by You Know 44 Replies latest watchtower bible
Robert Wrote,
I openly divulge that I know the Scriptures, and that Christ is the source for such knowledge.
So do many thousands of persons who disagree with your opinions.
I freely confess that I know the truth about Jehovah and Jesus
So do many thousands who disagree with your opinions.
Yet, your opinions and interpretations are correct but theirs are not. WHY?
Is this supposed to be some sort of answer to my post.lol. Robert, you have been plainly busted.again!
HS
I am sure the person who posed those questions thought they knew something too, but why can't anyone defend what has been arrayed against us? That's why people debate ideas and use reason to try and think things throught so as arrive at the truth. But, obviously there are many evil-inclined individuals who have no interest in truth or spirituality and who only want to despoil and rob others of it. And, obviously, this forum is dominated by those sorts. But, that's fine too. I throughly enjoy putting you to flight. / You Know
Edited by - You Know on 24 June 2002 18:47:34
Turning to Revelation 5:9 it mentions that God selected his kings and priests from "every tribe and tongue and people and nation." Are these the same 144,000? Yes, because the verse says that they are singing a new song before God.
Read Revelation 5:9 in context. Those singing the new song in this verse are not the 144,000 - it is the 4 living creatures and the 24 elders.
On the one hand, it says that this exclusive group of 144,000 is taken from all tribes and nations, but then the passage you noted says they are taken from the 12 tribes of Israel
Again - not correct if read in context. There is clearly more than one group in heaven - Revelation mentions at least 4 different groups (not including the angels, the 4 living creatures, Michael, and Jesus) - there are (1) the 24 elders, (2) the 144,000, (3) the saints, and (4) a great crowd. And note - that the great crowd (Rev 7:9) is standing before the throne of God in heaven.
On another topic - the Diety of Christ - Revelation offers an interesting insight. Notice Rev 1:12-18. Someone like the "son of man" is speaking, who says he "I am the first and the last, the living one who died and I am alive ever more" - obviously Jesus. However, Isaiah 44:6 (NWT) says "This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, 'I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God'..", and again Isaiah 48:12 Jehovah calls himself the first and the last, now Revelation 1:8 according to the NWT says "I am the Alpha and the Omega", says Jehovah God "the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty", Rev 22:12-13 "Look! I am coming quickly...I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."...who is talking in Revelation 22:12-13...read further to verse 16 - it is "I, Jesus".
Both Jesus and God refer to themselves as the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega. It is obvious to me that only one can be the First - and only one can be the Last - there is only room for one. Revelation 1:7 tells us that Jesus is coming, yet the NWT in Revelation 1:8 tells us it is Jehovah God that is coming - so who is coming?
Read John chapter 14, Philip asks Jesus to show him the Father, Jesus answers (verse 9) " Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip?" and in John chatpter 20, verse 28 Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and my God".
You Know - I struggled with this concept for a long time - being raised a JW I could not understand nor accept the Diety of Christ. However, once I read the book of John and the book of Revelation by themselves it was all too clear that Jesus is God.
YK,
You are the one that spews out insaults and ignor people with serious
questions you cant answer.
I openly divulge that I know the Scriptures,
No, you don't.
and that Christ is the source for such knowledge.
Please don't blame Jesus for your ravings!
I freely confess that I know the truth about Jehovah and Jesus.
You don't know the first thing about Yahweh or Jesus. You're spelling and pronouncing God's name wrong, for one.
Like 1st John 5:20 says: "But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one."
"And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life."
"intellectual capacity" is a very stilted rendering of dianoia; lexically possible, but "understanding" or "a mind" would be clearer. "gain the knowledge of" is not an acceptable rendering of ginosko, however. God doesn't want you to accumulate knowledge and facts about him. He wants you to know Him. You are probably not aware of the difference, and your masters in Brooklyn can't tell you, because they don't know God either.
Robert V. Frazier
P.S. Any chance you could change your first name? It's really embarassing having the same name as someone like you.
But, that's fine too. I throughly enjoy putting you to flight.
lol...Robert. You remind me of the boistrous adolescent who after physically being thrown out of the pub by the Landlord, smoothes his hair and shouts back through the door, "I was about to leave anyway".
HS
You Know
"That's why people debate ideas and use reason to try and think things throught so as arrive at the truth. But, obviously there are many evil-inclined individuals who have no interest in truth or spirituality and who only want to despoil and rob others of it. And, obviously, this forum is dominated by those sorts. But, that's fine too. I throughly enjoy putting you to flight. / You Know"
So this means you dont consider me one of the evil class since you never address my questions? Or is it because I dont insult you enough?
According to the GB not even elders recieve any insight from Christ, not directly anyway. I would only be guessing but I would assume that would also include just regular anointed.
plum
Only 44 more questions to go. Yawn!
YK,
1 - True, the WTS does not claim apostolic succession. But they do claim that a close-knit band of anointed worshippers have comprised an unbroken succession of the faithful slave class. You did not address the meat of the issue, which is: who were these anointed worshippers of Jehovah prior to Russell in the 19th century?
2 - You did a good job dealing with Deuteronomy, but you leave out the fact that the term "god" in scripture is a term of authority. Moses, kings, judges, even Satan are called "god." Jesus derives his authority or godship from Jehovah.
3 - I believe the issue being raised is that it is difficult to say one aspect of the 144,000 is literal (the number) and one is figurative (their identity and origin).
4 - Changes since Russell's day include the scope of the ransom, the destiny of the great crowd, the importance of character development, the issue of universal sovereignty, the Abrahamic promise and the restoration of Israel, and of course the authority of the WTS. Big changes, these.
5 - No arguments here.
6 - How would you know how many are DF'd for apostasy and to what extent their disagreements with the WTS amount to? I would suggest the opposite of what you claim is true. Most ex-JWs were stumbled over one or two things, not the whole kit and kabootle.
7 - The two-class system is a difficult one for JWs to defend, especially when determining that few if any today are called to the heavenly calling. However, I do see reason for suggesting that some would hold higher positions of responsibility in the Kingdom. Yet, Eph 2:6 is speaking in past tense, and it seems to me that such verses which speak of a "heavenly hope" are not referring to people leaving this planet to go elsewhere. "heavenly" means godly, and the Jewish notion of a "heavenly hope" means simply that their reward or destiny is based or stored up in heaven, but will manifest itself on earth. (the New Jerusalem descends from heaven, Abraham's destiny was for a heavenly city as per Hebrews).
8 - Hard to argue with you here since the Bible has so many different statements about God's people and their struggles that applications are plentiful.
9 - Trinitarians do believe that Jesus is Son of God. You didn't say what Thomas might have been getting at other than to say 'apparently Jesus knew and that is good enough.
10 - I think the NT is pretty clear that Christ would return literally and visibly (some statements are obvious exaggerations). Matthew does not clearly define what that sign is, and so any interpretation is speculation.
11 - I think it is probably not a good idea to base doctrines on the book of Revelation. When I read the gospels, I don't see any indication that Jesus thought or taught that anybody would go to heaven (Matthew 5:5). Paul never made any such explicit statements. And certainly nothing that occurred at Pentecost 33 would have changed anyone's minds that their destiny was to be in heaven. In that light I struggle to see anything in Revelation that says anybody should be there after a human existence except in highly figurative passages such as serving him day and night in his spiritual temple.
The "massive tangle of hoops" are the tortured reasonings, born out of ignorance, that are presented to us as if insurrmountable. By the way, the person who posted the 65 questions on the Internet made it a point to use the NWT in his line of questioning, since the questions posed used the NWT certainly no one can find fault with me for using the NWT in my answering. / You Know
The fact is that none of these questions were even particularly good ones. How can you, in good conscience, collect Field Service Hours (TM - collect them for valuable prizes such as eternal life!) for debating this crud? There were a few good questions in the 1st thread, but as has been pointed out, you conveniently didn't see the posts that ripped your answers to shreds. Example:
YK-Their ruling, in my opinion, is reasonable, whereby the spirit of Gods law to abstain from blood is observed and they have avoided the pitfall of deciding the minute details for every Christian conscience.
Professor-To observe the "spirit" of God's law regarding blood would mean not to eat it. Although there is still some blood in all meat that we consume, the Jews knew what was meant by this law, and that was largely to eat of only properly bled meat.
When Jesus invited the apostles to symbolically drink his blood because it meant life, this idea did not contradict the "spirit" of God's law, although some took it that way. In this action, Christ established an example of how blood can acceptably be used as a means of sustaining life. Clearly, Jehovah's Witnesses are taking "abstain from blood" out of context in their decision to deny themselves and their children access to proper medical treatment. Using this same reasoning, we would also not be permitted to accept salvation through the ransom sacrifice because we would be forced to abstain from Jesus' life-giving blood.
\\\
I am sure the person who posed those questions thought they knew something too, but why can't anyone defend what has been arrayed against us? That's why people debate ideas and use reason to try and think things throught so as arrive at the truth. But, obviously there are many evil-inclined individuals who have no interest in truth or spirituality and who only want to despoil and rob others of it.
I'd be interested to know who's the person who posed those questions. Doesn't sound like an xjw to me, personally. Because even a retarded sloth that left the witnesses could see that the vast majority of these questions are perfect bait for jw snake oil & doublespeak. Which you're good at. (hmmm, did you post those questions yourself you weasel?)
