what does the bible really teach?

Russell and the 7th Day Adventists

abcd said:

Study your religion's history, and you will see that Charles Taze Russell modeled all of his beliefs after the Seventh-Day Adventists.

Click to expand...

As I pointed out before, Charles Taze Russell did not believe in a religion such as the "Jehovah's Witnesses". The JWs retroactively assume and presume upon Russell that he was one of the "Jehovah's Witnesses". I am sure that Russell would not have anything to do with such an authoritarian and dictatorial organization as the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Charles Taze Russell, however, most definitely did NOT model all of his beliefs after the Seventh-Day Adventists. Although the SDA may have some similar teachings, Russell's teachings were extremely different from that of the SDA.

Perhaps the author has confused the Seventh-Day Adventists with the Second Adventists. Russell did receive a lot of truth from certain individuals who had been associated with the Second Adventists movement (not to be confused with the Seventh-Day Adventists), but he rejected a lot of the more popular beliefs held by Second Adventists, and he explained why.

There is no evidence that Russell ever had any association at all with the Seventh-Day Adventists. Russell printed several articles showing why he believed the Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine to be wrong.

The Seventh-Day Adventists have never believed in the ransom for all, the doctrine that Russell held central in his ministry. Indeed, the very reason that Russell began printing the Watch Tower in 1879 was defend that doctrine (which doctrine the JWs have rejected). Russell certainly did not get that main doctrine from the SDA.

Some of the Second Adventists had believed in the ransom for all, but the majority in that movement did not.

See searches of Russell's works for "Seventh-Day Adventists"
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=852

Luke 21:8 and Study of Time Prophecy

abcd said:

"He said: “Look out that YOU are not misled; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time has approached.’
Do NOT GO After Them."
Luke 21:8 (New World Translation)

Click to expand...

Jesus' words in Luke 21:8 have nothing at all to do with study of Biblical time prophecies, nor of studying God's Word as related to times and the seasons.

Many, however, have claimed special authority along this line, and this is what Jesus was warning against. Indeed, many have and do claim to be Jesus himself; I have received communications from some who claim that they are God Almighty in the flesh. The Watchtower Society of today (as well as many other religious leaders) claims special authority. Regarding these, Jesus tells us not to follow after. Russell, himself, however, never set himself as such authority.

Jesus is the only "prophet" given to church (Matthew 13:57; Luke 13:33; 16:16; Acts 3:22,26; Hebrew 1:1,2 - the prophets of 1 Corinthians 12:28,29 are not "prophets" in the same sense as the Old Testament prophets, and certainly not in the sense that Jesus is "the prophet" that Israel was expecting, the prophet like Moses. -- Mark 6:15; John 1:21,25; 7:40; Acts 3:22,26).

There is nothing in Luke 21:8, or anywhere else in the Bible, that forbids study of Biblical time prophecies related to Christ's return.

ResLight said:

As I pointed out before, Charles Taze Russell did not believe in a religion such as the "Jehovah's Witnesses". The JWs retroactively assume and presume upon Russell that he was one of the "Jehovah's Witnesses". I am sure that Russell would not have anything to do with such an authoritarian and dictatorial organization as the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Click to expand...

I assume you are an International Bible Student, since you are defending Charles Taze Russell.

I am not in any religion, nor am I interested in joining any religion, but I respect your opinion.

Good luck to you.

abcd said:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts concerning Armageddon.

You will be very disappointed, just like the people who were disappointed in 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1941, 1975, and 1994.

Luke 21:8 "Look out that YOU are not misled; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ?I am he,? and, ?The due time has approached.?
Do not go after them."

Click to expand...

You're welcome.

I won't be. We rely on the bible, and have learned from the past. We will not be disappointed.

Good day.

Chp 9

Are we living in the last days?

What events in our time were foretold in the Bible?
What does God?s Word say people would be like ?in the last days??
Regarding ?the last days,? what good things does the Bible foretell?


HAVE you watched the news on television and wondered, ?What is this world coming to?? Tragic things happen so suddenly and unexpectedly that no human can predict what tomorrow will bring. (James 4:14) However, Jehovah knows what the future holds. (Isaiah 46:10) Long ago his Word, the Bible, foretold not only the bad things happening in our day but also the wonderful things that will occur in the near future.

2 Jesus Christ spoke about the Kingdom of God, which will bring an end to wickedness and make the earth a paradise. (Luke 4:43) People wanted to know when the Kingdom would come. In fact, Jesus? disciples asked him: ?What will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?? (Matthew 24:3) In reply Jesus told them that only Jehovah God knew exactly when the end of this system of things would come. (Matthew 24:36) But Jesus did foretell things that would take place on earth just before the Kingdom would bring true peace and security to mankind. What he foretold is now taking place!

3 Before we examine the evidence that we are living in ?the conclusion of the system of things,? let us briefly consider a war that no human could possibly have observed. It took place in the invisible spirit realm, and its outcome affects us.
A WAR IN HEAVEN

4 The preceding chapter in this book explained that Jesus Christ became King in heaven in the year 1914. (Daniel 7:13, 14) Soon after he received Kingdom power, Jesus took action. ?War broke out in heaven,? says the Bible. ?Michael [another name for Jesus] and his angels battled with the dragon [Satan the Devil], and the dragon and its angels battled.?* Satan and his wicked angels, the demons, lost that war and were cast out of heaven to the earth. God?s faithful spirit sons rejoiced that Satan and his demons were gone. Humans, however, would experience no such joy. Instead, the Bible foretold: ?Woe for the earth . . . because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time.??Revelation 12:7, 9, 12.
5 Please notice what would result from the war in heaven. In his fury, Satan would bring woe, or trouble, upon those on earth. As you will see, we are now living in that time of woe. But it will be relatively brief?only ?a short period of time.? Even Satan realizes that. The Bible refers to this period as ?the last days.? (2 Timothy 3:1) How glad we can be that God will soon do away with the Devil?s influence over the earth! Let us consider some of the things foretold in the Bible that are happening right now. These prove that we are living in the last days and that God?s Kingdom will soon bring everlasting blessings to those who love Jehovah. First, let us examine four features of the sign that Jesus said would mark the time in which we live.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS OF THE LAST DAYS


6 ?Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom.? (Matthew 24:7) Millions of people have been killed in wars during the past century. One British historian wrote: ?The 20th century was the most murderous in recorded history. . . . It was a century of almost unbroken war, with few and brief periods without organised armed conflict somewhere.? A report from the Worldwatch Institute states: ?Three times as many people fell victim to war in [the 20th] century as in all the wars from the first century AD to 1899.? More than 100 million people have died as a result of wars since 1914. Even if we know the sorrow of losing one loved one in warfare, we can only imagine such misery and pain multiplied millions of times over.

7 ?There will be food shortages.? (Matthew 24:7) Researchers say that food production has increased greatly during the past 30 years. Nevertheless, food shortages continue because many people do not have enough money to buy food or land on which to raise crops. In developing countries, well over a billion people have to live on an income of a dollar or less a day. The majority of these suffer from chronic hunger. The World Health Organization estimates that malnutrition plays a major role in the deaths of more than five million children each year.

8 ?There will be great earthquakes.? (Luke 21:11) According to the U.S. Geological Survey, since 1990 alone an average of 17 earthquakes per year have been powerful enough to damage buildings and crack the ground. And on an average, earthquakes strong enough to cause total destruction of buildings have occurred yearly. Another source states: ?Earthquakes have claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the last 100 years and improvements in technology have only slightly reduced the death toll.?

9 ?There will be . . . pestilences.? (Luke 21:11) Despite medical advances, old and new diseases plague mankind. One report says that 20 well-known diseases?including tuberculosis, malaria, and cholera?have become more common in recent decades, and some types of disease are increasingly difficult to cure by means of drugs. In fact, at least 30 new diseases have appeared. Some of them have no known cure and are fatal.
PEOPLE OF THE LAST DAYS


10 Aside from identifying certain world developments, the Bible foretold that the last days would be marked by a change in human society. The apostle Paul described what people in general would be like. At 2 Timothy 3:1-5, we read: ?In the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here.? In part, Paul said that people would be

• lovers of themselves
• lovers of money
• disobedient to parents
• disloyal
• having no natural affection
• without self-control
• fierce
• lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God
• having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power

11 Have people become like that in your community? No doubt they have. There are people everywhere who have bad traits. This shows that God will soon act, for the Bible says: ?When the wicked ones sprout as the vegetation and all the practicers of what is hurtful blossom forth, it is that they may be annihilated forever.??Psalm 92:7.
POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS!

12 The last days are indeed filled with woe, just as the Bible foretold. In this troubled world, however, there are positive developments among the worshipers of Jehovah.
?This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth.??Matthew 24:14


13 ?The true knowledge will become abundant,? the Bible book of Daniel foretold. When would that happen? During ?the time of the end.? (Daniel 12:4) Especially since 1914, Jehovah has helped those who truly desire to serve him to grow in understanding of the Bible. They have grown in appreciation of precious truths about God?s name and purpose, the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the condition of the dead, and the resurrection. Moreover, worshipers of Jehovah have learned how to live their lives in a way that benefits them and brings praise to God. They have also gained a clearer understanding of the role of God?s Kingdom and how it will set matters straight on the earth. What do they do with this knowledge? That question brings us to yet another prophecy that is being fulfilled in these last days.

14 ?This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth,? said Jesus Christ in his prophecy about ?the conclusion of the system of things.? (Matthew 24:3, 14) Throughout the earth, the good news of the Kingdom?what the Kingdom is, what it will do, and how we can receive its blessings?is being preached in over 230 lands and in more than 400 languages. Millions of Jehovah?s Witnesses zealously preach the Kingdom good news. They come from ?all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues.? (Revelation 7:9) The Witnesses conduct free home Bible studies with millions of people who want to know what the Bible really teaches. What an impressive fulfillment of prophecy, especially since Jesus foretold that true Christians would be ?objects of hatred by all people?!?Luke 21:17.
WHAT WILL YOU DO?

15 Since so many Bible prophecies are being fulfilled today, do you not agree that we are living in the last days? After the good news is preached to Jehovah?s satisfaction, ?the end? is certain to come. (Matthew 24:14) ?The end? means the time when God will get rid of wickedness on earth. To destroy all who willfully oppose Him, Jehovah will use Jesus and powerful angels. (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9) Satan and his demons will no longer mislead the nations. After that, God?s Kingdom will shower blessings upon all who submit to its righteous rulership.?Revelation 20:1-3; 21:3-5.

16 Since the end of Satan?s system is near, we need to ask ourselves, ?What should I be doing?? It is wise to continue to learn more about Jehovah and his requirements for us. (John 17:3) Be a serious student of the Bible. Make it your habit to associate regularly with others who seek to do Jehovah?s will. (Hebrews 10:24, 25) Take in the abundant knowledge that Jehovah God has made available to people worldwide, and make necessary changes in your life so that you may enjoy God?s favor.?James 4:8.

17 Jesus foretold that most people would ignore the evidence that we are living in the last days. The destruction of the wicked will come suddenly and unexpectedly. Like a thief in the night, it will catch most people by surprise. (1 Thessalonians 5:2) Jesus warned: ?As the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.??Matthew 24:37-39.

18 Hence, Jesus told his listeners: ?Pay attention to yourselves that your hearts never become weighed down with overeating and heavy drinking and anxieties of life, and suddenly that day be instantly upon you as a snare. For it will come in upon all those dwelling upon the face of all the earth. Keep awake, then, all the time making supplication that you may succeed in escaping all these things that are destined to occur, and in standing [with approval] before the Son of man.? (Luke 21:34-36) It is wise to take Jesus? words to heart. Why? Because those having the approval of Jehovah God and ?the Son of man,? Jesus Christ, have the prospect of surviving the end of Satan?s system of things and of living forever in the marvelous new world that is so close at hand!?John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:13.

WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES

• The last days are marked by wars, food shortages, earthquakes, and pestilences.?Matthew 24:7; Luke 21:11.
• In the last days, many love themselves, money, and pleasures but do not love God.?2 Timothy 3:1-5.
• During these last days, the good news of the Kingdom is being preached worldwide.?Matthew 24:14.

* For information showing that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ, see the Appendix.
Study Questions
1. Where can we learn about the future?
2, 3. What question did the disciples ask Jesus, and how did he reply?
4, 5. (a) What took place in heaven soon after Jesus was enthroned as King? (b) According to Revelation 12:12, what was to be the result of the war in heaven?
6, 7. How are Jesus? words about wars and food shortages being fulfilled today?
8, 9. What shows that Jesus? prophecies about earthquakes and pestilences have come true?
10. What traits foretold at 2 Timothy 3:1-5 do you see in people today?
11. How does Psalm 92:7 describe what will happen to the wicked ones?
12, 13. How has ?true knowledge? become abundant in this ?time of the end??
14. How widespread is the preaching of the Kingdom good news today, and who are preaching it?
15. (a) Do you believe that we are living in the last days, and why? (b) What will ?the end? mean for those who oppose Jehovah and for those who submit to the rulership of God?s Kingdom?
16. What would it be wise for you to do?
17. Why will the destruction of the wicked catch most people by surprise?
18. What warning by Jesus should we take to heart?

Knicks4lyfe said:

You're welcome.

I won't be. We rely on the bible, and have learned from the past. We will not be disappointed.

Good day.

Click to expand...

• John 14: 6 "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.'"

In reply to my post of the above scripture, you stated that Jesus said that humans must go through him "to get to God," in essence changing the scripture for the sake of your support of Witness doctrine on Jesus' deity; but Jesus uses the term, "The Father," not God [in this quote].

Is it only figure of speech, when it goes against your teachings and literal, when it suits you?

If you want to use this quote to refute Jesus' insistance that you can only get to Jehovah through him, it is only fair you do so in context. You also ignored the portion of the scripture that says that if you have seen him you have seen the father.

If Jesus is not part of the Christian trinity, please explain the following scripture, without citing other scripture to support your perspective. Additionally, how can you justify believing Jesus to be the archangel michael, based on this quote...

• Hebrews 1: 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, ?You are my Son; today I have become your Father?? Or again, ?I will be his Father, and he will be my Son?? 6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, ?Let all God?s angels worship him.?7 In speaking of the angels he says, ?He makes his angels spirits, and his servants flames of fire.? 8 But about the Son he says, ?Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;

Why is Jesus, here, being referred to as "God" by Jehovah? And note that the people most likely to question Jesus' deity, because of their history of worshipping Jehovah, the Jews, are the ones receiving these instructions.

Please answer yourself, without copying and pasting watchtower publications.

God Bless

OGKnickfan said:

• John 14: 6 "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.'"

In reply to my post of the above scripture, you stated that Jesus said that humans must go through him "to get to God," in essence changing the scripture for the sake of your support of Witness doctrine on Jesus' deity; but Jesus uses the term, "The Father," not God [in this quote].

Is it only figure of speech, when it goes against your teachings and literal, when it suits you?

If you want to use this quote to refute Jesus' insistance that you can only get to Jehovah through him, it is only fair you do so in context. You also ignored the portion of the scripture that says that if you have seen him you have seen the father.

If Jesus is not part of the Christian trinity, please explain the following scripture, without citing other scripture to support your perspective. Additionally, how can you justify believing Jesus to be the archangel michael, based on this quote...

• Hebrews 1: 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, ?You are my Son; today I have become your Father?? Or again, ?I will be his Father, and he will be my Son?? 6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, ?Let all God?s angels worship him.?7 In speaking of the angels he says, ?He makes his angels spirits, and his servants flames of fire.? 8 But about the Son he says, ?Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;

Why is Jesus, here, being referred to as "God" by Jehovah? And note that the people most likely to question Jesus' deity, because of their history of worshipping Jehovah, the Jews, are the ones receiving these instructions.

Please answer yourself, without copying and pasting watchtower publications.

God Bless

Click to expand...

If I am a Jehovah's witness, what is the big deal about using the publications I am associated with, so long as your question is answered?

Hebrews​

​

1:8:​

RS​

reads: ?Of the Son he says, ?Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.?? (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: ?But with reference to the Son: ?God is your throne forever and ever.?? (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)

Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression ?God, thy God,? showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads ?Your divine throne.? (NE says, ?Your throne is like God?s throne.? JP [verse 7]: ?Thy throne given of God.?) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit ?upon Jehovah?s throne.? (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the ?throne,? or Source and Upholder of Christ?s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.

Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: ?The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the?os′] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the?os′ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [?Elo?him′] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the?os′] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ?Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.???The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.​

Knicks4lyfe said:

If I am a Jehovah's witness, what is the big deal about using the publications I am associated with, so long as your question is answered?


Hebrews

​

​

1:8:

RS​

reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)​

Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.​

Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the?os′] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the?os′ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo?him′] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the?os′] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.​

Click to expand...

OGKnickfan said:

I just compared the NWT to three other bibles, and it really twisted the original bible in this case, as it has with other verses.​

No other bible text has this use of brackets and adding in indefinite articles, e.g., adding "a" to John 1:1, to make it read that the word was "a god," adding brackets to colossians 1:16 with the word other in it, in order to imply Jesus was created.​

And now I know the organization changes Hebrews to again deny Jesus' deity.​

About Jesus being Michael, how is that belief congruent with Hebrews?​

Click to expand...

I mean, no matter what bible you use, once you get to this part in Hebrew "God, thy God" Instantly it should tell a person that Jesus has a God. End of story.

Hebrews 1:2 says Jesus has become Heir to all things. Heir is not equal, he is next in line. God created angels, not other Gods. But those angels follow him, making them God like.

And then verse 9, the kicker : You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners.?

If Jesus is God, this would effectively mean that the Father has boosted Jesus worth above his and the Holy spirit, since in the trinity setting all three are 3 diff persons, but equal in the Godhead. Essentially making Jesus Christ Almighty God.

So the reasonable conclussion is that, no he is not God, he is being exulted to a higher authority, or thrown by God, because of his staunch righteousness.

Knicks4lyfe said:

I mean, no matter what bible you use, once you get to this part in Hebrew "God, thy God" Instantly it should tell a person that Jesus has a God. End of story.

Hebrews 1:2 says Jesus has become Heir to all things. Heir is not equal, he is next in line. God created angels, not other Gods. But those angels follow him, making them God like.

And then verse 9, the kicker : You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners.”

If Jesus is God, this would effectively mean that the Father has boosted Jesus worth above his and the Holy spirit, since in the trinity setting all three are 3 diff persons, but equal in the Godhead. Essentially making Jesus Christ Almighty God.

So the reasonable conclussion is that, no he is not God, he is being exulted to a higher authority, or thrown by God, because of his staunch righteousness.

Click to expand...

Well, you have the only bible that changes Hebrews 1:8, and that speaks for itself. I would be worried about this, if I were a Christian and involved with the Witnesses. But, ultimately, it is your business.

And again, how does Hebrews 1 not disprove the notion that Jesus is Michael? It claims he is not an angel, that Jehovah never termed an angel his son.

Is the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society a cult?

The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society defined the word "cult" for all
Jehovah's Witnesses and non-Witnesses to see in their February 15, 1994 edition of the Watchtower Magazine.



Let's see if the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society fits its definition of a cult.

"Cult members often isolate themselves from family, friends, and even society in general."
(The Watchtower, February 15, 1994, pp. 6-7)

The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society practices shunning(ex-communication of family, friends, and former witnesses), disfellowshipping(removal of the Congregation), and the Jehovah's Witness children are discouraged from engaging in afterschool activities with "worldly" non-Witness children.

Irrefutable Evidence:

"Listen! "it is expected" that you will have no
extra-curricular activities outside of the Watchtower. Such activity is a "danger" and "worldly". Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry 1983, p. 133.

"Children should get away from disfellowshipped parents as soon as they are old enough to leave." (Watchtower, 11/15/52, p. 703. )

"If a child of someone is disfellowshipped from the Kingdom Hall, the parent is to refuse to listen to the child's reason."( Organization for Kingdom-Preaching and Disciple-Making1972, p. 173.)

"Disfellowshipped children, legally of age will be kicked out of the home." (Watchtower, 11/15/52, p. 703. )


You are reminded that involvement in after-school sports tie you down, requiring you to spend evenings and weekends playing on a school team. You are expected to be at the lectures at the Kingdom Hall. "Any recreation you take outside of school should not be with worldly youths." Watchtower, 9/1/64, p.535.

"Cheerleaders lead people into "frenzied cheering ... hero worship ... glorifying humans." School and Jehovah's Witnesses, 1983, pp.23-24. Never become a homecoming queen! This would 'set up womanhood upon a pedestal." Watchtower, 6/15/64, p.381.

"In fact, the month Of May of Mother's Day is understood to be named after Maia, a demon worshiped by the pagans. . . . "' (Awake 5/8/1956, p. 25)

"We all need to face up to the fact that Christmas and its music are not from Jehovah, the God of truth. Then what is their source? ... Satan the Devil."(WT 12/15/1983, p. 7)


"No Jehovah's Witness should want to go to college." Watchtower,9/1/75, p.543; Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, 1977, p. 105..

"Do not pursue higher education." Watchtower 3/15/1969, p. 171

"If a JW joins another religion, an announcement is made to the congregation to stop associating with him." (WT 10/15/1986 p.31)

"If someone used to be a Jehovah's Witness, "We must hate in the truest sense, which is to regard with extreme ~ active aversion, to consider as loathsome, odious, filthy, to detest." Watchtower, 10/1/52, p.599.


"The real danger of playing chess is it's military nature, the equivalent of the maneuvers enacted by little boys with toy soldiers." Awake !, 3/22/73, pp.12-14.

Awake! 1986 october 22:
"My father said that the Witnesses would brainwash me, to which I replied that my brain needed a good washing."

OGKnickfan said:

Well, you have the only bible that changes Hebrews 1:8, and that speaks for itself. I would be worried about this, if I were a Christian and involved with the Witnesses. But, ultimately, it is your business.

And again, how does Hebrews 1 not disprove the notion that Jesus is Michael? It claims he is not an angel, that Jehovah never termed an angel his son.

Click to expand...

The NWT has been called the best version in the world. So not everyone feels the way you do. As I have said, every version has "God, thy God" or a rendition of, which in turn should automatically alarm a logically thinking person, that Jesus has a God. The bible says men should act as god. Calls Satan to god of this system. Only when Jesus is called Mighty God, is it confused with him being Almighty God. God is just a title of authority, which this Hebrew verse is showing. Jesus said in Mat 28:18 That all authority has been given to him in heaven and earth. That scripture sounds a lot like the Hebrew verses. God bestowing power to Jesus.

And this verse Heb 1:9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners.”

Who are Jesus partners here? As I said, if he is 1/3 of the Trinity, seperate individuals, all of equal power, All God, then somehow, The Father gave Jesus more authority then himself and the Holy Spirit, (who by the way mysteriously does not voice his opinion of the matter here) That would then mean that Jesus was now more powerful than his partners in the trinity, The Father, and The Holy Spirit. It's saying he became sole owner of the franchise, in effect. Then that refutes the Trinity. Why then would the other verse say "God, thy God"? Jesus would now in effect be God alone, having no God.

On the other hand, since it says "God thy God" and speaks of Angels, and comparing Jesus to what God is doing for him, instead of other angels, logic dictates that Jesus is an angel, And Jehovah has given him a higher office above his fellow angels.

It just makes way more sense then the way you see it. Adds up.

Is​

Jesus Christ the same person as Michael the archangel?​

The name of this Michael appears only five times in the Bible. The glorious spirit person who bears the name is referred to as “one of the chief princes,” “the great prince who has charge of your [Daniel’s] people,” and as “the archangel.” (Dan. 10:13; 12:1; Jude 9, RS) Michael means “Who Is Like God?” The name evidently designates Michael as the one who takes the lead in upholding Jehovah’s sovereignty and destroying God’s enemies.

At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (RS), the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as “the archangel’s call,” and Jude 9 says that the archangel is Michael. Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus’ commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority? Reasonably, then, the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ. (Interestingly, the expression “archangel” is never found in the plural in the Scriptures, thus implying that there is only one.)

Revelation 12:7-12 says that Michael and his angels would war against Satan and hurl him and his wicked angels out of heaven in connection with the conferring of kingly authority on Christ. Jesus is later depicted as leading the armies of heaven in war against the nations of the world. (Rev. 19:11-16) Is it not reasonable that Jesus would also be the one to take action against the one he described as “ruler of this world,” Satan the Devil? (John 12:31) Daniel 12:1 (RS) associates the ‘standing up of Michael’ to act with authority with “a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time.” That would certainly fit the experience of the nations when Christ as heavenly executioner takes action against them. So the evidence indicates that the Son of God was known as Michael before he came to earth and is known also by that name since his return to heaven where he resides as the glorified spirit Son of God.​

abcd said:

I assume you are an International Bible Student, since you are defending Charles Taze Russell.

I am not in any religion, nor am I interested in joining any religion, but I respect your opinion.

Good luck to you.

Click to expand...

I am a Christian by religion, associated with the Bible Students movement.
http://bstudents.reslight.net

Knicks4lyfe said:

The NWT has been called the best version in the world. So not everyone feels the way you do. As I have said, every version has "God, thy God" or a rendition of, which in turn should automatically alarm a logically thinking person, that Jesus has a God. The bible says men should act as god. Calls Satan to god of this system. Only when Jesus is called Mighty God, is it confused with him being Almighty God. God is just a title of authority, which this Hebrew verse is showing. Jesus said in Mat 28:18 That all authority has been given to him in heaven and earth. That scripture sounds a lot like the Hebrew verses. God bestowing power to Jesus.

And this verse Heb 1:9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners.”

Who are Jesus partners here? As I said, if he is 1/3 of the Trinity, seperate individuals, all of equal power, All God, then somehow, The Father gave Jesus more authority then himself and the Holy Spirit, (who by the way mysteriously does not voice his opinion of the matter here) That would then mean that Jesus was now more powerful than his partners in the trinity, The Father, and The Holy Spirit. It's saying he became sole owner of the franchise, in effect. Then that refutes the Trinity. Why then would the other verse say "God, thy God"? Jesus would now in effect be God alone, having no God.

On the other hand, since it says "God thy God" and speaks of Angels, and comparing Jesus to what God is doing for him, instead of other angels, logic dictates that Jesus is an angel, And Jehovah has given him a higher office above his fellow angels.

It just makes way more sense then the way you see it. Adds up.


Is

​

​

Jesus Christ the same person as Michael the archangel?​

The name of this Michael appears only five times in the Bible. The glorious spirit person who bears the name is referred to as “one of the chief princes,” “the great prince who has charge of your [Daniel’s] people,” and as “the archangel.” (Dan. 10:13; 12:1; Jude 9, RS) Michael means “Who Is Like God?” The name evidently designates Michael as the one who takes the lead in upholding Jehovah’s sovereignty and destroying God’s enemies.​

At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (RS), the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as “the archangel’s call,” and Jude 9 says that the archangel is Michael. Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus’ commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority? Reasonably, then, the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ. (Interestingly, the expression “archangel” is never found in the plural in the Scriptures, thus implying that there is only one.)​

Revelation 12:7-12 says that Michael and his angels would war against Satan and hurl him and his wicked angels out of heaven in connection with the conferring of kingly authority on Christ. Jesus is later depicted as leading the armies of heaven in war against the nations of the world. (Rev. 19:11-16) Is it not reasonable that Jesus would also be the one to take action against the one he described as “ruler of this world,” Satan the Devil? (John 12:31) Daniel 12:1 (RS) associates the ‘standing up of Michael’ to act with authority with “a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time.” That would certainly fit the experience of the nations when Christ as heavenly executioner takes action against them. So the evidence indicates that the Son of God was known as Michael before he came to earth and is known also by that name since his return to heaven where he resides as the glorified spirit Son of God.​

Click to expand...

New International Version (?1984)
But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
New Living Translation (?2007)
But to the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever. You rule with a scepter of justice.
English Standard Version (?2001)
But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
New American Standard Bible (?1995)
But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
International Standard Version (?2008)
But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is a righteous scepter.
GOD'S WORD? Translation (?1995)
But God said about his Son, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter in your kingdom is a scepter for justice.
King James Bible
But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.
American King James Version
But to the Son he said, Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom. American Standard Version
but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Bible in Basic English
But of the Son he says, Your seat of power, O God, is for ever and ever; and the rod of your kingdom is a rod of righteousness.

• Are you saying that thousands of years of expert translators, from a variety of Christian backgrounds, are mistranslating the bible, until Fred Franz shows up?
• If so, why are other religious groups not following suit? Do you think they would purposely refuse to worship God the right way by leaving mistranslations of the bible intact, in spite of Franz's information?

As for Jesus being Michael, you do not post the specific scriptures, and I really do not want to painstakenly look up each scripture. If you want to prove your position to me, please post the actual scriptures.

Right now, I have this.

Hebrews 1:

4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? 6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

• A long time ago, you told me that if I was claiming the WTBS was wrong on an issue you would be willing to look at what I had to say. I am, so far, stumped as to how angels could worship Jesus, unless Jesus is Jehovah manifested in the flesh.
• I also want to know how Jehovah could say that Jesus is superior to the angels, if he is an angel.

I am interested in what YOU have to say, if YOU choose to answer yourself.

God bless

OGKnickfan said:

• Are you saying that thousands of years of expert translators, from a variety of Christian backgrounds, are mistranslating the bible, until Fred Franz shows up?
• If so, why are other religious groups not following suit? Do you think they would purposely refuse to worship God the right way by leaving mistranslations of the bible intact, in spite of Franz's information?

Click to expand...

I'm saying that those translations have been geared toward a trinitarian viewpoint. Because a lot of times, there is an instance where a translated word can mean more than a specific word. For instance, those bibles use worship in Hebrews 1:6. Ours says Obeisance. Both words show venerable respect toward the person, but worship makes it appear as if he is God, obeisance is reverential respect for an authoritive figure. Same thought in some ways, but the words will take you to opposite spectrums.

That said, the biblical evidence is overwhemling. I honestly do not see how one can get around "God, Thy God". To me, it ends right there. I don't know why it does not for you. God cannot have a God, unless God is being referred to as an authoritive figure only, not as the most high. Then it absolutely makes sense.

It makes sense to you that God has a God? It makes sense to you that 1/3 of the Godhead gave power to another 1/3 of God? And what of the Holy Spirit? Where is that person? He has nothing to say? No objections to the Father raising Jesus above 2/3 of the Trinity?

The surrounding text indicates he is being given a higher office than the other angels. Since no God was mentioned until His God called him God. Plus, if you're right, then there is no trinity, Jesus stands as God alone. Can't have it both ways.

Also consider Col 1:15, where it calls Jesus the firstborn of all creatures. God has no creator. If Jesus is a creature, then he had a beginning. Therefore being totally disqualified as Almighty God. Also consider Jesus words in heaven, having this authority that was given to him by God, saying in chapter 3 verse 12- “‘The one that conquers—I (Jesus) will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God, and that new name of mine.

Why is God still in heaven with authority, saying he has a God? Only logical explanation is he is not almighty God, but has God like authority in ways, which were given to him by the Father.

And there are many instances where he says everything he knows, he learned from the Father, he said that concerning the time of the end, Not the Son, nor the Angels in Heaven, know the time of the end, only the Father.

How is it that Jesus, 1/3 God, didn't know when he will bring the end? What about the Holy Spirit? How come he didn't know? How is it that Jesus said only the Father knew the time of the end? That would mean that in some way, the Father was more powerful, or at least stronger in not giving up secrets dept than Jesus and the Holy Spirit. But does it really make sense that the trinity means that The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit are all individuals making up the same being, but The Father somehow knows more than the other two, and dictates who gets what power, says what, does what? Logic dictates that if The Father is calling all the shots, he has got to be stronger than Jesus and The Holy Spirit. Unless you got something better, I have to side with JW's viewpoint here, because I don't have to twist my mind in some wierded out way to wrap my head around something that those who believe in the trinity call a mystery.

OGKnickfan said:

As for Jesus being Michael, you do not post the specific scriptures, and I really do not want to painstakenly look up each scripture. If you want to prove your position to me, please post the actual scriptures.

Click to expand...

1 thess 4:16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first

Why would Jesus, God, decide to use the voice of a lesser being to ressurect the dead? Makes no sense, unless he is the arch angel

Jude
9 But when Mi′cha?el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you

This is the only angel ever called arch. This harmonizes well with Jehovah bestowing more power to Jesus over the other angels, making him the Chief.


Dan12:1 “And during that time Mi′cha?el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, every one who is found written down in the book.

And Jesus is God's chosen King who will act on behalf of God's people during the great tribulation and armageddon.

It's just a very logical conclussion. Very, very sensible.

Question for you. Who do the descriptions fit when speaking about this particular angel in rev 10? 1 And I saw another strong angel descending from heaven, arrayed with a cloud, and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as the sun, and his feet were as fiery pillars, 2 and he had in his hand a little scroll opened. And he set his right foot upon the sea, but his left one upon the earth, 3 and he cried out with a loud voice just as when a lion roars. And when he cried out, the seven thunders uttered their own voices

OGKnickfan said:

Right now, I have this.

Hebrews 1:

4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? 6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

• A long time ago, you told me that if I was claiming the WTBS was wrong on an issue you would be willing to look at what I had to say. I am, so far, stumped as to how angels could worship Jesus, unless Jesus is Jehovah manifested in the flesh.
• I also want to know how Jehovah could say that Jesus is superior to the angels, if he is an angel.

I am interested in what YOU have to say, if YOU choose to answer yourself.

God bless

Click to expand...

I explained the worship part. Jesus is the Arch Angel, or chief of the angels, meaning the strongest, most authoritive figure amongst them, therefore superior in that regard.

Alleged "

The title to this was supposed to be "Alleged 'End-of-World' Dates". For some unknown reason, the post was submitted before I finished the title, and there is now no way to edit the title.

abcd said:

Watchtower Society and Charles Taze Russell's Predictions:
1874, 1878, 1881, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1941, 1975, 1994
http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl2.htm

Click to expand...

The Watch Tower Society did not exist in 1874 or 1878. Russell himself never made gave any "expectations" regarding 1874, since before 1874 he did not have any positive belief concerning the date 1874. Russell did not accept the date 1874 as the return of Christ until 1876, two years after 1874 had passed.

Russell never mentioned the dates 1925, 1941, 1975 or 1994 as holding any prophetic significance.

The site referenced, in effect, by evidently misunderstanding and misrepresenting what both Jesus and the apostle Paul stated, would deny the validity of the Bible itself. As related to Russell, it is incorrect in some of its statements:

By placing the above dates in the context "44 failed & 1 ambiguous end-of-the-world predictions", the author leaves one with the assumption, that the "end of world" was predicted for each of the above dates. This is simply not true.

"1914 was one of the more important estimates of the start of the war of Armageddon by the Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society). They based their prophecy of 1914 from prophecy in the book of Daniel, Chapter 4"

Click to expand...

As I related before, there were no "Jehovah's Witnesses" back in the days of Russell. Nevertheless, I do not know of anyone who made a "prophecy" that the war of Armageddon was to start in 1914. Russell gave his conclusions, based on his studies of the Bible, but he stated that his conclusions should not be considered prophecy. Russell based his conclusions, however, not just on Daniel 4, but on studies related to several different prophecies in the Bible. (The JWs today have rejected all of Russell's studies on this, except for that of Daniel 4.) Of course, if we are now living in the "time of the end" since 1914, Russell's expectations, at least concerning the beginning of Armageddon in 1914, did not fail. From the JWs' standpoint, however, since they do not believe that we have been in the time of trouble since 1914, it would appear to be a failure.

Nevertheless, placing this date in the context of ""44 failed & 1 ambiguous end-of-the-world predictions" is highly misleading, since Russell directly stated that he was not expecting "the end of the world" in 1914. Nor did Russell expect Armageddon to be simply a "massive battle in Israel."

In connection with the idea of "The End of the World" in 1914, some have quoted the headline of The Bible Students Monthly, January, 1914, issue, out of context. Written by Charles Taze Russell, the article relates his viewpoint concerning “the end of the world,” and how he was not expecting the “end of the world” in 1914. Indeed, the article further shows that Russell was not expecting the second coming of Jesus in 1914, as some have claimed. Some have quoted the large bold headline out its context, which reads “End of World in 1914,” and claimed that Russell was preaching that the world would end in 1914. In fact, the smaller bold headline underneath the large headline continues by saying, “Not the View of Pastor Russell or of I.B.S.A.” Thus, in fact, the tract denies that Brother Russell was expecting “the end of the world” in 1914.

Since late in the 19th century, they had taught that the "battle of the Great Day of God Almighty" (Armageddon) would happen in 1914 CE. It didn't.

Click to expand...

There evidently were some Bible Students in the 19th century who had rejected Barbour's conclusions that Armageddon was to end in 1914, but Russell was not one of them, at least, not until 1904, which was in the 20th century, not the 19th century.

In 1904, Russell accepted the Biblical evidence of some his associates that 1914 was to see, not the end, but the beginning of Armageddon. Thus, from the standpoint of Russell himself, he did not teach during the 19th century that Armageddon was to 'happen' (actually 'begin') in the year 1914, but in the 20th century, in the year 1904, he did conclude that 1914 was to see the beginning of the time of trouble.

By the language used in the above quote, however, the author appears to be ignorant of what Russell believed and taught about "Armageddon"; the words appear to be projecting the JW belief back on Russell, rather than holding to historical accuracy.

From Russell's standpoint from 1904 onward, what was expected to happen in 1914 was that "Armageddon" was "begin" on that date -- not the JW-type of Armageddon, but rather the Armageddon that would sum up the wrath of God that has been upon man even since Adam disobeyed. I (and many others associated with the Bible Student) believe that Armageddon did begin then, and will last until Satan is finally abyssed, and the present heavens and earth pass away. Thus, to say that, at least from Russell's standpoint, and from the standpoint of many Bible Students, that "It didn't" happen, is misleading, if it did, indeed, begin in that year.

Russell and Sectarianism

abcd said:

White predicted Jesus would ?visibly? return in 1844, just like Charles Taze Russell(founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses) predicted Jesus would visibly return in 1874.

Click to expand...

As stated before, Russell never "predicted" Christ was to return in 1874; it was not until 1876 that Russell accepted that Christ had already returned in 1874, thus before 1874, Russell never "predicted" -- or more correctly, held to any expectations of -- anything about 1874. Russell, however, was not the "founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses". Russell did not believe in such a sectarian and authoritarian organization, nor in the alleged "good news" proclaimed by that organization.

See:
Focus on Charles Taze Russell - Founder of JWs?
http://ctr.reslight.net/?feed=rss2&cat=484

abcd said:

But when her prediction did not come true, she changed her prediction and stated that Jesus had started his ?investigative judgement? ?invisibly? in 1844, which is very similar to the Jehovah's Witnesses prediction that Jesus ?invisibly? took his throne in 1914 AFTER Russell was wrong about Jesus ?visibly? returning in 1874.

Click to expand...

Rutherford actually changed the date of Christ's return from 1874 to 1914 because he wanted to misuse and reinterpret the time prophecies of Daniel 12 and Revelation 12 to make them appear to apply to his new organization. Rutherford gradually changed the date without giving any genuine explanation for the change, and had all who would not accept his change disfellowshipped. Rutherford never proved that Russell was wrong about Jesus having returned in 1874; he simply wanted to use the prophecies to support his authority in his new organization. Indeed, it is somewhat confusing, since for several years Rutherford presented both ideas, that Christ had returned in 1874, and that in had returned in 1914, without any explanation of such. It was not until the 1930s that Rutherford quietly dropped 1874 altogether and simply referred to 1914 as the date of Christ's return.

abcd said:

Ellen G. White created a large amount of beliefs, and Charles Taze Russell would ?borrow? heavily from her teachings.

Click to expand...

Actually, as I have stated, there is no evidence that Russell borrowed from Ellen G. White at all. White may have had some similar beliefs, but this does not mean that Russell borrowed such beliefs from White.

abcd said:

1. Ellen G. White believed the other non-adventist churches were under the power of Satan. To this day Adventists secretly believe the Catholic church is ?the whore of Babylon.?
"Here we find the mark of the beast. The very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, on the part of the Catholic church, without any authority from the Bible."-Ellen G. White

This is identical the the Watchtower's teachings that the non-Witness churches are under the power of Satan.

Click to expand...

It was generally taught by practically all Protestants that the Catholic church was the whore of Revelation; for various reasons, most Protestants today have left off teaching this. Russell believed that Babylon, as represented in sectarianism, is indeed of the devil; God has never approved of such sectarianism, or denominationlism, and such sectarianism or denominationlism must be destroyed since God is not going to permit such divisions in his kingdom. Russell did not believe, however, that such destruction of Babylon would mean eternal destruction for all who are members of such denominations; rather, he believed that the destruction of Babylon would free Christians from such denominationalism.

Nevertheless, Russell did not recognize any sectarian lines as did the Adventists, or as the JWs do today. He believed that any Christian, whether associated with the Bible Students or in the denominations, could be affected by Satanic influence. He certainly never condemned all who were not of the Bible Students movement to any kind of eternal destruction, as the JWs do today, nor did he ever say that in order for one to be a Christian, he had to belong to the Bible Students' association.

The statement, "This is identical the the Watchtower's teachings that the non-Witness churches are under the power of Satan," seems to reflect more the teaching of Rutherford and the modern-day JWs, not Russell.

See:
Focus on Charles Taze Russell - Sectarianism
http://ctr.reslight.net/?feed=rss2&cat=486

abcd said:

"Is it presumptuous of Jehovah's Witnesses to point out that they alone have God's backing? Actually, no more so than when the Israelites in Egypt claimed to have God's backing in spite of the Egyptians' belief, or when the first-century Christians claimed to have God's backing to the exclusion of Jewish religionists." Watchtower 2001 June 1 p.16

Click to expand...

The above reflects the Jehovah's Witnesses, but Russell taught almost the opposite of this. Note what Russell stated:

We should not object to the Lord's using various agencies for accomplishing his work. We should not think that we alone have the privilege of engaging in his work; that we have patent rights on his work, and can hinder others from doing what they may be able to do and take pleasure in doing.

Click to expand...

What Pastor Russell Said, Question 279:4 (1910)

Knicks4lyfe said:

If I am a Jehovah's witness, what is the big deal about using the publications I am associated with, so long as your question is answered?


Hebrews

1:8:​

RS​

reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)​

Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.​

Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the?os′] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the?os′ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo?him′] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the?os′] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.​

Click to expand...

1. Jesus said we should get our peace from what he "told" us, not organizations:
John 16:
33 “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”

In other words, through what Jesus has told us you find peace that is in him, which causes cessation of all "trouble," when one puts faith in Jesus and his message, as one finds the peace he found in overcoming the world's temptations.

Obviously, we learn from one another, especially when we allow our interpretations to be questioned. But, by going through an organization, to such a massive extent as you have, which essentially makes it so that the organizational voice is more prominent than Jesus', is, in my opinion, spiritually unhealthy.

Knicks4lyfe said:

I mean, no matter what bible you use, once you get to this part in Hebrew "God, thy God" Instantly it should tell a person that Jesus has a God. End of story.

Hebrews 1:2 says Jesus has become Heir to all things. Heir is not equal, he is next in line. God created angels, not other Gods. But those angels follow him, making them God like.

And then verse 9, the kicker : You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners.”

If Jesus is God, this would effectively mean that the Father has boosted Jesus worth above his and the Holy spirit, since in the trinity setting all three are 3 diff persons, but equal in the Godhead. Essentially making Jesus Christ Almighty God.

So the reasonable conclussion is that, no he is not God, he is being exulted to a higher authority, or thrown by God, because of his staunch righteousness.

Click to expand...

1. Actually, it is not the end of the story. Otherwise, Christians would all be JW's or Adventists. Christianity is not a legalistic religion, where everything is one-two-three. It is about the heart and the spirit, as stated throughout the Greek scriptures.

Also, Thessalonians 4:16... "For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first."

----> This implies that the Lord will come with several things: with a loud command, the voice of the archangel and the trumpet call of God. It does not say that these are Jesus' personal characteristics. It says these will essentially be the accompanying signs of his descent.

2. As for your other point, I could just as well take Hebrews 1:8 and say that Jesus is called God, meaning he is Jehovah. And follow it by saying End of story, since, in your thinking 1:9 contradicts 1:8.

3. Moreover, 1:9 is saying God, thy God, stating that God is Jesus' God, but the same is implied in 1:8, when God is quoted as saying, in reference to Jesus, "Your throne, O God." Don't you see that one could say that Jesus is Jehovah's God, using the logic WTBS employs?

The fact is that the scripture speaks for itself: Jesus is, in Christianity, a physical manifestation of the supreme.

4. Also this publication distorts Wescott's statement, making it seem he supports their translation of Hebrews 1:8, when he is exclusively speaking about psalms.

Knicks4lyfe said:

I'm saying that those translations have been geared toward a trinitarian viewpoint. Because a lot of times, there is an instance where a translated word can mean more than a specific word. For instance, those bibles use worship in Hebrews 1:6. Ours says Obeisance. Both words show venerable respect toward the person, but worship makes it appear as if he is God, obeisance is reverential respect for an authoritive figure. Same thought in some ways, but the words will take you to opposite spectrums.

It makes sense to you that God has a God? It makes sense to you that 1/3 of the Godhead gave power to another 1/3 of God? And what of the Holy Spirit? Where is that person? He has nothing to say? No objections to the Father raising Jesus above 2/3 of the Trinity?

The surrounding text indicates he is being given a higher office than the other angels. Since no God was mentioned until His God called him God. Plus, if you're right, then there is no trinity, Jesus stands as God alone. Can't have it both ways.

Also consider Col 1:15, where it calls Jesus the firstborn of all creatures. God has no creator. If Jesus is a creature, then he had a beginning.

Why is God still in heaven with authority, saying he has a God? Only logical explanation is he is not almighty God, but has God like authority in ways, which were given to him by the Father.

And there are many instances where he says everything he knows, he learned from the Father, he said that concerning the time of the end, Not the Son, nor the Angels in Heaven, know the time of the end, only the Father.

Unless you got something better, I have to side with JW's viewpoint here, because I don't have to twist my mind in some wierded out way to wrap my head around something that those who believe in the trinity call a mystery.


1 thess 4:16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first

Why would Jesus, God, decide to use the voice of a lesser being to ressurect the dead? Makes no sense, unless he is the arch angel

Jude
9 But when Mi′cha?el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you

This is the only angel ever called arch. This harmonizes well with Jehovah bestowing more power to Jesus over the other angels, making him the Chief.


Dan12:1 “And during that time Mi′cha?el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, every one who is found written down in the book.

And Jesus is God's chosen King who will act on behalf of God's people during the great tribulation and armageddon.

It's just a very logical conclussion. Very, very sensible.

Question for you. Who do the descriptions fit when speaking about this particular angel in rev 10? 1 And I saw another strong angel descending from heaven, arrayed with a cloud, and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as the sun, and his feet were as fiery pillars, 2 and he had in his hand a little scroll opened. And he set his right foot upon the sea, but his left one upon the earth, 3 and he cried out with a loud voice just as when a lion roars. And when he cried out, the seven thunders uttered their own voices


I explained the worship part. Jesus is the Arch Angel, or chief of the angels, meaning the strongest, most authoritive figure amongst them, therefore superior in that regard.

Click to expand...

Bibles you mention as trinitarian are in line with Christian tradition, which is why they can be used by almost any church, while bibles like the NWT are seeking to more so break with tradition because they hold different beliefs. This is why no church, other than the JW's, uses the NWT as their bible.

It should also be said that the JW's were using other bible translations (some of which are the ones you cited as agreeing with the NWT), in line with their beliefs, years before and after the NWT. Around the same times as CT Russell there were plenty of unitarian groups, as mentioned by ABCD.

In any case, I think you answered my questions: I understand why the JW's hold these beliefs, in spite of what it says in all non-denominational translations.

Colossians is distorted, again, in the NWT. They add, in brackets, the word other to the following scripture, prior to the word creation:

Colossians 1:
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Read the bible for yourself, K4L, and stop listening to human masters. Jesus exhorts you to listen to him, he tells you how to know you are listening to him: your burden must be easy and light, you must find your organization treating others, as well as members, with humility.

Does the organization promote this?

Matthew 11:
28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

OGKnickfan said:

1. Jesus said we should get our peace from what he "told" us, not organizations:
John 16:
33 ?I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.?

In other words, through what Jesus has told us you find peace that is in him, which causes cessation of all "trouble," when one puts faith in Jesus and his message, as one finds the peace he found in overcoming the world's temptations.

Obviously, we learn from one another, especially when we allow our interpretations to be questioned. But, by going through an organization, to such a massive extent as you have, which essentially makes it so that the organizational voice is more prominent than Jesus', is, in my opinion, spiritually unhealthy.

Click to expand...

When Jesus started his ministry, is it fair to say he started a new Faith, or organization? I think so. He taught organized, he organized who he sent out to teach. It's fair to say the Christians in the first century were an organization, with Jesus as it's leader, and Jehovah their God. That is the same relationship JW's have with Jesus and his Father. We let Jehovah's word guide us. No other faith adheres to the bible more than Jehovah's witnesses do. Point blank. And that is the ultimate source, God's word. So this organization stuff, you keep coming up with is really weak. The Jews were a people, they were organized. The early Christians were too, so why would JW's not follow suit?

And I wonder how you can claim any sort of spiritual health, when you neglect the fact that Jehovah is God, or do you wish to follow his rules! I'm flabbergasted at that, honestly, because one thing JW's will try and do, is listen to God. You don't want to, yet you are somehow claiming a better relationship with God.

And that verse you posted is squarely about keeping courage because Jesus conquered Satan's world, so his followers can too. That is it. Nothing more.

OGKnickfan said:

1. Actually, it is not the end of the story. Otherwise, Christians would all be JW's or Adventists. Christianity is not a legalistic religion, where everything is one-two-three. It is about the heart and the spirit, as stated throughout the Greek scriptures.

Click to expand...

Adventists believe in the Trinity. So they too, have fallen way side to having their ears tickled, and not sticking with solid scritpural reference. This is why Jesus Chose JW's when he became King. They stick to the bible.

Keep this in mind. When Jesus started his ministry, the Jews at the time were God's chosen people. Yet, Jesus had to correct the many flaws in their teachings, due to them not keeping true to Jehovah's word. They didn't even recognize as a whole, that he was the Messiah, even though they had no reason not to. They had the word in front of them. They knew the timeline the Messiah would appear, and still rejected him.

Now back to Christians. Why is it that none of the Apostles ever called Jesus God? None of them thought he was God. In fact that is why the Jew reject Christianity, because the scriptures never say the Messiah would be God! Nothing in the whole old testament says God will send himself. Jesus, in the whole New Testament, never once said 'I am God'. Everything he said reflects a person who knows God very closely, and was taught by, recieved authority by, and witnesses of God. Speaking of witness, the bible calls him the faithful and true witness. Witness of who? Witness of God. Bible says you cannot be a witness of yourself. You cannot find any tangible evidence that the Christians in the first century, while the apostles lived, thought anyone but Jehovah, not Jesus was God. Couple that with the fact that Jesus said Jerusalem (Spiritual) would be trampled on until the appointed time, which would coincide for true worship to be re-established, there is no wonder all the lies like Hellfire, and the Trinity surfaced in Christianity. You forget Satan is in play here. You think he is just gonna make it easy for people to find the truth about Jehovah?

OGKnickfan said:

Also, Thessalonians 4:16... "For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first."

----> This implies that the Lord will come with several things: with a loud command, the voice of the archangel and the trumpet call of God. It does not say that these are Jesus' personal characteristics. It says these will essentially be the accompanying signs of his descent.

Click to expand...

Jesus Voice is his. The trumpet is God's. Distinct difference. And you have to keep in mind the other scriptures as well. They coincide very well with the thought of this one.

OGKnickfan said:

2. As for your other point, I could just as well take Hebrews 1:8 and say that Jesus is called God, meaning he is Jehovah. And follow it by saying End of story, since, in your thinking 1:9 contradicts 1:8.

3. Moreover, 1:9 is saying God, thy God, stating that God is Jesus' God, but the same is implied in 1:8, when God is quoted as saying, in reference to Jesus, "Your throne, O God." Don't you see that one could say that Jesus is Jehovah's God, using the logic WTBS employs?

Click to expand...

Once it says God, your God" It is over. God cannot have a God. Point blank, end of discussion, unless you choose to reason illogically with yourself.

And I have Jesus, after he died, back in heaven, in Rev, when he has authority to do as he pleases, saying he has a God.

So when you say JW's should listen to Jesus, My eyes bug out my head, because apparently, they are! We see Jesus saying He has a God! We see where Jesus said all authority has been given to him. Why does God need to wait for any authority to be passed to him? We see when Jesus says everything I know, I was taught by the Father. Why would God not be privy to information? we see verses like this in Hebrews 9: 24 For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us

Jesus... appeared, before the person of God? Jesus, who is God, appeared before the person, of God? REALLY? This verse sounds simliar to this.

Job:6 Now it came to be the day when the sons of the [true] God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and even Satan proceeded to enter right among them.

Two instances in heaven, where people were before the person of God. What makes Jesus instance any different from Satan's instance, logically? Nothing.

This is just another scripture that supports the bibles evident theme that Jesus is not God, but a Son of God.

JW's are called many things, but we are avid readers of God's word. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Jehovah being God alone.

OGKnickfan said:

The fact is that the scripture speaks for itself: Jesus is, in Christianity, a physical manifestation of the supreme.

4. Also this publication distorts Wescott's statement, making it seem he supports their translation of Hebrews 1:8, when he is exclusively speaking about psalms.

Click to expand...

No, it qoutes him correctly, and he does not say whether the translation is favorable or not. But his words do allow for the thought process of the explanation.

I will make a seperate post on the Trinity.

OGKnickfan said:

Bibles you mention as trinitarian are in line with Christian tradition, which is why they can be used by almost any church, while bibles like the NWT are seeking to more so break with tradition because they hold different beliefs. This is why no church, other than the JW's, uses the NWT as their bible.

It should also be said that the JW's were using other bible translations (some of which are the ones you cited as agreeing with the NWT), in line with their beliefs, years before and after the NWT. Around the same times as CT Russell there were plenty of unitarian groups, as mentioned by ABCD.

In any case, I think you answered my questions: I understand why the JW's hold these beliefs, in spite of what it says in all non-denominational translations.

Colossians is distorted, again, in the NWT. They add, in brackets, the word other to the following scripture, prior to the word creation:

Colossians 1:
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Read the bible for yourself, K4L, and stop listening to human masters. Jesus exhorts you to listen to him, he tells you how to know you are listening to him: your burden must be easy and light, you must find your organization treating others, as well as members, with humility.

Does the organization promote this?

Matthew 11:
28 ?Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.?

Click to expand...

Christianity is not about tradition. It's about God's word. This is how the Jews messed up. Honoring their traditions, rather than God. The elders or any human is not my master, they are all in the same boat I am in. Trying to learn from him. And him is Jesus, and his master is Jehovah, just like ours.

Watchtower doctrine is essentially antagonistic in nature: the world is against you, you are against the world, tradition and non-tradition cannot co-exist, everything has to be in a neat little box, black-and-white, or the supreme is unhappy. Man, with his rules, as Paul stated to the Hebrews, created these, not God, who is beyond all humanly-conceived limitations.

Because of this theme in the watchtower's views of the world and itself, I think you are incorrectly assuming that I am trying to make your eyes bug out. On the contrary, I have recently (over the year and a half) been reading the bible, after many years of not doing so, and continue finding scriptures that conflict with what I learned from the watchtower. Since you are a baptized, adult witness, I asked you about what I found.

As for trinity doctrine, versus unitary doctrine, I care for neither one. I was simply interested in how your organization explains what I feel points at a trinity: Jesus (the son), The holy spirit (comforter Jesus will send) and the father.

Finally, I should say that I am not a Christian: I have, as a result, no interest in doctrine. I love Jesus, because he clearly loves and cares about all. The power of his love is such that even someone like me, who believes we all have the capacity to reach his heights, cannot help but hold him dear.

I think that, when people focus on doctrine and organizations, they lose out on innocent love, falling for the seductions of the physical world, which, whether one expects these promised delights in this world or on some paradise earth, deny the suffering that Jesus called men to submit themselves to. Says Paul...

Philippians 3

• 7 But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in[a] Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.10 I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead.

And in case there is an awake or watchtower that claims Paul was here asking for fleshly salvation, on a paradise Earth. Here is what he means by "resurrection from the dead," as expressed in his letter to the Ephesians.

Ephesians 2

• 1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

My only issue with the organization is its treatment of members: four or five boring meetings a week, treating as spiritually weak those that associate with non-believers, shunning people who choose to leave and controlling, down to a person's hygiene and dress, members' personal lives.

Jesus wanted better for his followers, of which I consider witnesses and other Christians to be equal members. Again, my objections are not toward witnesses but with governing body people who choose not to wash the feet of the world, as Jesus washed the feet of his apostles, saying...

John 13

• 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet.15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

PEACE n' LOVE