Shiwiii

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Abraham will receive a place in the "resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous" (Acts 24:15).

doesn't everyone have this? i mean its not something prestigious or else the unrighteous wouldn't have a place there too. 

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

It seeems unlikely to me that Abraham was destined to become one of his own offspring, so on that basis, his and first century Christians destines differ.

of course he wouldn't be his own offspring, but rather the patriarch and ultimately belonging to Jesus as your scripture shows (Gal 3:29) . Galatians 3:6-9 tells us that those who have faith, like Abraham did, are sons of Abraham. This is meaning that those with faith like Abraham's faith are of the same family, the same group, the same all the way around. So why would their destiny's be any different?

I still do not see in the scriptures you posted any deviation from a common destiny for both Abraham and the 1st century Christians. 

7 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

 

Genesis. Chapters 11-25

Despite his righteous standing and his significant role in the outworking of God's purpose subsequent to the event described at Gen. 12:1-3, Abraham did not become one of the spirit-anointed, baptised, born-again followers of Christ addressed by Paul in Rom Chap.4 before he died. Therefore, his destiny differed from those who do.

after reading the scriptures you used as proof, I find no reference to Abraham's destiny being different. Please elaborate. Your reference does speak about Abraham and his life but nothing about a different destiny.

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Obviously, Abraham's destiny and that of the first century Christians addressed by Paul differ,

If it is obvious can you give scriptural proof of this?

On 11/26/2016 at 8:47 AM, Diakonos said:

According to Romans Chapter 4, a person is declared righteous by God through their faith in Christ. The society makes a distinction between the righteousness that was reckoned or credited to Abraham and the righteousness that is counted to the annointed.

This is interesting as I was just reading about the gift of eternal life and the idea the society has in regards to the anointed. The distinction the society makes between the anointed and regular jws on receiving eternal life is almost on par with this righteousness topic. I would say that the righteousness is a bit more like eternal life than perfection. In John 5:24 we are told that all who hear the words of Jesus and believe, HAVE eternal life. Already a given once one believes, John 6:40 &47. This would be the same thing as Abraham's belief and also that of the 1st century Christians. 

That is a very interesting thought. I mean, how can an organization claim to be "spirit directed" and the leaders not be inspired?

Maybe the term "spirit directed" only means that the organization tries to do what they think is right and nothing more, based on their ideas and interpretation of the Bible. Not claiming any divine direction, but rather allowing their thoughts on certain topics in the Bible guide them. I'm pretty sure most JW's would agree with this statement, but there is a problem with that though. It no longer makes the wt or JWs any different than any other religion. Isn't that what most religions claim? Do others not claim to follow the Bible/God to their best ability and interpretation? Of course they do, but the real trouble comes in when any group claims to be the sole source of understanding, or the only organization with "the truth". A group cannot claim this superiority if they are not any different that any other religion in their belief of being "spirit directed". 

On the other hand, I do believe that the wt thinks of itself as truly guided by God's spirit and not like the scenario above. There is a problem though and this is why the statement of not being inspired was created. This was done to brush off the failed predictions, to excuse the fact that many people have died needlessly over the whole blood/fractions of blood and the mishandling of child sexual abuse to name a few. By stating that they are not inspired they now get that "get out of jail free" card and at the same time still create absurd rules and requirements that are biblically unfounded. They hold onto their power over the jw's and at the same time try and cover themselves legally. I think this might have worked if it was the understanding from the beginning, but I'm afraid now it only looks like a cover up. It will work only to those who want to believe contradictory speech or ones too far invested to reverse (family/friends, etc.).   

3 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Wrong again. I’m not refuting the content. I’m refuting your interpretation of the content. I mentioned that to you in other threads.

I think it's time to stick to one subject, and stop bouncing around your rhetoric to win.

If memory serves, you are one of many opposers along with ex-witnesses that criticize the WTS for not allowing JWs to use blood products. This has been going on for about 70 years.

Now you're doing an 180 to attack the WTS on blood fractions. Where have you read, aside from the WTS leaving it to the conscience of the individual, where they agree or support the actual use of blood products and blood fraction by Jw's?

you can bury your head in the sand all you like, but the "conscience matter" is a blind. It is a loophole to make it seem not as dogmatic as it actually is. Did you happen to notice the young woman who died in Canada recently? It was all over the news about how there were several "elders" pressing the refusal of a transfusion, even though her uterus burst and she was bleeding out. There is now an investigation on the matter because of the undue influence upon the young woman. 

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

To JWs, all sources happen's to be scripture. Thus far, the WTS has not shown signs of going off script.

so fractions of blood is where in scripture? 

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Wrong again, your the one manipulating the WTS literature,

I only quoted it as it was written. If you take that as manipulation it is in your head. 

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

it all comes from scripture, and the GB are responsible that everything is in harmony with the inspired word of GOD.

again, where is fractions of blood mentioned in scripture?

12 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Well,  that's the difference, Wow!

This sums it up completely. You attribute the wt as scripture. I get that now, I just didn't really think jws thought that way. 

12 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Now you're just playing with semantics. Where in the bible does it state God appointed the POPE? or any other organized religion that call, themselves Christians? Please!

Exactly my point and I agree with you on this. 1 Thess 5:21 "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to what is good."

We are to diligently inspect that which we think is correct from all sources, not just the sources we are told are ok to use.

Colossians 2:8 " See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."

12 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

You might want to reread my statement. How rage can become blind!

your statement  assimilates the wt with Jesus and Judas with Ray Franz. There is no misunderstanding. What you wrote is plain for all to see. Maybe you meant something different, but it is your analogy. 

12 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Hmm! as opposed to who, since your soo sure of yourself, prove they aren't. Kinda like you have appointed yourself the town crier. By whose commission do you profess to sit in judgment.

The onus is not on me, but rather on those who make the claim. 

10 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Nope! You’re still misrepresenting the WTS literature. Either that or you just don’t understand scripture in what we can learn from applying the past to our present.

you are applying the WT literature as scripture?!?!?!? wow, just wow. 

10 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

What part of God commissions or appoints individuals worthy of those appointments to lead his people don’t you understand? Individuals didn’t all of a sudden get on the same page to comply with God’s commandment's for instance if Moses hadn’t received his calling and the ten commandments? Was Moses alone in his quest? Didn’t he need help from others to get organized? What about Aaron or Joshua?

Where is it written in the Bible that God appointed the gb of anything? It doesn't exist!

What proof do you have that the wt is selected? None! 

Moses spoke directly to God, the wt? nope, the gb? nope. 

10 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

How about Jesus. Didn’t he appoint 12 apostles? Didn’t one of those appointments betray him just like Raymond Franz betrayed the WTS? Were the apostles the only ones Jesus appointed to extend his ministry?

now you equate the wt with Jesus? seriously? There is only one truth, Jesus! Not some group of people in NY or any paper passed out or studied. 

10 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

JWs adhere to God’s instructions through his appointed ones.

There is no proof of this appointing and self appointment doesn't count. 

38 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

You do realize you're contradicting yourself with this comment. When you decide which stance your, going to take? Then discuss it.

There is by contrast, a nice contradiction I can provide: 

November 15th 2013 Watchtower (Study Edition), page 20 pp 17

¹⁷ Elders who are reading this article can draw some useful conclusions from the account we have just considered: (1) The most practical step that we can take to prepare for the coming attack of “the Assyrian” is that of strengthening our faith in God and helping our brothers to do the same. (2) When “the Assyrian” attacks, the elders must be absolutely convinced that Jehovah will deliver us. (3) At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. 

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20131115/seven-shepherds-eight-dukes/

Compare this with the Feb 17th Watchtower

Why would anyone want to follow a group of men who demand this loyalty in 2013 and then claim they really don't know what they are doing in 2017? 

11 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

You do realize you're contradicting yourself with this comment. When you decide which stance your, going to take? Then discuss it.

 

 

There is no contradiction. 

Also, where in the Bible does it say that one must align themselves with an organization for salvation? It doesn't, that is a man made idea to keep you under control. 

15 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

t’s always interesting how you think Shiwiii. That would mean that every Christian Sect, including yourself, has faults one way or another. Good point. I believe GOD calls that imperfection.

But when it comes to attempting to understand Watchtower Literature without putting your own personal spin on it, it becomes at best, frivolous.

Perhaps you should have read a little further to understand that unlike Christ, WE are all imperfect, and here’s the point Shiwiii, stay with me, “IF” the Governing Body was NOT guided by God’s Holy Spirit, then, of course, they would be subject to constant errors and the WTS would be no better than any other Christian Sect. The good thing, the Governing Body has been given the opportunity to be commissioned, and guided by God, thus supported by God’s Holy Spirit.

Your point suggests people should become heretics? Nice recommendation from a prophesied Christian.

The main difference between the WT and , as you put it, "every Christian sect" is that there is no demand to adhere to the teaching of men but instead the teaching of God. A perfect example of this is the blood doctrine, where in the Bible does it split blood into fractions? Men did, not God. If one is to read the Bible closely, about this blood and regulations of it, we can see that it is in Acts that there is the command to abstain from blood (Acts 15 and 21). It is also stated in Acts that "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy". However, reading further and after the writings of Acts, we also see where God told Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 that we could eat anything without asking questions for conscience sake. Whatever we eat and whatever we drink to do it to the glory of God.

One must seriously take a good look at this, because if a person is to believe that we are to abstain from blood fully, then no amount of men should change that. There is no fractions, no part this or part that, or even the recirculating of one's own blood. Abstinence is abstinence. For men to change this into anything other than abstinence is wrong, if that is what you believe the bible says of blood. 

You see, in "every Christian sect" other than the WT, no one is excommunicated for things that are not clear in the Bible. No one is cast out for their own interpretation of blood. It is only in high control groups that you have this "you either do as we say or your out" mentality. I know this is going to spark some denial from some of you, but in reality you already know that you have given your self control away to men. 

15 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Can you show Scripturally that whenever direction is provided for God's people it always comes directly from God?

How can you adhere to men who admit they err in the direction they take the org, and still in the same breath say they are God's channel here on earth? 

God uses crooked sticks to draw a straight path. There are plenty of scriptures that state why we should test and not follow men, but rather follow God. Deut 18:22 for example. 

This clearly tells us that God is not directing this organization, but instead the gb is. 

¹² The Governing Body is neither inspired nor perfect. It can make mistakes when explaining the Bible or directing the organization. https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-simplified-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/

If this is the case then why must a JW adhere to the doctrines they say? Why is it that a JW cannot believe differently from what the gb says without the fear of being disfellowshipped or shunned? 

We know they either were wrong or are wrong on the topic/doctrine of blood. Nowhere in the Bible does it separate blood into fractions, but yet the gb says that this part is ok and this part is not. At one time blood transfusions were fine, but now it is only a part of blood that is fine.......hmmmm Either they were wrong then or wrong now, which is it? Or are they wrong in both time frames?  They just published that they could have been mistaken when directing all JW's, but if you knew in your heart they were wrong and went against what they teach/taught you would be cast out. Is that the loving way Jesus demonstrated for us to treat each other?

Why is it that you must obey them? 

58 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

No relevance. Start a new thread, or better still, check this section: http://forum.theworldnewsmedia.org/forum/36-blood-and-jehovahs-witnesses/

Is that your way of escaping your comment? 

On 10/23/2016 at 11:16 AM, Teresa Morales said:

But the faith shared commonly among JW's is based on truths from the Bible, not opinions of men. 

What "truths" are there in the Bible on fractions of blood? 

Good Day Witness and thank you for your thoughts. 

I agree with you to an extent. Yes Jesus did become the sanctuary, also  Ezekiel 11:16 speaks of YHWH being a sanctuary for His people. So I agree with you that both are the sanctuary. You mention a kind of distinction between verses 13,14 and 15 as if the message changes characters. While I agree that in the OT there are many references to Jesus and certainly we must look carefully, however we are talking about the cornerstone. In this portion of Isaiah I see no shift in character. It is YHWH speaking to Isaiah and telling him about what will happen to Israel. One would have to divide sentence by sentence and apply each to either YHWH or Jesus and that just doesn't make sense. The Hebrews at the time applied these scriptures fully to God. It is only after Jesus came did they look back and attribute scriptures like these to Jesus. My point being is that this cornerstone is spoken of YHWH in Isaiah 8, it may also apply to Jesus, but it still is attributed to YHWH. We see many of these character stamps of YHWH throughout the OT that are also spoken of Jesus in the NT. I find it very hard to separate verse 14 of Isiah 8 from the rest of the scriptures and not have it be spoken of YHWH. 

Doesn't Isaiah 8:11-15 identify this rock that the Israelite's would stumble over, Jehovah? I mean verse 11 tells us clearly that Jehovah is the one speaking and declaring these things. 

11 With his strong hand on me, this is what Jehovah said to me to warn me away from following the course of this people: 12 “You should not call a conspiracy what this people calls a conspiracy!
Do not fear what they fear; Do not tremble at it.
13 Jehovah of armies—he is the One you should regard as holy, He is the One you should fear, And he is the One who
should cause you to tremble.”
14 He will become as a sanctuary, But as a stone to strike against And as a rock to stumble over To both houses of Israel,
As a trap and a snare To the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
15 Many of them will stumble and fall and be broken; They will be ensnared and caught.
 

The cross references in these verses point to verses like Matt 21:42-44, 1 Cor 1:23 and 1 Peter 2:6-8 Which I presented above. 

I think up to this point we are on the same page, please correct me if I am wrong. Here is where I think we may differ, does the Bible say that this cornerstone is anyone other than Jesus? 

So in Isaiah 28, God said that He would lay a stone in Zion, a precious stone, a cornerstone and whoever believes in this "stone" will not panic/be disturbed/disappointed. I get this and would draw the conclusion that it is Jesus, based on some other scriptures, like Psalm 118:22. In Psalm 118, this same stone is rejected by some and has become a stumbling block to those who reject Him. Again, this is echoed in scripture (Matthew 21:42-46) as Jesus was rejected as being the Messiah of the Jews, and rather put to death because of it. 

There are many other scriptures that clarify this "stone" as being Jesus. For instance, Acts 4:10-12, tells us directly that this stone is Jesus and that Peter and John were speaking to Jewish rulers. Ephesians 2:19&20 again speaks directly that this is Jesus, "Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone". 1 Peter 2 says that they will stumble over this cornerstone, they that reject Him (Jesus), and it is by this very stone that those who believe will become a spiritual house for holy priesthood. 

To be a cornerstone is to be the foundation, the base, the direct starting point in which to build. 

Who is the cornerstone in Isaiah 28:16 and Psalm 118:22?

What does it mean to be the cornerstone? 

what exactly do they publish? 

1 hour ago, tromboneck said:

clone: A copy or imitation of something already existing

(1 Corinthians 15:33-50) . . .Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil useful habits. 34 Come to your senses in a righteous way and do not practice sin, for some have no knowledge of God. I am speaking to move you to shame. 35 Nevertheless, someone will say: “How are the dead to be raised up? Yes, with what sort of body are they coming?” 36 You unreasonable person! What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies. 37 And as for what you sow, you sow, not the body that will develop, but just a bare grain, whether of wheat or of some other kind of seed; 38 but God gives it a body just as it has pleased him, and gives to each of the seeds its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, there is another flesh of cattle, another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 40 And there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort. 41 The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, one star differs from another star in glory. 42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised up in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised up in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised up in power. 44 It is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, what is spiritual is not first. What is physical is first, and afterward what is spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust; and like the heavenly one, so too are those who are heavenly. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the one made of dust, we will bear also the image of the heavenly one. 50 But I tell you this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.
 

I do not know who you are and I do not want to know. But you obviously have not read the Bible with any thoughtful consideration. Or else, you just think you are cute. In which case your question is improper.

If you continue in 1 Corinthinas 15, it goes on to say:

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is not speaking of being given a new body, but rather adding to the existing one. The putting on of incorruption and immorality is almost like that of a coat or covering. 

9 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Why should this or anything else make sense to you, if you are unwilling

when you start your post with statements like this, it tells me that you really have no interest in conversation. Your only goal is to puff yourself up and demand to be right.