Posts by Zico

72

Doctorinal Question: JWs teach Jesus is Micheal the Arc Angel.....

by Lady Liberty in

dear friends,.

i have a question for you... the jws teach jesus is micheal the arc angel right?

so here is my question...according to the jws..is jesus a god or a angel??

Zico

Thanks Leolaia for the extra information on Jude and Enoch. (And some more books to read! Testament of Abraham, Assumption of Moses and Ascension of Isaiah) I've been finding it very interesting to read early Jewish and Christian books outside the canon.

72

Doctorinal Question: JWs teach Jesus is Micheal the Arc Angel.....

by Lady Liberty in

dear friends,.

i have a question for you... the jws teach jesus is micheal the arc angel right?

so here is my question...according to the jws..is jesus a god or a angel??

Zico

Hi LL,

Have you ever read the book of Enoch? In this book, Michael is one of seven archangels alongside others like Gabriel. Though the book is not a part of the bible canon, Jude quotes it in verses 14 and 15 of his book. For Jude to quote from it, would suggest that he saw it as inspired, and would probably then, have just seen Michael as one of seven archangels as described in Enoch, and not the Messiah, when he referred to Michael in his book. Many scholars also believe Daniel and Revelation were partly influenced by the book of Enoch. That would explain why Daniel only called Michael 'One of the foremost princes' i.e. he was one of seven.

Hebrews 1 is also dedicated to the idea that Jesus is above any angel.

24

2008 Jan 1st Watchtower PUBLIC EDITION searchable PDF

by AlphaOmega in

again, as before, many many thanks to fokyc for the scans; i've pdf'd them and made them searchable.. there is mention of 1914 in this edition and mention of 144,000. .

i'll make no more comments until you've had a chance to read it.. we thought it might be interesting to compare the new formats (study vs public).

http://www.sendspace.com/file/mb3ggx.

Zico

Thanks AO! I can't seem to find a page 5 though!? I think it might be invisible like Jesus' presence! :)

It definitely reads different to the former Watchtowers. It's like reading 'What does the bible really teach?' very similar in style.

On 1914, I found it's one mention a bit vague. It doesn't say specifically the last days have been going on since 1914, it says:

"Such visible evidence of Satan's rage and of Christ's presence has been abundant in our time. Especially since 1914, a year that historians acknowledge was a turning point, has this evidence appeared on an unprecedented and global scale."
I'm not even sure what that quote is trying to say. What point did we turn to? What historians is it referring to? All of them?

607 is ignored, and their main tool of evidence for Jesus' presence is empirical.

Then there's the article on evolution which says scientists only believe in evolution because they don't want to accept there's a God, which I'm sure the JWD evolutionists will be pleased with! :) I found it funny that it quotes Michael Behe, since he believes in theist directed evolution himself. Odd.

30

Most Witnesses Don't Know the "Current Truth" on Matthew 5:5!

by deaconbluez in

matthew 5:5: "happy are the mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth.".

if you ask most witnesses what this verse means, they will say that it means those who are meek/mild/humble will be given the earth as a reward to live forever on.

i was surprised to find out that this is not the official watchtower teaching of that verse.

Zico

Most Witnesses don't know it... I didn't even know it!

Good spot. I guess I still have things to learn about the WT Society.

24

NEED HELP WITH 'NEW LIGHT' & THE GENERATION DOCTRINE

by Mary in

i was talking to gumby today and he told me that one elder that he knows said: "...he heard a gb mention of some new light about the "generation".

he said the gb member said they now believe that scripture applied to only the annointed...".

have we had any discussions on jwd about this?

Zico

Found it Mary! :)

Here you go:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/145243/1.ashx

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/145559/1.ashx

Key quote:

"The "generation" is all the anointed as a class from 33 CE to the end of the world. In the context of Matt. 24:34 was Jesus talking to his followers."

24

NEED HELP WITH 'NEW LIGHT' & THE GENERATION DOCTRINE

by Mary in

i was talking to gumby today and he told me that one elder that he knows said: "...he heard a gb mention of some new light about the "generation".

he said the gb member said they now believe that scripture applied to only the annointed...".

have we had any discussions on jwd about this?

Zico

They're definitely changing this one. It's due in the February 15th Study edition Watchtower according to an elder I know with contacts at the British Bethel. He didn't know what the change was.

I can't find any threads on it by doing a JWD search, though I'm sure I'd read of it on here, as the elder wasn't the first one to tell me...

24

Go Buy The Independent

by sweet pea in

Zico

In the UK, the article on this girl first appeared in the Sun, with this quote:

'Many stars have become Witnesses including singers Prince and Michael Jackson, tennis sisters Venus and Serena Williams, Naomi Campbell and guitarist Hank Marvin.'

The Sun journalist wasn't claiming Michael Jackson and Naomi Campbell were currently JWs, simply that they'd been them. The Telegraph, and now the Independent, (and possibly other papers) seemed to have misunderstood this statement and printed that Michael Jackson and Naomi Campbell are JWs. It's like Chinese whispers!

I don't know where the 70 hours would have come from!? That one is a poor mistake.

Other than those 2 incidents, the article is spot on.

105

Christianity in a nutshell

by serotonin_wraith in

let's see exactly what people are holding so firmly to, while all the time believing they aren't actually deluded.. section taken from: .

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1816,are-the-new-atheists-avoiding-the-real-arguments,edmund-standing-butterfliesandwheelscom.

first, let's take a quick look at the basic biblical narrative:.

Zico

Serotonin,

I'm going to bed now, as I'm not too well, so this is just brief, but I also wanted to comment on this:

"And things you may not see as bad, like teaching children the Christian god is real, is still bad in my opinion. As bad as indoctrinating children to believe in faries, and telling them what they need to do in life to keep the faries pleased."

Personally, I don't think it matters too much what you pass on to your children, as discussed in a recent thread on this board, it's not so much what you pass on to them, as parents will always pass on their beliefs to their children, the important thing is to teach kids how to think, and not what to think, not to indoctrinate them by pushing your beliefs on to them, but raising them to be able to use their own thinking 'tools' properly, and come to their own conclusions. Teaching them how to think critically, and how to analyse things properly, and then accepting your children and the conclusions they've reached using their own minds, is what's important. Do this, and your beliefs will not be detrimental to them in their lives, imo.

Like I said, just a brief thought. ;)

105

Christianity in a nutshell

by serotonin_wraith in

let's see exactly what people are holding so firmly to, while all the time believing they aren't actually deluded.. section taken from: .

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1816,are-the-new-atheists-avoiding-the-real-arguments,edmund-standing-butterfliesandwheelscom.

first, let's take a quick look at the basic biblical narrative:.

Zico

Serotonin,

I've enjoyed this discussion we've had. :)

I accept that Christians have done a lot of bad things in the name of their God/Religion. Like you, I think that's a terrible thing, and I don't want to make any excuses for evil actions, or evil people. Personally I see most religion as a creation by people who are trying to understand their experiences with God, and it's a shame that some people are intolerant enough to not understand that people might interpret events in different ways, or that they've grown up in different environments, have been given different frameworks for life, and have therefore come to different conclusions. It's a real shame that these different conclusions have led to anger and wars. Whilst I've chosen a Christian path for the time being, I sincerely hope I never become so bigoted as to say 'I'm right and you're wrong' or to look down on other people's beliefs again, as I did when I was a Jehovah's Witness, my posts were merely an attempt to say why not all Christianity is bad or evil, and definitely not on the same level as the KKK, or Nazis, as a whole group.

'Would you say it is okay for us to pick any religion then, because Christianity isn't the way to salvation?'

Yes, as long as you're a moral person, and I have no reason to doubt this in you, I honestly would say it's ok to pick any religion that you think makes sense to you, I mean this. I should explain why. Firstly because, how would Christians account for all the millions of people all over the world before Jesus, as well as the large amount of mankind who have lived since Jesus is said to have existed, who have never heard of Jesus or the Bible. Should they be damned to hell, because it just so happened that they were not born in a Christian area? That would make no sense to me, and would be very unfair, so where do I see an alternative to this? There are quite a few points from the bible, but I'll try to keep my thoughts relatively brief on this subject, firstly, I don't think the bible says those who believe in Christ will be the only ones to rise. It says the dead in Christ will rise first, at 1 Thessalonians 4:16. There are also several scriptures that talk about salvation for all men in the NT. Romans 11:32, John 12:32, and 1 Timothy 4:10, as examples.

I also think Revelation 20 speaks of two different resurrections. Those in Christ, or those who believe in Christ, rising at the beginning of the thousand years, and then the 'non-believers' or the rest of the dead rising after the thousand years. I think this scripture suggests that those who are in the first resurrection have already been judged for their commitment and belief in Jesus, and the rest of the dead rise after the thousand years and are to be judged--not for what they believed, but due to their works and what they did, and that's in line with Revelation 20.

This is why I think, only the truly evil (or intentionally evil) will be destroyed, or put in Hell. I also think that Christ's followers represent the New Jerusalem in Revelation, and the bride of Christ, and with this belief, when I read Revelation 21:1-5, it sounds to me like the people in the first resurrection described in Revelation 20 will later join those who survive the later resurrection, and all will have the same existence in the end.

Other scriptures that seem to agree with this, can be found at Revelation 22:12, and Matthew 16:27, which are both said to be quoting Jesus.

This is just my understanding though, and please don't see it as an attempt to preach to you, as it's not my intention, nor again, would I say my interpretation of scripture is correct above all others. This was simply an answer to your question to show why I am, personally, able to believe that atheists and other non-Christians can be saved without belief in Jesus.

In the meantime, I think we should all, Christian, atheist, or Muslim alike, or whatever other religion, should be striving to make the world a better place, a safer place, and a more tolerant place, for those around us, and for future generations, and any person who does anything that attempts to unite the human race will have my support, no matter what creed or belief they ascribe to, and I really believe I'm far, very far, from alone in wanting this.

Peace, Zico

105

Christianity in a nutshell

by serotonin_wraith in

let's see exactly what people are holding so firmly to, while all the time believing they aren't actually deluded.. section taken from: .

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1816,are-the-new-atheists-avoiding-the-real-arguments,edmund-standing-butterfliesandwheelscom.

first, let's take a quick look at the basic biblical narrative:.

Zico

Serotonin: Fwiw, I enjoyed reading your last post to me more than some of your previous posts, as I found it more respectful. I have no problem with you stating your beliefs and opinions, all I think is that a little more respect is in order when people discuss and debate their beliefs with each other (both sides) Ex-JWs did a lot to help me when I was a doubting JW, they were patient and polite when pointing out where my thinking was in error. Had they just called me an idiot, I don't think I would have listened to them. We're all on a journey, all trying to make sense of the world in our own way and work out what we believe ourselves after years of being told what to believe by the Watchtower Society. As long as they don't become a danger to others, people should not be criticised for where their journey takes them, imo.

On to your post.

On Stalin, I know that he did not kill anyone in the name of Atheism, my point was though, that he did not need God to do bad things, because he found other ways to control people, to hold power, and other reasons to kill people. The point is that one doesn't need God to commit evil acts, evil people like Stalin, can find other ways to do it. God isn't the cause of evil acts, (I know you believe this, if you don't believe in God) evil people are the cause of evil acts.

'Don't all Christians think those who don't put their faith in Jesus deserve God's judgement- death, eternal torture or what have you?'

I don't. I know Lilly doesn't. There's 2 for you then. ;) Most Christians do at least leave this judgement to God, whereas KKK members and Nazi members tend to take matters into their own hands. As I said before, their would be mass ethnic cleansing if there were 2 billion KKK members or Nazi members, though Christians have their wars, they don't have worldwide ethnic cleansing. A lot of Christian religions are pacifist, and do a lot of work to promote peace. The Quakers are a good one. They're universalist as well, so they're not so worried about conversion, and also don't think all non-Christians will be damned by God.

"Name a moral action taken or moral statement made by a person of faith that could not have been performed or made by an atheist."

There is absolutely none, and I would never claim this! I know lots of very moral atheists, this board alone has several atheists who are wonderful people, and do a lot of charity work! My point with that one, was just to say that whilst a lot of evil has been done in the name of God, a lot of really great things have been done in the name of God as well, and those shouldn't be ignored when we discuss the effects of religion/belief on mankind. (And charity's not always used as a conversion tool, either)

I think your quote can be turned around to ask 'Name [an evil] action taken or [evil] statement made by a person of faith that could not have been performed or made by an atheist'

Regards,
Zico