. Ru'ach and pneu'ma, then, basically mean “breath” but
have
>> > > > extended
>> > > > >meanings beyond that basic sense. ( Hab 2:19; Re 13:15.)
>> >
>> > Do you think the Sadducees intended to deny that people breathe?: "For
>> > the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor
>> > spirit: but the Pharisees confess both." (Acts 23:8).
>>
>> Actually Rod wrote that post. But I am happy to respond. You cannot
take one
>> scripture to support an argument.
>
>The scripture in question rebuts the fanciful JW claim that 'spirit'
>means 'breath'. That's not a viable Biblical definition.
>
>> Any scripture has to be viewed in connection
>> with all scripture. The resurrection occurs by means of the USE of
spirit. The
>> Sadducees also denied the existence of spirit creatures. Although the
Pharisees
>> proclaimed the existence of spirit creatures this does not mean that they
stated
>> that there was a spirit that was equal to or part of God. Because they
believed
>> in the resurrection it is evident that they believed in the operation of
God's
>> holy spirit in that act. This was what the Sadducees were denying. The
scripture
>> says that God SENT the holy spirit. Thus he used it. There is no
indication in
>> the scripture that the holy spirit is a person or that it is equal to
God.
>
>Don't tell me, tell the Holy Spirit, who has somehow gotten under the
>impression that He's entitled to refer to Himself as "me": "As they
>ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate *me*
>Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." (Acts
>13:2).
>
>The Holy Spirit can be vexed, or grieved: "But they rebelled, and vexed
>his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he
>fought against them." (Isaiah 63:10); "And grieve not the holy Spirit of
>God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." (Ephesians
>4:30).
>
>> In
>> fact the scriptures clearly show that GOD IS ONE GOD with no equal.
>
>Why do all the anti-trinity cults endlessly argue with a straw man? You
>can't argue against the Biblical truth, so you make something up
>instead. Christians believe in ONE GOD; always have, always will. And
>we learn from the Bible that that one God has eternally manifested
>Himself in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
>
>And just why is it, BTW, that the Watchtower Society preaches
>polytheism? If you are even familiar enough with the Bible to realize
>that it teaches monotheism - and it does - how can you stand to hear the
>Watchtower Society tell you 'there are many gods' without clamping your
>hands over your ears to stop out the blasphemy?
>
>Fredericka
>
>> Any doctrine
Richard B. Morgan
understanding of the texts as written in the original languages from the oldest
extant manuscripts which are accepted by scholars of all faiths as authentic.
And all you can do is make an unsubstantiated comment with a slur. Don't you
have anything better to support your position?? If so your position is weak
indeed.
quietone wrote:
> hehe
> did someone let Lancie out of his cage?
> Rod all you spout is unchristian.
> Get off the mountain, come back down to the solid ground, and put your
> thinking cap on instead of being a shill for Lance and Joe#7.
>
> Rod <AHemOk?@hotmail.com> wrote in article <75sf35$6il$1...@remarQ.com>...
> >
>
> > Crybaby
> >
> > Gary wrote in message <75s9v8$g5c$2...@news.iag.net>...
>
> > >Rod< wrote in message..>The
Jack Webb
Richard B. Morgan wrote:
Yes, and in Proverbs 8 we find that wisdom "calls aloud in the street". Does that mean
> that wisdom is a person? The scripture use descriptive language such as "their blood
> cries out for vengeance". Does that mean the blood is a person?
Grow up.
The one who cannot distinguish simple parables and expressions common to us all, and the
unambiguous statements found in an historical narrative should return to reading poetry he
should have been exposed to years ago. Most languages employ figures of speech, similies,
parables, and other literary tools to convey meaning. To equate the two forms is
disingenuous at best. If you're old enough to have access to a computer, you know better.
-Jack
Wheeler
Richard Vizzutti wrote:
> Trinity
> EXODUS
>
> 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt
> thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you...this is
> my memorial unto all generations.
To: John Vissutti,
If you would read your Bible from beginning to end, you will find that the words "I am" is referred to those men who are
both good and bad. It has nothing to do with a name or title. At John 8:58, Jesus simply said that before Abraham was, he
(Jesus) existed. There are those who have even gone so far as to incorrectly use capital letters to convey the idea that
"I am" is a name or title. The question of the Jews (verse 57) to which Jesus was replying had to do with age, not
identity.
wheeler4 (a.k.a. huggy96)
http://pw1.netcom.com/~huggy96/index.htm/
>
>
Richard B. Morgan
information the statement re wisdom and holy are exactly the same in type. Please examine the
text in the original languages before you open your mouth and show your ignorance.
Aircontrol
>
> Whoa! You got the cart before the horse. It is you who needs to provide
> proof for your statement. By the way, if the Lutherans are named after
> Martin Luther does that make them a cult or a sect? Does it make them
> "Lutherites" instead of Lutherans? Does it per se make them false? Does
> it thereby make them fair game for bigotry? Because the first modern day
> Jehovah's Witness was Russell does that make all JW's "Russellites"? By
> the way, are all Presbyterians "Calvinites", are all Methodists
> "Weslyites"? Are all Baptists "Williamites"? And if all the above is
> true, what does it prove? You need only to follow your own reasoning
> through to its conclusion to see how ridiculous it is.
The reasoning comes that we are Christian and JW's teach a different
Christ then that which is in God's Word! Why do you not claim to follow
Russell when He was the founder of your Religion? Not only that how can
you trust in a religion that was born out of lies? Such as Russell
claiming to know Greek and claiming that He translated the New World
Translation from Greek and He didnt even know the Greek alphabet? This
is the point here. JW's follow his false teachings why cant you claim
to be Russelites?
> Aircontrol wrote:
>
> > Richard B. Morgan wrote:
> > >
> > > Then you have been living in a fog of deception (or self deception).
> >
> > Then show me where they aren't Russelites!
> >
> > > Aircontrol wrote:
> > >
> > > > Richard B. Morgan wrote:
> > > > >
Richard B. Morgan
structure and has no relation to the statement of Jesus. That is Jesus was not quoting or referring to the statement by God
in Exodus. God was referring to the fact that he becomes whatever he needs to be to accomplish his purpose. Jesus was making
the statement that he had a prehuman existence and was alive in that existence before Abraham was born. It did not mean that
he was God or never had a beginning. It simply meant that his beginning was before that of Abraham.
Wheeler wrote:
> Richard Vizzutti wrote:
>
> > Trinity
> > EXODUS
> >
> > 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt
> > thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you...this is
> > my memorial unto all generations.
>
Aircontrol
> >>
> >> Then you have been living in a fog of deception (or self deception).
> >
> >Then show me where they aren't Russelites!
>
> we would be poor followers of his when you consider how many things he held
> on to, we no longer do as an organization.
But you have held on to some of them have you not?
Richard B. Morgan
> Richard B. Morgan wrote:
> >
> > Whoa! You got the cart before the horse. It is you who needs to provide
> > proof for your statement. By the way, if the Lutherans are named after
> > Martin Luther does that make them a cult or a sect? Does it make them
> > "Lutherites" instead of Lutherans? Does it per se make them false? Does
> > it thereby make them fair game for bigotry? Because the first modern day
> > Jehovah's Witness was Russell does that make all JW's "Russellites"? By
> > the way, are all Presbyterians "Calvinites", are all Methodists
> > "Weslyites"? Are all Baptists "Williamites"? And if all the above is
> > true, what does it prove? You need only to follow your own reasoning
> > through to its conclusion to see how ridiculous it is.
>
> The reasoning comes that we are Christian and JW's teach a different
> Christ then that which is in God's Word!
I beg to differ. You do not follow the Bible and therefore are not true
Christians. You follow the tradition and teachings of men which is what you are
accusing us of doing. The trinity, for example, is the teaching of Athanasius
and has no basis in the Bible. You even recite the Athanasian Creed when you
proclaim the trinity rather than the Bible. Then you try to twist scriptures to
support the insupportable. Then when you can't you call it a 'mystery' which no
man can understand (but you claim to understand it). Pretty mixed up!
> Why do you not claim to follow
> Russell when He was the founder of your Religion?
He was not the founder of my religion. My religion was founded by the supreme
God and preached by his Son and the Apostles. In the fourth century an apostasy
from the original church (mine) was broken off and became what now exists in two
main branches (Catholic and Orthodox) with many sects or off shoots (of which
you seem to be a part). Russell was involved in the early stages of the modern
day restoration of the practices and beliefs of that early Christian Church.
JW's do not follow him any more than the Lutherans follow Luther.
> Not only that how can
> you trust in a religion that was born out of lies?
Bigoted statement. Can't you have a discussion without stooping to that kind of
thing? It would seem that you must have a weak case if you can't.
> Such as Russell claiming to know Greek and claiming that He translated the New
> World Translation from Greek and He didnt even know the Greek alphabet? This
> is the point here.
Your ignorance is showing. Russell did not translate the NWT, he did not claim
to, and never knew anything about it. In fact he died in 1916, and the NWT was
published in 1964. I also wonder if you think that the Greek is some mysterious
language that one cannot learn. Does someone in your Church have dibs on it??
The Koine Greek has many similarities to the modern Greek and is known by many.
It is not the private preserve of your clergy, however much you would like to
think so.
JW's follow his false teachings why cant you claim to be Russellites?
Why do you harp on that. What religion do you practice? Do you dare to say.
Quite likely very similar questions could be asked of you. You would do better
to concentrate on what is taught by the various religions today and which of
these is truth. You have a pretty weak case when you have to harp on that
point.
And what makes you think I am a JW? Perhaps I can smell a bigot a mile away.
Richard B. Morgan
Trinity
> EXODUS
> 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt
> thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you...this is
> my memorial unto all generations.
The Hebrew word hayah is used here. It has the meaning to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic) be
(-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do.
The Greek word used to translate this word in the Greek Septuagint is not the same word (eimi) that was used by Jesus to
refer to himself. The attempt to use this to support the trinity is a desperate attempt to deceive those who do not know
the languages. It is blatantly fraudulent as is the rendering in John 1:1 by most translators who take advantage of the
lack of knowledge of the masses of the Greek rules of grammar.
> JOHN
> 8:24 (Jesus speaking to the Jews) I said therefore unto you, that ye
> shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I AM, ye shall die in
> your sins.
See comment on John 8:28
> 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man,
> then shall ye know that I AM, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my
> Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
There is no basis to capitalize I AM. The Greek word translated I AM here is eimi, which simply means "it is I", "I am
he", "I was", etc depending on the context. Translating it as I AM is another blatant attempt to deceive the credulous
or those who don't bother to check. It is also a result of careless, sloppy scholarship.
> 13:19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye
> may believe that I AM
Same. Word is eimi
> 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and
> hast thou seen Abraham?
>
> 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was,
> I AM.
eimi. I was
The question of the Jews John 8:57 to which Jesus was replying had to do with age, not identity. Jesus' reply logically
dealt with his age, the length of his existence. Interestingly, no effort is ever made to apply ego' eimi' as a title to
the holy spirit.
A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson says: "The verb [eimi'] . .
. Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in [ego' eimi'] (John 8:58)."-Nashville,
Tenn.; 1934, p. 394.
> 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and
> went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed
> by..
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him,
> he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
>
> 9:36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
>
> 9:37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that
> talketh with thee.
Nothing there that supports an argument that Jesus implies that he is anything by the SON of God
> 9:38 And he said, Lord (Jehovah), I believe. And he worshipped Him.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
phemi kurios pisteuo proskuneo
kurios refers to superior one as in Mr. Lord (as when Sarah called Abraham Lord).
Title of respect. Proskuneo refers to the honour given a king, a judge, a governor, etc. No reference to Jehovah is
indicated or intended as written in the Greek.
> 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that
> I might take it again.
dia touto pater agapao hoti tithemi psuche lambano palin
Translation from Greek: I lay down my life that I might receive it again. Greek word lambano.
If Jesus was God and had the power to resurrect himself then the ransom would be the biggest fraud in history. He
wouldn't be dead at all and would have lied to us.
> 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power
> to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I
> received of my Father.
Again: I have the authority to receive it again. God promised him a resurrection if he was faithful to death. Same
Greek word lambano
> 10:19 There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.
>
> 10:20 And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?
>
> 10:21 Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can
> a devil open the eyes of the blind?
>
> 10:22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
>
> 10:23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
>
> 10:24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long
> dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
>
> 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works
> that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
>
> 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
>
> 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
>
> 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish,
> neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
>
> 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is
> able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
>
> Two hands??? Whose hand are we in? Jehovah the Fatheršs, or Jesus Christ
> the Son? We canšt be in both hands at once??? Not unless the two are the
> ONE God.
Specious reasoning. Of course you can. In the sense that is expressed which is not physical at all. You can be in the
hands of the Governor, in the hands of the President, etc. all at the same time.
> 10:30 I and my Father are one.
John 17:20-21 "I make request ....that they may all be one, just as you and I are one". So that would mean that we all
are part of God literally. No, Jesus and his Father are one in purpose, and the Apostles were one in purpose, all
Christians should be one in purpose. Greek word eirene: has thought of oneness, unity of purpose.
Jesus said "My Father is greater (meizon) than I". Meizon has the though of both age and rank. John 14:28
> 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
>
> 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my
> Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
>
> 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not;
> but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
That was an accusation by enemies. It has no bearing and proves nothing. They were lying. Jesus said they were liars
and the father of the lie.
That's enough for now. It should be enough for any honest hearted person to see that the underlying original writings do
not support many of the translations today. Just as the translators presume to eradicate the tetragrammaton from their
translations even though it appears over 7,000 times in the original texts, and admittedly should be translated as Yahweh
or Jehovah in English, so they cleverly and artfully twist translations to support doctrine that is not in the original
text.
Aircontrol
>
> Aircontrol wrote:
>
> > Richard B. Morgan wrote:
> > >
> > > Whoa! You got the cart before the horse. It is you who needs to provide
> > > proof for your statement. By the way, if the Lutherans are named after
> > > Martin Luther does that make them a cult or a sect? Does it make them
> > > "Lutherites" instead of Lutherans? Does it per se make them false? Does
> > > it thereby make them fair game for bigotry? Because the first modern day
> > > Jehovah's Witness was Russell does that make all JW's "Russellites"? By
> > > the way, are all Presbyterians "Calvinites", are all Methodists
> > > "Weslyites"? Are all Baptists "Williamites"? And if all the above is
> > > true, what does it prove? You need only to follow your own reasoning
> > > through to its conclusion to see how ridiculous it is.
> >
> > The reasoning comes that we are Christian and JW's teach a different
> > Christ then that which is in God's Word!
>
> I beg to differ. You do not follow the Bible and therefore are not true
> Christians.
Thats your opinion and it is false at that!
You follow the tradition and teachings of men which is what you are
accusing us of doing.
No sure dont! I follow God's Word and nothing else!
The trinity, for example, is the teaching of Athanasius and has no
basis in the Bible.
This is not true. The only reason you dont beleive it is because the
actual word "Trinity is not in the Bible" but the truth of the Trinity
is there!
You even recite the Athanasian Creed when you proclaim the trinity
rather than the Bible.
Never heard of it so How can I recite it!
Then you try to twist scriptures to support the insupportable.
The JW's are the champion of twisting the scriptures. Example, "In the
Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was "a"
god. The Word "a" is not in the original Greek. Your founder added
that tidbit and yet you say you dont follow what he said anymore!
Then when you can't you call it a 'mystery' which no
> man can understand (but you claim to understand it). Pretty mixed up!
I never said I dont understand it. I understand completely how God can
do anything He wants. Its call faith. Nothing Mixed up except the NEW
WORLD TRANSLATION which Charles Taze Russell said he translated by using
original Greek. When asked in a court of law He lied under oath saying
that he knew Greek and when asked to cite the Greek alphabet he finally
had to admit that he didnt even know the alphabet let alone the
language! This is documented in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle newspaper. In
this trial he also said that he was ordained and then finally confessed
after lying under oath that he wasn't ordained.
> > Why do you not claim to follow
> > Russell when He was the founder of your Religion?
>
> He was not the founder of my religion.
Hmmm???
My religion was founded by the supreme God and preached by his Son and
the Apostles.
Not the same ones of the Holy Bible...as the one you serve is totally
wrong!
In the fourth century an apostasy from the original church (mine)
Prove it!
> was broken off and became what now exists in two main branches (Catholic and Orthodox) >with many sects or off shoots (of which you seem to be a part).
Prove it!
Russell was involved in the early stages of the modern
> day restoration of the practices and beliefs of that early Christian Church.
> JW's do not follow him any more than the Lutherans follow Luther.
You follow his beliefs!
> > Not only that how can
> > you trust in a religion that was born out of lies?
>
> Bigoted statement.
Nothing Bigoted about the truth at all. If you say that this statement
is bigoted you are saying that Jesus was bigoted as he told the
Pharisees that their father was Satan the father of all lies. So are
you saying that He was bigoted? He told them in love just as I am
telling you in love hoping that you will see the truth!
Can't you have a discussion without stooping to that kind of
> thing?
I am not stooping at all as I said nothing is bigoted about that
statement!
It would seem that you must have a weak case if you can't.
Its not a weak case because it wasnt bigoted at all! Bigotry assumes
hatred and I have no hate for you at all I just know that the beliefs of
the JW's is false!
> > Such as Russell claiming to know Greek and claiming that He translated the New
> > World Translation from Greek and He didnt even know the Greek alphabet? This
> > is the point here.
>
> Your ignorance is showing.
Excuse me he, founded "The Herald of the Morning" which is now known as
the Watchtower. The NWT reflects his beliefs.
Russell did not translate the NWT, he did not claim
> to, and never knew anything about it. In fact he died in 1916,
Oct 31 to be exact.
and the NWT was
> published in 1964. I also wonder if you think that the Greek is some mysterious
> language that one cannot learn.
No sure dont but please read the documented material from above.
Does someone in your Church have dibs on it??
Yours sure doesnt!
> The Koine Greek has many similarities to the modern Greek and is known by many.
Which Russell lied about knowing! And he said that his writings
"Scripture Studies, which he wrote claiming to know Greek when he didnt,
was practically the Bible!
It is not the private preserve of your clergy, however much you would
like to
> think so.
>
> JW's follow his false teachings why cant you claim to be Russellites?
>
> Why do you harp on that.
Because that is where the JW's come from. And he is a known lier.
Example, "Miracle Wheat"!
What religion do you practice? Do you dare to say.
Yes i am a Christian!
> Quite likely very similar questions could be asked of you. You would do better
> to concentrate on what is taught by the various religions today and which of
> these is truth.
I know which is the truth and it isnt JW's!
You have a pretty weak case when you have to harp on that
> point.
NO sorry the Bible says you will know the truth by their fruits...No
fruits with Russell and his writings! Plus with the false prophecies
from leaders of the church of the end times coming on certain dates and
they ever came true. This proves that JW's have a false religion!
>
> And what makes you think I am a JW? Perhaps I can smell a bigot a mile away.
One thing that I havent done is call you names personally....that in
itself weakens your argument! I just believe the your belief is false
but i never attacked you personally by calling you such things as a
"bigot"!
In Christ's Love,
Earle
Richard B. Morgan
>
> The JW's are the champion of twisting the scriptures. Example, "In the
> Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was "a"
> god. The Word "a" is not in the original Greek. Your founder added
> that tidbit and yet you say you dont follow what he said anymore!
You show an abysmal lack of knowledge of Greek grammar. In Greek the 'a' is not used but it is understood. Instead in Greek grammar 'the' is used, and when
it is not used it is understood that what is referred to is generic. Thus in Greek: "The word was with the GOD (ha theos), and god (theos) was the word"
would be a literal translation, but if you apply the rules of grammar WHICH YOU MUST ALWAYS DO TO ACCURATELY CONVEY THE MEANING, in order to translate into
English you would have to say "The word with with God and the word was a god". If you honestly check out your Greek grammar and correct translation you will
find that is true. In fact scholars who believe in the trinity no longer use that scripture to support their belief and admit that the New World Translation
is correct. Check it out.
Since you are so verbal in attacking Jehovah's Witnesses why don't you reveal what your religion is. Also, do you think JW's are the only wrong religion in
the world. Why do you expend so much effort on attacking them? Do you have a personal gripe, a "bone" to pick?
Aircontrol
>
> Aircontrol wrote:
>
> >
> > The JW's are the champion of twisting the scriptures. Example, "In the
> > Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was "a"
> > god. The Word "a" is not in the original Greek. Your founder added
> > that tidbit and yet you say you dont follow what he said anymore!
>
Gosh....you think you know it all.
In Greek the 'a' is not used but it is understood.
Hmmm??? Didnt I just say that it is not in the original Greek!
Gracious you need to start reading what I type.
Instead in Greek grammar 'the' is used, and when
> it is not used it is understood that what is referred to is generic.
Oh really....why is that so you can add it when you want to. Yes, that
makes sense! LOL
Thus in Greek: "The word was with the GOD (ha theos), and god (theos)
was the word"
> would be a literal translation, but if you apply the rules of grammar WHICH YOU MUST ALWAYS DO TO ACCURATELY CONVEY THE MEANING, in order to translate into
> English you would have to say "The word with with God and the word was a god". If you honestly check out your Greek grammar and correct translation you will
> find that is true. In fact scholars who believe in the trinity no longer use that scripture to support their belief and admit that the New World Translation
> is correct. Check it out.
Give you references to this please. I want you to point out who they
are!
>
> Since you are so verbal in attacking Jehovah's Witnesses why don't you reveal what your religion is. Also, do you think JW's are the only wrong religion in
> the world. Why do you expend so much effort on attacking them? Do you have a personal gripe, a "bone" to pick?
I told you my religion. I am Christian! And no i dont have a personal
gripe. I told you why and that is because of the fallacy of their
belief!
Reslight
>The reasoning comes that we are Christian and JW's teach a different
>Russell when He was the founder of your Religion?
Russell was not the founder the JWs; he was never even associated with the
organization called "Jehovah's Witnesses." He preached against forming such
an organization until the day he died.
>Not only that how can
>you trust in a religion that was born out of lies? Such as Russell
>claiming to know Greek
I posted a lot about this earlier.
See:
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=422647306
>and claiming that He translated the New World
>Translation from Greek and He didnt even know the Greek alphabet?
Russell never claimed that he translated the New World Translation. The New
World Translation did not exist until many decades after he died. More than
likely, if he were alive today he would not approve of the translation,
especially its rendering of Romans 5:18; 1 Timothy 2:4; 4:10.
>This
>is the point here. JW's follow his false teachings why cant you claim
>to be Russelites?
The teachings of Russell and the JWs are quite different. If he were alive
today, I am sure he would have nothing to do with the JW organization.
See:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2713/l-russell.html
A resource page of links and articles on Charles Taze Russell
Ronald R. Day
Restoration Light
http://www.reslight.addr.com/
Reslight
Aircontrol wrote in message <368328...@infoave.net>...
> In Greek the 'a' is not used but it is understood.
>
>Hmmm??? Didnt I just say that it is not in the original Greek!
>Gracious you need to start reading what I type.
I agree with Richard that an "a" could be used here, just as it used in the
KJV (and other translations) many other places under similar circumstances
where there is no indefinite article. The Greek language does not have an
indefinite article, so it *has* to be supplied when translating into
English.
> Instead in Greek grammar 'the' is used, and when
>> it is not used it is understood that what is referred to is generic.
>
>Oh really....why is that so you can add it when you want to. Yes, that
>makes sense! LOL
>
>
> Thus in Greek: "The word was with the GOD (ha theos), and god (theos)
>was the word"
>> would be a literal translation,
So would "The Word was with the Supreme Deity, and deity was the Word"
So would "The Word was with the Supreme Divine Being, and divine was the
Word"
And so would "The Word was with the God, and a god was the word"
However, such is misleading in English, for the proper way to state in the
latter part in English would be "the Word was deity" or "the Word was
divine" or "the word was a god".
If you believe that the Word was actually the God with whom he was, then you
would end up saying that Jesus was the Father, for the God with whom Jesus
was with in the beginning was the Father. (1 John 1:1,2) For this reason
many trinitarians prefer "the Word was divine" or "the Word was god-like" or
something similar.
See: "QUESTION: JOHN 1:1-4" at:
http://www.reslight.addr.com/l-trinity.html
Herman Eickleberry
>
> In the original Greek text please. You might be surprised.
> > Titus 2:13b
> > Our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ...
prosdecomenoi thn makarian elpida kai epifaneian thv doxhv tou megalou
yeou kai swthrov hmwn ihsou cristou
Watching for the blessed hope and appearing the glorious of the great
God and savior of us, Jesus Christ.
> > 2 Pet 1:1b
> > Our God and Savior Jesus Christ...
sumewn petrov doulov kai apostolov ihsou cristou toiv isotimon hmin
lacousin pistin en dikaiosunh tou yeou hmwn kai swthrov ihsou cristou
Simon Peter, slave and messenger (of) jesus Christ to them that obtain
the faith precious through the righteousness of God of us and savior
Jesus Christ.
> > John 20:28
> > My Lord and my God!
kai apekriyh o ywmav kai eipen autw o kuriov mou kai o yeov mou
Then answered Thomas, and said to him, "O Lord of me and God of me."
> > Rom 9:5
> > Christ, who is God over all...
wn oi paterev kai ex wn o cristov to kata sarka o wn epi pantwn yeov
euloghtov eiv touv aiwnav amhn
Whose are the Father's, and of whom Christ became flesh, who is over
all, God blessed forever.
> > John 1:1b
> > The Word was God.
en arch hn o logov kai o logov hn prov ton yeon kai yeov hn o logov
In the beginning was who is the word, and who is the word was with the
God, and God was who is the word.
"o" is "who is" or indicative of "whose possession something is;" rather
than "a," which indicates an inanimate object, which is why "Word" is
always capitalized when preceded by "o" -- it is a proper noun.
Simplified and using strict conventions, this passage would translate:
In the beginning was O Word, and O Word was with the God, and God was O Word.
> > Heb 1:8
> > To the Son He says:
> > Your throne, O God, is forever...
prov de ton uion o yronov sou o yeov eiv ton aiwna tou aiwnov rabdov
euyuthtov h rabdov thv basileiav sou
Unto but the son, "the throne of yours who is (or using the same
convention as the previous verse, "O") God, into that eternal, the
eternity, the staff of righteousness is the staff of the kingdom of yours.
> > eickman
Reslight
Born Again wrote in message <3681CCC5...@merlins-cave.com>...
>I got this from a book by Fritz Springmeier titled The Watchtower and the
>Masons.
If you have this book, perhaps you could present to us the evidence given.
It seems that I remember reading somewhere that Charles' father was
freemason. Whether this is true or not, I don't know, as no evidence of such
was presented. If he was, I don't know if he remained a freemason after
Charles started in his ministry.
I have found so much in the books against Russell that is built on shoddy
evidence and insinuations, and lies. (I have read some books that make
statements like: Russell did not believe in the human soul, or Russell did
not believe Jesus was the Son of God, etc.)
I have also heard JWs say statments that are not true about Russell, like
"Russell knew nothing of an earthly class"; "Russell viewed the sheep and
goats like Christendom", etc. A statement similar to the latter was even
printed in *The Watchtower* magazine a few years ago, although it did not
mention Russell by name.
I have also heard the JWs make statements concerning the Bible Students
similarly. "The Bible Students have a clergy-laity class", for instance
(Again, I believe this even appears in at least one of the JW publications).
I am not saying that the ones forwarding the lies do so with knowledge that
they are spreading lies. They usually do so in ignorance, and I am sure that
all of us have done something similar at some time in our life. Yet the
Lord's servants are held accountable for things they continue do even in
ignorance. (Luke 12:47,48)
There are many Bible Students who believe that Russell was the faithful and
wise servant of Matthew 24:45. These are the only ones I might actually call
"Russellites" for most them claim to follow Russell completely, for they
believe that Russell gave all the food necessary for our time. However, I
would say there are just as many or more Bible Students who may use
Russell's writings who do not believe he was the servant spoken of. I am of
this latter class. Even at that most Bible Students still accept many
teachings beyond what Russell wrote.
Yours in the Master's service,
Richard B. Morgan
translation to advance a fallacy, and then use ridicule to try to discredit others. You can easily check out the facts. Go to the library in any major university
and you can check it out. Or check any up to date Lexicon of the Koine Greek. You are the one who is deciding to incorrectly read the original because you want to.
You have no interest in what the truth is. You just want to support your false beliefs. That is the same type of fraud that has produced "errors" in many
translations. It's the same type of fraud that caused translators to insert the passage that so many relied on to support the trinity in years past (KJV 1st John
5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, The Father, the son, and the holy ghost, and these three are one") This used to be waved violently in the
face of JW's by types like you in the forties and fifties. Because JW's pointed to translations which didn't have that verse translated that way and pointed out
that it was not a correct translation of the Greek they were mocked about their "false translation" and about their supposed lack of knowledge of Greek just like
you do now about the NWT. When the fact that it was a spurious scripture became so evident that it could no longer be denied, types like you and their dishonest
leaders (translators and religious leaders) removed it from all subsequent translations and slunk away, not wanting to talk about it anymore. There were types like
you that hung on to that passage for years even despite it's exposure but anyone that does so now is an embarrassment to you. You are even hiding the information
as to what Church you attend. It's evident to all that you are affiliated with some Church. You don't want to say because you know that "people who live in glass
houses should not cast stones", and your religion has a lot that people could focus on in the same way that you are "beating to death" ad nausea this "JW's are
Russellites". Get a little maturity and focus on learning the truth instead of spouting arrogant nonsense. Get a little sense and focus on specific difference and
stop the rabble rousing tactics. And then have the honesty to acknowledge truth when it stares you in the face, instead of retreating into ridicule as a defense.
You talk about Russell's lack of knowledge of Greek and yet you arrogantly dismiss my statement, which can easily be checked out, as though you had enough
knowledge of Greek to correctly assess the evidence. Are you more privileged than Russell? Is it all right for you to do that with impunity? Enough of you.
It's a waste of time to try to reason with the deliberately ignorant.
Aircontrol wrote:
> Richard B. Morgan wrote:
> >
> > Aircontrol wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The JW's are the champion of twisting the scriptures. Example, "In the
> > > Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was "a"
> > > god. The Word "a" is not in the original Greek. Your founder added
> > > that tidbit and yet you say you dont follow what he said anymore!
> >
> > You show an abysmal lack of knowledge of Greek grammar.
>
> Gosh....you think you know it all.
>
> In Greek the 'a' is not used but it is understood.
>
> Hmmm??? Didnt I just say that it is not in the original Greek!
> Gracious you need to start reading what I type.
>
> Instead in Greek grammar 'the' is used, and when
> > it is not used it is understood that what is referred to is generic.
>
> Oh really....why is that so you can add it when you want to. Yes, that
> makes sense! LOL
>
> Thus in Greek: "The word was with the GOD (ha theos), and god (theos)
> was the word"