Posts by robhic

13

Trinitarians, Did Jesus reveal himself as God?

by ClassAvenger in

i'm a person that believes in the trinity, but i have a question.

i know jesus didn't reveal to all the people to whom he preached as god himself, and it was not something that he directly taught (or at least i think he didn't), but i know from what i've read that the disciples knew and taught it.

my question is, did jesus tell them, or did they have this revealed when they were anointed by the holy spirit?

robhic

Myx ... wrote:

John 8 56-58

Jesus speaking "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds."

The only part of this that has nagged at me is the part about Jesus hiding Himself and "slipping away." He is countering their accusation that He is blaspheming about being God, but instead of them putting down the stones with a "Hmmm, maybe He's right" sort of attitude, Jesus runs away which, in my opinion, leaves the issue a bit unsettled.

Your post that I exerpted this from was excellent. I appreciated he thoughts contained but what I mention above just seems to be sort of a let down if Jesus had to run intead of the Jews accepting His claim.

Did that make sense? Thanks, again for such an excellent post.

Robert

7

The cross -- new light?

by robhic in

i could swear that i read here a while back that the wts was softening their position on the cross.

i searched the different forums but either i am completely mistaken or my search technique sucked.

i found nothing relative.. anyway, can anyone shed some light (new or otherwise.... thanks,.

robhic

I could swear that I read here a while back that the WTS was softening their position on the cross. I searched the different forums but either I am completely mistaken or my search technique sucked. I found nothing relative.

Anyway, can anyone shed some light (new or otherwise... ) on this matter? Did the WTS recently make some accomodation regarding the cross as opposed to the stake or stauros or whatever the name du jour of Jesus's means of death was? I would be curious to read if they have or maybe make an appointment to have my memory checked it not!

Thanks,

Robert

3

A question for jw knowabouts - oldest archaelogical evidence ?

by A Paduan in

saw this on another thread

*** w54 8/15 511 questions from readers ***

the traditional picture of jesus shows him with long hair and beard, but the watch tower publications illustrate him as beardless and with short hair.

robhic

The physical appearance of Jesus is somewhat hard to know and even more difficult to prove. I've always pictured him as the long-haired and bearded guy generally accepted. As for the WT assertion that the clean-shaven, short-haired JC predated the bearded one ... well duh!

In representations of Jesus that predate the bearded ones, he's younger so he wouldn't have a beard. I'm sure if they wanted to be really technical about it, Jesus wouldn't have pubic hair in earlier pictures either! And the quote about "no razor on his head" puts things in perspective, also.

Whether real or not, the Shroud of Turin pictures Jesus as a bearded "effeminate" guy. Even if the shroud is a forgery or whatever, it was done a whole lot closer to the time when Jesus was supposed to have lived so I'd figure that is an accurate representation, regardless.

Just my thought,

Robert

5

Some odd biblical rules.......

by figureheaduk in

just got these from a feature on the daily mirror site (www.mirror.co.uk) about strange bible-based rules.

anybody know what the wt's take on any of these are (and if the wt flouts any of them, even though it claims to follow the bible as god's true word).

i know the following quotes probably aren't taken from the nwt version, but i suppose they would be along the same lines........ deuteronomy 21:18-21 has some bad news for wayward sons:if a man have a stubborn and rebellious son... then shall his father and his mother... bring him unto the elders of his city... and all men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.. .

robhic

Aren't the rules from the OT no longer in effect due to the revocation of "Mosaic Law" or something like that? Didn't that make these (and other, similar OT laws) obsolete? I am not sure if it was JW or some other religion that was pushing this issue.

Robert

9

they do accept blood after all

by wonderer2003 in

thought this might interest some of you, sorry me if this page has already been talked about, but i just found it and thought it very interesting....

http://www.stnicholasla.com/blood.htm found here.

the resulting decisions based on this arbitrary classification are breathtaking examples of inconsistency.

robhic

I found this even more interesting and hypocritical. I was never a JW and always thought the "eating of blood" was strictly forbidden in regard to animal blood and so forth. If JWs wanted to take it to the next level, well, that was their call. I don't agree with it but I guess I don't get to make the rules.

OK, so there seems to be (at least in my mind) no question that animal blood is prohibited in the bible. It's very clear and makes sense to me. However, this site illustrates a blood substitute allowed by the WTBTS which seems to fly completely in the face of biblical teaching. If they don't allow human blood for transfusions it seems animal blood would be a no-brainer. Not so.

I went to this site:

Website: http://www.ajwrb.org (The Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood)

I found the article on "HemoPure" very interesting as was the group that posted the article in the first place. JWs on reform? Wow...

Robert

12

J.W. Apologist

by Kenneson in

i have recently been reading from the watchman.com site.

while this forum questions some w.t.

teachings, it nevertheless defends it vigorously.

robhic

From the E-Watchman website:

At some point Jehovah's sons will have to bear the full brunt of their Father's scathing rebuke. No doubt when that occurs, our many enemies will assume that our disaster is proof that we were not God's people, when in reality it will prove the very opposite.

Would shunning be an option for rebuke? Would Jehovah shun his (supposed) organization out of (supposed) love?

What if the "full brunt of their Father's scathing rebuke" is shunning? How anticlimactic would totally and completely ignoring his (supposed) "earthly organization" be? And if they get shunned, how will all of their (supposed) enemies know they are being scathingly rebuked so as to be filled with awe? Sounds like bullshit to me...

Robert

19

All right -- What does God need 144,000 "rulers" for, anyway?

by logansrun in

one of the great philosophical conumdrums amongst the vast number of philosophical conumdrums of the watchtower society is this: why would almighty god (or jesus christ) need once earthly, now spiritual "co-rulers" for anyway?

god is not lacking in anything (supposedly).

now, anything means anything, right?

robhic

Upon reading Rev 14:4 we also see that not only are the 144,000 to be Jewish, but men only. The 144K are to be "not defiled with women" so they are unmarried, Jewish virgins. If it is to be taken literally it is kinda limiting, if I do say so myself...

And I agree with your statement. After the "Big A" is over and only the (supposed) righteous are left, why would any rulers of any kind be needed? Wouldn't these people be trustworthy to run things themselves? We don't need no steenking rulers!

Robert

19

Question on jw interpretation

by A Paduan in

.

can someone tell me, how do jws portray the idea of "the wheat and the chaff" ?

paduan

robhic

The Witnesses believe everyone who dies before Armaggedon and did not have a chance to accept the bibles message... ( really it's THEIR message) will be resurrected to have a chance to hear the good news or reject it.
If you are resurrected, hear the message, and reject it.......you will be thrown into the "Apostate bonepile". This will be a special designated place for all onlookers to gaze at, to remind the faithful what happens to those who think for themselves. ( this last paragraph is a bold faced lie)
Gumby

Does having the chance to hear their message include those who turned them away at the door? Like if you refuse to be annoyed on a Saturday morning you get dead with no chance of resurrection just for that? Wow, that's kinda harsh.

And if there really was any truth to the teachings and you got to be resurrected, will the JW teach "the whole truth and nothing but the truth"? Will they not gloss over important points like those who die before the Big A and get resurrected cannot marry nor have a sex life? Seems that might make the decision a bit more difficult than just accepting jehovah's word.

All things being equal, if there really was a resurrection (like they teach) who wouldn't accept jehovah after seeing this first hand? Other than the sex issue, it seems a slam-dunk from this perspective. Even doubting Thomas (the apostle) would believe it after seeing that!

Robert

3

The flood?

by l3gi0n in

has the wt ever state how manny people they think died in the flood?

robhic

A worldwide flood is a fairly slim possibility, in my opinion. I always figure that to the inhabitants of earth 1000's of years ago, the immediate area was the whole earth to them. A regional flood of epic proportions is certainly possible and (I think) actually proven by some scientists. I also have often wondered of those who talk about a "worldwide flood" if they take into consideration that those alive in those days thought the earth was flat, too? People on some remote islands thought the "whole world" consisted of their island and little else.

An earth that was flat and probably thought to be about the size of Isreal and little more is really no big deal in today's scope...

My opinion,

Robert

9

Persecution?

by robhic in

i am not now, nor have i ever been a jw but i have seen their propensity to try to play up being persecuted.

a friend of mine who is a jw (and the reason i sought out these message forums) made it abundantly clear that she thought (and i guess was encouraged to think) that most everything was persecution because "people hate jw's.".

now, from my experience i can say that i don't think people actually hate jw.

robhic

I am not now, nor have I ever been a JW but I have seen their propensity to try to play up being persecuted. A friend of mine who is a JW (and the reason I sought out these message forums) made it abundantly clear that she thought (and I guess was encouraged to think) that most everything was persecution because "People hate JW's."

Now, from my experience I can say that I don't think people actually hate JW. I think most people find them annoying and quite a bother but really hating them seems to be overkill. You don't literally hate mosquitoes (at least I don't) but they are an annoyance like any number of other small things and that's all.

What I have seen as far as the most hostile feelings towards JW seems to be almost exclusively from ex-JW! The message forums I have been reading for about 6-7 months are filled with nice, intelligent and humorous people. But ... when the subject really gets serious about JW topics the ex-JW really get stoked about it. I can see why this would be the case but do other "worldly" people feel this way?

Is this your perception also? Did you experience actual persecution as a JW or more or less people's annoyance and nothing much worse? Am I getting a good read on these feelings? I am curious about JW's need to feel persecuted. Is it some sort of validation? I think it's just kinda sad.

Robert