Posts by OHappyDay

10

PR TO GIVE THE GB CREDIBILITY????

by Corvin in

i am posting the entire article .

a bit of a read, but those who are so inclined .

comments????.

OHappyDay

Yes, it's a feeble attempt to show that we do things the way the early Christians did.

To call the reports in Acts "statistical reports" is stretching the truth by a long way.

And those reports in Acts were not used by the early Christians as "quotas" for all Christians to meet. Most of the preaching done then was "informal," not the highly structured stuff Witnesses do. Nor is there any evidence that all Christians were required to make individual reports of their activity. Nobody in the New Testament is stigmatized as a "low hour publisher." Nowhere in the NT is salvation a matter of hours spent in "field service."

The truth is, we do it "our way," and then blame it on the Bible.

18

Disagreeing With God's Representative

by Euphemism in

it's been a while since i posted anything biblical... christianity is not really my cup of tea anymore, except from a purely academic perspective.

however, i just had an interesting thought today.

the jws always say that you should submit your judgment to the organization.

OHappyDay

Sorry you feel bummed out at Christianity, Eu. Personally, I'm not ready to give up on Jesus just because one organization has misrepresented him. Or even if we assume that many organizations misrepresent him. I find something in Jesus worthy of my continued allegiance.

But as for the Society, it is to its shame that it stifles all intelligent thought, that it demands acceptance of 'the full range of WT teachings.' This it does even for speculative things for which there may be a number of valid interpretations.

As much as I want to resist labeling Jehovah's Witnesses a cult, this mind control is surely a damning piece of evidence. And it's so unnecessary. What the Society does is no different from the enforced patriotism of making people salute the flag.

I don't expect Christianity to be easy. But the binding of heavy loads to put on people -- the quirky restrictions, the regimentation, the flogging of slaves to "do more" as if our salvation depended on ourselves rather than on Christ -- this is not Christianity. This is an organization exalting itself as the Second Person of the Trinity.

10

Who Removed God's Name from the Bible?

by Tower Man in

jw
friends

i have a new article on my site called, who removed god's name from the bible?

if you'd like to check it out it's at

http://www.towertotruth.net/articles/who_removed_jehovah.htm

OHappyDay

Very good points, especially since we can show that Jehovah's name (YHWH) was preserved over the thousand years of Old Testament transmission. So it is correct to ask why He did not preserve it in the NT, if it was ever there in the first place?

But even in the OT the correct pronunciation of YHWH is unknown. And maybe people didn't know how to pronounce it in Jesus' day either. That may be why Jesus never used it. Jesus used substitute words like Father, and the Power.

There are many times in the context of a verse or passage in the New World Translation where it is plain that Jesus is being spoken about, and the sudden appearance of "Jehovah" is distracting. For example, in Stephen's prayer at Acts 7:59, 60, Stephen begins by praying to the Lord Jesus, then suddenly the NWT changes over to "Jehovah." That makes no sense. The Greek text has "Lord" in both places, which does make sense.

23

Comments You Will Not Hear at the 4-11-04 WT Study (1st one on FDS)

by blondie in

comments you will not hear at the 4-11-04 (week of 4/5-11/2004) wt study (march 1, 2004 wt)

review comments

will be in black and parentheses ().

OHappyDay

The Society does not want to acknowledge too many anointed Christians prior to Russell because then it would be clear that the number of 144,000 was filled up long before the 20th century, and then neither Russell nor Rutherford nor others of our time would be of the "anointed," a qualification we make for being part of the Slave.

But they put themselves in that predicament by claiming that only 144,000 Christians are anointed with holy spirit. The Bible nowhere says that.

Too long? By no means! Great reading! Excellent work!

92

Does Jesus being the "Son of God" mean that he is not God by nature ?

by hooberus in

in bible times the phrase "the son of god" was understood as a claim to the nature of god, not a claim to be a lesser being:.

" john 19:7. .

ron rhodes commments:.

OHappyDay

Kenneson,

The question in Hebrews is whether God "said" to any angel, "You are my son."

This does not negate the clear fact that angels are called "sons of God" in the Bible. Do a little reading and check it out.

Anointed Christians are also called "sons of God" and "sharers in divine nature." This does not make them God.

12

The temptation of Jesus

by Leolaia in

in q 4:1-13 (luke 4:1-13), we have the well-known story of jesus' temptation by the devil, which appears to be a haggadic legend derived largely from texts in deuteronomy 6 and 8. here is a list of parallels provided by dale allison: .

1. jesus is "led" in the wilderness (4:1); israel is "led" in the wilderness (deut.

2. jesus is in the wilderness for 40 days and there tempted (4:2); israel is in the wilderness for 40 years and there tempted (deut.

OHappyDay

Both OT and NT are Jewish stories. Even the gentiles who accepted Christ became the New Jews, the "spiritual Israel."

There were many "Judaisms" around in the 1st century. It is not unthinkable that that present religous milieu contributed to what is recorded in the NT.

Even the Greek Septuagint, utilized by many NT writers, was a Jewish work.

It's all a Jewish conspiracy!

92

Does Jesus being the "Son of God" mean that he is not God by nature ?

by hooberus in

in bible times the phrase "the son of god" was understood as a claim to the nature of god, not a claim to be a lesser being:.

" john 19:7. .

ron rhodes commments:.

OHappyDay

I agree, Mr. Kim!

Arian, and proud of it!!!

23

Is the author a Witness: Yes

by Quotes in

check out http://members.shaw.ca/stanm/books/theobooks.htm.

theocratic library.

these are my recommendations for books that we can add to our own personal theocratic libraries.

OHappyDay

Furuli is like a lot of us: He really wants to believe that what he has spent his life with is true. So long as there is a shred of possibility that the Society may be right and secular historians wrong, he will hang in there. And when one is dealing with ancient history, there are few things that are absolutely certain, so he has wiggle room.

But I wonder if he would be trying to undermine secular dating for Jerusalme's fall if 607 BCE were not integral to the Society's dogma of proving its relevance based on that date and 1914? Probably not. Doctrinal pressure makes rational men do irrational things. It's happened with Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals -- and us. (Not to mention Jews, Muslims, and other "believers" as well.) It's the same tyranny of belief that makes creationists insist that the earth is only a few thousand years old despite all geological evidence to the contrary.

92

Does Jesus being the "Son of God" mean that he is not God by nature ?

by hooberus in

in bible times the phrase "the son of god" was understood as a claim to the nature of god, not a claim to be a lesser being:.

" john 19:7. .

ron rhodes commments:.

OHappyDay

In the Bible angels are also called "sons of God" and even "God." Does that make them "God by nature"?

Does having the "nature of God" make someone "God by nature"?

17

Do the WT authors consider the early church fathers to have been apostates?

by True North in

do the wt authors consider the early church fathers to have been apostates?

i seem to have a vague recollection that they do.

however, they don't seem to have a problem reading and selectively quoting or citing from their writings which would then be the writings of apostates.

OHappyDay

They use those writings just like they use writings of modern-day theologians, when those writings appear to agree with some facet of Watchtower doctrine. But they do not consider such persons, ancient or modern, to be "true" Christians. Usually they are referred to as "nominal" or "professed" Christians.