The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • AuldSoul


    The Watchtower Society was of the latter kind — associated with the DPI.


    I was watching Carlos Mencia the other night. Funny guy. He talked about you quite a lot.

    I have NEVER suggested the Society was Associated to anything else. I have repeatedly specified and even SPELLED OUT UN/DPI as United Nations Department of Public Information. Why are you telling me what I just told you? "De-de-de!" (as Carlos says). The Watchtower Society did the same thing to me. The second paragraph of their letter back to me was like a carbon copy of the second paragraph of my letter to them. They are also, "De-de-de!"

    I am probably much better informed than you on the structure of the various UN departments and their requirements. NGO Association is not limited to association with ECOSOC and DPI. Do you know which other departments allow NGO Associate memberships? I do. Do you know what the primary requirement, the "principle criterion" for Association to EVERY SINGLE ONE is and always has been? Each department that has an NGO Associate program is charged with making its own Criteria for Association. But the primary criterion is ALWAYS present. It MUST be present, for all departments, based on the reasoning presented when the first department wanted to allow NGO Associates. This Criterion is always present because of the ECOSOC Resolution.

    Some variant of:

    - The NGO must share the principles of the UN Charter

    - An Associate NGO must support the principles of the UN Charter

    - For an NGO to be approved for Association, it must support the principles and purpose of the UN Charter.

    and so on. Without exception. No matter how far back you go, including 1968 when NGOs were first allowed to Associate to a UN department (the UN/ECOSOC, in that case). There has never been an NGO Association to any UN department that was not first required to agree on paper to Criteria for Association to that particular department, usually as part of the application form. There has never been a Criteria for Association to any UN department that has not had this primary criterion in some form as its FIRST criterion in the Criteria for Association.

    Now, if you believe I am wrong, show why. If you believe I am right, then it doesn't make ANY DIFFERENCE if the Criteria changed. The ever-present FIRST and PRIMARY criterion would eliminate any possibility of a JW engaging in this relationship.

    Have you really read it? If so, why do you ask questions that have obviously been answered?

    Yes. I really read it. And you misrepresent the relationship throughout the entire puff piece you wrote. You frequently refer to the relationship as a registration, when you obviously know it was not a registration, it was an Associate membership to the UN/DPI.

    In the post where I asked you about the other Associate members to the UN/DPI, I gave you a long list of other NGOs that are Associates to the UN/DPI and I asked you one question regarding them. You didn't answer. Your Web site doesn't answer. Since you herein finally admit that they were ASSOCIATED to the UN/DPI (as distinguished from "registered with"), please respond to my question regarding other UN/DPI Associate member NGOs.

    If you don't remember the question, it is in this post:

    Now, each of these organizations is an NGO Associate member of the UN/DPI. Some are also members of ECOSOC and other UN departments. But ALL are members of the UN/DPI. Are these organizations approved by God or disapproved by God?

    I fully understand your reluctance to straightforwardly ANSWER the questions, because doing so assassinate the claims of your Web page, and I also understand your desire to redirect people to your Web site because doing so boosts your Web rankings, but I don't understand the idiocy involved in thinking that a static, unchallengable Web site that makes dozens of errors in its statements of fact is somehow a replacement for discussion ON A DISCUSSION FORUM. You have been warned repeatedly and I promise you the patience of the Assistants will eventually wear out.

    Please, answer the questions.


  • thirdwitness

    Auldsoul, your previous post about Christ's authority is an example in spoon feeding. I actually do not need to reply because you failed to overcome my arguments at all. Or I have already answered your arguments in detail. But of course you will claim that I ignored your points so I must take you by the hand and lead you along on each point. I am sure that any reasonable unbiased person realizes that you simply glossed over my arguments with a long post without substance. But let me show you once again. Auldsouls words in italics.

    When Jesus said 'all authority' did he mean that he had all authority over everything and everyone?

    All authority, yes. This does not require GREATER authority over everything. But at least equal to every authority. If someone is given authority equal to the highest available authority they have all authority, no one has greater authority. He became co-ruler, seated on the throne with his Father at his Father's right hand, with authority equal to that of the one who granted it to him. I caution, authority possessed does not equal authority exercised no matter how often you try to assert otherwise.

    You seem to believe in the Trinity. Or that Jesus is God. Am I right? You ignore what Death of the Pixies wrote of course. And you ignore 1 Cor 15 where it says Jesus being given all authority is with the exception of God. So, no all authority as stated by Jesus in Matt 28:18 did not mean all absolute authority in subjection to no one.

    You also split hairs about being given all authority and exercising that authority. More on that further down.

    I noticed you have trotted out your "61 CE" Hebrews crap, repeatedly. However, the date for the writing of Hebrews is hardly solidly confirmed.

    Whatever date you chose to give the writings of Hebrews it was some years after 33CE so this point is mute.

    And Ephesians states directly that God had placed "all things" under the feet of Jesus by the time of its writing, which JWs put as prior to Hebrews. Since JWs teach that the same author wrote both books, why does the author directly contradict his own earlier statement?

    Ephesians points out exactly what is meant if you would read it. Eph 1:Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come. 22 He also subjected all things under his feet, and made him head over all things to the congregation,

    Do you see that Jesus was seated in heavenly places so of course he has been exalted far above all other rulers. And of course all things are under his feet for he is in heaven. But it is pointed out that he is head over all things to the congregation. And while it says that all things are under his feet because of his heavenly position this is not specific to the prophecy of Psalm 110. But in Heb 10:13 Paul is specifically talking about that prophecy. What you fail to understand is that the prophecy of Jesus as the promised everlasting ruler in the Davidic kingship had not yet come to its finish. That Davidic kingship he would not receive until the end of the Gentile times when the ruler that God would choose would be made king.

    You also keep bringing up that Revelation says "Now have come to pass...the authority of his Christ." If he did not have all authority when he said he had all authority, he lied. "Come to pass" can easily mean an exercise of authority, power, and rulership. In the case of "authority" due to Matthew 28:18 it could not possibly mean a granting of authority unless Jesus lied. So, understanding Jesus' authority is actually the key to understanding whether the verse describes the acquiring of power, rulership, and authority or whether it describes the exercise of the same.

    Ah, here we have the splitting of hairs. So basically you agree with JWs. Jesus was yet to exercise his kingly authority as ruler of God's kingdom. It would be at a later date after his acsension to heaven at the appointed time. And it was only after Satan was thrown out of heaven that then his authority and power and rulership came to pass. Thanks. I am glad to know that you agree with JWs on this point after all.

    How is it that Jesus went to heaven and came before Jehovah as recorded at Daniel 7:13,14 in 33CE when the little horn that would become great had not yet arrived on the world scene as shown would be the case at this time in Daniel 7?

    I am guessing you agree with the JW interpretation of the little horn? I do not hold your prejudices about the interpretive prowess of the leaders (gods) of your church. They are wrong far more often than they are right. In fact, when it comes to interpreting the meaning of the verses in Daniel they have rewritten many times over more words explaining and changing the explanations of Daniel than are contained in the entire Bible. The little horn doesn't mean what they think it means, they interpreted it just as badly as they interpret almost everything else. Next?

    Here I notice that you are quick to say JWs are wrong but you offer no explanation as to why or what the real meaning of the small horn is. It is very easy to make unsubstantiated statements with nothing to back them up. Did you know that the moon is made of cheese? I know scientists say that is wrong but they have been wrong about things before.

    How is it that Paul said the Jesus was still waiting for Jehovah to put his enemies under his feet in Heb 10:13 if Jesus had already received 'all authority'?

    That's a really good question. Especially considering Paul directly contradicted what he wrote to the Ephesians (if he even wrote Hebrews). Why don't you ask Paul?

    I explained that above.

    Did this happen in 33CE? Did he travel to a distant land (heaven) privately after his ressurection and 'eventually' secure kingly power in a couple of days, then returned to earth and appeared to the disciples and then returned to heaven before onlookers without rewarding his slaves and punishing his enemies?

    Except why do you continually imply that the parable you are referring to from Luke 19 and Matthew 25 are prophecies?

    Now you are really grasping. Not a prophecy huh? Based on this there must not be any prophecies by Jesus. They are all just stories. I don't think that one unbiased person reading this will believe what you just said. Reasonableness is not your best quality, is it?

    Also, why do you stipulate that kingly power had to be secured "in a couple of days"?

    That is your stipulation. You say that Jesus went to heaven privately received all authority came back down and told the disciples that he had been given all authority and then went back to heaven publicly. He was only on earth 40 days after his ressurection. So he only had a few days to secure kingly power.

    Also, why do you keep insinuating that obtaining authority EQUALS obtaining kingly power?

    Oh so now you are opening the way up again to believe what JWs teach. That he received authority all right, but he did not receive his kingly power until 1914. Thanks for again showing us that the Bible allows for that teaching after all. Why are we continuing to discuss this since you admit JWs are right about it?

    Also, why has Jesus not literally slaughtered nearly 100 years after rewarding his select upon his return?

    I would ask you the same thing? Why didn't Jesus literally slaughter the enemies after gaining all authority including kingly authority in 33CE?

    So, in short, your entire question here is based on a LONG string of conjecture that doubles back on itself forming a perfect circle, filled with what appears to be cooked spaghetti—all wet, limp and lifeless.

    I think you are talking about yourself here.

    Revelation 11:15 is plainly the announcement of an event that had already occurred. If I write, "I did become a writer" would you know when I became a writer? You would only know that it was sometime prior to my statement and anything more specific that you concluded from my words would be pure conjecture.

    Pure conjecture huh? In view of the Rev 12 future prophecy this is the silliest of arguments. And Why does verse 16 say, “We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the One who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king. Jehovah has begun ruling as king when the kingdom of the world became the kingdom of the Lord and his Christ. Sounds like he takes on a special rulership toward the earth to me.

    The timing of the occurrence is not stipulated in the text, and your assertion that it occurred at the sounding of the trump is not founded in Scripture. However, other events are supported as accompanying the sounding of this trumpet.

    Really, then why does the scripture directly and totally contradict what you just said when it says: 15 And the seventh angel blew his trumpet. And loud voices occurred in heaven, saying: “The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever.”

    Then you say: Now, this verse in 1 Corinthians has me a bit puzzled, thirdwitness. Obviously no one would describe a single trumpet as "the last trumpet". This designation clearly necessitates a series of trumpets with a "last" in the series. If Paul had not read Revelation when he wrote this, where did he get the idea there would be a series of trumpet blasts, with a final one that would signal the events described here? But wouldn't that mean that he wrote 1 Corinthians AFTER considering John's vision? What do YOU say?

    I say it wouldn't matter. And I say there is this thing called holy spirit that can direct people to write exactly what Jehovah wants them to write. But at any rate, you prove that the 7th trumpet is the last trumpet and that is when the kingdom of the world becomes the kingdom of the Lord and of his Christ.

    Then you totally contradict yourself by saying: I say, this trumpet has not been blown. I say, this trumpet will be nearly concurrent with the sign of the Son of man which hasn't yet occurred.

    So first you say the kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of the Lord and of his Christ is in the past (which by the way is the proclamation made after the sounding of the 7th and last trumpet) but then you turn around and say: I say, this trumpet has not been blown.

    So which is it? Is the last trumpet when the proclamation is made that the kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of the Lord and his Christ in the past or in the future?

  • AuldSoul

    You asked questions and stated baseless conjecture as fact, ass. You didn't make an argument. You really need some lesson on forms of debate. You aren't using any form of debate. Your form of communication is called propaganda or preaching.


  • AuldSoul
    Here I notice that you are quick to say JWs are wrong but you offer no explanation as to why or what the real meaning of the small horn is.

    Listen, [edited] and listen well. I admitted I DON'T KNOW something, and will happily prove that you don't either. Where I do not positively assert facts, I don't do so because I have no FACTS to positively assert. However, I will continue to feel free to rake iceberg size holes all through the bulkhead of your titanic pile of conjecture anytime I please without having to offer a plausible alternative.

    Eliminating the possibility of an explanation stated as fact does NOT require proving an alternate explanation. Logic 101. Study up, you DESPERATELY need the help.


  • thirdwitness

    Auldsoul: Since you herein finally admit that they were ASSOCIATED to the UN/DPI (as distinguished from "registered with"), please respond to my question regarding other UN/DPI Associate member NGOs. I did not 'finally' admit it. The essay was written months ago. It hasn't been changed to admit anything. You must've not read it if you think I am 'finally' admitted it. This is a typical apostate ploy to mislead readers into thinking that it was something sinister and so I held back from admitting it until you 'finally' forced me to admit it.

  • AuldSoul
    So, no all authority as stated by Jesus in Matt 28:18 did not mean all absolute authority in subjection to no one.

    What an IDIOT! Okay, here is a little logic lesson for you. No charge.

    Sam was given money. Jane was given money. Jane was not given more money than Sam.

    Given these parameters, would the following statement logically be true or false?

    Sam was given more money than Jane.

    It would be false. Because we have not yet ruled OUT the possibility that Sam and Jane had equal amounts of money.

    Let's try again.

    The Father has authority. Jesus has authority. The Father is not in subjection to Jesus.

    Given these parameters, would the following statement logically be true or false?

    Jesus is in subjection to the Father.

    It would be false, because you have not ruled out the possiblity that NEITHER is subject to the authority of the other.

    Go back to school. I dropped out after the sixth grade and I still reason rings around you.


  • thirdwitness

    Auldsoul, while you are raking those iceberg size holes into my Titantic can you answer: When did Jesus become king of God's heavenly Messianic Kingdom? When did Jehovah begin ruling through Jesus as king of God's kingdom? Was it 33CE? If so, Was it before he went to heaven or after? Was it after John wrote Revelation? When did Jesus get the crown? Was it 33CE when he was given all authority on earth? Or was it after he was given all authority on earth then he went up to heaven and came on a cloud and appeared before Jehovah as told in Daniel 7:13,14 and received rulership and power? Or was it after Revelation was written when in the future he would receive a crown as Rev 6 shows? Or was it as recorded in Rev 11 and 12 which were prophesying events that would take place after 33CE when the 'kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of the Lord and of his Christ'? Or was it before Revelation 11 where it said that Jehovah has taken His great power and begun ruling as king? Was it before his enemies were placed as a stool for his feet or after? Did he become king of God's kingdom before 61CE while still waiting for his enemies to be placed as a stool or not? In other words, was he already king of God's kingdom in 33CE still waiting for his enemies to be placed as a stool for his feet in 61CE as Paul said. Your beliefs are very confusing and contradictory.

  • stevenyc

    thirdwitness: I did not 'finally' admit it. The essay was written months ago. It hasn't been changed to admit anything. You must've not read it if you think I am 'finally' admitted it. This is a typical apostate ploy to mislead readers into thinking that it was something sinister and so I held back from admitting it until you 'finally' forced me to admit it.

    So, if you know and accept the Watchtower society was associated with the UN DPI, and in order to be associated they had to "share the principles of the UN Charter", what exactly is your point?


  • hillary_step


    Jeffro, Just saying something is flawed don't make it so.

    Probably the most insightful comment that you have bought to this thread so far. As you have been levelling this accusation to most posters on this thread, and ignoring posts and questions that embarrass your particular theological slant, perhaps you should take to heart your own comments. HS

  • AuldSoul

    Tell you what, sport. Go read your NGO application you host on your site, and when you get to the portion that says: "Please note that association of your Non-Governmental Organization with the Department of Public Information..." please note that association with ANY organization that God disapproves of is a violation of published standards.

    Association = join, unite, accompany, go along with. ORGANIZATIONAL association to the UN/DPI falls VERY far outside the bounds of JW policy.

    Even if there was no Criteria for Association (which there was) stipulating as its first criterion that the NGO must share the principles of the UN Charter (which it did), (1) the NATURE of the relationship was off limits to a JW and (2) joining with the other members of the UN/DPI violates JW policy as well.

    You still haven't answered my questions. Why?


Share this