Posts by Cold Steel

29

For all believers: I have a serious question

by confusedandalone in

god ordered the killing of men women and children and animals and pillaging of various nations around them.

in some instances god apparently led the way with his might arm.. this is not a question of wether it is right or wrong, but moreso a question(s) of:.

1. if you were there would you have personally participated in those killings or would you ignore the commands?.

Cold Steel

1. If you were there would you have personally participated in those killings or would you ignore the commands?

This is a leading question, and one designed to cast judgment on the ancient prophets without a sufficient background of context. I personally detest the taking of life, but if one fully recognized the debauchery of the nations so condemned, one might have a completely different view. First, I'm not a soldier, nor have I ever shed the blood of man. But those who received these commands were trained soldiers. The wickedness of these cultures was such that it offended the sensibilities of the Israelites and their God. These cultures killed their own infants in much more terrible ways than the Israelites, and they weren't just competing societies. They represented the bottom of the barrel of human barbarism, depravity, decadence and savagery. They delighted in the murder of their families and infants. So I would have to be there, in the context of the times, to answer this question.

2. Would you personally take out your sword and run it through the belly of a pregnant woman the way your god commanded?

See Question 1. Also, keep in mind that killing isn't ending the existence of a person or animal. People and animals have spirits which survive the death of the body. In some situations, a person is better off being spared the pains of life, the plagues, famines, droughts and other aspects of human life. But just because they would be better off doesn't give a person the right to dispatch them by the sword. That command would have to come from the Lord. When the children of Israel sinned in worshiping the golden calf, Moses separated the rebellious from the obedient, then ordered the obedient to slay the rebellious, even if they were friends or family. By then the powers of God had been so thoroughly manifest through Moses that there were no mitigating factors for those who refused to serve God.

3. Would you have crushed in the skull of your child that was disrespectful to you?

No, but then, this was never commanded or condoned.

As one Old Testament scholar explained:

A good example of the way the Mosaic Law was administered can be found in the provisions for dealing with a dissolute, disobedient and obstreperous son. Here, certainly, it would seem harsh to impose the death penalty, and so it was. Yet, every son of Israel knew that it was a most serious offense to rebel against parents because it was a capital offense. At the same time, the law required parents to exhibit the utmost patience with a rebellious son and try to work with him in order to overcome his evil ways. This is evident from the fact that before parents could declare their son anathema, the following was required of them:

"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them; then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; and they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard." (Deut. 21)

At this point the parents had to pick up a stone and be the first to strike their son down. No wonder we have no record of this procedure ever being used! Parents, no matter how provoked, would be extremely unlikely to resort to such desperate measures. Nevertheless, the provision in the law had an important psychological value. It impressed upon the youth of Israel that their parents did have the legal power over their very lives if they became violently rebellious. (Skousen, W. Cleon, The Third Thousand Years)

17

What's your reading of Matthew 19:28 ?

by EdenOne in

matthew 19:28: "and jesus said to them, "truly i say to you, that you who have followed me, in the regeneration when the son of man will sit on his glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of israel.

" (nasb).

the context shows that jesus was talking to his twelve apostles.

Cold Steel

OP: The context shows that Jesus was talking to his twelve apostles. if they were to “sit in thrones” and judge the twelve tribes of Israel, where does that leave the apostle Paul?

The reference to “thrones” is, of course, figurative. And yes, the Quorum of the Twelve are appointed to be special witnesses of Christ and judges under his authority. There is no reason that other apostles also can sit in judgment over the house of Israel, including Paul, Matthias and Bartholomew (and any apostle that we might not have record of). Certainly the reference is not to “spiritual” Israel, for if that were true the scriptures would find a way of stating it.

20

What if Jehovah's Witnesses were right about Armageddon...

by Comatose in

but god has changed his mind?

according to the bible god can and does change his mind.

the example of jonah comes to mind.

Cold Steel

OP: What if the Jehovah’s Witnesses were right, but god has changed his mind? According to the bible god can and does change his mind. The example of Jonah comes to mind. What if in the early years they had it right. The end was coming maybe even in 1975. Their first understanding of generation was right. But, then god saw things were getting better. God saw that people were doing okay on their own. God hit pause or even changed his mind.

No offense intended, but your view of Deity is a bit stilted. Please understand that God knows all things from the beginning. When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden, do you think for an instant that the Father didn’t know that they would partake of the forbidden fruit? He knows all things from the Beginning because, to him, it’s one eternal round. That’s why, when the fall occurred, that the Father could no longer communicate with man directly. The Father thence withdrew and Jehovah, known in the flesh as Jesus Christ, became the great Intercessor, Savior and Judge of mankind.

Jehovah was chosen in the beginning by the Father because he knew that man would sin. He didn’t wait for Adam to sin, then look around for an intercessor. In the same manner, God knew full well that Nineveh would repent and he used the occasion as a teaching moment for Jonah. My point is, that Yahweh only appears to change his mind according to man’s inability to comprehend him. When prophets attempt to change his mind, the questions he asks and the agreements he makes are all known to him in detail before the facts.

Wishing For the Death of Billions

Your comparison of Jonah with the Jehovah’s Witnesses is irony and is based on the dubious claim that the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses is God’s mouthpiece on Earth. And since this is a hypothetical situation, we’ll have to assume that Jehovah is not the Son, but the Father, and that he spoke anciently to mankind directly without an intercessor. We’ll also have to assume that he’s a changeable god, being loving and merciful one moment, then vindictive and vengeful the next; unpredictable, calling prophets in one age, then letting men appoint themselves in the next. Performing miracles, healing the sick, showing men visions and instructing them in one age, then withdrawing and letting unordained front men and elders act in his behalf in another.

So, since we must make these adjustments, we then must figure out how the Governing Body came up with the 1975 year. Did they collectively receive this year through revelation of the Holy Spirit? Did that spirit, the active force of God, whisper it into their minds? Or did they use mathematics? Did they change key dates in history and then count down through the aeons until they got to that year? Or did they offer an inspired guess?

Merciful or Vengeful?

Yes, God is merciful when people repent. But he’s also merciful to the ignorant, the misguided, the suffering. But he certainly didn’t change his mind regarding the destruction of Jerusalem, did he? The elect were scattered according to scripture, then gathered back to the lands of their inheritance (which is still going on). It’s one thing to prophesy destruction to a people who are being warned. After all, if he had intended to destroy Nineveh, why did he first warn them? It was to give them an incentive to repent. And btw, it didn’t last. A number of years later, Nineveh fell back into their old habits and they were destroyed, even as God had warned. So it isn’t that God changed his mind.

And finally, since this is a hypothetical, we have to assume that God is using some fairly inconsistent forms of prophecy. He said, originally, that Armageddon would take place in the Middle East, after the rise of a vicious ruler who would attack and destroy much of Jerusalem. Then, in the 19th Century, he changed his mind and decided it would be a worldwide war and an attack by the United Nations on a publishing company (most likely because it had refused to pay its dues to the international library, and you know how librarians are?) So he changes millennia of eschatological prophecy and now says Armageddon isn’t Armageddon, but Ragnarök, the great Nordic war between good and evil, from which an unprecedented time of peace will follow. It’s great legend, but poor scripture. So given that Jehovah has radically changed prophecy, then who knows what other things he’ll change?

Consistency of God

All this is reason enough for the consistency of God. Ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses have to first dismiss the Organization from any scriptural role in end-time events. Like it or not, Jesus established a church in the Meridian of Time. It was called a “church” and it had officers who were called and ordained by Jesus himself. These leaders, in turn, used the Holy Spirit to call and ordain others. And since they had the binding power of the keys of the kingdom, which binds or looses on Heaven or Earth, those ordinations were valid and recognized by God, as were the ordinances they performed.

Now hit fast forward to our day. There’s no church, no revelation—just an obscure publishing company run by seven or eight men. Are they ordained? No. Are they called of God? Well, they say so, but in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. Who has witnessed the calling of Governing Body members? Is the Organization a church? It doesn’t claim to be a church at all but an organization. Are the elders called and ordained “as was Aaron”? No, they are appointed with a handshake. Then, finally, how is it (really) that a declining non-political religious organization will earn the ire of the entire earth, to the extent that all nations suddenly attack it?

Perhaps the events of Armageddon and the Millennium didn’t happen as they were expected to happen because the Outfit is a “false prophet,” and the words of false prophets fail to come to pass.

.

25

What have Jehovah's Witnesses copied from the Mormons

by konceptual99 in

have jws pinched anything other than family worship from the mormons?.

could we see jws implement a type of meeting structure similar to the mormons to try and engage different ages in different ways?.

could we ever see a jw feel free to do anything like...?.

Cold Steel

Searcher: The LDS have a surefire way of keeping track of who in the flock contributes financially and who doesn't, thanks to the tithing.

And why, exactly, do you think we LDS use this information in any way? I gladly tithe and have never been pressured or constrained in any way, nor have I heard of any other LDS member having his tithing information used in such a way. We have little envelopes where we may fill in our contributions, and if we choose not to contribute, we have the free agency not to. We also can read what we wish, attend any other church we wish, stay home when we wish and disagree with our authorities regarding doctrine when we wish.

Since Brooklyn/Warwick would never try to introduce such a draconian and unscriptural money-grabbing scheme, they are left with the dilemma as to how to shame those who are not donating, because contributing is done anonymously.

Hmmm...I guess we'll have to remove that "unscriptural" scripture:

Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. (Malachi 3:8-10)

.

19

Armageddon question

by caroline77 in

who do jw's think is going to kill everyone at armageddon?.

how will it happen?.

what is their evidence?.

Cold Steel

Well, the battle of Armageddon most likely is the Jehovah's Witnesses’ biggest and most enduring doctrinal blunders. This is reflected not only in the comments here but in the ignorant writings of the Watchtower staff writers, none of whom has the slightest idea what Jewish and Christian prophecy is all about.

Even the Muslims have a better understanding of this last great battle of mankind. But their prophecies have the unique property of being directly inverted with Christian beliefs. In other words, the Bible’s good guys are Islam’s bad guys and vice versa. Evangelical scholar Joel Richardson has written on this extensively (see the incredible segment of his book, The Islamic Antichrist, which is itself a great repudiation of JW eschatology). Armageddon is one of the greatest events that will happen sometime in our day. There are a number of things that have to occur first, but much of it already has happened. Once the “Beast” of Revelation appears, followed shortly by the “false prophet,” things will begin fairly quickly. He may or may not have a hand in building the third Jewish temple, but the scriptures are clear that he will occupy it and profane it. But the temple must be built and profaned before Armageddon can come. Also, one thing Richardson ignores, sadly, is that two prophets also must be called. For three and a half years they will protect the Jews from the ravages of the Beast. After that, both will be killed and their bodies left on the streets of the city. (See Revelation 11) Days later, the Lord will appear in heaven and descend upon the Mount of Olives. The two prophets will be physically resurrected and ascend to meet the coming Christ.

Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t like to be told that they spend too much time reading their publications instead of the scriptures, but some of you old timers know that they weren’t always like that. Jehovah’s Witnesses used to know the scriptures. Their Bibles were well worn and, frankly, they weren’t warring with themselves.

.

19

Is JW Baptism the Only Valid Baptism?

by Cold Steel in

what is the watchtower bible and tract societys view on baptism?

is it absolutely essential that one be baptized to gain eternal life in gods kingdom?.

and can they tell you who you can and cant baptize?.

Cold Steel

Julia Orwell: My point is, what makes the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they hold the “keys” to baptize, and that no one else may do it?"

This is what I've tried to understand for years. They say they're not a church. They don't call or ordained authorized ministerial servants and, indeed, have never felt they had a right to. Can just anyone baptize if it's done in faith, even by someone with no doctrine or creeds; just a believer in Christ? No. A person must be baptized and called and ordained to the same priesthood as held by John the Baptist, or the higher Melchizedek priesthood, which encompasses the priesthood of John. Thus, only ordained ministers of Jesus Christ can baptize, confer the gift of the Holy Ghost, ordain others, anoint and bless the sick. And these ministers must operate under the authority of those who hold the everlasting keys of the kingdom. The words one utters before immersing someone are given to the Lord's servants who hold the keys.

It's a lot like military service. Lower ranks cannot operate on their own authority, but must work within the established perimeters of the system. If a military unit was acting on the orders of a high-ranking General and someone rode up on a bicycle and said, “The General told me to tell you guys to stand down and return to base using the old Deathtrap Road,” would the ranking Colonel say, “Okay, thanks for the news...Lieutenant, you heard the man, get everyone organized and let’s head back!” Of course not. There are chains of command. But in the religious world, there’s a guy on a bicycle riding up every fifteen minutes!

So what of those who receive baptism from someone without the keys? Will they be damned, or will they be denied eternal life? Not if God is a just and holy being who loves his children. God also will not destroy or condemn someone who has never heard the gospel of the living Christ. If he did, he would not be just, and he would not be a God of love and compassion. Too many people draw the line at death, and most of mankind in not ready to be judged at the time they die. They don’t know enough or progressed enough to be justly judged. If a person has not heard the gospel and passes into death, he or she will be taught it after they pass into Paradise. That’s what happened to the malefactor who died with Jesus on the cross. As the great scholar Origen said, and I’ve quoted it before, “After death, I think the saints go to Paradise, a place of teaching, a school of the spirits in which everything they saw on Earth will be made clear to them. Those who were pure in heart will progress more rapidly, reaching the kingdom of heaven by definite steps or degrees.”

As one scholar notes:

Clement of Alexandria and Origen, those two earliest fathers, each having one foot in the old church and one in the new, characteristically accepted the doctrine of eternal progression at first, then rejected it when the schoolmen finally talked them out of it. In Origen’s universe there are more exalted beings who leave the less exalted beings further and further behind. He compares their advancements to a series of examinations and makes much of the three degrees of glory—“three celestial levels, like the sun, the moon, and the stars.” According to him, the visible world is only a small fraction of the invisible world, which in turn is only a small fraction of the potential world that is to become reality in the aeons ahead.

My point is that the system which was so carefully worked out in the beginning was designed to work equitably for the benefit of man. But God is a God of order, and who balances his actions on a scale of both justice and mercy.

.

65

Life after death OR Consciousness after death?

by Space Madness in

are we conscious after death?

if we don't understand why and how consciousness exsist now, how do we know it doesn't continue after death?

can consciousness survive the death of the body?

Cold Steel

William Barnes, who firmly believes that he's the reincarnation of Thomas Andrews, tells a wonderful story. But there's one point in his story, where he and Bruce Ismay butt heads over whether Titanic and Olympia should have double hulls or not. In the room was also Andrew's uncle and was very fond of Tommie. Anyway, when Tommie stormed out, his uncle stood up for him to Ismay. The first time I heard the story, I didn't notice it, but the second time it hit me. How would Tommie have known about the conversation that took place after he left? That wouldn't have been part of his memory. He was already half way out the building and he would have had no memory of what took place in the room after he had it.

That is a major problem for me. Andrews' family insists there are numerous errors in Barnes' account and are highly critical of Barne's claims; however, I found it extremely entertaining. Then when I heard of the young boy (who now is a young man) had had the same experience that Barnes had. Same story of the little kid who drew pictures of ships with four smokestacks and who knew the last smokestack was a faux-smokestack, and only built for cosmetic reasons. He drew the ship and the "little boats" (lifeboats) and that he, Andrews, had tried to not cut corners but had been overruled by the evil Ismay. They can't both be reincarnations of Andrews.

In my own view, reincarnation is a horrible prospect and I'd hate to think that we'd have to pass through many mortal lives. I don't think the principle is compatible with the Bible's teachings, which states that it is given once for man to die. I'm 60 years old and I feel like I've lived forever. I'd hate to go through it again. How Barnes and the other fellow obtained their knowledge about shipbuilding and were able to describe the cold days with the smell of coal in the air, the shipyard, the morning whistle, the making of rivits and how the men would drop hot rivits on each other for sport. It seems like genuine memories, so who knows?

.

65

Life after death OR Consciousness after death?

by Space Madness in

are we conscious after death?

if we don't understand why and how consciousness exsist now, how do we know it doesn't continue after death?

can consciousness survive the death of the body?

Cold Steel

Willmarite: I've been particularly impressed by Ian Stevenson's research into reincarnation. He's researched many cases where young children remember living another life and have provided many details that later prove to be true. These are extremely well documented cases. I believe he has investigated over 2000 cases.

Be very wary of such research, especially since much of it is based on hypnosis, which makes the mind completely susceptible to suggestions.

Case in point. The television series Ghost Inside My Child featured a young man who, when he was young, had vivid memories of a former life in the shipyards of the White Star line. As a child, he drew pictures of a large ship that sank in the cold waters of the Atlantic. He drew four smoke stacks and explained that the last one was fake to add to the ship’s overall design. He eventually linked these memories to those of Thomas Andrews, the designer of the RMS Titanic.

He knew all about ship design, the quality of rivets and the names of family members. It was all very impressive except for one thing. There is another guy out there who also claims to be Thomas Andrews. His pseudonym is William Barnes, and I interviewed him for over an hour years ago. I got the taped recording of his hypnotic sessions with the late Dr. Frank Baranowski, in which he spoke with an impressive Scottish brogue. He, too, had vivid dreams and knowledge he wasn’t supposed to know. In fact, after his first hypnotic session, he said he remembered nothing. He put the cassette into his car’s player and was astounded at what he heard. One part of what he said:

"...I took a forty-pound sledgehammer... and beat on the plates twice, as hard as I could. I got down from the scaffolding and walked astern to where my uncle waited. You should have seen the look on my uncle's face! He says to me: 'My God, Tommie! You were almost eight hundred feet away, and it sounded like you were hittin' the plates from where I stood!' I then told my uncle to put his head to the hull. 'You'll probably still hear the plates ringin', Uncle. that's why we need double hulls on these ships!'" (Bill Barnes speaking as Andrews under hypnosis.)

So what to do? We have two people making virtually identical claims, knowing things they shouldn’t know, and both are alive today. I wonder how that is possible? There also are many other examples of this. I know of no documented cases in which a person speaks another language he/she didn’t know.

.

65

Life after death OR Consciousness after death?

by Space Madness in

are we conscious after death?

if we don't understand why and how consciousness exsist now, how do we know it doesn't continue after death?

can consciousness survive the death of the body?

Cold Steel

I think there's an excellent case to be made not only for life after life, but life before life. If Jesus had a pre-mortal life and if Jerimiah (Jer. 1:5) had one, why not us? Remember the apostles asked Jesus, "Master, who did sin, this man or his parents that he was born blind?" Jesus could have responded by saying that they were erring, not knowing the scripture, or he could have corrected them some other way, but he didn't.

Premortality

19

Is JW Baptism the Only Valid Baptism?

by Cold Steel in

what is the watchtower bible and tract societys view on baptism?

is it absolutely essential that one be baptized to gain eternal life in gods kingdom?.

and can they tell you who you can and cant baptize?.

Cold Steel

Laika: This could be a problem for the evangelicals (baptism is only a symbol!?) but less so for the JWs. They think the scripture you quoted is a later [addition] and has been removed from their recently revised New World Translation.

Okay, you begin by talking about evangelicals and end by saying the passage about Jesus saying, “He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved” has been removed from “their” recently revised New World Translation. I’m assuming by “evangelicals” you mean the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

Well, the Society can remove what they want from the scriptures, but just because an earlier version doesn’t have a phrase or passage doesn’t mean it’s the most pristine version. If the pristine version turns out to be the later version (because it was copied from an earlier, pristine, document), then the translator has made an error. Some scholars believe this was the case for the end of the Lord’s prayer: “For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.” The reason, because without it the prayer just ends prematurely. In short, the later version with the missing passage makes more sense than the one that just ends. This may be because the earlier source is correct, or it could be that later clerics noticed the gap and added something appropriate to make it end with greater effect.

So this is only something that can be answered by revelation. It’s clear that many believers have, for one reason or another, not been baptized. And it’s clear that many people have lived and died without hearing the gospel preached. This is one reason the scriptures state that while Jesus’ body lay in the tomb, his spirit went “and preached to the spirits in prison” which sometimes were disobedient in the days of Noah. Peter also states, “For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” (See 1 Peter 3:18-20; 1 Peter 4:6.)

Thus, even though these people may be dead, they can hear the gospel preached to them so they may be “judged according to men in the flesh,” yet “live according to God in the spirit.” This is one reason the soul sleeping doctrine just doesn’t work.

If Mormons still have apostles do they have confession and absolution (based on John 20:23)? Am I right in saying Mormons believe Peter, James and John are still alive and wandering the Earth or is this is a myth like the 'magic' underwear? And if so, how come your leaders haven't included them in the Mormon group of 12 apostles?

There are sins of a serious nature which must be confessed with one’s bishop, who are given the keys of authority over their jurisdictions. And if the Holy Spirit dictates, they can forgive sins.

As for Peter, James, and John wandering the earth, no. They appeared only to convey the higher “Melchizedek” priesthood and the Keys of the Kingdom, though not all at once. Moses and Elijah later returned with additional keys. Moses restored the keys of the gathering of Israel, which coincidentally began very shortly after the keys were conveyed, and Elijah appeared in fulfillment of prophecy with the keys to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and vice versa. In all cases, the keys were restored to two men, fulfilling the law of witnesses. When Muhammad, Joan of Arc, Ellen G. White, and, later, Charles Taze Russell, claimed some angelic ministration, they were the only ones who experienced it. There were no witnesses. The Book of Mormon had three witnesses who saw the angel, the gold plates upon which the scriptures were written, heard the voice of God and to their dying days never once denied their testimony. There were also eight witnesses who saw only the gold plates, with no angel, no voice of God, and so forth. They, too, never denied their testimonies. In short, in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Now much has been said about the so-called “magic underwear” that is worn by members who have been through the temple. These are simply sacred vestments worn under the clothing (see Exodus 28). Many priesthood recipients wear vestments over the clothing; however, because the Latter-day Saints have a lay priesthood, our vestments are worn under our street clothing.

Again, touching on Peter, James and John, these men were apostles in their own day and they hold the keys of their dispensation, which is called the Dispensation of the Meridian of Time, in which Jesus lived. Today, we believe that Joseph Smith and others hold the keys of the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times in which the “restoration of all things” will be completed. According to our teachings, the keys of the kingdom have been restored for the last time and will never be taken from the earth, but will remain here throughout the Millennium.

.