When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden and the restoration of mankind to the perfection and endless life that Adam forfeited, I was thrilled. Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?
If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"? I don't think very many people would say that.
We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.
Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29
Paradise on Earth
Moderator: Moderators
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1581 times
- Been thanked: 471 times
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Post #551
[Replying to onewithhim]
Im afraid the premise that God chose not to foresee is illogical. Ill discuss more fully later.
What is impossible to imagine is an all knowing God choosing to not know something. If ones nature is all knowing its illogical to think He wouldnt know.
Yes, I know many people who like to have selective knowledge It can be quite a convenient excuse.
God could have done things a lot of ways, but He does what He does.
It is the JWs who make too many presumptions about God. When one denies the divinity of Christ and doesnt see Him as the prize, you settle for some kind of earthly utopia. It simply demonstrates the limits of the human mind to move beyond a materialistic mind set.
JWs didnt even teach earthly paradise until they realized their followers would exceed their 140,000 limitation. This should bother you. Just like after all their failed prophesies they had to scramble to update their theology.
And once again, from where does the JW authority come? I am serious about this question. What makes you think mankind was ignorant of all this until Charles Russell came along and straightened it all out? Things like this should bother you. The failed prophesies of JW should bother you. If they were wrong about those things, why are you trusting them about some literal paradise earth? Gahhhhhhh . . . . makes no sense. You can plug along like A Beautiful Mind seeing all the connections or you can lift your head for a moment, look up and realize it doesnt make sense. There are no checks and balances in your faith. There is no way to know with JW set up if you are getting it right " NONE! They have no authority, do not even claim to be capable of teaching free from error, and are guilty of changing Sacred Scripture in order to fit their suggested theology. RED FLAG ALERT!
Please, please read something other than Watchtower tracts or JW commentary on Scripture. There is a whole beautiful truth out there that you are missing. A faith that recognizes divine filiation " that we are sons and daughters of Christ. That we have a Father in heaven who wants us with Him.
Can God make a mistake like not realizing Adam would have disobeyed?
I didnt want to spend too much time typing the flaws in your above reasoning so here are some excerpts from someone who probably explains it better than me . . .
Can God make mistakes?
How then, could He have not known that man would sin and rebel against His authority? Here the Witnesses will admit that God could know such things if it was His will to know. "But God chose not to know," they reply. For what purpose?
"We can be sure that God's purpose for the earth did not change." On this point we can agree. But what was God's purpose for the earth? Surely God did not intend the pinnacle of His earthly creations to be a slave to His will, mere robots. Rather, we all know that God created man in his own image. In order to do so, He also gave us free will. The difficulty, however, does not come from an inability to conceptualize a God that would allow His creation to disobey him, but rather from the inability to conceptualize infinity.
Now imagine God. He has no beginning and no end. There is no relative time span. To Him, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day (cf. Ps 90:4). He inhabits all time and all space. This concept is very important to an understanding of why the fall of Man could never have been unknown to God. The combined sins of man are as real to him now as the world before Adam, even before dinosaurs. This is why every time a priest celebrates mass, he offers the same sacrifice that Christ made when he died on the cross. Christ does not suffer over and over again during each eucharistic consecration. Time is an invention of man to help us put order into our lives.
Indeed, the Watchtower undercuts their own argument in this respect. . . . wishing to show that God "chooses not to foreknow," the Watchtower presents the following argument: "would it not have been hypocritical for God to offer the prospect of everlasting life to Adam and Eve, fully aware that they would be unable to realize it?"
How dare they call God a hypocrite! What blasphemy! God always gave Adam and Eve "the prospect of everlasting life" even after the fall, through the eternal and Holy Sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ. If God wanted our first parents to remain in paradise forever, he could have done so by simply not creating a tree of knowledge, thereby preventing any means for disobedience. Yet, predestination in no way implies that choice is not given. One is predestined to heavenly glory by choosing this glory freely just as one who is predestined to eternal damnation makes the choice to follow such a destiny. There is nothing hypocritical about God knowing who will betray him and who will be faithful.
The Watchtower's position also creates problems in logic. They say "that there are situations in which God chooses not to foreknow," yet they do not describe the method which God uses to make this choice. How does God decide which events He will foreknow and those He will not? In making this choice He must have criteria, yet knowledge of the criteria already suggests foreknowledge. For example, the Watchtower asserts that "God exercised his foreknowledge to reveal the succession of world powers," and "God can see certain events." How did God decide to know that foreknowledge of "the succession of world powers" was relevant to His purpose and that foreknowledge of other events, such as "the extent of the depravity of [Sodom and Gomorrah]" were not? Would He not need to foreknow the events which were to take place in Sodom and Gomorrah in order to make His decision not to foreknow those same events? The answer to this question, according to Watchtower logic, is as impossible to define as the riddle about whether the chicken came before the egg, or the egg before the chicken. The only solution is to admit that God knows all things at all times, including our destiny.
But what is that destiny for the ones chosen to be saved? The Watchtower cites Scriptural passages which they feel imply that the earth will last forever, and that the righteous will always inhabit it. However, one must be careful to read the quoted passages in context. Often they refer to the return of the Jews from the captivity of Babylon and Egypt. Other times, as in Psalms 67 and 72, they refer to blessings bestowed upon the king. In contrast, the Bible proclaims that His Kingdom is not of this world (Jn 18:36). Neither will ours be.
The Watchtower chooses to interpret the above passage as a reference to a renewed earth where there will be no death or sadness, and God will live among them. However, there are several problems with such an interpretation. First, cross reference this passage to Matthew's account of the nativity (Mt 1:23). Here, Immanuel is the name used to describe the child Jesus, meaning God-with-us. Surely in Jesus, God does live among human beings. Second, the holy city, the new Jerusalem, is a metaphor used by Jews and early Christians to describe heaven. This is particularly evident in an account given in the letter to the Hebrews (Hb 11:8-16). In this account, Abraham's descendants, which are "as numerous as the stars" are looking forward to "their heavenly homeland" since God has "founded the city for them." They recognize that they are "strangers and nomads on earth."
The story of Abraham and his descendants is also relevant to the question of time, which was discussed above. We know that salvation only comes through Christ Jesus as we are reminded in the famous passage of John 3:16. How then could God have founded the city of heaven for them unless Christ died for our sins for all time. For an infinite God this is possible; for one constrained by time, only those alive after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ can be saved, as only they will know who he is. Yet this is what the Watchtower proposes. Before Christ, nobody could even hope for a "heavenly homeland." As evidence, they point to John 3:13: "No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven." Yet what is the context in which he says this? After Jesus describes how one must be "born again" through baptism before he can enter the kingdom of God, Nicodemus asks, "How is that possible?" (Jn. 3:9). In reply, Jesus notes, "In all truth I tell you, we only speak about what we know and witness only to what we have seen and yet you people reject our evidence. If you do not believe me when I speak about earthly things, how will you believe me when I speak about heavenly things?" (Jn. 3:11,12). The point he is making here is not that nobody has ever gone to heaven, but that among those living, nobody has seen heaven, and therefore nobody, Nicodemus included, can understand it.
Continuing on, the Watchtower proclaims that the earth was made for man, and that the earth will last forever, even though Paul reminds the Philippians that "they will be lost...since their minds are set on earthly things. But our homeland is in heaven...(Phil 3:19-20)." Saint Luke also reminds us that when Christ comes again, "no one on the housetop, with his possessions in the house must come down to collect them...Remember Lot's wife (Lk 17:31-32)." Certainly there is greater glory in the presence of God in His heavenly kingdom than can ever be attained through all the riches of the world. Over and over, scripture tells us to set our eyes on God who has prepared the city of heaven, the new Jerusalem, for a multitude as numerous as the stars in heaven (cf. Hb 11:12). Those who set their eyes on the riches of this world will only find death.
if God could see no benefit in allowing us to sin and to suffer, he could have ended those things long ago. But then how would we ever hope to share in his divinity as mere automatons.
He knew that we would sin, but he chose to create man in his image so that man could someday share in his divinity. We are responsible for our own sins. God has given us a conscience and his Holy Word to guide us. We are free to choose.
To add to this, refer to Paul's letter to the Romans. "[God] decided beforehand who were the ones destined to be moulded to the pattern of his Son, so that he should be the eldest of many brothers; it was those so destined that he called; those that he called, he justified, and those that he has justified he has brought into glory (Rm 8:29,30)." In essence, God knows what we are doing today, tomorrow, and the next day.
Our predestined salvation through Christ is also mentioned in Ephesians 1:4,5. We are told that He chose us before the world was made. The Watchtower condemns this theology since "they could not fail, regardless of what they did." There they make the big mistake of assuming that we are saved by our works, rather than the grace of God. If it were only for our actions that we are chosen, then none of us could ever hope to share in His glory. Rather, those who accept Christ are ransomed from death by His sacrifice from the cross. Instead, the Watchtower suggests that there will be a class of people who will prove faithful and receive a just reward. This notion does nothing but belittle Christ's sacrifice.
To counter this argument, they will say that the world does not refer to the earth, but rather to mankind. This will not help their argument, however, since Adam and Eve were the first humans and they were created without sin or shame. Therefore, when God speaks to us about those who are predestined to share in His glory, He does so from a vantage point before (and after) sin came into the world. If some are predestined to share in His glory, then others are not. Since the wages of sin are death, then He must have known that man would disobey Him even before mankind came into being. For this reason we all need a Saviour, and by putting our faith and trust in Him, He may redeem us from our sin, and lead us to everlasting life (cf Jn 3:16).
http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/witwatch.htm
There are two or three premises that we absolutely differ on, and that explains why you don't see God's original purpose for mankind to be life on earth forever.
(1) You say that God actually did foresee the disobedience of Adam, so therefore His gift of the earth to humans was not meant to be permanent. You are assuming that God foresaw the Fall. Did it ever occur to you that God might have chosen not to foresee what Adam would do?
Im afraid the premise that God chose not to foresee is illogical. Ill discuss more fully later.
Knowledge of something is not cause of something. Your comment is similar to that of an atheist accusing God of all the evil in the world.. . . if God foreknew all that history has seen since man's creation, then the full weight of all the wickedness that resulted afterward was deliberately set in motion by God when he spoke the words: "Let us make man." (Gen.1:26)
When we combine that reasoning with our knowledge of God's qualities, it is impossible for some people to imagine that He would do such a thing.
What is impossible to imagine is an all knowing God choosing to not know something. If ones nature is all knowing its illogical to think He wouldnt know.
We believe He exercises "selective" foreknowledge
Yes, I know many people who like to have selective knowledge It can be quite a convenient excuse.
You again are mixing up knowledge and cause. God knowing you will not choose Him is not the same as Him wanting you to not choose Him or worse as you might be suggesting, Him not actually giving you a choice. Your comment lacks logic.In this way He can honestly say to people that they can CHOOSE to accept or reject Christ as their Redeemer or Jehovah as their Supreme Sovereign. He couldn't offer life to everyone with a straight face if He already knew what they were going to do.
I know you do, but that is to presume to know what God knows.(2) We see the earth as God's original idea of mankind's permanent home
If it wasnt His final plan, then you wont find anything indicating He has since changed, but if you dont make that original mistaken assumption, there is ample evidence in Scripture that God intended us to be with Him in heaven., and we don't see any indication in the Scriptures that He has changed His mind.
Ha,ha,ha . . Yep that pretty much sums up your erroneous theology. You have explained nothing. Christendom aint buynWe have explained why we shouldn't necessarily ASSUME that God knew everything before Adam rebelled. Therefore, the creation of the earth was undoubtedly meant to be humans' eternal home.
Let me ask you if God just wanted us to be with Him in heaven why arent we all purple and living under water on Mars?(3) You assume every righteous, believing person is destined to go to heaven. May I ask, If God was planning on bringing everyone to heaven in the first place, why didn't He just make everyone like the angels to begin with and have us living in heaven from the beginning?
God could have done things a lot of ways, but He does what He does.
Lots of people think movn on up is worth the annoyance of moving " just ask the Jeffersons.Why put us on a physical planet for a few thousand years and then transfer us to the spirit realm?
You know JW teaching didnt even start teaching about this supposed paradise earth until they realized their numbers got so big their theology could only accommodate 144,000. Oops!We don't consider the earth "second prize." There are, as I said, millions of us who think of the earth as "first prize." Those that are going to heaven are actually servants of those on the earth.
Only if you start with a false premise and twist and tweak.There is substantial evidence that what I'm saying is true.
Other way around Im afraid.To see things your way, we must do a lot of assuming.
It is the JWs who make too many presumptions about God. When one denies the divinity of Christ and doesnt see Him as the prize, you settle for some kind of earthly utopia. It simply demonstrates the limits of the human mind to move beyond a materialistic mind set.
JWs didnt even teach earthly paradise until they realized their followers would exceed their 140,000 limitation. This should bother you. Just like after all their failed prophesies they had to scramble to update their theology.
And once again, from where does the JW authority come? I am serious about this question. What makes you think mankind was ignorant of all this until Charles Russell came along and straightened it all out? Things like this should bother you. The failed prophesies of JW should bother you. If they were wrong about those things, why are you trusting them about some literal paradise earth? Gahhhhhhh . . . . makes no sense. You can plug along like A Beautiful Mind seeing all the connections or you can lift your head for a moment, look up and realize it doesnt make sense. There are no checks and balances in your faith. There is no way to know with JW set up if you are getting it right " NONE! They have no authority, do not even claim to be capable of teaching free from error, and are guilty of changing Sacred Scripture in order to fit their suggested theology. RED FLAG ALERT!
Please, please read something other than Watchtower tracts or JW commentary on Scripture. There is a whole beautiful truth out there that you are missing. A faith that recognizes divine filiation " that we are sons and daughters of Christ. That we have a Father in heaven who wants us with Him.
Can God make a mistake like not realizing Adam would have disobeyed?
I didnt want to spend too much time typing the flaws in your above reasoning so here are some excerpts from someone who probably explains it better than me . . .
Can God make mistakes?
How then, could He have not known that man would sin and rebel against His authority? Here the Witnesses will admit that God could know such things if it was His will to know. "But God chose not to know," they reply. For what purpose?
"We can be sure that God's purpose for the earth did not change." On this point we can agree. But what was God's purpose for the earth? Surely God did not intend the pinnacle of His earthly creations to be a slave to His will, mere robots. Rather, we all know that God created man in his own image. In order to do so, He also gave us free will. The difficulty, however, does not come from an inability to conceptualize a God that would allow His creation to disobey him, but rather from the inability to conceptualize infinity.
Now imagine God. He has no beginning and no end. There is no relative time span. To Him, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day (cf. Ps 90:4). He inhabits all time and all space. This concept is very important to an understanding of why the fall of Man could never have been unknown to God. The combined sins of man are as real to him now as the world before Adam, even before dinosaurs. This is why every time a priest celebrates mass, he offers the same sacrifice that Christ made when he died on the cross. Christ does not suffer over and over again during each eucharistic consecration. Time is an invention of man to help us put order into our lives.
Indeed, the Watchtower undercuts their own argument in this respect. . . . wishing to show that God "chooses not to foreknow," the Watchtower presents the following argument: "would it not have been hypocritical for God to offer the prospect of everlasting life to Adam and Eve, fully aware that they would be unable to realize it?"
How dare they call God a hypocrite! What blasphemy! God always gave Adam and Eve "the prospect of everlasting life" even after the fall, through the eternal and Holy Sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ. If God wanted our first parents to remain in paradise forever, he could have done so by simply not creating a tree of knowledge, thereby preventing any means for disobedience. Yet, predestination in no way implies that choice is not given. One is predestined to heavenly glory by choosing this glory freely just as one who is predestined to eternal damnation makes the choice to follow such a destiny. There is nothing hypocritical about God knowing who will betray him and who will be faithful.
The Watchtower's position also creates problems in logic. They say "that there are situations in which God chooses not to foreknow," yet they do not describe the method which God uses to make this choice. How does God decide which events He will foreknow and those He will not? In making this choice He must have criteria, yet knowledge of the criteria already suggests foreknowledge. For example, the Watchtower asserts that "God exercised his foreknowledge to reveal the succession of world powers," and "God can see certain events." How did God decide to know that foreknowledge of "the succession of world powers" was relevant to His purpose and that foreknowledge of other events, such as "the extent of the depravity of [Sodom and Gomorrah]" were not? Would He not need to foreknow the events which were to take place in Sodom and Gomorrah in order to make His decision not to foreknow those same events? The answer to this question, according to Watchtower logic, is as impossible to define as the riddle about whether the chicken came before the egg, or the egg before the chicken. The only solution is to admit that God knows all things at all times, including our destiny.
But what is that destiny for the ones chosen to be saved? The Watchtower cites Scriptural passages which they feel imply that the earth will last forever, and that the righteous will always inhabit it. However, one must be careful to read the quoted passages in context. Often they refer to the return of the Jews from the captivity of Babylon and Egypt. Other times, as in Psalms 67 and 72, they refer to blessings bestowed upon the king. In contrast, the Bible proclaims that His Kingdom is not of this world (Jn 18:36). Neither will ours be.
The Watchtower chooses to interpret the above passage as a reference to a renewed earth where there will be no death or sadness, and God will live among them. However, there are several problems with such an interpretation. First, cross reference this passage to Matthew's account of the nativity (Mt 1:23). Here, Immanuel is the name used to describe the child Jesus, meaning God-with-us. Surely in Jesus, God does live among human beings. Second, the holy city, the new Jerusalem, is a metaphor used by Jews and early Christians to describe heaven. This is particularly evident in an account given in the letter to the Hebrews (Hb 11:8-16). In this account, Abraham's descendants, which are "as numerous as the stars" are looking forward to "their heavenly homeland" since God has "founded the city for them." They recognize that they are "strangers and nomads on earth."
The story of Abraham and his descendants is also relevant to the question of time, which was discussed above. We know that salvation only comes through Christ Jesus as we are reminded in the famous passage of John 3:16. How then could God have founded the city of heaven for them unless Christ died for our sins for all time. For an infinite God this is possible; for one constrained by time, only those alive after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ can be saved, as only they will know who he is. Yet this is what the Watchtower proposes. Before Christ, nobody could even hope for a "heavenly homeland." As evidence, they point to John 3:13: "No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven." Yet what is the context in which he says this? After Jesus describes how one must be "born again" through baptism before he can enter the kingdom of God, Nicodemus asks, "How is that possible?" (Jn. 3:9). In reply, Jesus notes, "In all truth I tell you, we only speak about what we know and witness only to what we have seen and yet you people reject our evidence. If you do not believe me when I speak about earthly things, how will you believe me when I speak about heavenly things?" (Jn. 3:11,12). The point he is making here is not that nobody has ever gone to heaven, but that among those living, nobody has seen heaven, and therefore nobody, Nicodemus included, can understand it.
Continuing on, the Watchtower proclaims that the earth was made for man, and that the earth will last forever, even though Paul reminds the Philippians that "they will be lost...since their minds are set on earthly things. But our homeland is in heaven...(Phil 3:19-20)." Saint Luke also reminds us that when Christ comes again, "no one on the housetop, with his possessions in the house must come down to collect them...Remember Lot's wife (Lk 17:31-32)." Certainly there is greater glory in the presence of God in His heavenly kingdom than can ever be attained through all the riches of the world. Over and over, scripture tells us to set our eyes on God who has prepared the city of heaven, the new Jerusalem, for a multitude as numerous as the stars in heaven (cf. Hb 11:12). Those who set their eyes on the riches of this world will only find death.
if God could see no benefit in allowing us to sin and to suffer, he could have ended those things long ago. But then how would we ever hope to share in his divinity as mere automatons.
He knew that we would sin, but he chose to create man in his image so that man could someday share in his divinity. We are responsible for our own sins. God has given us a conscience and his Holy Word to guide us. We are free to choose.
To add to this, refer to Paul's letter to the Romans. "[God] decided beforehand who were the ones destined to be moulded to the pattern of his Son, so that he should be the eldest of many brothers; it was those so destined that he called; those that he called, he justified, and those that he has justified he has brought into glory (Rm 8:29,30)." In essence, God knows what we are doing today, tomorrow, and the next day.
Our predestined salvation through Christ is also mentioned in Ephesians 1:4,5. We are told that He chose us before the world was made. The Watchtower condemns this theology since "they could not fail, regardless of what they did." There they make the big mistake of assuming that we are saved by our works, rather than the grace of God. If it were only for our actions that we are chosen, then none of us could ever hope to share in His glory. Rather, those who accept Christ are ransomed from death by His sacrifice from the cross. Instead, the Watchtower suggests that there will be a class of people who will prove faithful and receive a just reward. This notion does nothing but belittle Christ's sacrifice.
To counter this argument, they will say that the world does not refer to the earth, but rather to mankind. This will not help their argument, however, since Adam and Eve were the first humans and they were created without sin or shame. Therefore, when God speaks to us about those who are predestined to share in His glory, He does so from a vantage point before (and after) sin came into the world. If some are predestined to share in His glory, then others are not. Since the wages of sin are death, then He must have known that man would disobey Him even before mankind came into being. For this reason we all need a Saviour, and by putting our faith and trust in Him, He may redeem us from our sin, and lead us to everlasting life (cf Jn 3:16).
http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/witwatch.htm
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1581 times
- Been thanked: 471 times
Post #552
To RightReason:
You find my viewpoint illogical and I feel the same about yours. To each his own. Have a pleasant evening.
You find my viewpoint illogical and I feel the same about yours. To each his own. Have a pleasant evening.
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Post #553
[Replying to onewithhim]
Anyway, I appreciate the conversation and really hope you have a pleasant evening as well. You are in my prayers.
Yes, Im afraid I do find your Scriptural interpretation illogical. I also find your methodology of seeking truth illogical. It makes no sense to me to believe in a religion that has no historicity, no authority, and a bad track record of failed prophecies and guilty of making changes to Sacred Scripture. Have you ever wondered about that? That is the sort of thing that would keep me up at night.You find my viewpoint illogical and I feel the same about yours. To each his own. Have a pleasant evening.
Anyway, I appreciate the conversation and really hope you have a pleasant evening as well. You are in my prayers.
Re: Paradise on Earth
Post #554Isaiah 65onewithhim wrote: When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden and the restoration of mankind to the perfection and endless life that Adam forfeited, I was thrilled. Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?
If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"? I don't think very many people would say that.
We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.
Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29
16: So that he who blesses himself in the land shall bless himself by the God of truth, and he who takes an oath in the land shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten and are hid from my eyes.
17: "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.
18: But be glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19: I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and be glad in my people; no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping and the cry of distress.
Revelation 21
1: Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
2: And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband;
3: and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them;
4: he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away."
5: And he who sat upon the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." Also he said, "Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true."
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1581 times
- Been thanked: 471 times
Post #555
I'm praying for you as well.RightReason wrote: [Replying to onewithhim]
Yes, Im afraid I do find your Scriptural interpretation illogical. I also find your methodology of seeking truth illogical. It makes no sense to me to believe in a religion that has no historicity, no authority, and a bad track record of failed prophecies and guilty of making changes to Sacred Scripture. Have you ever wondered about that? That is the sort of thing that would keep me up at night.You find my viewpoint illogical and I feel the same about yours. To each his own. Have a pleasant evening.
Anyway, I appreciate the conversation and really hope you have a pleasant evening as well. You are in my prayers.
My religion comes from the source---earliest Christian teachings, from Jesus himself---before the apostate clergy started making big changes in doctrine. So I am following the Christianity that is directly from the mouth of Christ. My religion is older than yours.
Our track record is no worse than anything that any other religion has expressed over the centuries regarding guesses as to when the end would come. Even popes have tried that. But no one is taking anything the popes have said apart. And you are in error concerning JWs making "failed prophecies." You fail to understand that Charles T. Russell and others did not "make prophecies." The prophecies were already there in the Bible, so they were not made up. Our brothers merely took the message to the world and gave an educated guess as to what it meant. They were fairly sure of their deductions, but found out they were wrong on many counts. They cannot be condemned for "false prophecies." Their only mistake was misunderstanding the prophecy that was already there. Do you give leeway to someone like Pope Urban VI who thought the world would end in 1734 and forgive him for his error, but not Charles Russell or Judge Rutherford?
You say JWs have "made changes to Sacred Scripture"? How has that been done? Have you personally examined the "changes" that they supposedly made? I haven't found ANY changes that JWs have made to the Scriptures. Perhaps you should do more research before you make such statements. "Changes" to John 1:1, for example, does not hold up as a legitimate criticism. The New World Translation is not the only translation that renders the sensitive phrase of John 1:1 as "the word was a god." That rendering goes back many centuries. Research.
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Post #556
[Replying to onewithhim]
But here too are other alterations of Sacred Scripture made by JWs . . .
In the NWT, every time the Greek word "proskuneo" is used in reference to God, it is translated as "worship" (Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 19:4, Jn 4:20, etc.). Every time "proskuneo" is used in reference to Jesus, it is translated as "obeisance" (Mt 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Lk 24:52, Heb 1:6, etc.), even though it is the same word in the Greek (see Gr-Engl Interlinear). Especially compare the Greek word "prosekunhsan" used with reference to God in Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, and 19:4 and used with reference to Christ in Mt 14:33, 28:9, and 28:17. What is the reason for this inconsistency? If the NWT was consistent in translating "proskuneo" as "worship", how would the verses above referring to Christ read?
The NWT translates the Greek word "kyrios" as "Jehovah" more than 25 times in the New Testament (Mt 3:3, Lk 2:9, Jn 1:23, Acts 21:14, Rom 12:19, Col 1:10, 1Thess 5:2, 1Pet 1:25, Rev 4:8, etc.). Why is the word "Jehovah" translated when it does not appear in the Greek text? Why is the NWT not consistent in translating kyrios (kurion) as "Jehovah" in Rom 10:9, 1Cor 12:3, Phil 2:11, 2Thess 2:1, and Rev 22:21 (see Gr-Engl Interlinear)
The NWT translates the Greek words "ego eimi" as "I am" every time it appears (Jn 6:34, 6:41, 8:24, 13:19, 15:5, etc.), except in Jn 8:58 where it is translated as "I have been". What is the reason for the inconsistency in this translation? If "ego eimi" was translated in Jn 8:58 the same way it is translated in every other verse in which it appears, how would Jn 8:58 read?
The NWT translates Jn 1:1 as "... and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was a god". How can the Word (Jesus) be "a god" if God says in Deut 32:39, "See now that I-I am he, and there are NO gods together WITH me ..."?
The NWT translates the Greek word "esti" as "is" in almost every instance in the New Testament (Mt 26:18, 38, Mk 14:44, Lk 22:38, etc.). See Greek-English Interlinear. Why does the NWT translate this Greek word as "means" in Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, and Lk 22:19? Why the inconsistency in the translation of the word "esti"? If the NWT was consistent and translated the Greek word "esti" as "is" in these verses, what would these verses say?
In Phil 2:9, the NWT inserts the word "other", even though it doesn't appear in the original Greek (see Gr-Engl Interlinear). What is the reason for inserting this word? Is the word "Jehovah" a name? See Ex 6:3, Ps 83:18, and Isa 42:8. How would the verse read if the word "other" had not been inserted? What does scripture say about adding words to the Bible? See Prov 30:5-6.
In Col 1:15-17, the NWT inserts the word "other" 4 times even though it is not in the original Greek (see Gr-Engl interlinear). Why is the word "other" inserted? How would these verses read if the word "other" had not been inserted?
In 2Pet 1:1, the NWT inserts the word "the". Why is it inserted? How would the verse read if the word "the" was not inserted? What does scripture say about adding words to the Bible?
In Lk 4:12, the NWT translates "kyrios" (Gr-lord) as "Jehovah", which makes the verse read "... 'You shall not put Jehovah your God to the test.'" See Gr-Engl Interlinear. Why is kyrios translated as "Jehovah" in this verse? Was the devil, in Lk 4:9-11, putting Jehovah to the test or JESUS to the test?
http://www.bible.ca/jw-questions.htm
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scr ... eworld.htm
I appreciate that " can use all the help I can get.I'm praying for you as well.
Can you cite some of these big changes in doctrine? And prove that they were not things that the early Church believed from the get go.My religion comes from the source---earliest Christian teachings, from Jesus himself---before the apostate clergy started making big changes in doctrine.
What do you mean by your religion is older than mine? My Church was established when Christ said, thou art Peter and upon this rock I build my church. Where did the Scripture you use come from? It was handed to you by my Church.So I am following the Christianity that is directly from the mouth of Christ. My religion is older than yours.
I have no problem with misunderstanding something. I of course recognize that even my Church is comprised of human beings who make mistakes, but there is a difference between making a formal proclamation like predicting the end of the world like your church did. My Church has never erred in making any formal proclamations regarding the faith. And I tried to find out what you are talking about about Pope Urban and nothing comes up about him predicting the world would end in 1734. What is your source? And even if he did, which again cant seem to find anywhere, unless he claimed it to be true and claimed it to be a teaching of the Church, then he could have made a personal mistake. Predicted prophesies have never been teachings of the Church, unlike JW where it seemed to actually be used to scare/gather/convert more followers. History shows JW finally learned their lesson and has since stopped trying to predict end times.Their only mistake was misunderstanding the prophecy that was already there. Do you give leeway to someone like Pope Urban VI who thought the world would end in 1734 and forgive him for his error, but not Charles Russell or Judge Rutherford?
Yes, John 1:1 is a valid example. To add a word as little as a changes the meaning of the verse and how convenient that it is necessary to add the word a to fit JW theology. Again, that should bother you. And again, from where did Charles Russell get the authority to translate the Bible to his liking?You say JWs have "made changes to Sacred Scripture"? How has that been done? Have you personally examined the "changes" that they supposedly made? I haven't found ANY changes that JWs have made to the Scriptures. Perhaps you should do more research before you make such statements. "Changes" to John 1:1, for example, does not hold up as a legitimate criticism. The New World Translation is not the only translation that renders the sensitive phrase of John 1:1 as "the word was a god." That rendering goes back many centuries. Research.
But here too are other alterations of Sacred Scripture made by JWs . . .
In the NWT, every time the Greek word "proskuneo" is used in reference to God, it is translated as "worship" (Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 19:4, Jn 4:20, etc.). Every time "proskuneo" is used in reference to Jesus, it is translated as "obeisance" (Mt 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Lk 24:52, Heb 1:6, etc.), even though it is the same word in the Greek (see Gr-Engl Interlinear). Especially compare the Greek word "prosekunhsan" used with reference to God in Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, and 19:4 and used with reference to Christ in Mt 14:33, 28:9, and 28:17. What is the reason for this inconsistency? If the NWT was consistent in translating "proskuneo" as "worship", how would the verses above referring to Christ read?
The NWT translates the Greek word "kyrios" as "Jehovah" more than 25 times in the New Testament (Mt 3:3, Lk 2:9, Jn 1:23, Acts 21:14, Rom 12:19, Col 1:10, 1Thess 5:2, 1Pet 1:25, Rev 4:8, etc.). Why is the word "Jehovah" translated when it does not appear in the Greek text? Why is the NWT not consistent in translating kyrios (kurion) as "Jehovah" in Rom 10:9, 1Cor 12:3, Phil 2:11, 2Thess 2:1, and Rev 22:21 (see Gr-Engl Interlinear)
The NWT translates the Greek words "ego eimi" as "I am" every time it appears (Jn 6:34, 6:41, 8:24, 13:19, 15:5, etc.), except in Jn 8:58 where it is translated as "I have been". What is the reason for the inconsistency in this translation? If "ego eimi" was translated in Jn 8:58 the same way it is translated in every other verse in which it appears, how would Jn 8:58 read?
The NWT translates Jn 1:1 as "... and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was a god". How can the Word (Jesus) be "a god" if God says in Deut 32:39, "See now that I-I am he, and there are NO gods together WITH me ..."?
The NWT translates the Greek word "esti" as "is" in almost every instance in the New Testament (Mt 26:18, 38, Mk 14:44, Lk 22:38, etc.). See Greek-English Interlinear. Why does the NWT translate this Greek word as "means" in Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, and Lk 22:19? Why the inconsistency in the translation of the word "esti"? If the NWT was consistent and translated the Greek word "esti" as "is" in these verses, what would these verses say?
In Phil 2:9, the NWT inserts the word "other", even though it doesn't appear in the original Greek (see Gr-Engl Interlinear). What is the reason for inserting this word? Is the word "Jehovah" a name? See Ex 6:3, Ps 83:18, and Isa 42:8. How would the verse read if the word "other" had not been inserted? What does scripture say about adding words to the Bible? See Prov 30:5-6.
In Col 1:15-17, the NWT inserts the word "other" 4 times even though it is not in the original Greek (see Gr-Engl interlinear). Why is the word "other" inserted? How would these verses read if the word "other" had not been inserted?
In 2Pet 1:1, the NWT inserts the word "the". Why is it inserted? How would the verse read if the word "the" was not inserted? What does scripture say about adding words to the Bible?
In Lk 4:12, the NWT translates "kyrios" (Gr-lord) as "Jehovah", which makes the verse read "... 'You shall not put Jehovah your God to the test.'" See Gr-Engl Interlinear. Why is kyrios translated as "Jehovah" in this verse? Was the devil, in Lk 4:9-11, putting Jehovah to the test or JESUS to the test?
http://www.bible.ca/jw-questions.htm
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scr ... eworld.htm
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1581 times
- Been thanked: 471 times
Post #557
Big changes in doctrine: (1) The Trinity, which does not appear anywhere in the Bible; various verses are cited to defend it, but they do not show that there are three EQUAL Persons in a triune God. The doctrine wasn't fully established until after 325 A.D. Jesus never taught it. It took 300 years for it to be formulated and accepted by the Church, influenced by pagan Constantine. (2) The Hell-fire doctrine, which was not understood by Jesus' Apostles and other early followers to be true. (3) Immortality of the Soul, which can easily be disproven by Scripture. The soul CAN die (Ezekiel 18:4), and when the Bible was written, Jesus was the ONLY person in the universe who had immortality (I Timothy 6:16).RightReason wrote: [Replying to onewithhim]
I appreciate that " can use all the help I can get.I'm praying for you as well.
Can you cite some of these big changes in doctrine? And prove that they were not things that the early Church believed from the get go.My religion comes from the source---earliest Christian teachings, from Jesus himself---before the apostate clergy started making big changes in doctrine.
What do you mean by your religion is older than mine? My Church was established when Christ said, thou art Peter and upon this rock I build my church. Where did the Scripture you use come from? It was handed to you by my Church.So I am following the Christianity that is directly from the mouth of Christ. My religion is older than yours.
I have no problem with misunderstanding something. I of course recognize that even my Church is comprised of human beings who make mistakes, but there is a difference between making a formal proclamation like predicting the end of the world like your church did. My Church has never erred in making any formal proclamations regarding the faith. And I tried to find out what you are talking about about Pope Urban and nothing comes up about him predicting the world would end in 1734. What is your source? And even if he did, which again cant seem to find anywhere, unless he claimed it to be true and claimed it to be a teaching of the Church, then he could have made a personal mistake. Predicted prophesies have never been teachings of the Church, unlike JW where it seemed to actually be used to scare/gather/convert more followers. History shows JW finally learned their lesson and has since stopped trying to predict end times.Their only mistake was misunderstanding the prophecy that was already there. Do you give leeway to someone like Pope Urban VI who thought the world would end in 1734 and forgive him for his error, but not Charles Russell or Judge Rutherford?
Yes, John 1:1 is a valid example. To add a word as little as a changes the meaning of the verse and how convenient that it is necessary to add the word a to fit JW theology. Again, that should bother you. And again, from where did Charles Russell get the authority to translate the Bible to his liking?You say JWs have "made changes to Sacred Scripture"? How has that been done? Have you personally examined the "changes" that they supposedly made? I haven't found ANY changes that JWs have made to the Scriptures. Perhaps you should do more research before you make such statements. "Changes" to John 1:1, for example, does not hold up as a legitimate criticism. The New World Translation is not the only translation that renders the sensitive phrase of John 1:1 as "the word was a god." That rendering goes back many centuries. Research.
But here too are other alterations of Sacred Scripture made by JWs . . .
In the NWT, every time the Greek word "proskuneo" is used in reference to God, it is translated as "worship" (Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 19:4, Jn 4:20, etc.). Every time "proskuneo" is used in reference to Jesus, it is translated as "obeisance" (Mt 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Lk 24:52, Heb 1:6, etc.), even though it is the same word in the Greek (see Gr-Engl Interlinear). Especially compare the Greek word "prosekunhsan" used with reference to God in Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, and 19:4 and used with reference to Christ in Mt 14:33, 28:9, and 28:17. What is the reason for this inconsistency? If the NWT was consistent in translating "proskuneo" as "worship", how would the verses above referring to Christ read?
The NWT translates the Greek word "kyrios" as "Jehovah" more than 25 times in the New Testament (Mt 3:3, Lk 2:9, Jn 1:23, Acts 21:14, Rom 12:19, Col 1:10, 1Thess 5:2, 1Pet 1:25, Rev 4:8, etc.). Why is the word "Jehovah" translated when it does not appear in the Greek text? Why is the NWT not consistent in translating kyrios (kurion) as "Jehovah" in Rom 10:9, 1Cor 12:3, Phil 2:11, 2Thess 2:1, and Rev 22:21 (see Gr-Engl Interlinear)
The NWT translates the Greek words "ego eimi" as "I am" every time it appears (Jn 6:34, 6:41, 8:24, 13:19, 15:5, etc.), except in Jn 8:58 where it is translated as "I have been". What is the reason for the inconsistency in this translation? If "ego eimi" was translated in Jn 8:58 the same way it is translated in every other verse in which it appears, how would Jn 8:58 read?
The NWT translates Jn 1:1 as "... and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was a god". How can the Word (Jesus) be "a god" if God says in Deut 32:39, "See now that I-I am he, and there are NO gods together WITH me ..."?
The NWT translates the Greek word "esti" as "is" in almost every instance in the New Testament (Mt 26:18, 38, Mk 14:44, Lk 22:38, etc.). See Greek-English Interlinear. Why does the NWT translate this Greek word as "means" in Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, and Lk 22:19? Why the inconsistency in the translation of the word "esti"? If the NWT was consistent and translated the Greek word "esti" as "is" in these verses, what would these verses say?
In Phil 2:9, the NWT inserts the word "other", even though it doesn't appear in the original Greek (see Gr-Engl Interlinear). What is the reason for inserting this word? Is the word "Jehovah" a name? See Ex 6:3, Ps 83:18, and Isa 42:8. How would the verse read if the word "other" had not been inserted? What does scripture say about adding words to the Bible? See Prov 30:5-6.
In Col 1:15-17, the NWT inserts the word "other" 4 times even though it is not in the original Greek (see Gr-Engl interlinear). Why is the word "other" inserted? How would these verses read if the word "other" had not been inserted?
In 2Pet 1:1, the NWT inserts the word "the". Why is it inserted? How would the verse read if the word "the" was not inserted? What does scripture say about adding words to the Bible?
In Lk 4:12, the NWT translates "kyrios" (Gr-lord) as "Jehovah", which makes the verse read "... 'You shall not put Jehovah your God to the test.'" See Gr-Engl Interlinear. Why is kyrios translated as "Jehovah" in this verse? Was the devil, in Lk 4:9-11, putting Jehovah to the test or JESUS to the test?
http://www.bible.ca/jw-questions.htm
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scr ... eworld.htm
Then other absurd doctrines were added much later, having nothing to do with Scripture or the early Christians, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, her "immaculate conception," Purgatory, Limbo, indulgences, prayers for the dead, the infallibility of the pope, and others that I can't think of right away this morning before I've had my coffee.
If Jesus' true Church was established when Jesus said "Thou art Peter," etc., etc., then you are following the wrong religion, because Jesus didn't make Peter the top dog when he said that. He meant that HE HIMSELF was the "rock" upon which he would build his Church. Referring to the forefathers of Israel, Paul said, "all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ." (I Corinthians 10:4, NASB) Christ has always been associated with being the "rock" of the church.
Peter himself said that the members of the Christian Church were "living stones," but Christ himself was a precious corner stone, and a ROCK of offense to those that rejected him.
"Draw near to him [the Lord], a living stone, rejected indeed by men but chosen and honored by God. Be you yourselves as living stones, built thereon into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Hence Scripture says, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, chosen, precious; and he who believes in it shall not be put to shame. For you, therefore, who believe, is this honor; but to those who do not believe, A stone which the builders rejected, the same has become the head of the corner, and, a stumbling-stone, and A ROCK of scandal, to those who stumble at the word, and who do not believe." (I Peter 2:4-8, New Catholic Edition)
Jesus is referred to as a "rock" many more times than Peter is, if at all. Jesus himself is the "rock" upon which he will build his Church.
I realize that your church handed down manuscript after manuscript and copy after copy, and that is fine. So why doesn't your church follow what it says?
Sorry.....it was Pope Innocent III that predicted the end of the world to be in 1284. (Urban had some other debacles in his closet.) Pope Innocent III. 1284. You make excuses for the popes---they made "a personal mistake"---but JWs "seemed" to have been making predictions to draw more people into the religion by fear. You can't prove that and it is extremely unsubstantiated and inflammatory theory on your part. I submit that JWs made personal mistakes as well, and they were not interested in gaining followers by fear.
Regarding John 1:1. You apparently do not understand that the word "a" was not ADDED to change the meaning of the verse. It was included because a translator of the Greek to the English knows that doing such would be following the rules of translating from Greek to English. Try to follow this. There are only definite articles in Greek; no indefinite articles like "a" or "an." (There are no capital letters either.) The only way a Greek-speaking person would know which god, for example, was the one true God above all others would be the placing of a definite article in front of "god." This was done when John wrote "the word was with god." In Greek it would be "the word was with THE god" (definite article). This distinguishes that god from the god that follows, which has no article at all. That means that the last "god" is not THE god---or "God" as we write in English, with the upper-case "G." "The word was god" has no definite article, and the Greek language has no indefinite articles like English does.
So what do we do? Following the RULES of translating Greek into English, any translator would place an indefinite article before "god" in the phrase "and the word was god." It is rendered as "the word was a god." This rule is followed everywhere else in the Bible, except at John 1:1! Yet it has to be said that not all translators neglect this appropriate rendering there in that verse. I have found that many other translators have stuck to following the rules of Greek grammar.
Benjamin Wilson (1891) in his Emphatic Diaglott rendered John 1:1 as "in a beginning was the word and the word was with the god and a god was the word."
Lance Jenott (2003) digitalized and translated the Coptic Gospel of John 1:1-14, according to the Coptic text in G. Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, Vol.III (Oxford: Clarnedon Press, 1911-1924) pp.2-4. It reads: "In the beginning existed the word and the word existed with God, and the word was a god."
The work of George W. Horner is featured in the following article concerning the translation of John 1:1 1,700 years ago: http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... s-ago.html
It doesn't matter if "worship" or "obeisance" is used anywhere in the Scriptures. To me they are interchangeable. They BOTH have the same meaning, and they both can be used to describe either respect and honor or the rendering of allegiance to someone as the highest authority in the universe---God Almighty. One or the other. If we "worship" a judge in a courtroom, we stand up when we hear, "All rise." We are not worshiping him as God Almighty. We are just giving him the honor he calls for (Romans 13:7) as a high official. The worship we give to God is UNIQUE worship. We are doing so because we recognize Him as the supreme Authority in the universe.
The word "Jehovah" is in the NT of the NWT because it is known that His name was used in the Scriptures that are being quoted. It is plainly evident when we go to the Hebrew Scriptures to compare. The Jews kept the personal name of God (YHWH) in their copies of the Scriptures even though they stopped pronouncing it. So all of the original scriptures from which the Apostles quoted and wrote down would include "YHWH."
Now why would you think that EVERY instance where "Lord" is written in the NT it would refer to Jehovah? Phil.2:11, for example....that "Lord" refers to Jesus. That is the case in the other scriptures you cited as well (Romans 10:9, I Corinth.12:3, etc.). I am amazed that this is so hard to see. It is evident that if people had left "YHWH" where it should have been, there would be no confusion, or at least much less.
You have it backward. "Ego eimi" is translated correctly everywhere else in the Scriptures EXCEPT at John 8:58. To quote one scholar: "The majority of translations recognize idiomatic uses of 'I am,' and properly integrate the words into the context of the passages where they appear. Yet when it comes to 8:58, they suddenly forget how to translate. ...John 8:58 has an explicit predicate phrase: 'before Abraham came to be' [which would not involve a present-tense verb].
"One passage usually missing from the discussion of 'I am' in the Gospel of John is John 9:9. In this verse, the words 'ego eimi' are heard from the mouth ---not of Jesus---but of a blind man cured by Jesus. He, too, used the words to say 'I am he,' the man who before was blind, but have been cured. If anyone needs proof that 'ego eime' need not be a quote from the Old Testament, and is not reserved as a title of God, here it is. Once again, our attention is drawn to inconsistency in how words are handled by biased translators. If 'ego eime' is not a divine self-proclamation in the mouth of the blind man of John 9, then it cannot be such a proclamation in the mouth of Jesus just a few verses earlier. According to the reasoning of those who insist that the phrase must be understood as a declaration of divine identity, and so preserved in its 'interlinear' form, THEN THE BLIND MAN IS ALSO GOD."
(See Truth in Translation by Jason BeDuhn, pp109,110)
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Post #558
[Replying to onewithhim]
And it is funny how all of Christendom believed and proclaimed belief in the Trinity. If you want to talk about absurd doctrines, we can discuss Jesus being Michael the arch angel " LOL! That is the type of thing that can happen when people do not believe Christ established and left us an authoritative Church. JWs even admit their Church can be wrong when it comes to teachings regarding faith and morals, which would be a direct contradiction to Christs promise to us " that we are to listen to the Church and He would remain with His established Church and guide her in all truth.
I would love to set you straight regarding Peter and the word rock. Your understanding of it couldnt be more wrong and I am afraid no, it isnt ok to think 5 untrained, non authoritative guys in a room with no Biblical expertise or right to make decisions about translation can do so. What would possess someone to believe they can take Sacred Scripture handed to them by my Church and translate it according to their opinion? How could one not believe Christ established One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church exactly for the reason of preventing exactly what JWs are guilty of doing? IT MAKES NO SENSE!!!!!!!!!!
And after a quick look into Pope Innocent now that you went back to your anti Catholic Watchtower tracts to see which Pope they chose to spread false information about, I found out Pope Innocent III did not set 1248 as a date for the end of the world. Upon investigation it turns out this is not true. What he did was predict the end of Islam as a world power in 1248 related to the Crusades -- basically, it was just war talk <sigh> Others will use anything to attack the Church. But as Jesus Himself predicted, If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.
So, yeah like I said even the set up of your church makes no sense and IMO is why it has gotten tangled in so many misinterpretations of Scripture.
Ill ask you again, how can you know your church is right/true? By whose authority did Russell translate Sacred Scripture? And why do you accept His translation?
Your Big changes in doctrine are intellectually dishonest. The Trinity is completely supported in Scripture and we can open a different thread to discuss in full detail. And the Trinity was absolutely believed and written about by the early Church. As for the existence of hell " yep right there in Scripture and something the early Church knew and believed to be true. The Churchs teaching on the soul is spot on as well. What was a big change however was the theory of soul sleep invented by JWs. All of these things could be proven and demonstrated quite easily, including the Immaculate Conception and purgatory and everything else you mentioned " LOL! Each and every thing you mentioned is not only supported in Scripture, but was also proclaimed by the Church from the beginning as can be proven through historical records and early writings.Big changes in doctrine: . . .
And it is funny how all of Christendom believed and proclaimed belief in the Trinity. If you want to talk about absurd doctrines, we can discuss Jesus being Michael the arch angel " LOL! That is the type of thing that can happen when people do not believe Christ established and left us an authoritative Church. JWs even admit their Church can be wrong when it comes to teachings regarding faith and morals, which would be a direct contradiction to Christs promise to us " that we are to listen to the Church and He would remain with His established Church and guide her in all truth.
I would love to set you straight regarding Peter and the word rock. Your understanding of it couldnt be more wrong and I am afraid no, it isnt ok to think 5 untrained, non authoritative guys in a room with no Biblical expertise or right to make decisions about translation can do so. What would possess someone to believe they can take Sacred Scripture handed to them by my Church and translate it according to their opinion? How could one not believe Christ established One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church exactly for the reason of preventing exactly what JWs are guilty of doing? IT MAKES NO SENSE!!!!!!!!!!
And after a quick look into Pope Innocent now that you went back to your anti Catholic Watchtower tracts to see which Pope they chose to spread false information about, I found out Pope Innocent III did not set 1248 as a date for the end of the world. Upon investigation it turns out this is not true. What he did was predict the end of Islam as a world power in 1248 related to the Crusades -- basically, it was just war talk <sigh> Others will use anything to attack the Church. But as Jesus Himself predicted, If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.
So, yeah like I said even the set up of your church makes no sense and IMO is why it has gotten tangled in so many misinterpretations of Scripture.
Ill ask you again, how can you know your church is right/true? By whose authority did Russell translate Sacred Scripture? And why do you accept His translation?
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1581 times
- Been thanked: 471 times
Post #559
[Replying to post 558 by RightReason]
The Trinity has already been discussed on other threads devoted to its discussion. I would encourage you to go over those threads and see what has already been discussed. The Trinity is not found in the Bible, and that fact has been demonstrated ad nauseum. You are way behind.
I didn't go to any WT sites to find out about Innocent III. I googled "list of end time prophecies" and got a site that has a whole list of different religious people that predicted the end of the world. Voila! There was Pope Innocent III!
There was also a Baptist---Benjamin Keach---who predicted the end would come in 1689; and the founding Methodist---Charles Wesley---who predicted 1794; the Mormon Joseph Smith who predicted the end would come by 1891; and the Seventh-Day Adventist---Ellen White---who predicted 1850.
When I posted Pope Urban, I was trying to remember off the top of my head. He was responsible for a lot of wickedness, but not for predicting the end, as it turns out.
I do not look to the WT sites to give me what to say. I write from my own thoughts and experiences, thank you very much.
You obviously haven't read all of my answers to you, because you are saying some of the same things about which I have already addressed.
The Trinity has already been discussed on other threads devoted to its discussion. I would encourage you to go over those threads and see what has already been discussed. The Trinity is not found in the Bible, and that fact has been demonstrated ad nauseum. You are way behind.
I didn't go to any WT sites to find out about Innocent III. I googled "list of end time prophecies" and got a site that has a whole list of different religious people that predicted the end of the world. Voila! There was Pope Innocent III!
There was also a Baptist---Benjamin Keach---who predicted the end would come in 1689; and the founding Methodist---Charles Wesley---who predicted 1794; the Mormon Joseph Smith who predicted the end would come by 1891; and the Seventh-Day Adventist---Ellen White---who predicted 1850.
When I posted Pope Urban, I was trying to remember off the top of my head. He was responsible for a lot of wickedness, but not for predicting the end, as it turns out.
I do not look to the WT sites to give me what to say. I write from my own thoughts and experiences, thank you very much.
You obviously haven't read all of my answers to you, because you are saying some of the same things about which I have already addressed.
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Post #560
[Replying to post 559 by onewithhim]
How do you know Charles Taze Russells translation is right/true? Where did his authority come from?
Yes, the discussion regarding the Trinity has been discussed ad nauseum Like I said, JW interpretation of Sacred Scripture is in error. Their theology denies the nature of Christ and therefore they have to change and twist Scripture to support their idea.The Trinity has already been discussed on other threads devoted to its discussion. I would encourage you to go over those threads and see what has already been discussed. The Trinity is not found in the Bible, and that fact has been demonstrated ad nauseum. You are way behind.
Perhaps that is also part of the problem. Experiences and feelings dont always equal truth. AND I will ask one more time . . if we are to rely on personal interpretation of Scripture how can one know he is getting it right? If two very sincere truth seekers read Scripture and come to two different conclusions regarding what Scripture means, which one should we believe?I do not look to the WT sites to give me what to say. I write from my own thoughts and experiences, thank you very much.
How do you know Charles Taze Russells translation is right/true? Where did his authority come from?
