It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Debunking false claims about Jehovah's Witnesses. 1-14

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60

. . .jesus is an image of his father. . .
No. The image, not a copy of another image.


fine, THE image, but it still means that jesus is a representation. a copy.

see jesus, then you can see god.



. . .the believe that jesus and GOD are the same person.
God is not a person.


then what is jesus?




posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
In John 10:18 Jesus says he has the power to take up his life. to quote, "I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again."
Acts 2:24 says that death was not able to hold him.
Is this all meaningless? Was Jesus just running his mouth about some gobbledygook? Was it a parable and did not have a practical application?
Or an infinite God all of a sudden is not infinite because there is this one thing he can not possibly do?


jesus is not an infinite god. listen to yourself. you are so stuck on jesus being an eternal, immortal, almighty god that your not even realizing that there is no difference between what you are saying and what the nicea council concluded on.

you are teaching that jesus and god are different sides of the same coin.

thats not what the bible teaches.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 

see jesus, then you can see god.
What book is that from, the Handbook for Being a God? There is no other image that Jesus is a copy of. Here is another one of my untrue hypothetical questions. If God had any image, why would God need a Son?

then what is jesus?

Jesus is Jesus, that part is easy. The difficult question is, what was Jesus before he was Jesus. The question is not true, to start with, because it is hard to say he is a what. He was called the Son before Jesus was born and a close way to explain it is he was the extension of God into the dimensional space, whether it is physical or spiritual space.




[edit on 27-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 

jesus is not an infinite god. listen to yourself. you are so stuck on jesus being an eternal, immortal, almighty god that your not even realizing that there is no difference between what you are saying and what the nicea council concluded on.
you are teaching that jesus and god are different sides of the same coin.
thats not what the bible teaches.
How long have I been "stuck"? Not very. Years ago, my best friends were JW and I considered myself an Arian. A year ago I was saying there was no Jesus before the incarnation. I still believe that but now realize there was something else that did, that somehow became Jesus.
Nicea says there are three separate persons of the godhead and are unified in that they are the same substance.
My thought is God, the Father has no substance and what appeared to be substance was the pre-incarnation Son. He really was not anywhere near a substance until Jesus. The Father is not a person, per se, but the Son became a person, for our benefit.



[edit on 27-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by miriam0566
 

see jesus, then you can see god.
What book is that from, the Handbook for Being a God? There is no other image that Jesus is a copy of. Here is another one of my untrue hypothetical questions. If God had any image, why would God need a Son?


john 14:[9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
My thought is God, the Father has no substance and what appeared to be substance was the pre-incarnation Son. He really was not anywhere near a substance until Jesus. The Father is not a person, per se, but the Son became a person, for our benefit.


and yet there is no scripture to support that theory



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 

and yet there is no scripture to support that theory

Show me the verse that says God is a person.

Making God out as a substance is the foundation of pantheism.


[edit on 28-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 03:58 AM
link   
it wont let me post grrrr....

[edit on 28-5-2009 by miriam0566]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60

and yet there is no scripture to support that theory

Show me the verse that says God is a person.

Making God out as a substance is the foundation of pantheism.


Jehovah is the personal name of god. (Isa 42:8; 54:5)

he is a Spirit just like the angels and jesus (Joh 4:24)

we are “in God’s image” implying that inside, we share certain characteristics with god. (Ge 1:27)

Jehovah finds joy in people who serve him. if god wasnt a person, how can he find joy in anything? (Pr 27:11; Mt 3:17; 12:18)

rebellion can cause Jehovah to ‘feel hurt at his heart.’—Ge 6:5-8; Ps 78:36-41; Heb 10:38.

Jehovah finds delight in his works (Ps 135:3-6; Isa 46:10, 11; 55:10, 11)

Jehovah even shows humility toward his creation by listening to them and letting them make suggestions (1Ki 22:19-22)

Jehovah lives by the same moral code he expects us to De 32:3, 4.

Jesus reflects god's personal qualities, he doesnt "translate" them for us. (Joh 5:19)
Compare Mt 9:35, 36 with Ps 23:1-6 and Isa 40:10, 11; Mt 11:27-30 with Isa 40:28-31 and Isa 57:15, 16; Lu 15:11-24 with Ps 103:8-14; Lu 19:41-44 with Eze 18:31, 32; Eze 33:11.

seems like a person to me.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


Jesus reflects god's personal qualities, he doesnt "translate" them for us.
This is not an exact science and I am kind of fishing for words to fit. If reflect works for you, I am not going to debate it.

I was probably thinking of something like Jesus teaching in parables. He was translating spiritual concepts into physical terms, to help people understand them.


[edit on 28-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Xcouncil=wisdom


Are you aware of "the archangel"?
Of course. Where do you think the JW's ripped it off? From the Seventh Day Adventists. (I might add, along with every other part of the JW religion that is decent)




Ready to visit this idea that the Sevent Day Adventists invented the "idea" of the Archangel

I imagine they got that from the same place the JW's did, uh the bible.
Exodus (23:20-32:34-33:2) Daniel (10:21-12:1), the book of Revelation 12:7,10, 1 Thessolions 4:16 and Jude 9

Took me a while to get back to you on that, seems you and Miriam have been busy....



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcouncil=wisdom
 
What we are happy enough to call Jesus as he was before the incarnation is Commander of the Forces of Heavenly Intelligences. If you want to equate that with Michael the Archangel, then you can say that, all you want. There is no doctrine that he is, but you are allowed to put two and two together and come up with that.
So this is something I have alway been aware of and never had a problem with. It is more recently, while taking a harder look at the whole trinity question that I have had a problem with it. For all I know, it may be true, but I would never want to make it something that I need to promote.
For our purposes, to figure out how the Word can become flesh, I do not think it is helpful, as if he was already running around as a person. You would find it more useful because he could actually be an angel, while we think he commanded them, which I do not have a problem with.



[edit on 29-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
While I am thinking about it, let me throw in, if this is the right thread, why I have a problem with the JW system.
Let's say you have an ordinary church that does not pretend to be prophetic. If they have a comment that they want to discuss, about a prophecy, they can put an article in the church's publication. They can drag out a professor from a church owned university and write it. He can put his name on it and say, this is what I think.
With the JW, they maintain this almost mystical curtain around them selves to where you do not even know who the Watchtower Society is. There is this air about it as if you are being handed down from on high some authoritative prophecy, or some thing, to the point that their publication has to be taken as the gospel.
So that kind of paints them in a corner as far as having any flexibility of movement in just plain thought.
Can you write a letter to the editor and ask what the hell they were thinking, without being in fear of loosing your membership?
Maybe I have the wrong impression, but that is what I get.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Let's say you have an ordinary church that does not pretend to be prophetic. If they have a comment that they want to discuss, about a prophecy, they can put an article in the church's publication. They can drag out a professor from a church owned university and write it. He can put his name on it and say, this is what I think.


it create alot of backtracking and alot of chaos. alot of times people are simply trying to promote an agenda. why would i have to hear articles about how wonderful jesus/Jehovah is when i already know they are separate entities? why do i have to listen to theories about hellfire when i already know there isnt one?

jesus liken truth to spiritual food. do you really want a plate of food where you have to sift through the trash first?


With the JW, they maintain this almost mystical curtain around them selves to where you do not even know who the Watchtower Society is.


actually, that information is available to anyone. you can go to any of their branches and actually see for yourself how things are done. the fact that the articles are not personally signed by the writers is so as not to call undue personal attention to the writer.


There is this air about it as if you are being handed down from on high some authoritative prophecy, or some thing, to the point that their publication has to be taken as the gospel.


annual meeting last year it was made plainly clear that the societies publication are NOT inspired writings, and that they shouls ALWAYS be check in the bible. articles list scripture after scripture for that reason.

the governing body has the responsibility to treat the flock the way jesus wants, not the way they want.

matt 24:[45] Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
[46] Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
[47] Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
[48] But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
[49] And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
[50] The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
[51] And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

the "servant" or "slave" in some translations has heavy responsibility. its not a job to be taken lightly.


So that kind of paints them in a corner as far as having any flexibility of movement in just plain thought.


the truth does that sometimes. if you know the truth about something, its hard to take the fantasies seriously


Can you write a letter to the editor and ask what the hell they were thinking, without being in fear of loosing your membership?
Maybe I have the wrong impression, but that is what I get.


i do all the time. if there is a question that is not answered in an article and that noone in the congregation can help me with, i write the branch.

i have a collection of letters i have written. most of the time it cites an article i missed, but i have never been condemned for asking.

im not the only one. many people do this. infact, have section in their magazines called "questions from readers" that is exactly that



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


God uses ORGANIZATION to keep order in the universe. Down to an atom and up to the cosmos, to his angelic army and to his people.... God works through ORDER. This even applies to true worship.... this is the part most people refuse to accept. YES, true worship to the most high God Jehovah is AN ORGANIZED MATTER, God has always dealt with his people as a group, there is no way around this truth. The Bible it self is an organizational book, it sets the pattern for how God organized his people in the past, and how they should be organized today (Romans 15:4). God knows that THE ONLY WAY to have the unity and oneness in faith that he says his people should have is by establishing a theocratic order, and humbly submitting to it... not an easy thing to do of course, we imperfect humans have the tendency of saying... "don't tell me what to do", but who are we to argue with God, doesn't he know best? Some scriptures to think about:


Jeremiah 23:3-4 (King James Version)

3And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase. 4And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them: and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the LORD.

Luke 12:42-48 (King James Version)

42And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? (further study on this scripture shows this "steward" is not ONE person, but a CLASS of people)

BTW, the question asked by Jesus is for each one of us to answer, for the treatment and support we give to this class of people carries a heavy weight in Jesus' eyes. (read Matthew 25:34-46)

1 Corinthians 1:10 (New International Version)

10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

Ephesians 4:4-5 (New International Version)

4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

As Miriam already pointed out, there is no veil or secrecy around them, we know who they are, where they are, and most importantly... where their instruction comes from. They do not want to raise themselves up above the congregation, that would be a big no, no. They have an awesome responsibility that they humbly accept and carry out. This is the attitude they and all who have positions of leadership MUST and DO demonstrate:

1 Corinthians 4:1-2 (New International Version)

1 So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God. 2 Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.

1 Peter 5:1-3 (New International Version)

1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

Related article HERE

[edit on 30-5-2009 by holywar]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
OK. Maybe the ones I asked would have been just doing what any member of a church might do and not be able to name anyone on the board of their supreme hierarchy.
I guess if you asked a Catholic, they could name the Pope, but not one cardinal.
As for the truth, the SDA church does not claim to have all the truth, right at this moment. Maybe the JW's think they have it carved in stone, so no need to discuss it because any further light will be rejected out of hand.
I guess it depends on your personality. If you like the assurance that everything is all figured out, then join up. I do not think that is the case, so I feel more comfortable in a church where new understanding will at least be listened to.

[edit on 30-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
As for the truth, the SDA church does not claim to have all the truth, right at this moment. Maybe the JW's think they have it carved in stone, so no need to discuss it because any further light will be rejected out of hand.
I guess it depends on your personality. If you like the assurance that everything is all figured out, then join up. I do not think that is the case, so I feel more comfortable in a church where new understanding will at least be listened to.


its not about assurance. its about maturity. on any subject there is a point where you get past the basics.

its like trying to bake a cake, there is a point where the batter is finished. there is nothing more to do. move on to the next thing.

the bible is very clear on things. it uses cross references with itself on almost all subjects so as to garantee that the correct understanding can be obtained.

the problem arises when the simple truth isnt good enough. there has to be some hidden meaning. god has to be more secretive than this. then people just start making things up.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


the problem arises when the simple truth isnt good enough. there has to be some hidden meaning. god has to be more secretive than this. then people just start making things up.
In this case, Christianity should pack it up, and all the churches close their doors. Everything that supposedly supports Christianity in the Old Testament is pulling out the secrets. (making things up)
Or, you can say it is new light.
I guess once your catechism of dogma was finished, God turned out the light.


[edit on 31-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
In this case, Christianity should pack it up an all the churches close their doors. Everything that supposedly supports Christianity in the Old Testament is pulling out the secrets. (making things up)
Or, you can say it is new light. I guess once your catechism of dogma was finished, God turned out the light.


if you are in a dark room and you have 1 light. do you need to search for that light? or is it obvious where that light is coming from?

why god's light hidden in secrets?



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
With the very fact that the JW's said that Jesus was going to return on a certain year should of been enough proof that they were false. And it just didn't happen once. It happened many times.

Then they changed their minds about the cross to a stake and as of this day Russel's grave marker still has a cross on it.

All they have to do is believe in the Bible (not the NWT/watchtower) and all would be fine.

Thanks,
TT



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join