| Author | Message | ||
     joesdad (joesdad) New member Username: joesdad Post Number: 4 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 |
Initially, I was wondering whether there was a JW (forgive me for the initials) out there who may be able to answer a few straight forward questions in a straight forward way: 1) I understand that you believe the Watchtower to be in line with the Bible, is that correct? 2) Do you believe in current day prophecy or devine inspiration? 3) The reason that articles in the Watchtower are not credited to the writer is what? 4) Do you believe it proper to alter the facts surrounding events detailed in the Bible to make them fit in with another event/teaching? That will do for the moment, but it would be good to hear from one of you | ||
| rebel8 (rebel8) New member Username: rebel8 Post Number: 1 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 139.127.189.218 |
JWs are not allowed to participate on forums like this (due to a ban on talking to those who speak against their religion, whom they believe are possessed by demons http://quotes.watchtower.ca/bewarethevoiceofstrangers.htm ), so you aren't going to get an answer from them. I am an ex-JW; I'll try to answer for you. All the links I’m including in this post are to a web site that has specific quotes and references to JW literature. All of them are verifiable by outside sources. 1) I understand that you believe the Watchtower to be in line with the Bible, is that correct? Yes, they do. They also believe ONLY the Watchtower Society’s pulications interpret the Bible correctly. http://quotes.watchtower.ca/channel.htm 2) Do you believe in current day prophecy or devine inspiration? Only through the Watchtower Society. http://quotes.watchtower.ca/organization.htm 3) The reason that articles in the Watchtower are not credited to the writer is what? They profess not to be followers of human leaders, but followers of God. Therefore, they believe crediting the authors in their publications is unnecessary. It also helps support the claim that the information in their literature is not coming from humans. 4) Do you believe it proper to alter the facts surrounding events detailed in the Bible to make them fit in with another event/teaching? Officially, their answer would be no to that question. In reality, they do “interpret” events and details and mold them to fit their beliefs and predictions. By simply using your logic, you will be able to identify many instances of misinformation and misconstruing of facts. An example is taking a quote Jesus said to his followers centuries ago and applying it to something about the Watchtower Society today, even though there is no evidence Jesus meant for it to be applied to anything but the specific situation he was referring to at the time. For another example, if you go to http://quotes.watchtower.ca/ , you’ll see a column with different years listed. Clicking on all those different years will bring you to quotes from JW literature that made predictions that Armageddon was to come at a certain time. | ||
| joesdad (joesdad) New member Username: joesdad Post Number: 10 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 |
Rebel8 - thanks for that, I had half expected to get no response for the reasons you mention - I have had fun "baiting" JW's on the doorstep, including one that had many of my local "Elders" involved - I never got a straight answer- just asked to overlook the point and look at what else they had to offer - as I said to them, if they can't overcome one, simple problem - how can I be expected to rely on anything else they say? For your info., the point in question was the way that the day of Pentecost was dealt with in the Watchtower, the writer used lots of "artistic" licence in describing the events surrounding the day, then used details from a meeting that took place the day before and the Chapter before, and mixed up the events (e.g. quoting the number in attendance)- I've never taken the time to have them "teach" me, but assume that they use similar word games in much of what they say. Again, thanks for taking the time to reply. | ||
| rebel8 (rebel8) New member Username: rebel8 Post Number: 2 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 139.127.189.218 |
You're welcome  If you ever need more info, Google "ex Jehovah's Witness" and you'll find tons of stuff. There's also a great book called 30 years a Watchtower Slave. | ||
| psalm5613 (psalm5613) Junior Member Username: psalm5613 Post Number: 30 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.39.68.108 |
I recorded his words onto the paper, and then continued without looking up. “Lucifer, let us discuss these battlefield adjustments, if you don’t mind.” “For clarification,” the chained one continued, “those battlefield adjustments were more than just a counterfeit. There were multitudes of counterfeits that I offered up to the insatiable pallets of the human race; a ‘cafeteria’ offering, if you will.” “Each resulting in…” “Eternal death or separation from God,” Lucifer cut in. “The pathetic Son of God came to bring life to all who would receive him by faith. I countered with alternative plans which were much more agreeable, as well as exciting to the prideful and fallen human nature.” “Such as…?” “Consider the simplicity of God’s plan…of salvation for the world. That pitiful apostle John recorded it the clearest. In one passage he records, ‘He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.’” It seemed as if my entire body flushed with warmth as I heard the himself speak the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I never grow tired of hearing this old story. Lucifer continued. “In another place he writes, ‘he that hath the Son hath life’…and… ‘these things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.’” Lucifer rose up from the rock and began to pace within the limits of the chains, tugging and pulling, testing their strength. He was silent for several moments, and all I heard was the patting of his feet and the jingle of chain. “He offers them life!” The words seemed to slither from his lips with venomous contention. He continued to pace in a tiny pattern, shaking his head slowly. “Those wretched humans…who are they that God would die for them?” “And rise again, from the dead,” I added. His face contorted into a mask of harshness. “Yes,” he added, “an interesting point. Critical, wouldn’t you agree?” “Very much so,” I replied. “We were reconciled to God by the death of His Son; much more, being reconciled, we were saved by His life.” “Ah,” Lucifer said, “more quotes from his book, especially from that accursed apostle Paul. Let me add something else this former soldier of mine wrote in the Bible: “If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” Lucifer laughed. “How true that is. If the Lamb of God was killed on the cross, and he never rose from the dead, then all his believers’ faith—and their subsequent salvation—is empty. Thousands of people were crucified…I saw to that. To make my offerings more palatable, it was necessary to either disprove his resurrection, or at least cast doubt upon it. If he did not rise from the dead, he would have been as any other man.” “But he was far from being just another man,” I said. “And that is what was the primary focus of my counterfeits. In most cases, it was necessary for me to show the world that he wasn’t God. Oh, he could be anything else: a wise man, a moral man, a good man; even a prophet. In other cases, I allowed him the resemblance of being a god, having evolved to the point of godhood through a systematic keeping of the law. In a few instances, I even made Jesus out to be Michael, my nemesis, the archangel.” Lucifer laughed. “It is all nonsense of course, but people by the billions believed these and other lies.” “Denying any hope of eternity with the Father.” “Yes,” the dark one replied, smiling. “They became mine…all mine.” From "Interview with Lucifer" by Rollin Miller www.interviewwithlucifer.com rollin@interviewwithlucifer.com 1 Corinthians 1:23 | ||
| praetorian (praetorian) New member Username: praetorian Post Number: 1 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 12.103.171.221 |
MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING I am a disfellowshiped JW and thought I would, for the fun of it include my two cents…. One Penny: A kind woman who was known for never having anything bad about anyone, was approached by a person who said, ‘I know someone you cannot say anything good about’…..After a moment, she said, then I don’t want to know, and immediately the person said, ‘Satan The Devil’……And the women thought for a moment and said……’He’s a hard worker!’ Second Penny: If the general consensus is Christians believe that all or most roads lead you to God, and JW’s do not, then ponder; Under the belief systems of general Christians, JW’s are saved! Good and Bad are found in and among all people and belief systems, Christ himself had his own bad egg, Judas Iscariot, but that does not did not make Christ wrong or bad! If Judas had written a book entitled “Proof Jesus is not the Messiah, from a man who knows”, I can tell you that none of the other apostles or those that new Jesus and believed in him, would have bought or started to re-think what they knew of Jesus, as is suggested by the people of this board. I close my comments by quoting the words of a non Christian, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, in Acts 5: 38 and 39, “And so, under the present circumstances, I say to YOU, Do no meddle with this men, but let them alone (because, if this scheme or this work is from men, it will be overthrown, but if it is from God, YOU will not be able to overthrow them) otherwise, YOU may perhaps be found fighters against God.” | ||
| luvliberty (luvliberty) New member Username: luvliberty Post Number: 3 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 68.91.8.146 |
I am enjoying reading the dialog here and am amazed at the level of effect on peoples lives the JWs have had! I am a fader but even fading is not easy to pull off because the witnesses do not want to let you "just walk away"! they want to control the circumstances to the ultimate degree! | ||
| servantforgod (servantforgod) New member Username: servantforgod Post Number: 2 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 199.196.144.13 |
Untruthful things I despise about Jehovah's Witnesses include not celebrating holidays, not giving blood, not believing in the cross and not believing in the trinity. The funny thing is they have many of the same virtues and values as true Christians, like being against premariatal sex for instance. They are beleive in pretty much of the same biblical accounts as true believers. This puzzles me. Of course I know they are wrong. I just find it funny that they would add these rules and alter beliefs. Their bible has Genesis through Revelation, like the bibles that the true belivers use. Its so strange! I did get temporarily snared into a bible study at a Jehovah Witness' house. I got out of course, but I feel sad for the kind dear woman. I am praying that she finds the real true Good News of the saving grace and salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Preaching the Gospel and sharing the Good News doesn't mean knocking on doors and handing out Watchtowers and Awake publications. | ||
| luvliberty (luvliberty) New member Username: luvliberty Post Number: 7 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 209.183.171.200 |
Yeah there is enough about the jws that sounds good and makes sense- at the beginning but they leave out a lot of pertinent information to their bible studies- like that the person will have to renounce "worldly associates" and all the other little rules they begin to add after the person is involved- and then just try getting out! they do not want you to just walk away and disappear... they either want you disfellowshipped so that you can't "infect" other jws or they want you stay active- there is no passive getting out with them! | ||
| marilyn_m (marilyn_m) Member Username: marilyn_m Post Number: 59 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 24.222.57.138 |
I like to believe that God will call all his sheep out of all religions when the time is right, because he can do something that no living person can do, HE CAN REAR OUR HEARTS ! SO who are they to judge us ? Romans 14;4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. Isaiah 11;4-5 4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. 5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. | ||
| adonijah (adonijah) New member Username: adonijah Post Number: 6 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 64.60.80.203 |
Initially, I was wondering whether there was a JW (forgive me for the initials) out there who may be able to answer a few straight forward questions in a straight forward way: 1) I understand that you believe the Watchtower to be in line with the Bible, is that correct? Answer: Sort of basically the Watchtower is more like a bible based publication, not to replace the bible, however it does give insight. 2) Do you believe in current day prophecy or devine inspiration? Answer:I'm not sure what you mean by this question, can you elaborate please? 3) The reason that articles in the Watchtower are not credited to the writer is what? Answer:Usually they are credit when using other sources, however, when a society writer does his/her thing, credit goes to JEHOVAH, so as not to take away from the true source of the wisdom in the bible based magazines. 4) Do you believe it proper to alter the facts surrounding events detailed in the Bible to make them fit in with another event/teaching? Answer: You mean like taking God's name out of the bible or mistranslating John 1:1 so as to favor a obviously pagan doctorine as truth, it seems to be prevelant in all the major religions, so I leave this to you to answer. That will do for the moment, but it would be good to hear from one of you | ||
| bear (bear) Junior Member Username: bear Post Number: 31 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.165.235.90 |
Adonijah, by your post I am assuming that you are a JW. The Hebrew word YHWH is never found in the New Testament. The only place that it can be properly placed in when it is quoting the OT. The WTBS will attempt to show facts that the devine name is in the Greek scripture, yet their facts can not be supported in a factual way. The Greek word "kurios" is used in the Greek. It can NEVER, from an authentic scholarly view, be transalated Jehovah. Now, I believe in the devine name, and I use it. However, their is more to the name Jehovah not being used than is taught by the WTBS. Paul, in his greetings never addressesthe father as Jehovah. The name Jehovah is not preached; Jesus is. If you do not beleive me, read all of Pauls writings, and not out of the NWT, rather out of a Greek transliteration; you will be amazed. 2. John 1:1 has been a hot debate between the JW and authentic scholars. The grammar argument by the WTBS is not consistent in verses following, where the same absence of the definate article exists. Secular Greek scholars have looked at this and agree that the WTBS translation is an outrage. When you read the original Greek of John 1:1 you will see that it can be read"...what God was the word was" meaning essence; denoting unity. Note: While the doctrine of the trinity has been misunderstood and intertwined with ancient pagan beliefs, the truth is in the text. Trinitymeans three-in-unity. Not three Gods, but one in perfect unity. A JW will argue that the word trinity is not found in the text; neither is the word theocratic, yet it's used as though it is. The WTBS quotes many tranlations of the scripture that support their John 1:1 mistranlation. However, NOT ONE of those tranlations is credible. Check out the translators and you will see that my statement is a fact not an opinion. Having been a JW, I know that individuals do not study outside of the organization; it is forbidden. Also, they are taught that every Othet denomination is false; not true! While there are many that are, the truth is that TRUE Christians are all over the world. I have traveled to the hills of Mexico, to the jungle in Asia. One fact remains, Jehovah's TRUE witnesses are everywhere. Adonijah, I would suggest you pull out your Reasoning from the Scriptures, of which I have a copy. Every doctrine that you wish to defend will be refuted. That is not an arrogant statement, only a confident one. Please be contructive if you choose to respond. | ||
| bear (bear) Junior Member Username: bear Post Number: 32 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.165.235.90 |
marilyn_m, Your statement that God will call his sheep out of all religions does not have any biblical foundation. Just a thought, not an attack. | ||
| grinch (grinch) Member Username: grinch Post Number: 85 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.213.82.228 |
Indeed YHWH cannot be found in the NT, and what is more alarming is the circular reasoning that the WTBS uses to try and claim it was. Actually not just circular reasoning but scholarly deception. Similar to that used when citing church fathers and Greek scholars. Julius Mantey was so brutally misrepresented by the WTBS that he had to write a letter to them. Phil 2 couldn't be any clearer on the nature of Christ. Can it be said of believers, angels, and/or any class of being that are defined as "morphen doulou" (the nature of servants) that they pre-existed continuously in the "morphe theou" (nature of God)? | ||
| adonijah (adonijah) New member Username: adonijah Post Number: 12 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 64.60.80.37 |
Septuagint Version that actually existed in Jesus' day have survived down to our day, and it is noteworthy that the personal name of God appeared in them. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Volume 2, page 512) says: "Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX [Septuagint] translated the tetragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written The Hebrew word YHWH is never found in the New Testament. The only place that it can be properly placed in when it is quoting the OT. The WTBS will attempt to show facts that the devine name is in the Greek scripture, yet their facts can not be supported in a factual way. You said: The Greek word "kurios" is used in the Greek. It can NEVER, from an authentic scholarly view, be transalated Jehovah. Now, I believe in the devine name, and I use it. However, their is more to the name Jehovah not being used than is taught by the WTBSin Heb[rew] characters in the G[ree]k text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the O[ld] T[estament] in the first centuries A.D." Therefore, whether Jesus and his disciples read the Scriptures in Hebrew or Greek, they would come across the divine name. Is this constructive enough for you OSO? | ||
| bear (bear) Junior Member Username: bear Post Number: 33 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.165.237.25 |
Your last sentence is demeaning and cocky; un-called for. You are quoting WTBS material in your above post. Therefore, it is not credible. Also, your statement about Jesus and his disciples coming across the divine name is a no brainer; they were reading the Hebrew scriptures. My argument is over the earliest manuscripts of the NT. I believe that the tetragrammatton belongs in the OT. It is a shame that it is taken out in so many tranlations. However, the earliest Greek manuscripts of the NT do NOT have it. The LXX is a translation of the original, therefore your foundation is weak. If the WTBS spent as much time focusing on the name of Jesus, as Paul did, the truth about Jehovah would not be an issue. | ||
| grinch (grinch) Member Username: grinch Post Number: 97 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.213.82.228 |
Septuagint Version that actually existed in Jesus' day have survived down to our day, and it is noteworthy that the personal name of God appeared in them. Well of course it did because the Septuagint is a Greek translation of the OLD testament. The issue is the tetragrammaton being in the NEW testament or not. It is not. Not by any historical or manuscript evidence. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Volume 2, page 512) says: "Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX [Septuagint] translated the tetragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. Again the LXX is a Greek translation of the OLD testament. This is not even a valid argument. The issue is what do the most reliable and early manuscripts show that the NT writers used in the NEW testament. All manuscript evidence shows that they used Kyrios and used it synonymously between the Father and the Son. The evidence shows that the NT writers sought to intentially equate Jesus with Jehovah. (Message edited by Grinch on June 07, 2005) | ||
| bear (bear) Junior Member Username: bear Post Number: 35 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 205.144.127.200 |
Grinch said it better than I. | ||
| adonijah (adonijah) New member Username: adonijah Post Number: 14 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 64.60.80.29 |
This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the O[ld] T[estament] in the first centuries A.D." Therefore, whether Jesus and his disciples read the Scriptures in Hebrew or Greek, they would come across the divine name. HOWEVER, In later copies of the Septuagint, God's name was removed and words like "God" (The·os') and "Lord" (Ky'ri·os) were substituted. We know that this happened because we have early fragments of the Septuagint where God's name was included and later copies of those same parts of the Septuagint where God's name has been removed. The same thing occurred in the "New Testament," or Christian Greek Scriptures. Professor George Howard goes on to say: "When the Hebrew form for the divine name was eliminated in favor of Greek substitutes in the Septuagint, it was eliminated also from the New Testament quotations of the Septuagint. . . . Before long the divine name was lost to the Gentile church except insofar as it was reflected in the contracted surrogates or remembered by scholars." Nice try guys, bye... | ||
| marilyn_m (marilyn_m) Member Username: marilyn_m Post Number: 65 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 24.222.57.138 |
Bear, I believe you are wrong, Rev2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. | ||
| joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 420 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 |
Adonijah: I have not been on this thread for a while, and had not seen your response. Using my original numbering, I continue: 1) I suppose what I was getting at was how JW’s view the Watchtower, i.e. do they believe it contains the pure word of God? Is there any doctrinal basis for the writers of the items therein not having the items accredited to them? Following on from that, there is no mention of whether the items contain the OPINION of the writer, or agreed doctrine. Can it be wrong? 2) What I mean is are JW’s leaders able to receive guidance from God that will allow changes in doctrine, or alterations to previously agreed doctrine. If so, does it stop there or can others receive such instruction for themselves personally? 3) 1) above covers this 4) No I mean, do the JW’s find it acceptable for a publication of theirs to alter facts clear from their own scriptures (I don’t mean anything that can be blamed on opinion – I mean recounting events and including details that are not justified, nor gained from the biblical account) Thanks | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 106 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 68.231.47.234 |
adonijah, Nice try? No manuscript evidence exists that has the YHWH in the NT. There is no historical record of any great apostasy where it was supposedly removed. Your trust and belief in the WTBS goes against all available evidence. That's fine if you want to believe as you do, but it is a blind faith that you have. The fact remains that all manuscript evidence demonstrates the NT writers did not include the tetragrammaton in the NT. Their use of Kyrios clearly demonstrates that they intended to synonymously equate Jesus ontologically with the Father. Lastly it is only because of your assuming God to be uni-personal (unitarianistic) that you must conclude these things. I don't believe that it is right or responsible to make such unwarranted assumptions on Scripture when Scripture clearly demosntrates that God is not uni-personal. It is one thing to make assumptions, but to make assumptions that are contrary to Scripture is not rightly dividing the word of truth. | ||
| bear (bear) Junior Member Username: bear Post Number: 40 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.161.232.34 |
adonijah, Once again you are quoting WTBTS publications. Also, you keep speaking about the LXX. That does not have anything to do with the oldest manuscripts of the NT. I know of the manuscripts of which you speak; I have seen them in the WTBTS publications. The very words circled are, none other than, Kurios! Nice try...I was not trying. All reputable Greek scholars, Chritian and non-christian, agree that the NWT is a blatantly poor translation of the Greek scriptures. | ||
| curious1 (curious1) Intermediate Member Username: curious1 Post Number: 193 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 70.178.226.162 |
I would question that the NWT even is a translation from the Greek. | ||
| bear (bear) Junior Member Username: bear Post Number: 41 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.161.232.34 |
It is a loose translation. If you examine their interlinear, it is a joke. Words that are black and white are mistranslated to fit WTBTS theology. | ||
| bear (bear) Junior Member Username: bear Post Number: 42 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.161.232.34 |
marilyn_m, What am I incorrect about? You quote Rev 2, but that does not have anything to do with my post. I have an ear, and I am hearing just fine. I have been a student of the scipture for years, I am an ex JW, and I have a degree in theology. I can back up my position from authentic historical research. If you are going to tell me that I am wrong, that is fine. However, you need to back that up with proof, not spiritual mumbo jumbo, of which seems to be your pattern in your other posts on this site e.g., "...the spirit left our congregation...", and "I believe that God will call his sheep out of all religions..." What? I do not mind a diagreement, but a disagreement without substance is flacky. (Message edited by bear on June 13, 2005) | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 112 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.213.82.228 |
What was the purpose of the citation from Revelation marilyn? Also shouldn't the question be asked who is it that has an ear? I believe that question is answered from Scripture. | ||
| bear (bear) Junior Member Username: bear Post Number: 47 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 205.144.127.200 |
One thing to remember, any organization that does not focus on Jesus is on the wrong track. The apostles, especially Paul, focused their entire ministry on salvation through Jesus, not worrying about retaining the name YHWH. The society can boast about this feat all they want, but in the end it is all for naught. It is not enough to teach about Jesus in a passive way. His name is the name above every name, and yes, even the name Jehovah. Jesus did not come to vindicate Jehovah's name alone, he came to proclaim salvation through himself. If this were not so, the rest of the NT authors would reflect this. Again, there is not one legitame scholar who will verify the YHWH name in the text. All other so-called scholars can be discredited with some simple research. It would benefit all JW's to do research outside of society publications. There they will find credible, authentic historical research. I know most will not partake in such a feat, as it is not sanctioned by the society. One thing to remember, the society has a team of people who do such a thing, and they usally misquote the sources in order to prove a WT belief. It makes one wounder... | ||
| bicpen (bicpen) New member Username: bicpen Post Number: 1 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.103.171.221 |
Dear Bear: I always wonder about people that take on animal names as a handle. I am somewhat surprised over your commentary concerning the tetragrammaton and the name Jehovah itself. While sitting here at work I took out a copy of Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, Warner Books Paperback Edition, revised (Pocket Size)1984, because I do not have a newer one. When you look up Jesus you get “founder of Christianity” and when you look up Jehovah you get “God” If you go on the internet to www.dictionary.com and look up Jesus you get, “A teacher and prophet whose life and teachings form the basis of Christianity. Christians believe Jesus to be Son of God and the Christ.” Though there is much more. Doing the same thing for Jehovah and you get, “a name for the God of the Old Testament as transliterated from the Hebrew consonants YHVH” Now if you do the same thing for tetragrammaton you get “The four Hebrew letters usually transliterated as YHWH or JHVH, used as a biblical proper name for God.” Now, if you ever watched the third and final Indiana Jones films, “The Last Crusade”, you may remember the nearing the end, when the characters of Sean Connery and Harrison Ford, both take the time to individually spell God’s name, Jehovah, and in fact, Harrison Ford (Indy) almost falls through, as he steps through the first letter of that name, J making the comment that in Latin there is no equivalent for he letter J, and therefore stepped through the letter I, which is the way Jehovah is spelled in Latin with an I. It may be good for you to know that the 1611 King James Bible and many other bibles have used the name Jehovah, for centuries; years before the appearance of Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1879. I doubt JW’s have an interest in and or control Webster’s dictionary, dictionary.com, the movies known as Indiana Jones films, or his Majesty, King James and his 1611 Bible! So the questions is; Why are you not criticizing them? Oh by the way, of a minute vocabulary lesson, please enter the word “ineffable” into dictionary.com and you will find, “Incapable of being expressed; indescribable or unutterable. Not to be uttered; taboo: the ineffable name of God” Perhaps that will lead you on out of the way out of ignorance. I just had to comment on the ignorance of the people on this thread. Hey this took me all of about 10 minutes to do, and guess what; I did not have to look at a JW publication once! Go figure!!! It is true, ignorance is BLISS! Cheers, Don | ||
| bear (bear) Junior Member Username: bear Post Number: 49 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.161.234.178 |
Don, Bear was a nick name given to me many years ago do to a curse of hair  I never discounted the name Jehovah. I use it everyday, and I am very aware of the validity in scripture, and the def. used in the dictionary, as well as the Hebrew language. I have a degree in theology, so ignorance on this topic is not a personal trait. I also understand vocabulary and its usage, and why Latin letters are what they are. In college I had a prof. who was Jewish; he grew up as a Jew, and latter converted to Christianity. This subject was raised many times. This person holds two doctorates, so I trust his knowledge from years of study. My argument was on the validity of the name Jehovah in the Greek scriptures, not discounting that Jehovah is the Name of the Father. Please read my posts in context to avoid calling me ignorant. I am curious on the proverbial tone that you have in your post. Every fact that you stated above, I do not have any diagreement with. I wounder one thing: what is your point? Please give me proof on YHWH being used in ancient manuscripts of the Greek text. I doubt that you will find any authentic proof from a reputable source. Ignorance is bliss for those who possess it | ||
| sharon (sharon) Intermediate Member Username: sharon Post Number: 244 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 142.177.103.181 |
marilyn_m .. I hear, and I understand what you are saying. Most of the churches are now being emptied of those who find that the church that they are in is not following doctrine. Fleeing and falling away. This sign has already come to pass. Take the hat for instance , I am sure that your mother wore one to church, would not enter the door without one, back in your Mothers day if a woman forgot her hat she would use her husbands handkerchief rather than enter Gods house with her head uncovered,if she had none then she did not enter Gods house, as has been the case always , except for this generation. They chose to follow a different path and say that this is the right one. It is only an example but it is a clear one, for now they say all that came before us had it wrong and we are the right generation who do not believe this. So your Mother and grandmother and all the way back were wrong, They are closing so many churches here that people are protesting , and still it continues. You will not have to worry whether it is a sign that the people are falling away from the churches as soon they will not be there to fall away from. Just a thought. | ||
| marilyn_m (marilyn_m) Member Username: marilyn_m Post Number: 68 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 24.222.57.138 |
bear, I also have been a student of scriptures for years but I do not try to sound like a know it all, I choose to use the Bible to back up my claims and if you think that that is spiritual mumbo jumbo than I wouldn’t want to be you come judgment. My earlier comment was not ment to offend you,but you seem to take offence quit easy so I will no longer speak with you in the future. That fact that you find every thing I say to be mumbo jumbo to me is just a cheap & immature shot to make yourself feel smart. You remind me of some of the JW elders that abuse their power to try to make others feel small. I feel sorry for those people because they seem to have no substance in their lives | ||
| marilyn_m (marilyn_m) Member Username: marilyn_m Post Number: 69 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 24.222.57.138 |
Sharon, you are so right & I'm sure one does not need a degree in theology to see that.Too many people these days think they know more than their parents & more than the Bible it's self.They forget what Matthew 23:12 says "And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." People today lack humility .Thank you for the support. | ||
| bear (bear) Member Username: bear Post Number: 52 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.161.238.228 |
Marilyn_m, Please do not be offended and so quick to kill our dialogue. You are mistaking my confidence with arrogance. Being an ex JW, I can assure you that me opinion can be backed up with proof. I NEVER claimed to know it all, come on!!!! When you tell me that I am wrong, and then you still do not tell me what about, I begin to wounder. You do quote a lot of scripture, but most of that scripture does not appear to actually back up any claim. My life is full of substance, and I do not need to write on this thread in order to feel smart; I have a quality education that exceeds what I learned in college. I also have many years in full time ministry, and that does count for something. All a degree does is teach people to research; to lay a foundation. That is what I meant when I stated that in my post. As far as sounding like a JW elder, well...that is your opinion. You said that I was wrong, and I again ask you, what am I wrong about? You have not aswered my question. If you are as mature as you claim, then do not aviod an answer to my question. (Message edited by bear on June 18, 2005) | ||
| bicpen (bicpen) New member Username: bicpen Post Number: 2 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.103.171.221 |
Dear Bear: Thank you for your kind hubris reply. Let me begin by stating that without voice inflection, and only looking to my opening words about the nick name bear, it this was meant in jest, however, it appears you took offense, so I here apologize for that. Your use of the personal name of God is acknowledged along with your awareness and stated non-ignorance of the same. As to your degree in theology, and your Jewish Professor with not one but two doctorates; what can I say? (Kinda like implying you have special knowledge or something…) Since I don’t, (either that is) it is clear you and your professor have an unfair advantage over me, but, I will attempt a humble response here below. Trusting humans is tricky business in issues like these, as I have many times found two experts in the same discipline with the same degrees, at the same university, will often differ, vehemently and diametrically, to one another, with both claiming the other is an idiot! So, how you choose, or your choosing the one over the other, must be something of “real intelligence”. I often find that by experience you need to use the “expertise” of the child in the story of the Kings Clothes, who innocently declares, the King is Naked, while all the wise, other wise, and wise wannabees discuss among themselves how beautifully crafted the clothes are. Jesus said something similar, when he said in Matthew 18:3,4, “Truly I say to YOU, Unless YOU turn around and become as young children, YOU will by no means enter into the kingdom of the heavens. 4 Therefore, whoever will humble himself like this young child is the one that is the greatest in the kingdom of the heavens.” It is also good to note that Jesus, chose Apostles from the every day people, not from the Scribes or Pharisees (the so-called experts from the then schools of thought) when he said in Matthew 11:25, “At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes.” (By the way, who was Jesus referring to as “Lord” here if he was not speaking to YHWH, as Jesus clearly had deep respect for this Lord as evident in many prayers or discussions out loud to Him?). Therefore, me, I am very content being part of the common folk. I am also personally truly grateful, that Jesus did not make this as a requirement, that we must have these degrees. Finally on this point, just for you, I thought I would say this; You can be certain, that if Judas Iscariot, had published a book (scroll, writing, etc.) denouncing Jesus as the true Christ and Messiah, with the footnote, “ I know, Because I used to be with him” before he killed himself; I can be so bold as to assure of this; That none of the other faithful apostles, nor followers would have secured a copy, or felt the need to defend attacks from those who would believe it---before those who would advocate it, and say ‘SEE---His own intimate acquaintance who knows all of the ins and outs of him, has denounced him!’ As to your other comments, I was not responding to the labyrinth of all of the comments in this thread, though, made reference to them in general terms. I was specifically zeroing on your comment post number 49. Bear, I did not call you “ignorant” but referred to your “ignorance” with regards to the statements you made in your specific post, that I addressed in mine. Therefore it is you that called yourself ignorant—but enough of that, as this is truly non-productive. Sir, I am ignorant of many disciplines, such as “Rocket Science” but I am not an ignorant person. You appear to take yourself too seriously! This is where it is good to be like a child, the one described above by Jesus. *****Now to your statement, “My argument was on the validity of the name Jehovah in the Greek scriptures, not discounting that Jehovah is the Name of the Father.” Before I briefly touch on this rather simple, yet profound subject matter, I mention, that a son, should be careful to avoid insulting or degrading his father. I trust you will agree, as it is rude, not polite or right, let alone moral to do so. How much more so then, should one avoid doing so to their Heavenly Father. As to your wanting “…proof on YHWH being used in ancient manuscripts of the Greek text”, (when your own words above clearly identify him as Father see asterisks above) I am reminded of Jesus reply to the scribes and Pharisees when they wanted proof of his Messiahship, wherein he replied that they he would only give them (since they were learned teachers) the sign of Jonah! Anyway, at my work place I do not have the tools I need to do this thoroughly nor exhaustively, as I would like, but, none the less, I will give it a go here below, which I trust you will appreciate as a reputable source! By the way, did you look up word ineffable? As maybe, just maybe, the definition of this word may provide a key or interesting link to this subject matter. Anyway-- Please reason on this for a moment please; Turn your bible to Matthew Chapter 4, and read verses 1-11. Here Jesus engages in a verbal-dialogue exchange with Satan the Devil, showing several things of which I only point out a few. Please keep in mind that this is just before Jesus reveals himself as the promised Messiah, thus fulfilling many scriptural prophesies; 1. Satan is a real person, not a mere concept of evil; 2. Satan knows the Holy Writings and; 3. Jesus Christ, the Messiah in reply to Satan quoting scripture, does the same, correcting him by quoting scriptures, first in verse 4, which is taken from Deuteronomy 8:3, and in verse 7, which is taken from Deuteronomy 6:16, and finally verse 10, which is taken from Deuteronomy 10:20 and also stated in Joshua 24:14, all of which in Hebrew clearly use the personal name of God, Jehovah (YHWH), though some English bibles use LORD as differentiated from Lord for God’s personal name. (Remember the word ineffable?) Now, it is clear you have taken issues or have argument over the “validity of the name Jehovah in the Greek Scriptures” and not in the Hebrew Scriptures (or did I assume this incorrectly since your own words make that crystal clear-above quoted); I would like to know, what do you think the Apostle Matthew (a Jewish Tax collector-I know you know this) did when he quoted these words in the first place? You think he insulted his and Jesus Father, but quoting these parts of Hebrew Scripture, and somehow forgot, neglected or inadvertently failed to place God’s personal name (as you identify it-see asterisks above) in his Gospel? Something to ponder when taking issues and or making arguments. Thus my point, my dear bear is this; I of little means and mental abilities as compared to the learned people of theology with degrees, noted that your position is in error, and seems to be based on emotion, not fact, and therefore wanted to point this out to you and the readers of this thread! In conclusion, I repeat two things stated in my previous reply; All this was done without referring to a “JW publication” once and; your response has helped this un-degreed (in) theology regular lay person to know that; “It is true, ignorance is BLISS!”(Do you really believe what you are saying inside, or are you saying it coming from a place inside full of anger and or resentment?) Cheers and best wishes, Don! | ||
| bear (bear) Member Username: bear Post Number: 61 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.161.233.40 |
Hey Don, It is important that read my entire post! 1. I did not take any offence, thus the smile face after my comment. 2. My comment on my degree was meant to clarify some expertise in the world of theology. A person does not need a degree to preach Jesus, but a degree lays a foundation to appreciate research, and it does bring a level of confidence in the knowledge aquired. I am also a "common folk", and never meant my comments as elitist garbage. While his disciples were commeon folk, they did not remain that way. Remember, they spent time with Jesus himself. This is more of a theological education than any received at the rabbinical schools of their day. Many use this truth, about his disciples, as proof that we do not need a biblical education. However, unless you have spent three years with Jesus, it is a good idea, if you enter ministry, to get a good education in order to avoid error. Why is it that we do not question a medical doctor, or a lawyer, who spend many years in school. I trust that you would not get surgery from a doctor who just read some books, took some correspondece courses, and felt in his spirit that he was capable. Do we want a teacher in school, who just happens to like a certain subject, teaching us without holding any degree in that field? No, we do not. It sickens me that some christians are OK with pastors just getting by with a shallow lake of true biblical knowledge. This is one area that we should encourage. There is more to teaching the bible than salvation. We need a wealth of knowledge in order to rightly divide the word of truth. Remember, all of the study books that a person reads to gain biblical knowledge are written by men and women who hold a degree. I am proud of my education. While there are folks who hold a dedree and are spiritually dead, there are those of us who put that knowledge to use. 3. My comment about my prof. was meant to make one point: if a Jewish man, who was raised in the Jewish faith, and knows Jewish history like the back of his hand, is not knowledgeable on this issue, we have a problem. I trust his knowledge. 4. Again, there is not one thing you said that changes my position. True, you did not quote one JW publication, yet you did not give any proof to your position either. You proudly stated that my comment was "in error" and "based on emotion rather than fact". What have you proven; not one thing!!!!!! 5. I know Jehovah is the father, yet the fact remains that there is not one reputable manuscript of the Greek text with the name YHWH in its print. That is important, as I explain in the next point. 6. The name Jehovah is the English form of the Latin form of the name YHWH. The correct pronounciation of the name YHWH was lost many years ago; we do not actually know how it was said, so we can only assume. Jewish history teaches us that the use of the Name YHWH was stopped many years before the time of Christ. It was taught to only a few special students of the rabbi's, and was spoken very softly. Writing the name was also stopped. There was a superstition that was adopted, and continued into the times of Jesus. You wanted me to read Matthew, and you stated that he used the name YHWH. You are wrong on this point, Don! A Jew in that day would substitiute the word Adonai when reading the text. When Adonai and YHWH were used together, the word used was Elohim. I know that you proudly boast about your apparent ignorance, however, this is when a good education comes in real handy. 7. I am not angry about anything, as you assumed. I am thankful for my education, yet I continue to learn, everyday, apart from my degree. All my degree did was lay a foundation for the future (I know that a degree does not mean anything in the end). I implore you to lay a foundation for your position. As it stands, you are giving me an opinion without proof. Show me proof! (Message edited by bear on June 21, 2005) (Message edited by bear on June 21, 2005) | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 124 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.213.82.228 |
How is it that people keep missing the fact that the NT writers did not use YHWH. There is no manuscript or historical evidence of it. They used 'kyrios' and synonymously equated Jesus as kyrios while at the same time quoting passages in the OT that used YHWH. Clearly the NT writers intended to equate Jesus with YHWH. Of course this is no problem for those of us who do not assume unitarian henotheism on the Scriptures. There is absolutely NO Scriptural reason to ASSUME God is unipersonal. In fact the converse is true. There is much reason to believe that the Godhead is multi-personal. Here in Amos we see YHWH speaking, yet refers to God as a separate person. 10"I sent a plague among you after the manner of Egypt; I slew your young men by the sword along with your captured horses, And I made the stench of your camp rise up in your nostrils; Yet you have not returned to Me," declares the LORD (YHWH). "I (YHWH) overthrew you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, And you were like a firebrand snatched from a blaze; Yet you have not returned to Me," declares the LORD (YHWH). So YHWH is speaking, and rather than saying that He overthrew them just as He overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah He (YHWH) says I overthrew you just as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. So who is the God YHWH is referring to? This of course poses no problems at all for us who refuse to assume unitarianism on the Scriptures, allowing the Scriptures to dictate the nature of God. How is it that YHWH continues speaking there in Amos 4 but referring to God as a separate person? "Therefore thus I will do to you, O Israel; Because I will do this to you, Prepare to meet your God, O Israel." For behold, He who forms mountains and creates the wind And declares to man what are His thoughts, He who makes dawn into darkness And treads on the high places of the earth, The LORD (YHWH) God of hosts is His name. Why doesn't YHWH just say YHWH is my name, since it is Him speaking? This is but one of many examples in Scripture that demonstrate a person distinction in the Godhead. It doesn't prove the trinity per say, however it does give reason NOT to extra-Biblically ASSUME unitarianism as the WTBS does. Once one doesn't ASSUME unitarianism on the Scriptures the need to use scholarly deception in adding YHWH to the NT despite all historical and manuscript evidence ceases to exist. As the Scriptures rightly say though No one can call Jesus Lord but by the Holy Spirit. And we know what the NT writers meant by Lord! Just look at Paul's use in Romans 10! | ||
| bicpen (bicpen) New member Username: bicpen Post Number: 4 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.103.171.221 |
Bear: [Also with a little ditty for the grinch (grinch)] It is clear that you chose to selectively respond to my post. You will note that when I respond, I do so, issue by issue, (unless I make an inadvertent error) so as not to avoid discussing something on purpose that “may” not appear to go my way! That is not what you did in your response, and nor the other poster grinch (more on him later). Now your response is a true case of selective reasoning! I begin by answering your selective response below; 1. Much Appreciated! 2. a. I know why you said it, however, here we agree to disagree. I beg to differ with you; the disciples did remain that way, as they never went to the then schools of thought to lay a foundation to better appreciate research for those to whom they preached, which at first was natural Israel and then Gentiles. Further, nor did the disciples after them, including years after, need to go to a seminary school to do the same, as their foundation was only Christ as taught directly in the bible. This is shown to us in 1 Corinthians 3: 10 and 11, “10 According to the undeserved kindness of God that was given to me, as a wise director of works I laid a foundation, but someone else is building on it. But let each one keep watching how he is building on it. 11 For no man can lay any other foundation than what is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” In fact worldly thinking is spoken of poorly in the bible. b. As to questioning a medical doctor or attorney, you may not, but I do. (What a coincidence!)You must question things or else you can be taken in by an incompetent practitioner, and one can do so, without doing an in depth study of the subject matter. c. You are incorrect sir! No, not all the books written on the subject of biblical matter are written by men and women holding a degree, this type of broad paint brushed statement is patently incorrect. Starting with the bible, only Paul, Luke and a handful of the 40 plus persons inspired by YHWH to write the bible had any worldly formal education. No one is stating you should not be proud of an accomplishment, but the paint brush statement is wrong. It may be that you and those who think like you, that only will look to those people who have a degree to give them bible knowledge. How sad! d. That can be said of both degreed and non-degreed persons, but the fact remains, as stated in my previous post; You have the human dilemma to deal with, that those with the same degrees coming from the same university often disagree vehemently with one another, to the point of taking the position that the other is an “idiot!” That is why human wisdom does not work! Period!!! This is one of those selective points I mentioned, as if I point them all out, I would have to re-write the post! I guess this tactic works for you, and people like you, to ignore things stated, and get people to discuss only strong issues from your standpoint, and leave others alone! It does not work here! 3. Again, I can take two Jewish men with the same history and education, and degrees, to only have them disagree on just about everything! (Do you want to speak of Middle East worldly politics, and compare degrees! Let alone the bible and its history). Sir, let’s get some equal matched Jews and talk of the Torah, Cabala, Orthodox, Conservative, Modern, etc. Are you kidding? Do you buy your own BULL BEAR? C’mon be honest, that statement is more of crap than all the sewers and oceans in the world! Remember, Sir, that learned Jews killed Jesus Christ, their Messiah! And their bible foretold this. Thus your trusting this man, (or any man) over things you know are true from the bible, is faulty, very faulty! And don’t make an anti-Semitic statement to change the topic, as that works in kindergarten! 4. Thank you for noting that I did not quote from JW publications, but to say I gave no “proof to” my “position”, which I take to mean, what I wrote, is absurd. I can take what I wrote, and give it to a grade school kid, (with no pre-conceived ideas of any discipline) and ask him or her what I wrote, and if I backed up the same in writing, (meaning proved) to underline my position, and as long as they speak the same language, they will most definitely say that I did! I think you mean something else, as you discuss the next paragraph, number 5. How could you read what I wrote and not notice this? Duh? 5. You state Jehovah is the father, to which you are correct. As to God’s personal name not being mentioned in the Septuagint, you are also correct. HAPPY? Now, you have a real quandary, but are you curious enough to pursue it! Why would you clearly state that YHWH is the father, and not be incensed, or angered over your Father’s name being conspicuously missing from a “Translation”, the Septuagint, which when translating from Hebrew to Greek, clearly omitted the Divine Name (that’s there) in place of Lord, LORD, GOD, God, Almighty God, etc.! (If you did this to your biological father he would litigate against you over such a work!) Does this not bother you, especially in view of the fact that our Lord Jesus Christ said many times things like and similar to: that the “Father is Greater than I am”, “I came to do my Father’s will”, “I have come in the name of my Father”, etc. etc. etc there are some many references by Jesus doing this, that it is not worth quoting. It should bother you very much. But, alas, it does not, why? Your hell bent on making the point that this is the Father’s name and that the Father’s name (that you acknowledge) is not in the Septuagint, or other Greek translation manuscript, or Greek writing. So there must be something-wrong? Right? Which you call authoritative! Interesting!? a. Now, here is where I have to again, point out your selective response, as I pointed you to the word “ineffable.” If you look this up in an unabridged dictionary, you will clearly see, that the definition of this word (includes) unutterable, taboo etc. and then gives as an example (with some variation, for all of you wannabe lawyers out there) “The Name of God Jehovah”. Now, are you and the readers of this post-thread so blinded by your personal beliefs and prejudices that you are not even curious to know why such reputable works view God’s personal name as ineffable? Now, I trust you will not have a bone to pick with the writers of the dictionary, starting with the Madman who practically wrote the Oxford dictionary (JOKE). A little research by you and other experts with degrees, will clearly show, (this of course without preconceived ideas and prejudices) that the copyists, who wrote-translated the Septuagint, found the personal name of God, unutterable, among other things, and in order to avoid others from using God’s name in vein (among other things) had a novel idea. It is well known they removed it from the Septuagint completely. b. In fact till this day, this is true, Jews (orthodox and the like as the other truly don’t know) will not use that name. I have a transcript of a criminal trial in New York City, (funny that) where the prosecutor, a learned Jewish man, was prohibited to use the name “Jehovah Witnesses” and then asked the person who was a “witness” (no pun intended) to the event, if they could call them, “Witness or Witnesses” when referring to their religion as “his” religion did not allow him to say that name. (His name was Bronx Assistant Attorney Wile) And by the way, the (again your selective response left this out) when I quoted from Matthew, the three scriptures of Christ’s response to the Devil, wherein I purposely quoted Matthew, as according to all of the scholars with degrees you can and will quote; Matthew was originally written in Hebrew by Matthew who was a Jew, who quoted from Hebrew scrolls-manuscripts that used YHWH. Yes, the Septuagint does not use God’s personal name in the Hebrew portion it translated, (where it occurs nearly 7,000 times) so what do you expect from their writing of the Greek Scriptures, from which it was re-written? More of the same, but that does not mean it was not there, as clearly and easily proven when you compare the parts that quote from the Hebrew Scriptures, and where it translates the Hebrew Scriptures. This is a crime of the highest insult to the Most High. So when you use “reputable” please begin with the aforementioned issues first and honestly. NOTE: This is a comment for the GRINCH (grinch). Grinch, it clearly states, in Isaiah 42: 8 “I am Jehovah. That is my name…” I won’t bother to quote the other times this is stated, because grinch’s very comment is not only bizarre (and I do not deal in bizarre) it is beyond belief that someone would or could make this statement! Oh, and grinch, it is clear you have a poor command of the modern English (as spoken in America) as concepts like writing in the first, second, third person, plural, singular, plural-singular, expressions, idioms, poetry, prose etc., etc., etc., seem to cause you problems in comprehension. Perhaps the root of the problem may be reconceived ideas or something; who knows! May I suggest that you do just so, as suggested by Bear’s comments on laying a foundation through learning, as this would avoid you asking questions that you have already answered, to only miss the point and ask anyway!!! What a novel concept! Keep all confused, starting with the orator! Do you have a garment like that made for the King, in the popular fable, “The Kings Clothes?” Can you describe it for me? 6. You have a point here. However, “what is good for the goose is good for the gander”, no/yes, maybe. You sound hear like the man who speaks in a forked tongue. Come on, your kidding me right, as you have degrees in this stuff! Let’s put this to the test shall we! Jesus was not called Jesus when he was on this earth. Surprise---Ah, but you knew that already, you went to school for this stuff, oh but what a shock to the readers of this thread. AND NO ONE IS GOING TO DIPUTE THIS UNLESS THEY TRULY WANT TO SHOW THE WORLD HOW STUPID THEY REALLY REALLY ARE? Let me help you, before you use your typewriter or computer to do something very foolish; How old is English? And how old is the English spoken by Americans? Meaning Modern English? OK, now onto the more meaty stuff!!!! Tell me, what was Jesus called and also, how do you express it in ancient Hebrew or Greek. Please, don’t stop there, let’s do the same for words and names, like, Abraham, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joshua (and by the way, sir bear, what do these names mean? Including Jesus) Genesis, Exodus, since they are all written in consonants, the exact pronunciation of them is lost for now, in this world, but: This does not stop people from using those names. I guess these names are not ineffable, and so, the rule of the Goose and Gander does not apply here. Not too hypocritical eh!!!!!! 7. Yes I assumed, because usually when faced with evidence of simple truths, and one chooses ignore the same (like relative 2 plus relative 2 equating to relative 4) it usually comes from a place that is troublesome. Kinda like reasoning with Manson not to murder, because it’s bad! But, I assumed this for you, and I am wrong, you corrected me, so you must have other agendas here, beyond me! I am glad you are thankful for your education, as you should be and I am also glad you are not opposed to learning everyday. You are right about the end, as you know as good as I do, that “He (which also means she and children) that has ENDURED to the end, will be saved.” You know bear, in a family there are many persons, and many persons breed many problems and mistakes, often serious ones, and sometimes usually, well meaning mistakes. But that does not mean, that the family is all wrong. Families are people too, and make mistakes, sometimes serious mistakes are made, and or we are disciplined, and we get angry, very angry; but they are still a family, loved by their Father and Mother. You of all people on this board know this, deep down inside. Thus, in conclusion, I have agreed with you as to God’s personal name YHWH, not being found in the Septuagint. (And by the way, I saved the time to document many things) You are not bothered by it, and I am. And I have done, what you have done, given you my views, based on what you assert, along with historical facts, and or biblical facts, and above all, in accordance to the common sense given us all (though not always used by many) by our Great Heavenly Father and his Son. Cheers, Don | ||
| bear (bear) Member Username: bear Post Number: 67 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.165.238.188 |
Don, Please. Once agin you have taken my comments about a degree and flipped them upside down. Read what I have posted! My comment on degreed people writing material was meant for us in modern times. Actually, Paul, who wrote 2/3 of the NT had our mondern day equiv. of a Doctor of Letters. That may come as a shock to you, but then again, all you need is your bible, right? Let's not waste the time in Holy Spirit guided study to avoind being ignorant. No, that is to hard and might actually make us credible when we speak. I never mentioned the LXX. Also, who ever said anything about english names? To quote you, "duh". I was talking about the superstition among Jews that led to the loss of the correct pronounciation of YHWH. I have not insulted God at any time. Also, the correct proun. of the other biblical names are NOT lost; they never have been. Nice try, but that is incorrect! I never made an anti-semetic statement! You can be sardonic all you want. Go ahead and boast about your lack of true biblical education; it really shows. This fact remains, the Greek translation for YHWH can not be found in any Greek text. My comment, early on, was dealing with this point. You have turned this into a playground to voice you blantant lack of knowledge, and to bash me for bettering myself in the study of the scriptures. I am glad that you are not teaching in a church! Fact: Most of what I have learned has come from years of study after receiving my degree. My purpose of going to a theological institiute was to get closer to God, and lay a foundation for a lifetime of ministry. I have some views on the methods of ministry which some may disagree on. However, I am a commited student of the bible, and I will not teach, or comment, on a subject that has not been researched. You are wrong when you stated that "Seminaries" were not a part of the early church. Many schools, especially in the Greco-Roman world, were esablished to train people. You had better study your history on that one. I am glad to here that a school child can understand what you have said. However, you STILL HAVE NOT documented ANY proof of your claim. In fact, at this point, I really do not even know if you have a point in your post! Note: It is interesting that Paul, a Jew, never calls the Father Jehovah in his greetings. I would think that if it were that important, writing to non Jewish nations, he would have made that a priority. | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 125 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.213.82.228 |
NOTE: This is a comment for the GRINCH (grinch). Grinch, it clearly states, in Isaiah 42: 8 “I am Jehovah. That is my name…” I notice you neglected to cite all of Isa 42:8. Was there a reason for this? But according to Scripture (when left unmolested) Jesus is Jehovah. I won’t bother to quote the other times this is stated, Well if you are going to quote them out of context, then yes please don't. because grinch’s very comment is not only bizarre (and I do not deal in bizarre) it is beyond belief that someone would or could make this statement! Oh, and grinch, it is clear you have a poor command of the modern English (as spoken in America) as concepts like writing in the first, second, third person, plural, singular, plural-singular, expressions, idioms, poetry, prose etc., etc., etc., seem to cause you problems in comprehension. I see you failed to answer my question and instead replaced what should have been an answer to a quesiton with a post filled with a lot of fluff and ad hominem nonsense. Lenghty posts are not the same as quality posts. Additionally I am more concerned with Hebrew than I am English. If you would like to make the claim of 3rd person, you will need to substantiate it. Simply proclaiming that is the case because you don't like the clear implications of the text is not a valid argument. There is nothing in the context that would pose a reason to take it as a 2nd/3rd person. Additionally we see elswhere in Scripture that God is not unipersonal and I believe that the WHOLE counsel of God should be considered and used to define God's nature...(not just a few out of context pretexts). The context of Amos 4 does not allow for the 3rd person argument you speak of. Not so surprising however is the distaste JW's have for context. I find it remarkable that you would cite from Isaiah, one of the books that emphatically teaches that Jesus is YHWH when taken in light of NT usage. (Then again you merely pretext when you cite, so maybe it is not so remarkable.) Justin Martyr himself used Isaiah 9:6 to demonstrate that Jesus IS YHWH. Of course you wouldn't know that because the WTBS MISquoted Martyr and misrepresented him when they claimed that Martyr taught that Jesus was an angel. Had the average JW merely obeyed Scripture in examining everything carefully in light of Scripture (As Scripture commands [1 Thess 5:21, Acts 17:10-11]) then they would have researched Martyr's comments in CONTEXT and seen that he was ACTUALLY teaching from Isaiah 9:6 and proclaiming that Jesus is THE Angel of the Lord/YWHW! (not to be confused with an angel of the Lord.) Amazing what placing church father and greek scholar comments back in their context actually teach! So instead of trusting in the WTBS misquoting of Martyr in their attempt to claim Jesus was just an angel, the JW could have just read Martyr in context and seen that he was teaching the opposite. Praise God that we have the church father's writings in context so the rest of us don't have to blindly trust the WTBS to cite them for us. OH, were you not aware of Martyr's comments in context? Yeah you might check on all the other "church father" quotes the WTBS misuses to push their doctrine. The WTBS book called "Should you Believe in the Trinity" is full of lovely misquites that they hide behind the famous elipse (...). When we allow the whole counsel of God to speak, along with the church fathers, and the mass majority of greek scholars, we see that the Scriptures are replete with Jesus = YHWH. So mush so that one would have to change Scripture to deny it. Oh wait.... I will proclaim the name of the LORD.(YHWH) Oh, praise the greatness of our God! He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. (Deut. 32:3,4) The YHWH is my rock, my fortress, and my deliverer; My GOD, my rock, in whom I take refuge; My shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower. YHWH speaking: And you are My witnesses Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.'" So how is it that your god didn't know about Jesus? Paul says that Jesus is the rock. They [the Israelites] were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. (1 Cor 10:2-4) Who was the rock in the OT? YHWH or Jesus? Someone is wrong. Either Paul is wrong or YHWH was wrong in the OT for claiming He was and knew of no other. Because the WTBS certainly can't be wrong, right? Of course since YHWH is Jesus this is in perfect harmony with the WHOLE counsel of Scripture. YHWH The YHWH Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread, and he will be a sanctuary; but for both houses of Israel He will be a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall. And for the people of Jerusalem he will be a trap and a snare Jesus: Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone,” and, “A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for See the issue is that I believe that the WHOLE counsel of God should be considered (as do most who aren't involved in organization worship). Amos 4 poses no problems for trinitarians and we don't have to concoct some story about 2nd/3rd person without any substantiation. We can allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves and trust the Scriptures, leaning not on our own understanding. We don't even have to change Scripture or add to it. The YHWH hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil (Prov. 16:4). But the Apostle Paul wrote the following about Jesus: For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him (Col. 1:16). Who were all things created FOR? If you could answer that question for me that would be great. bear, It is obvious this person is aware of their lack of evidence and their inability to reason since they are unable to post without ad hominem insults. In other words they have no other wya of responding. If he had any way of substantiating his claims he would in a non-insulting manner and silence the critics. He doesn't so he has no choice but to flee the conversation (which is pride apparently forbids) or offer up ad hominemm nonsense. As you rightly state, he has no substantiation for his claims. It is easy to sit back and cry "2nd, 3rd person" with no substantiation when Biblical evidences are given for not making such unwarranted Unitarian assumptions on the Scriptures as JW's do. He obviosly has no answer other than to resort to Ad Hominem insults. Funny that he critiques dialogue, yet fails to answer the questions in his responses. I am baffled at how anyone could trust the WTBS when they have been proven to exercise scholarly deception when quoting church fathers and greek scholars. (Message edited by Grinch on June 22, 2005) (Message edited by Grinch on June 22, 2005) | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 126 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.213.82.228 |
You are wrong when you stated that "Seminaries" were not a part of the early church. Many schools, especially in the Greco-Roman world, were esablished to train people. You had better study your history on that one. Objective history or WTBS re-writing and misrepresentation of such? I think JW's are discouraged from doing independent study. Note: It is interesting that Paul, a Jew, never calls the Father Jehovah in his greetings. I would think that if it were that important, writing to non Jewish nations, he would have made that a priority. And that Paul equates Jesus with OT passages that were addressed to YHWH and cites the OT passage using Kyrios, and then calls Jesus Kyrios. Paul knew exactly what he was doing. | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 127 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.213.82.228 |
10" I sent a plague among you after the manner of Egypt; I slew your young men by the sword along with your captured horses, And I made the stench of your camp rise up in your nostrils; Yet you have not returned to Me," declares the LORD (YHWH). "I (YHWH) overthrew you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, And you were like a firebrand snatched from a blaze; Yet you have not returned to Me," declares the LORD (YHWH). I wanted to add something to the Amos 4:11 passage as this is directly applicable and also shows AGAIN a person distinction. HEre is the Genesis reference that Amos 4:11 speaks of. 24 Then the YHWH rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the YHWH out of heaven, Jehovah here on earth rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah from Jehovah in heaven. (what is this now, some English 4th and 5th person? lol!) In Trinitarian epistemology, this is absolutely harmonious. The second person of the Godhead is always the one that makes physical manifestation while the 1st person (Father) remains in heaven. The 2nd person is seen and heard, the 1st person is not seen or heard. YHWH physically acted as the mediator between Elohyim in heaven and His people on earth just as Jesus mediates between the Godhead and His people as Jesus is the ONLY mediator and always has been. When we see God dealing directly with His people it is via YHWH physically, but when we see God dealing with other nations it is generally via Elohiym in heaven. YHWH was personal to God's people just as Jesus is personal to His people. What makes Jesus the perfect Mediator is that He perfectly represents both parties. He perfectly represents God because He is God, and perfectly represents man because He is man. AMEN to that! More advantages of taking the whole counsel of Scripture rather than trusting in an organization that misquotes scholars and church fathers and adds/changes Scripture to suit their doctrines. (Message edited by Grinch on June 22, 2005) | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 128 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.213.82.228 |
"Listen to Me (Jesus) , O Jacob, even Israel whom I (Jesus) called; I am He (Jesus - John 8:24,58) , I am the first, I am also the last.} (Jesus - Revelation 1:17-18) "Surely My hand founded the earth And My right hand spread out the heavens; (Jesus - Colossians 1:16) When I call to them, they stand together. Assemble, all of you, and listen! Who among them has declared these things? The YHWH loves him; he will carry out His good pleasure on Babylon, And His arm will be against the Chaldeans. (Father) "I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him, I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful. (Jesus) "Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there (Jesus) And now the Lord GOD (Father) has sent Me (Jesus) , and His Spirit." (Holy Spirit). All this and at the same time it is YHWH speaking! The triune implications are inescapable from this text. I absolutely love Isaiah! There is just no Scriptural reason to assume unitarianism. (Message edited by Grinch on June 22, 2005) | ||
| bicpen (bicpen) New member Username: bicpen Post Number: 5 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.103.171.221 |
Bear and Grinch: I wish you both well! I end this debate by quoting the words (to the best of my recollection) used by William F. Buckley when in a debate, found himself in a similar situation, that of going nowhere; ‘I would respond, but I am afraid that the illumination of my mind, might blind you.’ And thus, he ended the debate, which I am sure you will see it the way you want to. It was fun, but now it’s done, to test the waters here. Cheers and best wishes, Don | ||
| marilyn_m (marilyn_m) Member Username: marilyn_m Post Number: 71 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 24.222.57.138 |
bicpen , I so love your style of writing & the distinguished way you express yourself .You are a humble, but intelligent individual. Your choice of scripture was exellent.you did a much better job of getting your point across than I did,many of us on this board can learn from you.I look forward to reading more of your pen work in the future. | ||
| bicpen (bicpen) New member Username: bicpen Post Number: 6 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.103.171.221 |
Bear and Grinch: I wish you both well! I end this debate by quoting the words (to the best of my recollection) used by William F. Buckley when in a debate, found himself in a similar situation, that of going nowhere; ‘I would respond, but I am afraid that the illumination of my mind, might blind you.’ And thus, he ended the debate, which I am sure you will see it the way you want to. It was fun, but now it’s done, to test the waters here. Cheers and best wishes, Don | ||
| marilyn_m (marilyn_m) Member Username: marilyn_m Post Number: 72 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 24.222.57.138 |
bicpen, On your point about YHWH,just thought you would find it interesting to know that the name YHVH or YHWH is written with four consonants only; it is the holy Tetragrammaton, or in Hebrew, Hebrew has no vowels. In ancient times, it didn't even have vowel points. These were added much later, and at that time pronouncing the name was already forbidden for generations. So no one knows how the most ancient name of God was pronounced. The vowel points make it sound like Yehova, and later it was anglicized to Jehovah.If you want biblical evidence that God accepts different versions of his name, the Old Testament uses both Yah and Yahweh to refer to him, and in the New Testament the term Yahweh gets replaced by the Greek term Kurios ("Lord") whenever the Old Testament is being quoted. So if the Bible itself does this,Then I would think that God is accepting of it. | ||
| sharon (sharon) Intermediate Member Username: sharon Post Number: 252 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 142.177.104.47 |
marilyn_m ...Ah then it is right that no one knows his name. Is that what this means. I have to ask and I hope you do not mind . Did you do the door to door. How did you prepare for this, lessons? How long did you do the door to door? I wanted to know about JW and you seem to speak plain english. I assume this comes from teaching. The JWs definately know their bibles, is everyone so prepared as yourself? Did you ever get strumped by a question? What was it? How did you resolve such problems? Thank you. | ||
| yaakov (yaakov) Intermediate Member Username: yaakov Post Number: 425 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 63.148.234.6 |
marilyn_m In ancient times, only the high priest was allowed to pronounce the name and even then could only pronounce it once every 7 years (IIRC). Also, the letters of God’s ineffable name is yud-hay-vav-hay. Like the “Y” in English, the Hebrew Vav can either be a vowel or a consonant. | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 129 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 68.231.47.234 |
Sounds like someone is really full of themselves. God loves prideful people, eh? | ||
| sharon (sharon) Intermediate Member Username: sharon Post Number: 254 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 142.177.7.53 |
yaakov (yaakov...Thank you for your input to this discussion. Could you write it the way it is pronouned or is that asking to much. I would like to know how it is said. I will understand if it is not allowed. Is this his secret name or the name all can use? | ||
| sharon (sharon) Intermediate Member Username: sharon Post Number: 255 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 142.177.7.53 |
grinch (grinch)....I have two ears. | ||
| sharon (sharon) Intermediate Member Username: sharon Post Number: 256 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 142.177.7.53 |
bicpen (bicpen)....Do not leave without a parting gift. You had better wait till the end of the party you may have won the door prize. You would be missed if you go. As Marilyn says some of us on this board can learn from you. | ||
| bear (bear) Member Username: bear Post Number: 68 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 69.51.145.39 |
Marilyn, If bicpen is "distinguished", you have not been out much. He has not proven anything; he has not given any documented proof of his opinion. His scripture quotations did not have any bearing on the point I was trying to make. Bicpen, while sounding intellegentfrom a certain point of view, made an argument without any foundation. I now know why you enjoyed his posts! | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 130 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 68.231.47.234 |
No joke, Bear. A post full of fluff and no content, and interlaced with self-boasting. | ||
| sharon (sharon) Intermediate Member Username: sharon Post Number: 257 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 142.177.11.40 |
Jesus last and one great commandment was to love one another. Ask yourself where is your love? You have driven both bic pen and Marilyn to stop speaking to you. How can you save souls with such nasty and mean spirited words. They have chosen to ignore you and yet you take shots at them instead of changing your ways. I for one wanted to learn something here and you are getting in my way with your bully attitudes. You actually call these posts arguments, this is a discussion. Jesus does not argue with people, he places the truth before them and it is up to them to accept or reject it, there are no arguments. Jesus says follow me. Truth is truth it does not need finger pointing or name calling , it can stand on its own. Grinch you even attacked Yaakov who only gave information on a subject that was asked about, and to say such is to attack his religion, it would have been better to say nothing. You do realize that attacking one of Gods chosen people is probably not a good idea under any circumstances. I should be more careful in the future of your words and to whom you are speaking. Remember nothing that goes into your mouth defiles you but only what comes out of your mouths. Do not let satan lead you to say things here that could cost you the Kingdom . Pride and arrogance belong to satan watch he does not ensnare you with such in this place. He may have a harder time in the real world but this place has the feel of a playground , it is not. Treat people here with the same respect you would in the real world for there is nothing that you write that is not known to your Father. Traps are very easy to miss. This is a rebuke, for I do not want to see such as you fall into such a trap as this, when you are needed now more than ever. It does not matter what others say, only what you say can destoy you. With Love Your Sister In Christ, Sharon. | ||
| yaakov (yaakov) Intermediate Member Username: yaakov Post Number: 426 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 63.148.234.6 |
Hi Sharon Most of Marilyn’s comments were correct, I just added an addendum. Could you write it the way it is pronouned No, I can’t. No one knows how it is pronounced. Even when the pronunciation was known, it was only known to a select few, and only said at specific times. The pronunciation was never known by the general public. And now, no one but God knows. I find the sound “Jehovah” silly because there is no J sound in the Hebrew alphabet. So, phonetically, there is no way that it can be correct. Is this his secret name or the name all can use The name that all can use is God, Lord, All-Merciful, G-d, or HaShem. I have another name for God, that I only use in synagogue, but I am not allowed to type it out. Lastly, though I don’t know who Grinch was speaking to, it wasn’t to me. It didn’t relate in any way that I could determine. | ||
| yaakov (yaakov) Intermediate Member Username: yaakov Post Number: 427 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 63.148.234.6 |
Hi Sharon Most of Marilyn’s comments were correct, I just added an addendum. Could you write it the way it is pronouned No, I can’t. No one knows how it is pronounced. Even when the pronunciation was known, it was only known to a select few, and only said at specific times. The pronunciation was never known by the general public. And now, no one but God knows. I find the sound “Jehovah” silly because there is no J sound in the Hebrew alphabet. So, phonetically, there is no way that it can be correct. Is this his secret name or the name all can use The name that all can use is God, Lord, All-Merciful, G-d, or HaShem. I have another name for God, that I only use in synagogue, but I am not allowed to type it out. Lastly, though I don’t know who Grinch was speaking to, it wasn’t to me. It didn’t relate in any way that I could determine. | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 131 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 68.231.47.234 |
Ask yourself where is your love? You have driven both bic pen and Marilyn to stop speaking to you. How can you save souls with such nasty and mean spirited words. Jesus drove many away including some disciples when He spoke the truth. If Jesus said the world would hate us, why would we judge the truthfulness of our message on how it is received? The truthfulness of our message is based on our faithfulness to the word of God, not it's reception. The nastiest mean spirited words were those spoken by bic. Don't confuse your biased agreement with bic with who was the most insulting. | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 132 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 68.231.47.234 |
Grinch you even attacked Yaakov who only gave information on a subject that was asked about, and to say such is to attack his religion, it would have been better to say nothing. I attack all false religions, and have no problem doing so. Jesus was not complimentary at all with false religions. | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 133 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 68.231.47.234 |
You do realize that attacking one of Gods chosen people is probably not a good idea under any circumstances. God's chosen people? I let the Scriptures define who is chosen. | ||
| bear (bear) Member Username: bear Post Number: 69 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 205.144.127.200 |
Sharon, Bicpen was the one you should be speaking to. Have you actually read any of his post on the other JW Threads? He is not the kind, gentle victim that you think he is. Also, re-read his first post to me, and then use some critical thinking. If bicpen is not emotionally strong enough to handle what was said, then two things are true: 1. He should not have dished it out. 2. He should put a post on this thread. Sharon, I think you can learn some things anyway. Bicpen used scriptures, yet there is no substance. I do not have any doubt that he loves Jesus, and serves him well. But, sad to say, he never proved anything. Do not confuse love with pampering. Grinch's post above dealt with this issue, so I will not comment. Read the scriptures! (Message edited by bear on June 23, 2005) | ||
| marilyn_m (marilyn_m) Member Username: marilyn_m Post Number: 73 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 24.222.57.138 |
Sharon, thank you for your comments, you are right , you can get more bee's with honey. My purpose on this board is not to hurt people only to speak from my own experiences as a former witness. I am not trying to proof that I know more than anyone else because Jesus said it best in Matthew 18 :3" And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." I am not here to argue with anyone that is a waste of time Matthew 10 : " 14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." If people think they already know everything there is no use in wasting time on them, they may not be pure of heart & if that is so then God will know that, it is not up to me to waste my time on them when there are others that want to listen, learn & teach. I am here to speak to those who want to listen with an open heart & I am here also to learn from those that have teaching qualities that are like those of Jesus.He spoke the truth but he did it with out arrogance. If someone like yourself could understand my answer to bear's question than that show that you have opened your heart to let the truth in.If anyone on this board is :hated" it is not from speaking God's word it is from their arrogance. I was taught as a witness to "season" what I said so as to not come across as arrogant or RUDE . If we turn away people because they do not want to know God's word that is one thing but to do it because our teaching methods are not polished that would to me be a great sin, and In answer to your other questions, yes I did go door to door for 10 years.I raised my children in jw religion.I spent a lot of time with the older folks in my congregation so I could learn from them.yes I have been stumped on questions before & I would do my research & return to answer the question at a latter date. | ||
| bear (bear) Member Username: bear Post Number: 71 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.161.239.21 |
Marilyn, I apologize if I have offended you. Neither I nor anyone else on this thread ever claimed to KNOW IT ALL. These type of websites are designed for debate. It is clear that the proverbial kitchen is too hot for some. The posts I have wrote were meant for constructive debate, like our dialoge on another thread. Bicpen's posts were the only ones that I see which were not done in love, as Sharon and yourself like to state. A person needs to know "why" they believe; they have to be able to be an apologist. I am a critical thinker, and I love the Lord Jesus with all of my heart. I study and research in order to do a better job serving him. I have pastored for many years, and also taught college level bible and theology classes. No, I do not know it all, but I do know a lot. I could use a lot of terminology that would, I am sure, be over your head. However, I choose to keep my sentences simple. I am not ashamed of my education. I too was once a JW as a child. I have spent many years researching WTBS doctrines, and have realized the falsehood in most of them. Because I was a JW I agree with you about the way you are taught. I also know that the average JW can not defend their position outside of WTBS publications and teaching. While I do not know it all, I am confident that I am sharing this information in love. However, like Jesus and like Paul, I will not stay silent when a false teaching is being promoted. Remember, Jesus showed "tough love" to the religious leaders of his day. Read it! He was not fluffy puffy. Paul addresses issues with authority. I am sure that many people were offended and said "That Paul, he thinks that he is so smart. Wow, he is not walking in love". Please, as I told bipen, do not confuse my "confidence" with arrogance. If you read my post that bicpen commented on, and then read his post following, all the way to the end of our debate, you may be amazed. He never addressed the issue. In fact I agreed with him on many things, yet he did not give any proof, other than his opinion, about the name YHWH being in the original Greek Text. That WAS the issue I raised. Even grinch, who is great a documenting authoritative sources, was blasted by bicpen without, and I hate using this word again, any foundation. I implore you to do a word study of the word "love" in the NT. The two grek words used for love are Phileo and Agape, plus all of their derivatives. You will be amazed at the ways the love, especially Agape, are used. | ||
| sharon (sharon) Intermediate Member Username: sharon Post Number: 258 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 142.177.82.96 |
Yaakov (yaakov..thank you, I have always wondered about the Jehovah for I have felt no compulsion to call him that. I have called him Father or God since I was born again. Not because he said so but because I felt like a child and he spoke to me as a Father. I am one of the blessed ones who was saved by love and not by the many other ways your Father has of saving people. I did not understand that for many years, that those saved in a different manner were not the same as those saved with love. I hear that there are many mansions in your Fathers house. I am counting on this, I have always felt since I was born again that the Jewish people were like our big brother, that you are an example of what God wants his people to be. I am glad that we were given Jesus for it is the easy path, for he says follow me and that is that. Or at least it should be, but as you can see that is not exactly working out for us that way it was meant to. I want you to know that this is not false praise when I say you are very much a good example of Gods love, still shining a light on the road for others to follow. I appreciate that more than you know, I have learned from the things you have told others. I read all you write, and while we are different we are the same as we have the same Father, and as you know anytime you get a baby sister it is both a blessing and a pain. Christians may not like to be called little sister but I feel like we are just that, and big brother is seeing just how spoiled and selfish we can be. I know we differ on the whole Jesus thing but I will tell you I did not believe in Jesus when I was saved, and do not know if I ever would have had he not spoken to me. I already had a relationship with my Father, and felt very loved but then Jesus spoke to me and that changed my mind on his existence. Since I did not believe until I had proof I do not expect others to, and do not fear that they do not as I had my Fathers love before I knew of Christ. Many say that this is not possible that I could not be saved without Jesus, but I was so I know it is possible. I do not know why this is or how this is I just know that it is. I know it does not fit in scripture but that does not matter to me for truth is truth. Thank you for your patience with all my questions over the boards, and if you see me in error please correct me as I do not want to continue to make mistakes that I can have fixed. I will not take offence, to your correction. Thought I should add this, Bee rebuked me a couple of weeks ago. She came to visit me, and while here she corrected my potty mouth. I had removed many things from my life and thought I had removed bad language. But to my surprise she rebuke my language and rightly so. I was saying holy cow, holy mackrel , holy smokes, and many more holys. I had never heard how this sounds and once she pointed it out I was shocked at how intrenched it was in my language. I am shamed to think of all the places I was that I offended people with my potty mouth, and them knowing I was a Christian. Bad publicity, so I was happy she stopped me from this behavior. That is real love, and I thank God for that. Funny Bee and I meeting Eh? We do not even live in the same country. Love is powerful. | ||
| sharon (sharon) Intermediate Member Username: sharon Post Number: 259 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 142.177.82.96 |
marilyn_m ...I have just written to Yaakov and in my message I said that it says in the bible that you can not be saved if you do not know Jesus. But I just went back and was rereading this board and Bic stated that you can not see the kingdom of Heaven with out Christ. It does not say you can not be saved. Since you have studied the Bible and taught for ten years is this so. For that makes all the difference in the world. For if Jesus comes to all at the end then all the saved will reach the kingdom of heaven. Yah hoo, this is my wish and in my heart I always knew it was true. That is why he is taking them from all the churches. Not one or some but all. That is why I did not worry over those who do not know him for all will meet him at the end. Can you tell me that Christ says you can not be saved without him or just not see the kingdom of heaven. For I know all will see him at the end, so all will reach the kingdom of heaven who love God and do his work.Thank you . | ||
| sharon (sharon) Intermediate Member Username: sharon Post Number: 260 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 142.177.82.96 |
grinch (grinch)...Jesus was a Jewish, Noah was Jewish, Lot was Jewish, Paul was Jewish, Mary the Mother of God was Jewish, I think he already has told us who are his chosen people. Do not let pride blind you to the facts. Many have tried to twist them to find a different outcome and are overcome with hate because of their pride. You only have to listen to nazis to hear the pride of those who hold such hate, do not be one of them. Their Father has put great trials upon his chosed people but he loves them as his children and those who stand against them will be punished just as he promises. As you know God keeps his promises. God also tells us that we should rejoice when trials are put upon us as it shows his love for us. Look at the Jewish people and see how he loves them and they love him, do you not see that this is making them the stronger. I for one am born again and I would not say nor do anything to harm even one hair on the heads of his chosen people by word or deed, I would rather die where I stand then raise my hand against one of these whom he loves so much. And even if you did not know this you know that Jesus told you the most important thing is to love one another. Jesus also says you are either for me or against me, and remember he was a Jewish. | ||
| marilyn_m (marilyn_m) Member Username: marilyn_m Post Number: 77 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 24.222.57.138 |
Sharon, YOU GO GIRL,It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that the Bible clearly states that the jews were God's chosen people but I guess some people just need it spelled out for them .In answer to your question: as I stated earlier, in Rev he says let he who has an ear hear, let him hear what the spirit says unto the CHURCHES. Therefore he must be speaking to all the religions for he promises to those that overcome will eat from the tree of life. Romans 6:23 says" For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."everyone will be given the chance to be saved but not all will take it. Jesus said "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." and we must always remember that God can read the heart, remember the story of Rahab " By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace." Even though she did not live a good life, in the end because of her faith she was saved, so that is why it is important for us to not judge others, in the end any thing can happen because God is in control. I never make the mistake of saying who is saved & who is not. That is up to God. I hope I have been useful in answering your question. | ||
| marilyn_m (marilyn_m) Member Username: marilyn_m Post Number: 78 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 24.222.57.138 |
Sharon,I found some other scriptures that may help answer your question: John3:17 7 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: you may also want to read the book of Matt. chapter 19 Romans 10: 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 1st Timothy 2:4 says :4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; I gather by your statement that you feel you were saved before knowing Christ, is that correct? The scriptures say with God all things are possible so maybe that was the case ,that is not for me to determine but the scriptures clearly show that in the end it comes down to our faith in Christ just as it did with Rahab.If you belive in God ( as I know you do) then you must believe in his son.I came to know God througt Christ, maybe you came to know Christ through God ,but what is important is that you know him (Christ)now & have faith in him. Have I been of any help to you? | ||
| yaakov (yaakov) Intermediate Member Username: yaakov Post Number: 432 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 63.148.234.6 |
Sharon You are correct that there are many rooms in God’s mansion. There are enough for everybody on Earth. Just think, someday you will be down the hall from me. You are also correct that you have the easy path. Non-Jews just have the seven Noahide Laws to follow, while Jews have 613 Laws to follow. I’m a little unclear about your meaning of the term “chosen people”. People interpret that phrase differently. According to the Tanakh, it just means that Jews are a nation of priests. We are supposed to show other people how to live life according to God’s Laws, by following God’s Laws during our lives. However, it doesn’t mean that we are better than anyone else nor does it mean that we are the only people going to Heaven. Everyone is going to Heaven eventually. Isn’t it nice to speak with God? No matter what you call Him, He’ll understand what you mean. My rabbi says the form of prayer is much less important than simply making a prayer. The more prayer we make, the easier it becomes to do. Oy, all the compliments. You are making my head swell (lol). Thank you. I know we differ on the whole Jesus thing but I will tell you I did not believe in Jesus when I was saved, and do not know if I ever would have had he not spoken to me. I already had a relationship with my Father, and felt very loved but then Jesus spoke to me and that changed my mind on his existence. Nevermind the middle man, go straight to the source. BTW, the “jesus thing” is just a minor difference between our two religions. The biggest difference is the treatment and definition of sin. Since I did not believe until I had proof I do not expect others to, and do not fear that they do not as I had my Fathers love before I knew of Christ. I don’t understand this. You already had a relationship with God, so why were you looking for proof? Were you in a discussion with atheists trying to prove the existence of God? Funny Bee and I meeting Eh? It can happen. I met a person from a post. Turns out she lives in my city and was looking for a new synagogue. I introduced her to mine, but she ended up joining the Orthodox one instead. Jesus was a Jewish, Noah was Jewish, Lot was Jewish, Paul was Jewish, Mary the Mother of God was Jewish Noah was not Jewish. He was the most righteous man of his generation, but he lived before Abraham. Also, it is unclear if Paul was Jewish. If he was Jewish, then he was an uneducated Jew. Shalom Sharon | ||
| sharon (sharon) Intermediate Member Username: sharon Post Number: 262 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 142.177.6.33 |
yaakov (yaakov)...Again thank you for you answer, I did not go looking for proof of Christ for I did not believe but he came to me any way. Then I had proof, something us Christians desire. I understand it is not like that for others. Again many mansions. Was not Paul the old Saul, I did not know that he was not Jewish. Since he refered to the Bible at the time when there was no NT I just assumed he was Jewish. I get the Noah not Jewish, I would have known that if I had of thought harder. I think that chosen means as you have said, to show how one is to live, an example of what we are supposed to be. I am not envious of your being chosen. That is a life time commitment. Christians are not born into Christ, you can be born to Christians but you must find your own way, it is not a heritage. OK I am a tiny bit envious, but I do not think I could walk the walk. An uneducated Jew I did not know that there was any of those. I think I am a chosen person but not part of a chosen people. Even in this I could be wrong. THank You for you answer. | ||
| sharon (sharon) Intermediate Member Username: sharon Post Number: 263 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 142.177.6.33 |
Marilyn, thank you so much, yes I was saved by God and had no knowledge of Christ, I am only now after twenty five years really wondering how this is so. Now I see that entering the Kingdom is not the same as saved, and I like that alot. I do not believe that there are many who will not be saved in the end, but did not know how this would happen. Now I do. I know because of who I was it would only be fair if every one had the same chance I did to be totally disrespectful to God and still be forgiven. I do not recommend this as that path is quite horrible but it is the one I chose. I do know that it is the one to make you love your fellow man and want all to receive the same chance as you got. I am surprised that you do not find my being saved without Christ not a shocking issue for many do, but I can not change what is the truth. Not can I speak what is not so, so when I am asked I tell that I did not know Christ when I was saved. I wanted to ask you , did you use the watchtower to teach, I know that the Mormons use the Book of Mormon . Just wondering. I thank you for your answer and it does clear up a few things for me. I also like that you feel also the same way, that in God all things are possible for to me it has already happened. I think that you would make a good teacher even out of the church, may God Bless you. | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 134 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 68.231.47.234 |
grinch (grinch)...Jesus was a Jewish, Noah was Jewish, Lot was Jewish, Paul was Jewish, Mary the Mother of God was Jewish, I think he already has told us who are his chosen people. Do not let pride blind you to the facts. I'll let the Scriptures explain who are the chosen. Not all Israel is Israel. God can make elect from rocks. | ||
| sharon (sharon) Intermediate Member Username: sharon Post Number: 264 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 142.177.109.108 |
grinch (grinch..Very true, he can do whatever he wishes. I am now hoping it is true that I have rocks in my head. | ||
| bear (bear) Member Username: bear Post Number: 79 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.165.239.32 |
Sharon, Paul was a Jew. He was born in the Roman Province of Tarsus, but of Jewish heritage. He was a Pharisee, and a highly educated individual. (this is one of those times when understanding the bible and history comes in handy) Sharon, Paul changed his name from Saul. He did this because he realized that his ministry was to non-Jewish nations. It is wriiten in black and white in the NT. Sharon, you seem like a sweet lady who loves the Lord and is eager to learn. From your posts above, it is eveident that you have an elementery understanding of certain biblical facts. I mean that as constructive, so please do not get offended. I want to suggest reading some good books on early church history, beginning with the apostolic era. By doing this you will not only understand the life of Paul, but you will also have a chance to study what the early church fathers believed (you will understand that the answers given by grinch are true). A good book on the canonization of the Greek scriptures will also be great. (Message edited by bear on June 26, 2005) | ||
| marilyn_m (marilyn_m) Member Username: marilyn_m Post Number: 81 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 24.222.57.138 |
Sharon, I am so glad that God has helped me to help you.I feel blessed by him every time he allows me to speak of him to others, for the jw's informed me that I was not to teach Gods word ever again outside of their religion. In answer to your question on the watchtower. No I never used the WT to teach ( or at least to best of my memory) when I was very young I studied with the mormons & I left them because the chose their book of mormon over the Bible. I feel if you are going to teach the Bible then that is the book you need to use to teach. example: would you use a science book to teach math? Even though jw's claim that the wt is Bible based I prefer to go straight to the source. | ||
| bicpen (bicpen) New member Username: bicpen Post Number: 7 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.103.171.221 |
Marilyn_m and Sharon: (With comments to my loving buds) I just returned from a short holiday with the family. Thank you both for your kind words as I too, can learn from you! As to the others on this board, it seems you all have a lot of time on your hands. Oh Pooh; I just saw you this weekend! You looked good. By the way, "Jesus" was not called "Jesus", when on earth, as our language was not around yet, but since I did not footnote every word and line in this or my previous sentence that makes this statement, I guess it must be a lie! So then let me ask you, 'What was Jesus called and how was it pronounced then, when he was on earth? Before you open your mouth, you will note, in your research that reputable sources vary, in their spelling and pronunciation, and meaning, so which one is it exactly? Come on, since I fail so badly, show me; I need the help. Grinch: What can one say to one so stingy! You place people on egg shells so that no matter where they walk it will crack! Having a discussion like this is one sided, as you play the judge and jury role quite well. You are wrapped so tightly inside certain beliefs that if Christ himself came down and spoke to you, you would argue with him! Your trinity doctrine owns your very soul, and without it, you cannot think on the English alphabet passed the letter C. God our Father, whose name is an issue here, (and I am sure you all have names, your fathers, mothers, even for your pets) does not deserve being called by it---interesting? Gentlemen, God made humans to live on the earth not in Heaven. He already had angels prior to making the earth and humans; I don’t know but maybe, just maybe, these many angels were present when he was making the earth (or instead playing a ball game or something somewhere else---forgive the sarcasm in advance) and so therefore the remarks he made about making man in our image maybe, just maybe was said to them or a certain one of them etc.…but I don’t know! Man was to live on earth forever, (we know this because there is no mention of death or of life ending some time in the future) then something happened, that temporarily changed this. Bottom line: If God does not make his original purpose happen, then it is clear, that he changed his mind with his purpose on the earth and or he made a mistake! That is not possible with My God, (but maybe yours). God will one day, make right what was lost, as he never makes mistakes nor can his purpose fail! (It is humans that make plans and have to change them, while God purposes things and it always happens no matter what). To make things right, God promised the sending of a seed, messiah, to make things right. By the way, Abraham and Lot were Orientals [look up the meaning] (Jews came from Abraham but only later through grandsons and name changes etc.), and this is clearly stated in the bible so don’t get your underwear in a tizzy!!! He never promised to send himself, like he was unable to figure things out or that he had to do it himself; again, this is a human trait! Why? He did not need to do so, nor would he, as he has family, angelic beings that existed for eons of years that he could choose from etc. Believe it or not, one did, and he came to be known as Emanuel and Jesus Christ! Now, Jesus never minced words so please take a careful look (and I will quote the whole section of scripture here but not the entire text-chapter as YOU ARE FREE TO READ IT YOURSELF) as this would take too much time. Now, should you like, please turn in your bibles to John 10: verses 31-39, and pick up a confrontation the Jews had with Jesus, which my buds may find to be of interest; “31 Once more the Jews lifted up stones to stone him. 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to YOU many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are YOU stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, 36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me. 38 But if I am doing them, even though YOU do not believe me, believe the works, in order that YOU may come to know and may continue knowing that the Father is in union with me and I am in union with the Father.” 39 Therefore they tried again to seize him; but he got out of their reach.” (Let's not fight about translation as the point discussed is the same regardless of which one you choose to use). Now, I know this is not over your heads, and that your kind hearts would not mind my comments here. Note here, in simple English, that in this passage, Jesus is about to be stoned, for claiming to be “God’s Son”, not God! The claim to be “God’s Son” was considered blasphemy, (let alone saying he was “God”) because in effect it made Jesus a “God.” Jesus artfully explains by quoting the Psalms that the leaders among the sons of Israel were in effect God. (Why this is stated that way in the Psalms is another subject). Now, Jesus clearly shows that he is making a lesser claim, that of being the Son of God, therefore, if the Jews were going to kill someone for blasphemy, they should start with themselves, as his claim was as God’s Son was less than they were, as they were God(s)! Now, if Jesus was God, you can be sure as he was in this and other contexts, more than brave enough to say it! He was as he stated so many, many times, the Son of God, or God’s Son! (He could have easily stated it the other way around, ‘I am God the Son’---[a rather dyslexic term] and we are three in one-yada, yada, yada…..But he didn’t!) So many books in the bible speak of the “Son of Man” gaining access, standing close, and or at the right hand of God. Daniel 9:13 bears this out and so does the account of the stoning of Stephen, (Note: This is soon after Jesus ascended into heaven) where it says in Acts 7:55, 56 (I am only quoting parts but you can look it up for yourself) that Stephen, caught sight of “…God’s Glory and of Jesus STANDING AT GOD’S RIGHT HAND” and in verse 56, it says again, when Stephens beholds the Heavens opened up, “…and the Son of man STANDING AT GOD’S RIGHT HAND.” Notice the separateness of this in any language you want! Now, there are many other scriptures, like 1 Corinthians 11:3, “…the Head of Christ is God.” And 1 Corinthians 15: 28, wherein it states, that after a certain time, “….then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.” Fact is, that it is clear and simple to see, know and understand that God and Jesus are not the same but are a beloved Family with others in Heaven. We as humans, are made in his image, we have fathers and sons, and so on. Our sons, often speak for us as us, in many matters of life, whether in business etc. Now the further fact is, that to believe in the trinity, is to believe in a doctrine-subject matter that creates controversy, contradiction, comes with trouble, and mystery to accept, as the above scriptures do not, nor will they go away, nor are they “invalidated” by any artfully contrived commentary-rebuttal that you can concoct! All that will show, is that the bible contradicts, but you can win your argument (In your own mind) to keep your beliefs. So, I end this little ditty for my buds, by quoting the words of Stephen, who saw Jesus at God’s right hand, when he stated just before this in Acts 7:51, 51 “Obstinate men and uncircumcised in hearts and ears, YOU are always resisting the holy spirit; as YOUR forefathers did, so YOU do. 52 Which one of the prophets did YOUR forefathers not persecute? Yes, they killed those who made announcement in advance concerning the coming of the righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers YOU have now become, 53 YOU who received the Law as transmitted by angels but have not kept it.” They became Jesus betrayers and murderers by denying the truth about God and Jesus and perverted these truths into what they wanted to hear, for their own separate and agendas! Hey this must apply to someone, and someone has to fit the bill, which could be I as well as you. A closed heart and mind is truly a waste!!! Cheers, Don P.S. Marilyn and Sharon should you wish to speak with me, please feel free to do so at: contactca@37.com I would like to know more about Marilyn's situation. And Sharon, no gift bag is neccesary; that was cute! | ||
| steelsword (steelsword) Intermediate Member Username: steelsword Post Number: 143 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 207.192.2.34 |
i THINK BICPEN FORGOT VERSE 30. " I and My Father are One. Also verse 33 says because you makest thyself God. Not (A) GOD. Jesus also said if you have seen Me You have seen the Father. You don't understand "son of God" by position. Jesus being made Fully God and Fully Flesh took on Lower position by walking on this earth. He was the son by virtue of position only. The other problem is they are not three in One Godly purpose, but one God in three persons , The word here is Homousius= Father , Son , Holy Spirit are the same substance & same nature  NE GOD. John 1:1 Theo en ho Logos (And the WORD was GOD! Don't give us no NWT translation because we already know who they tried to pass off as greek scholars, & neither of them were scholars,several only had high school educations. | ||
| bear (bear) Member Username: bear Post Number: 81 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.161.239.180 |
Marilyn and Sharon, You were saying, concerning bicpens non-blasting comments...? Bicpen, I do not believe the trinity was ever an issue. Also, I am well aware of the original spelling and pron. of Jesus' name. I also know that it was the Jewish word, for our English, Joshua. What is your point, Don? The only mind closed is yours. You have yet to prove your position. Sarcasm and unrelated topics will not do. Help me here, Don. What is your background, and what are doing currently? I am asking from an honestly curious state of mind. | ||
| bear (bear) Member Username: bear Post Number: 82 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.161.239.180 |
Let us move on. Let's discuss the simple issue of the cross. Now, it is a historical fact that the use of the cross as a religious symbol was brought into the church through the Pagans. After their entrance, void of true converstion, they were allowed to retain their religious symbols. (Vines) That, however, does not negate the fact from authentic historical documentation, that the Romans used a cross; usually a capital T. The Greek word "Stauros" means an upright pole or stake. This is the word used in the NT. The Romans used the word "Crux" to describe the device. As you may know, the Romans spoke Latin as an everyday language. Why? Well, the upright pole was always in the ground. The victim would have the cross beam strapped across their shoulders, and carry it to where the stauros was already in place. The cross beam was then fixed to the top of the stake, and a small sign, attatched to a stick, was placed above the victims head. The sign stated the victims crimes. The original readers understood that when the word stauros was used, that it was a cross. Many items, in various languages, are called by a name where one part of that item contains the actual word used. In antiquity, some cultures used an upright stake to impale. Most did not. The Romans were a culture which borrowed the customs of the nations they defeated; Crucifixion was one such custom. Again, historical documentation, Jewish, Christian, and secular, all attest to the Roman use of a capital T cross. In the WTBS publication "Reasoning From the Scriptures", several pages, in the section dealing with the cross, speak about the word stauros and its placement in the Greek text. Interestingly, all of the documented sources are correct, but fail to prove anything other than the placement of stauros, and how it is defined. When anyone study's the scriptures seriously, other than in a devotion, the use of lower and higher crticism is essential. The WTBS has proven, from their publications, that higher critisicm is not important for this topic. My question: How can the society contunue to claim that Jesus was impaled on an upright post, when authentic historians, such as Josephus, document the use of a cross Any thoughts? | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 135 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.213.82.228 |
What bicpen did was what many JW's do in that they confuse the role of Jesus Christ (subordinate to the Father) with the nature of Jesus Christ (equal with the Father as theou). They do this by taking out of context, passages dealing with Jesus role and then force a definition of His nature on them. More often than not they do this by ignoring the context of the passage in favor of selective word definitions. A good example of selective word definitions is found in John 1. Against all Greek scholarly evidence the JW embraces a translation that is in conflict with the Scriptures and then defines Jesus as "a god' in the same sense as men and angels were called "gods" in the OT. But by doing this, they ignore the context and do not allow John to define his own meaning on the term. Did John mean to call Jesus "a god" as men and angels were called gods (figuratively) in the OT? Very doubtful since John not one verse after calling Jesus God attributes creation to Him! Any knowledgeable Jew knew who was responsible for creation alone. John being a Jew also knew quite well who alone was the creator of all things. It is obvious from the context that John had an intended meaning when he called Jesus God. Also worthy of note is the fact that Jesus existed continually in the 'morphe theou' according to Phillipians. And not only in the 'morphe theou' but as "equal" to God. As I clearly demonstrated from the OT citations from Isaiah, Jesus is YHWH just as much as the Father is YHWH. Paul specifically said the rock in the OT (known as YHWH) was actually Jesus. Which falls perfectly and harmoniously with the Isaiah passages I cited above. One needs to be very careful reading passages that are expressing Jesus subordinate role after humbling Himself and taking on the form of a bondservant with His human nature. A nature which is two-fold. He is by nature God, and He is by nature man. Hence the perfect Mediator between God and men as He perfectly represents both. The Jews themselves sought to kill Jesus because he ‘claimed’ to be God, not a mere messenger [John 5:18, John 10]. Rather than clearing up what they perceived about Jesus claims (had it been wrong), John did no such thing. Why should he? He already confirmed that Jesus was God from the beginning, and that He (Jesus) is the maker of ALL things. This statement of John’s in verse 1 and 2, set the tone for how the rest of John should be understood. The ‘monogeneis’ language of John 1:18 only makes sense in light of the affirmation in John 1:1-2 that Jesus is the Word who is God. In the context of the above cited [John 5:18], John could have (as he has in other places) declared that the Jews were mistaken with their accusing Jesus of claiming to be equal with God. He made no indication that they were wrong in their assertion at all. Again, John himself asserts that not only did Jesus make himself out to be God, but also from the very beginning he ‘was God’. Had Biblical Judaism allowed for the existence of more than one god in the sense that Jehovah's Witnesses attribute to Jesus Christ, Jesus claims would have never been an issue for them. They simply would have understood him as a archetype of the one true God, certainly not worthy of stoning. (Supposing of course, that the JW assertion is true in that Biblical monotheistic Judaism allowed for more than one god). But it was Jesus’ actions and claims of his own nature that enraged them. This is what draws the distinction between Biblical monotheism, and the Unitarian henotheism the Watchtower Org tries to masquerade as monotheism. The mere context of John 10 lays out Jesus claims prior to them accusing him of claiming to be God and it is all built around his attributing the divine nature to himself. So again, the issue of Biblical monotheism is the nature, and an ontological issue at the core. This is why the JW errors in trying to use passages about Jesus role as some decription of His nature. A thorough study of the Scriptures demonstrates that the nature of Jesus declares him as equal with God, and as One with God. There in lies the distinction between the use of the term gods in both OT and NT and John's specific use of calling Jesus God and then attributing creation to Him. "But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods". - Galatians 4:8 The issue is the nature of the being. Thus it is not so now (that we serve a god who is not by nature a god); we serve the Lord Jesus Christ, who by nature is God. Men, angels, demons, etc do not have the same nature as God as most JW's would concur. So, in the case of Moses, angels, judges, men, etc…by nature they are false gods and/or figurative gods as there is no one like the true ‘Elohiym’. [1 John 5:20, 1 Thess. 1:9, Jer. 10:10, 2 Chron. 15:3] JW's ignore the very context of John 1, in order to attribute to Jesus a nature which is not defined by the context; this coming from a preconception of Unitarianism and henotheism. John 1 describes Jesus’ nature, and that context demands that John is not calling Jesus ‘a god’ in the sense JW's wrongly apply by use of ‘elohiym’ in the OT. The context of John is that Jesus is the creator of all things and that nothing was made that was made apart from Him. An appeal to Colossians demonstrates that not only were ALL things made by Jesus, but ALL things were made FOR Jesus. Noting too the passages proclaiming, that ALL the fullness of deity dwelt in him in bodily form [Col. 2:9], and He (Jesus) existed in the very form of God [Phil. 2], and was called God [John 10:33,20:28] and worshipped [Hebrews 1:6, John 5:23]. All this of course harmoniously fitting with the Isaiah passages I previously cited which demonstrate that Jesus is YHWH. True Christians believe in the whole counsel of Scripture. Amazingly the JW also believes Jesus is an archangel! Considering that angels are created servants for God; it would be nonsensical to suggest that Jesus was an angel/servant, then humbled himself and became a servant [Phil 2] Of course this belief by the JW is built on the WTBS misquoting and misrepresenting Justin Martyr which is why I mentioned it before. Martyr's Angel Christology was based on Isaiah 9 and an attempt by Martyr to prove that Jesus is God. Too bad so few JW are willing to obey Acts 17:10-11 and 1 Thess 5:21 when dealing with the doctrines the WTBS pushes. If they would only objectively examine the evidence they would see that the WTBS is practicing scholarly deception by misquoting and misrepresenting church fathers and greek scholars. Having said all this however I do recognize that no one can call Jesus Lord but by the Holy Spirit. Therefore we simply need to pray that the Holy Spirit would convict the hearts of the JW and open their eyes from being blinded by Satan. That is all for now. (Message edited by Grinch on June 28, 2005) | ||
| bicpen (bicpen) New member Username: bicpen Post Number: 9 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.103.171.221 |
Woe Boys: Don’t get your undies in a Tizzy! You guys truly, are wound too tight! You folks throw so many stones, that it takes time to clean them up, so here goes! Steelsword: Nice to meet you too! You will note I stated “(and I will quote part of the scripture here but not the entire text-chapter as YOU ARE FREE TO READ IT YOURSELF)” these words, “Now the further fact is, that to believe in the trinity, is to believe in a doctrine-subject matter that creates controversy, contradiction, comes with trouble, and mystery to accept, as the above scriptures do not, nor will they go away, nor are they “invalidated” by any artfully contrived commentary-rebuttal that you can concoct! All that will show, is that the bible contradicts, but you can win your argument (In your own mind) to keep your beliefs.” This is a simple truth, you cannot believe in the trinity and not find scriptures that contradict it, thereby making it problematic. Some things to keep in mind; Some reputable people and theologians state that the God of the Old Testament is monotheistic (while others disagree) and the God of the New Testament, is polytheistic (and some disagree). The scriptures I quoted in 1 Corinthians 112:3, about Jesus, was written when Jesus was already in heaven becoming part of the “God Head” or “God” again according to you and many others, and so was the account about Stephen. The one in Daniel was written before Jesus came to earth, showing the same thing. This will not go away because of your beliefs. The account in John remains the same, and their being one (with them God and Jesus being separate distinct persons) is not a contradiction but a compliment, and simply makes sense. My favorite to remember, is the trinity itself as a word is not taught in the bible and according to “many” if not most theologians, was a doctrine that was not taught by the early Christians. It has been around for centuries in believed in, by coincidence, I suppose, by many pagans. But again, remember that for every source you find that says otherwise, I can find one that will say something differently. As to your pointing to John 1:1 you should really look at any Greek text and quote the whole verse though in response I will do it off the top of my head, partly in English partly in Greek here; In the beginning was Ho (THE) Logos (WORD), and Ho Logos was with Ton (THE) Theon (GOD), and Ho Logos was Theos (God). There is a distinct difference between the “THE” before Logos and God, or as in Greek, “TON THEON” and THEOS (GOD) without “THE” before it. That is why, in some translations, not JW’s works, and before JW’s works, that others rendered the end of this verse as “the word was divine”, “the word was the nature of God” and “The word was a God” etc. Why don’t you attack all those versions and translations and the people that believe this, rather than one of many? This goes to show that others, besides JW’s believe this to be true. Call all of the JW’s what you wish; Morons from idiot land; Great: I will agree with you. Now, are you happy? So, what does this have to do with the price of bananas? Meaning, it does not invalidate what I stated above, or anything else the bible teaches, because a believer or believers in God YHWH and his Son Jesus Christ are just that, believers, and yes, not all of God’s children are bright, but God loves them anyway! Bear: Concerning your appeal to the ladies, are you in a popularity contest or something? My comments are meant to be strong, in response to the strong comments you made. This board and some of it’s people (this obviously includes you) have issues with the ‘Good for the Goose Good for the Gander’ in that they only want it to work one way, their way. Oh well! As to the trinity not being an issue, please note, my posting was addressing multi “selective” issues which specifically was aimed at Grinch. The point is: You say you are aware of the original spelling and pronunciation of Jesus; then tell me, was the website I pointed you too, wrong about the several spellings and pronunciations of his name? If there are several then why is it ok to call Jesus, Jesus and not Jehovah, Jehovah? I guess it has to do with the fact that Jesus has been in use for many years and is not ineffable! Goose-Gander, the point is-it is not fair, and that due to unfair prejudice, people do not use God’s personal name Jehovah, which has been in use for centuries (before JW’s came to be) and has allowed for many to confuse the two as one. Bear, if I have not proved anything to you, I never will. There is a lot more than sarcasm and topics in my replies. In fact, if you were to say that to a University Professor teaching a discipline you would get kicked out of the class, (or fail) but you already knew that as a learned man. My mind is not closed, it just knows it’s Father and family real well, as you should know yours. My background is irrelevant. If I told you I was a well known attorney in international transactional law, or a medical physician, would it impress you more than if I were a janitor? I am not interested in what you do for a living, and you should not care about mine, suffice it to say, I do very, very well! I do not know much, but the little I know, I know well! This is why I told you in one of my posts, that one can compare two persons with equal degrees, from the same University to only have each one disagree to the point of calling the other one an idiot, and their sound arguments will abound. This is what we call human wisdom. If you feel better thinking I am a proud working janitor, than think so; or if you wish to feel like something else, think of me as an attorney---since it does not matter, especially here! I will say, my time is very valuable, from a business worldly standpoint and I would quote the hourly rate, but it is off the charts due to a specialty of mine, but again, this is meaningless, though suffice it to say, it is very difficult to take the time to clear away the stones you all throw at me, which I might add, you all take for granted and insult. So be it! Interesting, in your next post you want to move on! People often refer to that as circular psychology, as people tend to hear what they want to hear. So, now you want to speak of crosses. You know, in the real word, when one cannot agree on one point of a whole, one does move onto the next point, as it simply does not work. It is as though if you win one argument, that all else, or the remainder of the whole becomes invalid somehow over this sweet battle victory, which may lead one to lose the war anyway! But for fun; let’s talk cross. You know what I did right; not having the time to really address this the way I would like, I just typed in the word, “stauros” in quotes in Yahoo and I got about 167 Million hits. So I picked out a few and found the following. I think you will like it as it criticizes the JW’s as wrong on many things etc. but and interestingly enough, agrees with the issue of what “stauros” is verses that of “crux”. Please look this up and after reading the lengthy discussion, you may wish to carefully review the bottom, end of the web page, and click onto the references which I trust you will find interesting. Here is the site and please review it, and look up the sites. You may find this to be of interest. (http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/stauros.htm) Point is, JW’s are not the only ones who believe and or know this, so why not attack them all! I guess they are all morons and very badly wrong-but one thing is sure, they are not alone! Ultimately, I find the following to be of interest. You remember the old Dr. Kildare Series (Black and white-oh my, I am revealing my age) as it began with the narrator stating out loud of course, the names of the several symbols shown; life, death, birth, male, female, etc. Now can you tell me what the female symbol is? Now can you tell me what the male symbol is? The female is a straight line, with an arrow at the end, while the male is two lines, at perpendicular angles, one longer than the other, with an arrow. Now the reason why this one with the two intersecting lines represents males, has to do with intersection-intercourse, meaning the second line is a male penis. Now this is true and has been true for many years, years before Christ appeared-period. You will not be able to argue this as it is a FACT. Thus, if you wish to worship and give honor to Christ Jesus on a female with a male erected penis symbol, so be it. I choose not too! Now as to languages making changes. About 150 to 200 hundred years ago, the letter “F” in English was pronounced “S” as it is today! This is also a FACT. Thus, when reading in the bible (or other book of old English) years ago, when you read of a “suckling” child it was written “fuckling child! This is but one minute example how a language goes through usually three, (though sometimes more) changes, that from the ancient, sometimes old (or to old), to classic to modern! Our language alone has changed words spellings and meanings, and in this time to understand a piece of literature say, Shakespeare, you will lose it’s beauty and meaning if not translated in the way it was written, in the words of the day. Knock yourself out, but this is absolute truth, AKA fact! Now onto the Tau. It is well known that impalement was used in the ancient world as a method of torture. Impalement was later replaced by the Romans, over time to crucifixion. Again, due to time’s sake, I entered the word, “impalement” in a yahoo search engine (in quotes) “Science Fair Projects…” First where yahoo took me below: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22Impalement%22&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t-1&fl=0&x=wrt Now, look at the entry below: OR go straight there; http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/Impalement Note: This is not a JW site, and as you get to this page, please read it carefully and then look under “HISTORY” and note the choice, “In Ancient Rome impalement was superceded by crucifixion” and then look at the historic support. This also is fact and history. Bear, please don’t be insulted by this, but you when you quote history, you do so selectively, very much like your replies. Please quote all the history, to show that there is a difference, and where experts agree or disagree or don’t really know etc. This is only fair and a honest report of statements made. Thus the point: is that some reliable experts and historians do not agree with your assertions on this issue. Therefore you are correct in your assertions of Josephus about the use of the word “cross” however, the meaning of what was penned may at the very least be called into question, if you are honest and fair about this matter. As to JW’s did I not say, or rather did I not make some happy already by calling them by a derogatory term so the question again is; What does this have to do with the price of bananas? The point and reply above remains the same! Now onto the Grinch: Grinch, did you not see me discuss twice the matter of JW’s having nothing to do with what I point out as common sense, history, language as well as what I point on the internet. You folks are hell bent on throwing stones. Again, what does this have to do with the price of bananas? The points and issues above remain the same. Grinch, if you believe JW’s are confused, so be it, I, who speak for myself, say you are confused. Now, the dilemma; Which one of us is correct? How do you tell? The Jews that killed Jesus were absolutely certain they were killing a worthless blaspheming person. The Christians who left Paul and the early congregation, and pitted themselves against Paul, God-Jesus and the Holy Spirit, which ever way you wish to identify Him---they were convinced they were right. How do you convince such people that they are wrong? Perhaps the same way you convince the Devil---------------------------YOU DON’T. One hopes that ones pride and ego is not like that of the Devil Satan and can take correction or adjustment humbly. After all this is done everyday at work, play etc., with no issues about it! As to John 1:1, JW’s are not the only ones (and this is already addressed above) that translate that verse differently! Attack them too please! But remember they are not alone in this! I also addressed your assertions on John 1:1 above, and it is clear you will continue to believe what you want to believe, ok, so be it! Now what! Sir, Dude, whatever address floats your boat, knock yourself out, with your beliefs, as I will enjoy mine! Ya know Grinch, you make the issue of God and his nature so complicated and confusing. I am glad that God is not a God of Confusion! As to understand your concepts, one must be very learned to do so. You remind me of the Kings Clothes again; and by the way, what is the King wearing these days! Not to mention your skilled use of circular psychology, I guess it works for you to do so, but gladly, for some, they can see right through your writings. The knowing of our Heavenly Father, and our spiritual earthly and heavenly family is as simple as knowing our immediate family members, from where we came; but alas, some humans kill, and also neglect their parents and treat them the way they want to; rather than treat them they way the parents want to be treated! How sad! You worship a very complicated and confusing God—Enjoy! You make an interesting statement; “True Christians believe in the whole counsel of Scripture”, and I guess we have you to decide who these true Christians are hey? Wow, you are da man! The Jews that killed Christ called him a glutton and a drunk and killed the Son (or whatever complicated concept you attribute this too) of God, the same is true of others leaving the early church that did injury do Paul, Silas and the other Apostles, and they did this in the name of “TRUTH” their truth, as they believed it, but the “truth” was, that they were wrong, dead wrong, but that did not stop them as nothing will stop you. I wish you well on this journey. Now you do what Bear does, (actually you did this earlier in your response) but I choose to point his out here. Now, I have something for you to ponder over; Let’s say, or take the assumptive position that your absolutely right and I am absolutely wrong (And I don’t like doing this, because you know what you do when you assume). Daniel 12:1 says, (and feel free to use your own bible as the one I primarily use is NG on this board, and that is OK by me), with some variations, “And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people….”(skipping down for time sake in the same verse and if I miss something in error, know it is not on purpose as you can read the darn thing yourself and quickly too)…(last sentence)…”And during that time your people will escape, every one who is found written down in the book.” Now, who is this person, as he apparently has a great role in divine salvation, or “escape?” Help me out, as it seems that one would need to be written down in the book to escape. Seems that is may be a very important matter and person to know. Because God had these words penned for us! Now, in Revelation 12:7 also has a reference to Michael doing battle with Satan, and prevailing. Again, who is he, as he apparently has the power to do battle with Satan successfully and can also provide escape for those written in the book? Seems quite important to our salvation, or escape! Now, interestingly enough, you say “Amazingly the JW also believes Jesus is an archangel! Considering that angels are created servants for God; it would be nonsensical to suggest that Jesus was an angel/servant, then humbled himself and became a servant [Phil 2]” meaning or I take it to mean, that it is “demeaning” or as you say, “nonsensical” to suggest that Jesus was an angel; So, then you will have to agree that 1 Thessalonians 4:16 clearly insults the Lord, as it compares the Lord (which we understand to mean Jesus Christ---or God himself) as descending with “…an archangel’s voice…” so which is it; Is it Jesus or God, or both that is demeaned by this scripture as it clearly compares his (Jesus or God---not to be confusing) as having in this occurrence (future occurrence) with a “demeaning” “archangels voice.” That’s what is says. Now, you can probably use complicated, confusing convoluted circular physiology to explain this, but it is what it is! Which according to you is demeaning to God-Jesus-Both or part of both, (Oh, I keep forgetting about the third “person” of this equation---as it is probably insulting to him too eh). Hey this is where you should take the language changes in history discussed above and concoct a good story. Stop the BS, will ya! We better get to know this Michael, and deal with the fact that the “Lord” is descending in the future with an archangels voice for our salvation or we may have a problem! Hey, Hey, did you not read what I wrote above about the JW’s; how many bad words do you want me to use, so you can get off of this kick, as this has nothing to do with the price of bananas, nor with what is discussed above! Get it, got it, Good! Hey, I can insult your mother, father etc, but that would have nothing to do with the price of bananas or what you say, does it? Though maybe in your mind it does, so here goes, Your Mama! Due, Sir, last time I checked, the JW’s and for that matter, others, Christians etc. do not have the market on infallibility, I did, but then I lost my mojoe! Oh well, like I said, call them what you want. Do they make and did they make mistakes, Oh yea, and my friend so do you and others! The difference is, that unlike many a stubborn mule, not you of course as you would make changes if things were proved to YOUR satisfaction, kinda like the Jew wanting a sign from Heaven about Christ being the Messiah; Dude if they got what they wanted, they would have killed him anyway! Please don’t be like that, because you sound like that, and yet, I know that the scriptures say such people will exist, and I hope I am not one of them! But maybe to you, “I am”…Oops careful now, I said that in M-O-D-E-R-N English, because if I would have said it in Hebrew (ancient Hebrew) you might think I was God! If this sounds kinda out there, just try carefully reading your stuff, as I am trying to respond to it! Tell me, Grinch! As misguided as the JW’s ARE, when compared (and especially so) to your enlightenment, since they believe in Jesus, but wrongly so, according to you; do you think that God will condemn them, and therefore not provide an escape for them through Michael, God, Jesus, Lord, Holy Spirit? Cheers, Hugs and Kisses, Don | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 136 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 68.231.47.234 |
Wow more fluff and no substance. First you didn't address any of the passsages contextually or questions I raised. Then you ran to 1 Thessalonians 4:16 to assert Jesus is an archangel? My goodness! Is that passage talking about his nature? Why not let passages talking about Jesus nature DEFINE Jesus nature. It is this type of blatant disregard for context that leads many astray. Similarly how the WTBS twists a verse or two to claim that they are the 'faithful & discrete" slave, or the "visible organization" on earth. No one bothers to read the context which allows cults like the WTBS to lead you where they want you. now, you can probably use complicated, confusing convoluted circular physiology to explain this Or I could just use the context of the passage as I have done in all my responses. Context is king, and those who rightly exegete passages (not verses yanked out of their context) are those who rightly divide the word of truth. Much like my example of the brutal misuse of John 1:1 and the WTBS blatant disregard for context all in an appeal to concordance running. It appears you like to flatter yourself with lengthy posts which don't address the points. While that might be impressive to some here, I find it arrogant on your part. Elevating yourself to some intellectual plane as though you are above having to address any complicated points. We better get to know this Michael, and deal with the fact that the “Lord” is descending in the future with an archangels voice for our salvation or we may have a problem! decending with an archangel voice is not the same as being an archangel or being Michael for that matter. If that were the case we could conclude that the Holy Spirit is a bird. WE HAVE passages that explain the nature of Jesus Christ, therefore we do not need to speculate on passages that are NOT about Jesus's nature. Why not allow passages explaining a doctrine be used to define that doctrine? Why the need to appeal to passages dealing with a different topic be used to define a topic that is unrelated to the context? Anyone can bounce around all over Scripture yanking verses out of their context and read into them what is not there. (that is called pretexting, and the WTBS are notorious for that) You want to talk about 1 Thess, fine. You want to talk about Jesus nature, then let's go to passages dealing with His nature. do you think that God will condemn them, and therefore not provide an escape for them through Michael, God, Jesus, Lord, Holy Spirit? Absolutely | ||
| bear (bear) Member Username: bear Post Number: 90 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.165.239.252 |
Don. 1. No, I am not in any contest. 2. Goose-gander...sure! 3. Circular Psych...no just sick of beating a dead horse. 4. Selective in my history...yes! I make the point that needs to be made. 5. Websites...reread my other post. Everything that you stated, including the sex symbols, was mentioned. Also, I have been in study on this topic for over 13 years. All of the sites quoted just back up the facts I mentioned. Historians will not always agree, true. I stand with the majority of reputable historians. 6. All I have learned form you is that you are a man, of too many words, who does not get to the issue raised. | ||
| bear (bear) Member Username: bear Post Number: 91 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.165.239.252 |
Don. 1. No, I am not in any contest. 2. Goose-gander...sure! 3. Circular Psych...no just sick of beating a dead horse. 4. Selective in my history...yes! I make the point that needs to be made. 5. Websites...reread my other post. Everything that you stated, including the sex symbols, was mentioned. Also, I have been in study on this topic for over 13 years. All of the sites quoted just back up the facts I mentioned. Historians will not always agree, true. I stand with the majority of reputable historians. The Romans used both at differnt times of history. Juustis Lipsius' illustration of a man on a stake, well known to JW's in their publications, is being misquoted. If you actually pull out his book, and flip a couple of pages from the first illustration, you may be amazed. Justus states the the stake was "not the way our Lord Died". He then shows an illustration of a cross. You mentioned being specific... 6. All I have learned form you is that you are a man, of too many words, who does not get to the issue raised. | ||
| marilyn_m (marilyn_m) Member Username: marilyn_m Post Number: 82 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 24.222.57.138 |
bicpen, I was having a really bad day & was not planning on making any comments, but I just can't resist. your above post blew me away, you don't need any help from us, your doing a fine job on your own. I don't think there is anything wrong with your mojoe, YOU GO BROTHER ! Oh one other thing,I think you will agree with me , when I got married the scripture in Gen 2: 24 was used "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." but I don't think it was meant for my husband & I to actually become one person. maybe when grinch read John 5 he skipped verse 19 The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. and who was Jesus praying to in Luke 22 :42 certainly not himself." Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." 43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. As you said there are tons more scripture to prove the trinity just does not make sence.Keep up the good work, I wish I could jump in & help you more often but my health is not what it once was & I just get so excused when people can't understand plain English. Your words are so encouraging. God Bless You , Agape love, Marilyn | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 137 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.213.82.228 |
All I have learned form you is that you are a man, of too many words, who does not get to the issue raised. I noticed that too. (Message edited by Grinch on June 29, 2005) | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 138 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.213.82.228 |
As you said there are tons more scripture to prove the trinity just does not make sence Rather than making assumptions have you ever thought to ask how those verses are explained in light of the trinity? I mean like being objective and looking at both sides? Seriously that is a poor argument from those passages that is easily explained. Additionally trinitarians take the whole counsel of Scripture, not just a few selected verses out of context. | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 139 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.213.82.228 |
My comments on the absurdity of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 being used. "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first." This is just another example of the brutal molestation of Scripture brought on by the WTBS. Their logic is self-refuting. They like bicpen above want to conclude that Jesus is Michael (nowhere found in the text) the archangel because the verse says he came with the voice of an/the archangel (noting that in the Greek the definite article is missing). So Jesus came with the voice of archangel therefore they conclude He is an archangel. But yet in that same exact verse it says with the trump of God! Shall we use the same logic? Jesus comes with voice of an/the archangel = Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Jesus comes with trump of God = Jesus is God. This is the opposite of what JW's believe, yet we applied their rules of conclusion to the very passage they use to assert that Jesus = Michael! So here again we see circular illogical reasoning all for the sake of forcing one's doctrines onto the Bible, rather than just reading contextually and letting the Bible declare God's doctrines. | ||
| bicpen (bicpen) New member Username: bicpen Post Number: 10 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.103.171.221 |
Marylyn, please e-mail me: Grinch and Bear: What more can I say, alas it has been---- some---experience (‘what fun’) to be attacked by you (You in the plural). And measuring from your combined brilliances, there is truly nothing more for me to say, for I am not up to the task of your brilliances! I would have hoped that respect for my time, as I had for your time, would have allowed for, food for thought over what was said, no more, no less. Hey, let me make your day, you win, I lose! Hey Sharon, make sure you send these boys the door prize as they truly need it, oops I’m sorry, they deserve it! However, it has made some people on this board think, and this is a good thing! Oh, guys, doesn’t that just make your day again!!! Wooppy! Therefore I say adios in the words of a great historic character with slight changes to fit the occasion of departure, ‘Now it’s time to say goodbye to all our company’---C’mon and join me, M-I-C (See ya real soon-NOT) -K-E-Y (Have a nice non attacking day) M-O-U-S-E (Bye Bye Everybody) Cheers, Don Quixote P.S. (1) No one has yet told me who Michael is, since we now know from the great minds that he is “not” Jesus, so therefore the question remains, who is he, as some of us want to truly escape and be written in the book. Please be so kind as to send me his name and address so I can contact him to make arrangements for the same. P.S. (2) Oh, you may see me here every now and then when I have absolutely nothing to do, but please don’t be stupid and “assume” anything other than what I state here regarding the same. | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 140 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 68.231.47.234 |
We know from Scripture that Jesus is not Michael. I would have hoped that respect for my time, as I had for your time, would have allowed for, food for thought over what was said, no more, no less. You are kidding right? It was your lack of respect that caused you to ignore what people posted in favor of tooting your own horn. who is he, as some of us want to truly escape and be written in the book. Since Michael is mentioned only what 2 times in all of Scripture your concern shouldn't be for who he is, but rather who Jesus Christ is. The Scriptures are about Jesus Christ. | ||
| bicpen (bicpen) New member Username: bicpen Post Number: 11 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.103.171.221 |
Grinch: Did you read what you wrote before you sent it? So the answer is, you don’t know! Thank you for your honesty! And since you don’t know, one cannot truly count on what you say you do know about who he is not! If this line of logic is missing, you fail on all counts; meaning if you are unable to grasp this, then you have problem reasoning (this is a personal mind problem) as I challenge any unbiased third party to read your post (number 140) and this reply and feel differently on this issue! Someone like a literary or psychology professor who is an atheist so you know they have no bones to pick, or preconceived ideas, as we are speaking as to E-N-G-L-I-S-H and L-O-G-IC here only as to this point!) Sir, if you don’t know, you should not make assertions to the contrary. We also now know, meaning everyone reading this board and string, that according to your own words, (which I use here as a witness against you) that so long as something is in the bible only once or twice, it does not really matter! Go ahead, forget it! You are truly a peach---Grinch! You make full bloom the saying that ‘opinions are like noses---everyone has them’ though unfortunately seeing one on a face does not mean that it (meaning the sense) works! You have done a disservice to everyone and anyone reading this post (in simple English) that may agree with your religious beliefs or life style views, since they can and will easily see and take note, that you hold the bible in such little disregard, when it comes to things stated once or twice. Tell me, how many times must something be stated in the bible, to be acceptable or important enough to you and the people who think like you. Signed, Don P.S. Bear, Please accept my apology on something. I took to heart a comment you made about my not viewing your previous posts. In my haste, I neglected to notice that in one of your posts (number 31) you did in fact mention the “Hebrew word YHWH is never found in the New Testament. The only place that it can be properly placed in when it is quoting the OT”. I agree with you on the point that it can indeed be properly placed in the NT when it is quoting OT. Thus, this brings up an obvious question: Did Jesus and the early disciples use God’s personal name? Also, did the early scribes that made copies of the NT direct from the inspired writers, did they not know and use the name? (Rhetorical) | ||
| bear (bear) Member Username: bear Post Number: 97 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.161.236.187 |
Don, I accept your apology, all though I was not looking for one. I am a big boy, and I enjoy a good debate. I researched, in depth, the websites that you mentioned. The first one, mysite-wanadoo, is a site in defence of the NWT. The depictions of the upright stake are true, yet not historically correct during the time of Jesus. Other cultures used the stauros alone. Justus L. is also miquoted/represented. Please see my last post for an explanation. In your third mentioned site, you quoted a section that says "In ancient Rome impalement was superceeded by crucifixion." If you click on the word "Crucifixion", they explain how the "cross" was used during the time of Jesus. I also did some Google research on stauros, and each one, when speaking about Rome in the days of Jesus, points to the capital T. I mentioned earlier that the cross, as a religious symbol, was brought into chritianity from the Pagans. We both know the history of the pagan cross. Again, that does not negate the truth of Rome during the time of Jesus, some 300 years prior to the pagan symbol being implemented as a christian symbol. If any person gets stuck on that, they must do so with other pagan practices alive and well in our society today. Example: In our modern wedding ceremony, the brides maides all wear identical clothing. This was actually a pagan practice; a superstition, to confuse evil spirits. I could go on, but I am sure that my point, while maybe not accepted, has been made. | ||
| marilyn_m (marilyn_m) Member Username: marilyn_m Post Number: 83 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 24.222.57.138 |
bicpen, I feel the same as you about grinch's comments, funny how some seem to think that we shouldn’t be concerned about certain parts of the Bible . I would think any one learning the Bible would want to know it all & how each of the scriptures fit together.I'd say you won Bicpen . This to will be my last post, I have no more time to waste on deaf ears. Sharon their all yours (bear & his faithful side kick) see you on the other side Bicpen. | ||
| bear (bear) Member Username: bear Post Number: 98 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 205.144.127.200 |
Marilyn, You have not wasted any time, for you have not responded to anything that I or Grinch have said. If you will give up so easy, as you have on this thread, I am afraid to see how you react when confronted face to face. It is not enough to Just believe. You need to be able to defend the things that you hold dear to your heart. I think that your refusal to answer my other posts is imature, and since you claim such maturity in the Lord, it is very hypocritical. Do what you must, but all you are doing is proving to me, and other critical thinkers on this thread, that you run at the first sign of constructive tension. I am glad that you are not a leader in the church; that would be scary! | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 141 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 68.231.47.234 |
bicpen The best I can tell is you are embarrassed by your actions on the forum in not addressing anyone's posts and posting information that is easily proven incorrect from Scripture (my rule of faith) such that you feel like you want to blame your arrogance and lack of knowledge of the Scriptures on me. I have more than adequately (and I just barely brushed the edges) proven that one cannot assume unitarian henotheism on the Scriptures. The best I got from you was some lame 3rd person excuse which obviously demonstrated that you have no regard for the Scriptures such that it is more important for you to feed your pride than to humbly bow the knee to Scripture. You post these lengthy posts of nothing but childish banter and eloquent insults but never can seem to substantiate your claims or defend your points. Then you run off like you are so intellectually above anyone else such that we are all just brainwashed minions for believing as we do. In all this you have made yourself look like a fool who embraces beliefs he cannot defend. I understand and accept your bitterness of not being able to address the Scriptures I presented to you and the fallacy of your logic in your molestation of other passages. For that reason I am not going to take offense at what appears to be your surrender flag. bear, I agree with you on the point that it can indeed be properly placed in the NT when it is quoting OT. I do not agree with that point. Bear were you trying to make that point? Is bipen accurately representing your view? It is my belief that the NT writers (as evidenced by manuscripts) intentionally did not use the YHWH when citing OT passages. I believe there was a specific reason they didn't too. (Message edited by Grinch on July 01, 2005) | ||
| bear (bear) Member Username: bear Post Number: 100 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.161.233.2 |
Grinch, No, that is not the point I was trying to make. I re-read that post and realized what I had said, and that is not how I meant for it to come across. I did say "placed", but what I should have/meant to say was that the only place that the name could be "assumed", not put into print, was when the NT was referencing OT passages with the name YHWH. This is an obvious assumtion for those who are well versed in the Hebrew text (or for those of us who are best friends with a lexicon  ). In other words, I meant it from a readers standpoint. I was trying to make a point that even assumtions can result in a poor translation of the text. Many assume something, like the WTBS does with NT referencing of OT texts , but their lack of scholarly credibility results in heretical publications. I still stand by my position that there is not any reputable manuscripts or scholars that support the name YHWH is the Greek text. I apologize for the lack of clarity, and the confusion, with that statement. | ||
| bear (bear) Intermediate Member Username: bear Post Number: 101 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.161.233.2 |
Grinch, I agree that the NT writers left out the name in quoting the OT. I believe it goes back to the superstition of speaking and writing, plus the fear and respect of the divine name. Many Jews today will spell God as "G_D" out of respect. It is my understanding that the name YHWH was read "Adonai". So, in answer to bicpens question: "Did Jesus and the disciples use the name Jehovah?" (I am paraphrasing) Answer: NO! While it is obvious that Jesus knew the name, it was NOT spoken in everyday language. This is a fact that the JW's do not accept. (Message edited by bear on July 01, 2005) | ||
| sharon (sharon) Intermediate Member Username: sharon Post Number: 267 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 142.177.75.73 |
Jesus called him Father, as in Father why have you deserted me. God tells you to call no one else Father. It is what I call him. We are children of GOd, if we are the children then he is the Father. DO you call you Dad by his name or Dad? Father they know not what they do. marilyn_m... gee , I go away for a few days and come back to find you bruised and bloodied. I am hoping that you will reconsider leaving as I think you were doing some very good work on some of these boards. I know that you have been attacked since you first appeared on this board but that is the way of some. There are still many suffering people which is the reason for these boards. In that you can help. So if you are leaving please leave only this board. It will not be like you are deserting Bic as I am pretty sure he is more than able to stand his own ground here. Not all are meant for this, some are meant to help those who are seaching or suffering. These here are neither, so you are right to go where you are needed, do so. Bear... I am not a sweet lady, but I thank you for the thought. I am living stone. I am happy that you are an educated man that is a blessing in this or any day. But when you are dealing with the meek you should be careful that you do not drive them away as the Lord cares for these and you can not use your power of words as a weapon with which to beat a woman with, that is abuse of the power that your Father has given you. You have the power to chose your words and in this you have unwisely chosen to use mockery as a weapon.That is fine against the enemy but who is your enemy here? You are better than this and you know it. As for understanding what the early church fathers wanted , the fact that you call them Fathers is a mistake. Watch that things here do not drag you down the wrong path. Imparting knowledge is a gift, but only if you do it in the way in which would please Christ. THink of him when you are writing for it may soften you words. Jesus was not accusing himself of deserting himself on the cross he said Father why have YOU deserted me. May God be With You | ||
| bear (bear) Intermediate Member Username: bear Post Number: 104 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.161.237.57 |
Sharon, Thank you for you comments. Any person that posts on this site is opening themselves up for constructive critique. Many see a strong comments as an attack; they should not be on this type of site, man or women. We are adults, and therefore should be able to take the heat of the debate. I have not "beat" any women with my words. You say that you are "living stone", and I am curious as to why. Is that a decision? Why has you noy gone to Jesus to remove that status? As to my words not being soft, well, Jesus' words were not always soft. When he was dealing with religious people, he was hard core! I do appreciate you replying to my posts. | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 142 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.213.82.228 |
I believe it goes back to the superstition of speaking and writing, plus the fear and respect of the divine name. I would probably argue that they did not use the YHWH because they intentionally intended to equate Jesus Christ with YHWH. I would take this view primarily because the Holy Spirit was the actual author of the NT and as such would not have issue saying the Divine name if that is what He intended to inspire. (Message edited by Grinch on July 03, 2005) | ||
| bear (bear) Intermediate Member Username: bear Post Number: 108 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 209.176.193.119 |
Good Point, Grinch. | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 143 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.213.82.228 |
Bear, Have you ever read Lundquists book on the Tetragrammaton? | ||
| bear (bear) Intermediate Member Username: bear Post Number: 110 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 209.176.193.114 |
No, who is the publisher? | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 144 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.213.82.228 |
You can actually read it online it appears. http://www.irr.org/English-JW/Tetragram-Christian-Scriptures.html | ||
| sharon (sharon) Intermediate Member Username: sharon Post Number: 270 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 142.177.104.77 |
Bear... What do you think a living stone is? I would never want to change that. What do you think God would think of you calling those who are meeker than yourself out to face your not so soft words. Yes Jesus was one to tell the truth but he did not do it to be one thing or another but to rebuke. A difference between those people is that you are dealing with hurt and healing Christians from cults where they faced having their faith destroyed. How is it you think these need your words, and do you feel you are helping them recover by saying they should not be here if their feelings get hurt by your words. You do not defile yourself by what goes into your mouth but by what comes out of it. Be careful you do not cause yourself to sin by your words. Just wanting to know who do you think Jesus was talking to when he said Father why have you deserted me. Was he talking to himself like some village idiot or his Father? John Lennon was right everyone is so watching the messenger that they miss the message, LOVE ONE ANOTHER. THat is what he wanted, where is your love for Marilyn? She is hurt and says so and yet you do not stop. WHy. You do not care for her soul for you would drive her from the boards. ANd defend your right to do so. I worry more for you than her for she is not to pay for leaving but if she leaves how will you explain that to your Father for he may have sent her here for help. Not everyone is like you and Grinch, able to give and take such debate. THat I think is what you are forgetting. Remember that the meek will inherit the earth, they are here now, Lets not trample them into the dust. Do not worry over the name of God , Jesus called him Father, and he says follow me, so that means you also have the privilege of calling him Father. You know you look alot like your Father. Remember he loves Marilyn and he hears your words to her. I also thank you for replying to my posts, I am surprised at your calm and clear answers. I wrote because I thought you might hear me and I thank you for taking the time to listen. I would not write if I thought you did not have ears to hear. I am glad you are able to debate teh word of God, I think that is a gift, take care of it. Your sister in Christ, May God Bless You. | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 145 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.213.82.228 |
THat I think is what you are forgetting. Remember that the meek will inherit the earth, they are here now, Lets not trample them into the dust. Perhaps we should look to the Scriptures to define what it means by "meek"?}} | ||
| sharon (sharon) Intermediate Member Username: sharon Post Number: 273 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 142.177.8.40 |
grinch (grinch)... Matthew 11:28, 29 - "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls." Hope this helps... | ||
| bear (bear) Intermediate Member Username: bear Post Number: 117 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.161.238.112 |
Sharon, two things. 1. Marilyn chose not to respond to my apology. I have read many of her posts on other threads, and she does not appear to be a hurt person. She does, however, seem to be one who is offended with those who disagree with her. As christians, we must be able to denfend our faith, even with other christians. She was blunt in telling me that I was wrong. however, she never responded to my question: "what am I wrong about?" she simply took offence and decided not to respond to me. 2. The Greek work for meek is "praus" and it means mild, or better yet, humble. Funk and Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary defines our English word humble as "free from pride". This def. is compatable with its Greek counterpart. If I am not mistaken, please correct me, it seems that you are confusing meekness with being passive. Passive is defined as "not working; inactive". Sadly enough, many people who are passive mistake confident, direct people as being arrogant or rude. This is a personality difference. I happen to have a strong type A personality, so I have had to learn, through the help of the Holy Spirit, to understand those who are less direct; passive or laid back. Their passivity is not a mark of meekness. I know many passive people who are full of pride. Jesus was meek, yet very strong in words and actions. He spoke as one having authority, he became angry (without sin) and beat up the money changers in the temple, etc. His directness did not mean that he was not humble. Our meekness is primarily before the Lord. When we are humble, we are teachable. I believe that you have confused my confidence with not being humble. I also sense that because I do not have a passive personality, you conclude that I am not humble. That it not true. I have spent many years in ministry, and one thing that is a passion for me is defending the faith; apologetics. If we can not debate issues, how can we ever stand up to those who hate christianity? We can not! We must know why we believe and be able to denfend that belief with scripture and with passion. That is the part of me that you have expirienced. On another thread you stated that God had kept you out of church for 20 years. I am asking a legitimate question: how can you support that scripturally? God commands us to "not forsake the gathering of ourselves together, as is the custom of some..." Hebrews 10:25 Please respond at your leisure. | ||
| arron (arron) Intermediate Member Username: arron Post Number: 204 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.119.47.157 |
there is nothing to support staying out of CHURCH you cant say GOD told you to do it..at least not THE GOD OF THE BIBLE JESUS CHRIST | ||
| grinch (grinch) Intermediate Member Username: grinch Post Number: 146 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.213.82.228 |
Matthew 11:28, 29 - "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls." Hope this helps... Well not exactly. I was talking about the original passage you cited. The meek, poor in spirit, etc are defined in Scripture. The Scriptural definition is a bit different than what you described. Many people misunderstand the heart of that sermon by Jesus. | ||
| sharon (sharon) Intermediate Member Username: sharon Post Number: 276 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 142.177.94.39 |
arron (arron)... You do not speak for my Father, and there is nothing he can not do. He told me to stay out and then he told me to fast and go. Do you think it is wise to speak for your Father and say what he can and can not do. And just so you know, I did not listen and ran to all the churchs because I wanted to be part of them, I was shown that it was not the place for me over and over until I understood that I was to stay out of them. Many churches were full of backstabbers and liars, false Christians and those who came for business reasons and those who found a power in telling others the way, Now I go and there is no one there but those who did not fall away. These stand strong and they are few but does this matter for they are mighty in their love of the Lord. Make sure your words are those of someone who does not comdemn what he does not understand. Your Father may take anyone out of any church he wishes. Nice to see you again. Bear... I did not say he did not allow me to gather with others like myself, I said he did not want me in a church. When two or more are gathered, remember. You know this and I should not have to tell you what this means. You called one of the ten commandments a cliche, and I have to wonder what it is that you are doing. Do you see why I do not know who you are. Grinch,... Good day, yes many people do misunderstand what Christ is saying. Follow me was the words most need to hear, for if you do there is no confusion on who is meek and who is not. | ||
| bear (bear) Intermediate Member Username: bear Post Number: 145 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 4.161.238.172 |
Sharon, I did NOT call one of the Ten Commandments a cliche. EVER!! I called your statement a cliche: "some forget that 'honor thy father and mother' is a commandement not suggestion". In the context of the other thread, my statement was a rebutle. I spelled out that honoring you parents does not mean that you allow them to make decisions for you, or that you should make desicions based on their opinion, when you are an adult. It was a specific rebutle. Reread those posts to gain clarity. No, I do not see why you do not know who I am. I do, however, see that you have made a false accusation. (Message edited by bear on July 24, 2005) | ||
| godchild (godchild) Intermediate Member Username: godchild Post Number: 468 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.61.91 |
I have spent quite a bit of time reading this whole thread. It was educational, interesting, even frightening at some points, and I think I learned from it. I would like to respond to Bears comment to Sharon; God commands us to "not forsake the gathering of ourselves together, as is the custom of some..." Hebrews 10:25. I went to my bible and reread the verse spoken of. At the beginning of the chapter, it is stated as 'opening remarks' that it is not known who wrote Hebrews. That is not my point, but interesting to me. My interpretation is that this was not a commandment. I understand completely Sharon's stand. I do not, at this time, attend an organized group of Christians for many reasons. God knows my heart as he does Sharon's and everybody else's. What I am trying to do is invite other believers to my home to worship and study the gospel. I also find some of these threads to be a form of worship. I also visit with friends who are like-minded. I do not think you, bear, intend to intimidate; but you do. Yes, Jesus spoke forthrightly, but never in an antagonistic manner. As a loving suggestion from another Christian, please pray about your way of writing (if not speaking). I say this because after posting on these threads for about eight months, I realize there are many tender people out here who need a generous amount of love mixed in with teaching, which you are very good at. I had to, and still do, pray much about the way I respond (write) to people, and hope they would respond to me. Please take this in the spirit it is intended. Just to make something very clear. I believe in one God. Jude 1:9 says: Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, "The Lord rebuke you." Jesus had no problem with dealing with the devil. In fact, Jesus cast out devils. | ||
| bear (bear) Intermediate Member Username: bear Post Number: 148 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 205.144.127.200 |
Well, you interpretation of the text is not correct. It is a direct command, and every reputable scholar and teacher that I have read attests to that fact. There is not one biblical example of what you describe. Every home church was under the direction of an elder who reported to the head elder, or pastor. This is an undeniable fact according to the scripture and to history. I appreciate your honest critique. I do not believe that I have been antagonistic, just straight forward. When Jesus called the religious leaders a "brood of vipers" how do you think they received that? Well, according to their reaction, they thought he was antagonistic. I have realized that some of my earlier posts may have come across as brash, but my passion for the truth is what drives me. When people share a belief on this site, they will get a reaction. If they are "tender", maybe they should not post of this type of site. It is my opinion that if a person can not handle contructive critisism on a board like this, what are they doing in the real world? | ||
| overseas (overseas) Intermediate Member Username: overseas Post Number: 395 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 164.143.244.33 |
Hebrews 10:25 most probably refers to the gathering of the christianised jews. This is the context. The ones that left were returning to Judaism, rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. This also fits the general idea of Hebrews book (Judaism vs. Jesus being the Christ). There is no indication in the text that christians are assigned to a specific local group or organisation and they have to stick with that until death. I am part of a well established denomination but I have no problem to gather with any (really) saved person. And if there are 3 of us (for ex.), one can be appointed elder/ pastor by the other two so here's your church ! What's the problem ? It is cultic to include physical membership as a rule of the church. It is biblical to promote unity and gathering of any group of saved persons. I heard of churches that shun members for 3 consecutive absences. That's cultic. The point in repenting and coming to Jesus is to obey God and not fearing people anymore (see Acts when apostles were asked to quit proclaimimg the Gospel). Membership & sticking to a local church means nothing. Being the church is what we need. | ||
| bear (bear) Intermediate Member Username: bear Post Number: 164 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 205.144.127.200 |
|
