1 John 4:1 What is the JW and non JW take on this scripture? Thank you!

by lurk3r 38 Replies latest jw friends

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Blondie,

    I won't address the points brought up by others on this thread. Nor your personal opinion on the subject. But as a jw for many years, I never once remember being told that the anointed jws on earth direct the angels or have authority over them. After their death and resurrection to heaven, yes, I was taught that.

    Again, as I stated above, I never claimed that the Anointed have "authority" over or "direct" the angels while on earth. That is your own spin in an effort to revised my position. In fact, I posted quite the opposite. So, your response is not being intellectually honest with my stated position. I can see why you brush it off, because to deal with what I did say would require you quote something besides articles on Jesus heavenly authority.

    I already acknowledged that humans are "lower" than the angels ... in ability, knowledge, and power. But, Anointed are a new class that have a higher ranking ... and that you did not show anything which disputed the point.

    My point is well made in your own quote from the 1/15 1963 WT: " God created man a little less than the godlike ones or angels, so it does not seem reasonable that the angels would have to wait on men for instruction. To the contrary, Jehovah God has repeatedly used angels in teaching earthling man,and in particular to minister to those who are members of the Christian congregation with a heavenly calling."—Dan. 10:10-14; Heb. 1:14.

    To minister is to serve. Thus the Anointed are "served" by the angels. I never stated that the angels get instruction or are directed by humans or the Anointed ... here is what I clearly stated above to Minimus:

    1. Angels are superior to humans, including Anointed, in their knowledge, powers, and abilities.

    2. Angels (i.e. the faithful ones) have never sinned or displeased God.

    3. Angels are servants that do the bidding of God, and by extension, serve Christ as King, and His Bride.

    4. Anointed receive a "token" as you correctly noted, so they have yet to fully enjoy all aspects of their new status.

    5. Anointed are "credited" with righteousness, or sinlessness, though they have sinned.

    6. Anointed are "credited" with being spirit creatures while still in the flesh, by virtue of a new birth to a "living" hope.

    7. Anointed are also Priests right now in the flesh, and are already called "Saints" or "Holy Ones."

    8. Anointed are brothers of the King, Jesus, and co-heirs right now in the flesh.

    9. Anointed right now out-rank Angels in their various roles as Saints, Priests, co-Heirs, brothers, and the Bride of Christ.

    10. Anointed are "Officers" in ranking in one spiritual service and Angels are "Enlisted" ranking in another spiritual branch.

    11. While Anointed out-rank Angels, like an Admiral in the Navy, they do not have authority over Angels, who are like soldiers in the Army.

    12. Angels, while superior to Anointed in ability, do not have authority or rank over Anointed; they serve the Anointed as messengers from Jehovah and aid the Anointed in the work of the Kingdom by any means possible.

    What I stated in item 12 matches exactly what was quoted above in the 1963 WT. Nothing in your quotes deals much with the Anointed, but mostly deals with Jesus in his post-resurrection status. You are either ignoring my actual statements, or you do not understand the original distinctions I made, and thus are making a case in argument against something I never claimed.

  • blondie
    blondie

    Then I misunderstood what your point is but my point is still that the WTS does not teach that the anointed on earth have any authority over, direction of, the angels while the anointed are on earth which was my point from the beginning. Since Jesus is the original and most important member of those who are anointed to rule in heaven, since he did not have any authority over the angels while on earth (lower than the angels) and was not given authority over the angels until after his resurrection, that the correlation to anointed humans on earth was not wrong.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "intellectually dishonest" except that you might think that I am deliberately being deceptive, which is not the case and is definitely not the kind of person I am or have ever been. Perhaps someone with greater intellectual abilities in your opinion needs to continue the discussion.

    Blondie

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Blondie,

    Your opening comment as the second comment on this thread, to which I took exception, said:

    Blondie orignially stated: I actually preferred this scripture because it says that even if an angel (who outranks the jw anointed on earth) were to say something beyond what the bible says, not the heed them.

    You use the term "outranks" and not 'authority' or 'direction.' Thus my point that you switch the argument as you did not cite authority or direction at the beginning as you now state above:

    Blondie now states: Then I misunderstood what your point is but my point is still that the WTS does not teach that the anointed on earth have any authority over, direction of, the angels while the anointed are on earth which was my point from the beginning.

    Intellectual dishonesty is not a definition of deliberate misleading. I am not accusing you of trying to mislead anyone. I know you are a good and honorable person. Rather, intellectual dishonesty employes "false argumentation" methods, among which are bating and switching the original premise of an argument when a presented position is called into question. You switched your argument from the angels 'outranking' the Anointed to not having authority or direction over the angels. There is a clear distinction between these two points.

    "False argumentation" is a learned skill that one develops for a variety of reasons. We have all used them at times. Abraham Lincoln deliberately employed false argumentation when litigating in the courtroom. He used it to sway juries by mixing in humor, and it worked. Modern day attorneys will object to such argument methods by the opposition, and usually judges will sustain such objections. Our affiliation with the JWs helped us to develop false argumentation skills ... in an unconscience manner ... so that we did not know we were being trained in such ways. Awareness and education help reverse this skill.

    In fairness to you, I will, when I get a chance, dig through me literature in storage and see if I can find my WT CD or books and qwuote the sources I have in mind. The book, "Life Everalsting in the Freedom of the Sons of God" - WTS, 1966, says that the Anointed have the highest rank, are changed to a new creation now, while on earth. But it does not go as far as discussing their relationship with angels. I will start a new thread and address this in greater detail ... if I am incorrect, I will openly admit it.

    PS: I posted this a couple of years ago regarding false argumentation:

    Critical Thinking: Identifying False Logic

    I also posted a newer one, but cannot seem to find it ... perhaps it was on another forum.

  • minimus
    minimus

    Jim, I think Blondie has made her point and I understand what she is (rightly) saying. "In fairness to you", I think you're a "Good and honorable person'' but you sound condescending.

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Minimus:

    Written words have no 'sound' ... rather, the each reader's reaction is based on how each one 'feels' about certain words and phrases. For anyone to conclude that I was being condescending, they would also have to hear my tone of voice and facial expressions - both of which are not available in a one-dimensional written format.

    My comments to Blondie are honest, genuine, considerate, and respectful ... as I have met her personally and think highly of her. No condencension is intended or implied. Notwithstanding, her argument is flawed as she has presented it, and as I have quoted her own words. To say otherwise is not fair to her, me, or anyone who reads the points and counter-points.

    I accept her points as far as it goes. I do not accept changes in the foundation of an argument, nor misrepresentations of my own position - both of which are false argumentation styles ... and all too common to many ex-JWs, me included in some of my past commentary.

  • minimus
    minimus

    When one writes, "you SOUND condescending", it is a figure of speech. I know that written words have no sound. I'm not that dumb.

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Minimus:

    I know you are not 'dumb' as you put it, and that you did not mean literal sound. I understand it is a figure of speech. The problem I highlighted by using a literal cpmparison, is that you did impute 'condescension' to me, which would require that you hear the 'sound' of my voice and 'observe' my body language. The 'condescension' is, therefore, not a function of what I wrote, but a function of your own interpretation. But, apart from the figurative claim of 'sound,' you suplied no input as to how I was being condescending toward Blondie. Secondly, I clarified my intention as anything but condescending, and hopefully did an adequate job so that my intentions are more clear.

  • minimus
    minimus

    Jim, are you like this in real life? You're a trip, man. Not a literal one, what I mean is....oh forget it.

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Min,

    I am much easier to converse with in person ... but then again ... am I?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit