So HAPPY to know the truth!

by AuldSoul 16 Replies latest jw friends

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul

    I am just so pleased to be aware of the long, fruitless history of JWs pretending to interpret the Bible.

    Interpretations belong to God, which they even admit. But that admission doesn't stop them from pretending to interpret.

    It also doesn't stop from teaching these destructive pretenses as "divinely revealed truths" that must be accepted and taught as truth. They fail to recognize that they are messing with people's lives when they state doctrines they did not receive from God.

    These are NOT doctrines of God, they are merely teachings of men. 100% fallible, uninspired men. Men who say they receive nothing from God, but who go right along interpreting anyway, as though interpretations belong to men.

    God will see that they answer for their gross misrepresentation. I need not judge them, they already bear far heavier judgment than I could ever muster. But I am required by God to judge what they say, what they teach, for myself. I am required by God to test doctrine for truth.

    1 John 4:1 — Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test [lit. put under trial, put to the test, challenge] the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world.

    If the doctrine does not originate with God, what is its source? According to 1 John 4:1 such expressions not originating from God come from false prophets. So, I only have to ask myself, "Should I believe John, or not?"

    Mark 7:6-8 — He said to them:“Isaiah aptly prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written,‘This people honor me with [their] lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach as doctrines commands of men.’ Letting go the commandment of God, you hold fast the tradition of men.”

    Vain worship = worship that includes commands of men taught as doctrine. Would it look like true worship, from the outside? Definitely. Otherwise, how would any be misled by it?

    Colossians 2:23 — Those [commands and teachings of men] are, indeed, possessed of an appearance of wisdom in a self-imposed form of worship and [mock] humility, a severe treatment of the body; but they are of no value in combating the satisfying of the flesh.

    Ezekiel 13:8, 9 “‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said:“‘For the reason that you men have spoken untruth and you have visioned a lie, therefore here I am against you,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah.” And my hand has come to be against the prophets that are visioning untruth and that are divining a lie.’”

    It can't get any more plainly spoken than that. Jehovah's Witnesses predict things that do not come to pass. According to Ezekiel, they do not represent YHWH, the hand of YHWH is against them.

    THAT is the truth! I am so happy to know it.

  • sacolton
    sacolton

    Hey, we're happy that you're happy!

  • nvrgnbk
    nvrgnbk

    I have a prediction for you, AuldSoul:

    I'm buying you a beer in the near future.

    That is the truth.

  • M.J.
    M.J.

    Great points!

    I'd also add Galatians 1:8-9: "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"

    The implication here is tremendous. If an APOSTLE, who spoke face-to-face with Christ himself ("we") or even an Angel from heaven starts teaching something off-base, it must be rejected. This is an argument against blind, unquestioning submission.

    How does Paul define what is "off base"? He says it's something that is "according to man" (v. 11).

    Paul then makes the case that what he is preaching is not "according to man". How does he argue his point? On the basis that it didn't come from his being taught by the apostles before him or anyone else...but as a result of a direct, face-to-face interview with Christ himself.

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul
    M.J. Paul then makes the case that what he is preaching is not "according to man". How does he argue his point? On the basis that it didn't come from his being taught by the apostles before him or anyone else...but as a result of a direct, face-to-face interview with Christ himself.

    Excellent points! Paul stated that the source of his doctrine was divine, directly. The GB makes no such claim, so where does their doctrine come from? From within themselves, from men.

    Respectfully,
    AuldSoul

    P.S. I will PM you my address for the parcel intended for our mutual friend, okay?

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul
    nvrgnbk: I have a prediction for you, AuldSoul : I'm buying you a beer in the near future.

    Sheeze, fella! Does that pickup line EVER work? What kind of a girl do you think I am?

  • sacolton
    sacolton

    Psalm 146:3

    Do not trust in princes, In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul

    Yeah, sacolton! You tell him!

    You hear that, nvrgnbk? sacolton says I should believe you about the beer thing when I SEE it, and not a second before!

  • darth frosty
    darth frosty

    Good hearing from ya B.

    Respectfully

    Frosty

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul
    sacolton: Psalm 146:3

    Seriously,

    I love that Scripture for talking with people about the spiritual authority presumed by religious leaders.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit