I've heard W.Martin in a mock discussion with Bill Cetner in which he uses arguments that are weak with regards to scriptures dealing with the trinity that were not strong arguments....
Thats classic stuff, eh gumbed-againer
i was reading a book on early church fathers and early christian doctrines.
i could not put the book down.
i noticed that some of the early church fathers "denounced" war frowned upon celebrating holidays and also "birthdays" some of their arguments sounded exactly like jw's and if you did not know you would have thought you were talking to some jw's.
I've heard W.Martin in a mock discussion with Bill Cetner in which he uses arguments that are weak with regards to scriptures dealing with the trinity that were not strong arguments....
Thats classic stuff, eh gumbed-againer
i know that many here would place jehovah's witnesses on a list of 'cults'.
personally i don't think they meet all the standard definition - but would class them as an 'authoritarian sectarian movement'.
at any rate, most of us would not want our neighbors to get caught up in the mind-twisting that we endured and from which we finally removed ourselves.. that said - have any engaged in successfull enterprises to counter the movement?
those items don't identify a cult, they simply identify another religious belief..
Then by your standards there is nothing that would identify a cult.
it's like saying: one mark of a cult is claiming the trinity to be a false teaching.
As a member of that particular belief system, could that member question that doctrine and not be excommunicated?
"cults deny salvation by faith alone"
If you belong to an Org that teaches works for salvation, could a member question that doctrine and stay in good standing?
makes it obvious that this list is not about marking cults, but leading the reader simply to a different belief system
How so?
i know that many here would place jehovah's witnesses on a list of 'cults'.
personally i don't think they meet all the standard definition - but would class them as an 'authoritarian sectarian movement'.
at any rate, most of us would not want our neighbors to get caught up in the mind-twisting that we endured and from which we finally removed ourselves.. that said - have any engaged in successfull enterprises to counter the movement?
Above list is from "Approaching Witnesses in Love" Wilbur Lingleyou can make anything meet the requirements if you make the list of requirements yourself. that's the very same thing the WTS does: the true religion must include this, this and that - we do this, this and that, so we are the true religion. The quoted "list" are seven marks of a cult. To consider them as requirements is irrelevent. The witnesses do the cited items that identify a cult. The simple fact the WT uses the Bible-plus is a huge red flag. The WT mag. has just as much authority as the NWT Bible. (or any Bible) And it is proclaimed by the WT the only way the Bible is understood is by their interpretation. Memebers have to acknowledge the complete authority of Brooklyn or be thrown out of the group. Memebers cannot converse with outsiders about their group or discuss Biblical issues without first looking to the WT for a correct response.
i was reading a book on early church fathers and early christian doctrines.
i could not put the book down.
i noticed that some of the early church fathers "denounced" war frowned upon celebrating holidays and also "birthdays" some of their arguments sounded exactly like jw's and if you did not know you would have thought you were talking to some jw's.
LT: I don't think there's any intentional lying going about, that I'm aware of.
There's enough bad light (I like that expression, in this context - new light, old light, bad light!) without making stuff up.
Agreed, that best sums it up.
One really doesnt need to "make anything up" or "lie on" theres a wealth of Jw writings that contradict themselves into a group that cannot be taken seriously. (theologically)
i know that many here would place jehovah's witnesses on a list of 'cults'.
personally i don't think they meet all the standard definition - but would class them as an 'authoritarian sectarian movement'.
at any rate, most of us would not want our neighbors to get caught up in the mind-twisting that we endured and from which we finally removed ourselves.. that said - have any engaged in successfull enterprises to counter the movement?
Ak Jeff: I know that many here would place Jehovah's witnesses on a list of 'cults'. Personally I don't think they meet all the standard definition - but would class them as an 'authoritarian sectarian movement'.
I disagree.
The JWs are the epitomy of a cult.
Above list is from "Approaching Witnesses in Love" Wilbur Lingle
I personally witness to as many Jws as possible, however its my belief Jws really do not want to study. Much like the Mormons if they sense any "Biblical knowledge" or a threat to counter their presentation they will cut short the Bible er, um, book study.
there's a new essay on commentary press discussing the trinity.
http://www.commentarypress.com/eng-onetruegod.html .
for any interested in that topic.
Proposition # 5: John 5:18 says, "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill [Jesus because he] ...was calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." And at John 10:30, 38 Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" and "the Father is in me and I am in the Father." This shows that he is with the Father in a triune God. |
Response: Paul helps us to get the proper sense of John 5:18 at Galatians 4:1 where he wrote, "the heir ...is owner of all the estate." By claiming to be God's Son, the Jews understood Jesus to be claiming to be God's heir, and therefore, making a claim to His authority; but they did not construe this to mean that he was literally God The above is the same baloney that "Reasoning From the Scriptures" explanation of John 5:18 What |
is the meaning of John 5:18?
John 5:18, RS: "This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God."
It was the unbelieving Jews who reasoned that Jesus was attempting to make himself equal with God by claiming God as his Father. While properly referring to God as his Father, Jesus never claimed equality with God. He straightforwardly answered the Jews: "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing." (John 5:19, RS; see also John 14:28; John 10:36.) It was those unbelieving Jews, too, who claimed that Jesus broke the Sabbath, but they were wrong also about that. Jesus kept the Law perfectly, and he declared: "It is lawful to do good on the sabbath."
They both totally dispose of the text "making himself equal to God"
i know there's no such word as "witnessy" but this can be a fun thread.
The ultimate:
"Evil slave class"
You know this meant something serious!
i have been examing this doctrine for a very long time and i must admit it makes no sense at all.
when i talk to born-again christians about this doctrine the first place they always run to in the bible is john 2:19-22. the verse simple states: destroy this temple and in three days i will raise it up.
the jews thought he was talking about the temple building.
Whatever a glorified body looks like I can't say. But it seems to me that after the resurrection Jesus had a real body because it bore the marks of his crucifixion, which he had Thomas touch, so there is continuity here, but his body was also transformed so that he could appear in the midst of the disciples who were behind closed doors; moreover, on occasion they didn't recognize him.
What I always thought was interesting was Jesus didnt bleed all over Thomas from the wounds in hands and side.
Or Jesus didnt say " do you have any dressings for these bleeding wounds"??
i have been examing this doctrine for a very long time and i must admit it makes no sense at all.
when i talk to born-again christians about this doctrine the first place they always run to in the bible is john 2:19-22. the verse simple states: destroy this temple and in three days i will raise it up.
the jews thought he was talking about the temple building.
The Jews thought he was talking about the temple building. But John explains that he was talking about the temple of his body." From these verses born-agains have created a very far-fetched doctrine that makes no sense scriptually. ..................... First of all the most important question I would ask is how is Jesus if he took his body to heaven going to use the bathroom? If it is the same body that he died in then he would have to be able to use the bathroom.
First off Booker-t are you coming back?
And who raised Jesus from the dead?
First of all there are so many questions that come to mind if we believe that Jesus arose in his fleshly body and took it to heaven.The WTBTS says Jesus found a body with the similar holes in it
a neighbour of mine had jw's call.
they told her that jesus was not the archangel michael!!
have they changed or what?
Blondie,
Thanks for the reality check.
LT, Yeah I showed my moms elder husband those verses as well. He squirmmed alittle, that was it.
Like most cults the biggest problem "what to do with Jesus"???