Jump to content
The World News Media

JW's mistaken claim...


Cos

Recommended Posts

  • Member
7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

 in the book of Isaiah (according to WT, words in Isaiah are about Jesus, he is Everlasting Father and as i recall in WT book Prince of peace,

The tittles in Isaiah 9:6 are also used by the Roman Catholic religion to refer to Jesus, so it is not only a WT book that interprets these words as referring to Jesus:

"For a child has been born to us,

A son has been given to us;

And the rulership will rest on his shoulder.

His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 16.2k
  • Replies 252
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ding Ding Ding Ding, I take "what we are allowed to read and what is forbidden" for three hundred Alex.    Hey, isn't that why the WT pulled the Trinity book in the first place? Something

but it is a practice that the jws/bible students participated in prior to 1935 or so. So what this means is, your claim  "they are the ones who did not follow the false teachings........" cannot be tr

Hi! Last explanation in WT magazine say how GB and FDS are the same. FDS task is to spread "spiritual food". GB spreading food, so GB is FDS. FDS have its beginning in 1 century in form of apostl

Posted Images

  • Member
8 minutes ago, DeeDee said:

The tittles in Isaiah 9:6 are also used by the Roman Catholic religion to refer to Jesus, so it is not only a WT book that interprets these words as referring to Jesus:

Thanks for information. But Catholic church is not "only true religion" and their interpretation on Bible are not guided by JHVH :)))))))

But what if both religion are in wrong about Isaiah?

JW members can not take for granted any of Catholic teachings. Because they are part of Babylon according to WT.

On other hand JW members can not be 100% sure in WT explanation also because WT history prove how their interpreting on Bible goes to extremes too.  For example. More than 50 years FDS assured members (domestic) how Jesus choose and appointed them in 1919. But they are not, after new "clarification" :)))) So can we trust GB? They teaching cross and Christmas as Bible truth for decades, but not any more. How can such "representative of god" be trustfull? They teached  "1914 generation" for decades as "bible based truth" but WHERE is this TRUTH today? 

:)))) Do not put your trust in earthly man! Even if he has appointed by god! :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
15 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

everlasting father" instead of Adam for any of Adam's offspring who will "present his life.."  Isaiah  53

Yea, Adam is quilty as charged :)))

Isaiah 53: 1

"Who has believed our message
    and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"

On first part of this question we can tell very confidently -- many are believers. (in various messages, hehe)

On second ... that is not easy one :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
17 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Thanks for information. But Catholic church is not "only true religion" and their interpretation on Bible are not guided by JHVH :)))))))

From my personal observations, the Catholic church is NOT the TRUE religion. I was born into it, but am now a JW and am happy to see the truth for myself as I am studying the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

 

1 hour ago, DeeDee said:

Isaiah 9:6...:

"For a child has been born to us,

A SON has been given to us;

And the rulership will rest on his shoulder.

There are tons of references in Jesus' prayer (John 17) where Jesus makes clear that he (Jesus) is NOT the "FATHER."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

On other hand JW members can not be 100% sure in WT explanation also because WT history prove how their interpreting on Bible goes to extremes too. 

Yes, the interpretations change as Jehovah chooses to reveal information to us "young children."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
32 minutes ago, DeeDee said:

On other hand JW members can not be 100% sure in WT explanation

...But we (JW's) completely "TRUST in JEHOVAH"...that he will reveal things as we are in need of or ready to learn them. You do not teach a five-year-old child in the same way you would teach a sixteen-year-old. Obviously, Jehovah will not reveal deeper truths until he has decided that it is "the proper time" for ALL of us to know that "explanation." Proverbs 3:5; Matthew 24:45

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
48 minutes ago, DeeDee said:

What Scriptural claim are you referring to?

Is 9:6  For to us a child is born,
    to us a son is given,
    and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
    Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
19 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

And he will be called...Everlasting Father...

Adam is the first physical father of all who were born after him. So we have "Life" but also "Death" because of Adam. But now because of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus' life, we will be able to have "Everlasting LIFE" with "NO death." In that respect, Jesus could be referred to as our "Everlasting Father" (in that he will never die again) who gave us "Everlasting LIFE."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
31 minutes ago, DeeDee said:

You do not teach a five-year-old child in the same way you would teach a sixteen-year-old.

yes you are right. But 5 year old and 16 year old KNOW who is his /her  FATHER.

Mother and Father not need to wait older age of child to explain who is his Father. They teach him that from first days. And this parents not calling someone else as his Father too, as father to own children. Some other is father for his children and can not be father to child from first parents, only by adoption :))

Well, ... why Isaiah calls (God's Son,Jesus) as Everlasting Father when Jesus teaching apostles that Father is someone else?  Who the children of Jesus are? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • … and donchew forget now … the GB now allows Sisters to come to meetings and go out in field service in slacks or Mumus.  Or slacks AND Mumus, if poundage appropriate. Did I ever mention I once dated a Sister that made Mumus out of parachutes? She was an Opera singer, and had a UN diplomatic passport. She was on “speed”, couldn’t blink, and typed 600 words a minute with 100% errors. Occasionally she would get lipstick in her eyebrows.  
    • In my perspective, when the Smithsonian Magazine covers a topic, I am inclined to trust their expertise. As for the shadows here, I see no benefit in entertaining irrational ideas from others. Let them hold onto their own beliefs. We shouldn't further enable their self-deception and misleading of the public.  
    • Hey Self! 🤣I came across this interesting conspiracy theory. There are scholars who firmly believe in the authenticity of those artifacts. I value having conversations with myself. The suggestion of a mentally ill person has led to the most obscure manifestation of a group of sorrowful individuals. 😁
    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
  • Members

    • kiy

      kiy 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.4k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,680
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Col310
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.