Jump to content

Shiwiii

Only jws will be saved

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Shiwiii -
Space Merchant -
26
679

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Witness said:

) “Do you understand that your baptism identifies you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with Jehovah’s organization?” 

There would be no need for this question if "Christianity" was as it was in the 1st century; pure and unadulterated by pagan beliefs and pemissive morals. There would also be no need to be called Jehovah's Witnesses, or Jehovah's organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Anna said:

There would be no need for this question if "Christianity" was as it was in the 1st century; pure and unadulterated by pagan beliefs and pemissive morals. There would also be no need to be called Jehovah's Witnesses, or Jehovah's organization.

 

Watchtower 1990 11/1 p. 26 Our Relative Subjection to the Superior Authorities

"As Christians, we face up to similar challenges today. We cannot take part in any modern version of idolatrybe it worshipful gestures toward an image or symbol or the imputing of salvation to a person or an organization.

image.jpeg

Jesus' words apply today, just as when he said them 2000 years ago:

Jesus told her, “Believe me. A time is coming when you Samaritans won’t be worshiping the Father on this mountain or in Jerusalem. 22 You don’t know what you’re worshiping. We Jews know what we’re worshiping, because salvation comes from the Jews. 23 Indeed, the time is coming, and it is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. The Father is looking for people like that to worship him. 24 God is a spirit. Those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”  John 4:21-24

There is still no need for an earthly "mountainlike organization".  Do you know what you are worshiping?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JWS would first have to be grafted into Israel, if you go by Romans 11:24,

For if you were cut out of the olive tree that is wild by nature (Gentiles) and were grafted contrary to nature into the garden olive tree, (Israel) how much more will these who are natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree! 25 For I do not want you to be unaware of this sacred secret. 

And Eph 2:14  For he is our peace, the one who made the two groups one and destroyed the wall in between that fenced them off. 15 By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees, in order to make the two groups in union with himself into one new man and to make peace, 16 and to reconcile fully both peoples in one body to God through the torture stake, because he had killed off the enmity by means of himself.

John 10:16 “And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those too I must bring in, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.”

The fundamental basis of the new covenant is to reunite this world into the only begotten.  “Religion” comes from the Latin "religare" which means “to re-unite.”  To reunite first implies a separation.

 

Again, ב Bet is the first letter of the whole Bible. ב Bet is also the number two. If we look at ב Bet as its number, we read the first word of the Bible as two superimposed beginnings. B+rashit   ב ראשית    ב ראשית ברא אלהים. One kingdom is heaven and the other one is earth.

 

Two separate kingdoms were created in the אלוהים Alohim pronounced Elohim God.

 

Those two kingdoms are the above, where all is united and the lower kingdom, which is where many are yet to be gathered into the last Adam before above and below merges. The higher kingdom is where Spirit resides, and the lower kingdom is where the last Adam, the house, has yet to receive the breath of life, the spirit.  (From the beginning I foretell the outcome, (I declare the end since the beginning and from long ago the things that have not yet been done.) The point of religion is to re-unite these two kingdoms and to make them one. To put God in his own temple, his house, his בית Bet, is to bring heaven to earth to unite both kingdoms into one man/house made of every nation. This is the meaning of בראשית, Genesis. To make the man in the image of God is the merging the truth into its image and both into one.  (Mat ) “heaven, also on earth”

 

1Co For now we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face-to-face. At present I know partially, but then I will know accurately, just as I am accurately known. (Illustration)

 

“It is written, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a cave of robbers.” Matthew 21: 13  (“you are making it”) confirms the separation.

 

That house is represented by the letter ב Bet. Bet is us collectively, Israel, the only Son.  The two groups are to be married into one flesh man. (Israel)     Ishral    ישׂראל

 

Rom … “A partial dulling of senses has come upon Israel until the full number of people of the nations has come in,”        

 

John “And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those too I must bring in, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.”

 

Eph 2:14  For he is our peace, the one who made the two groups one and destroyed the wall in between that fenced them off. 15 By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees, in order to make the two groups in union with himself into one new man and to make peace, 16 and to reconcile fully both peoples in one body to God through the torture stake, because he had killed off the enmity by means of himself.     *Romans two olive trees Wild and Garden

 

The only begotten reunited, (The accuser now knowing he accuses himself, stops)

 

1 John If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.         Enmity in the One

John “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son

John They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.         Enmity in the One

 

A little deeper?

 

Isaiah 50:1 This is what Jehovah says:“ Where is the divorce certificate of your mother, whom I sent away? Or to which of my creditors did I sell you? Look! It was because of your own errors you were sold, and because of your own transgressions your mother was sent away.            (God was separated from his wife and then from Israel his son)

 

אלהים Alohim translated as Elohim, is a plural Hebrew word.  In the English and Latin Bibles, it is translated as “God,” singular masculine.  But the word אלהים Alohim is not singular masculine.  Alohim is a plural word which comes from אל Al, which is “God,” in Hebrew.   אֵלָה translated as Eloah is Aloah is God’s feminine counterpart kept hidden. The suffix ים -im is plural. Thus, אלהים Alohim can mean either God and Goddess or Gods and Goddesses. “in our image (Plural) male and female    

 

 

Modern derivative ALOHA The Way Of Love 1Corinthians 13:1-13

 

 

"The Aloha Spirit" or "The Way of Aloha".  Hawaii

 

 

Aloha is being all, and all being me. When there is pain - it is my pain. When there is joy - it is also mine. I respect all that is the Creator, me. I will not wilfully harm anyone or anything. When food is needed I will share. The earth, the sky, the sea are mine/me to care for, to cherish and to protect. This is Aloha “and there is no one else” Isaiah 45:5-6

 

When we look at the Bible the first three words say, בראשית ברא אלהים B’rashit Bara Alohim:

 

Alohim is the Father-Mother ( אל Al + אלה Aloha = אלהים Alohim), when together, they create in us Christ. χρίω chriō anoint

 

Gal my little children, for whom I am again experiencing birth pains until Christ is formed in you.

 

Proverbs 24:3 MKJV Through wisdom (Sophia) a house is built, and by understanding it is established.

 

Matthew “Therefore, everyone who hears these sayings of mine and does them will be like a discreet man who built his house on the rock.

 

Who is the anointed man? “Christ is formed in you” To have incarnated Christ is to be a wise man.  The Greek terms is Pnuematikos:  to be one with the Spirit / to have the

Spirit / to be anointed of the spirit. Then, it is the A, who speaks through B the servant, his house, Man, Bethel... the turtledove in the olive tree.

 

Matthew And the rain poured down and the floods came and the winds blew and lashed against that house, but it did not cave in, for it had been founded on the rock.”

Mat 11:2 But John, having heard in jail about the works of the Christ, sent his disciples 3  to ask him: “Are you the Coming One, or are we to expect a different one?” 4  In reply Jesus said to them: “Go and report to John what you are hearing and seeing: 5  The blind are now seeing and the lame are walking, the lepers are being cleansed and the deaf are hearing, the dead are being raised up and the poor are being told the good news. 6 Happy is the one who finds no cause for stumbling in me. Me/I

 

When John asked Jesus “Are you the Coming One, or are we to expect a different one?”  

 

#1 Did John know that his cousin Jesus was the Coming One?    (Yes he did)

 

“One is standing among you whom you do not know|” “See, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” “This is the one about whom I said: ‘Behind me there comes a man who has advanced in front of me, for he existed before me.’” “Even I did not know him, but the reason why I came baptizing in water was so that he might be made manifest to Israel.”        (But when he asked, he knew.   So #2 or #3?)

 

#2 Was John discretely asking Jesus to rescue him from prison?                

 

The law of commandments still in force, Jesus could not accomplish all that concerned him in the first of a twofold prophecy. John “Not a bone of his will be broken.”

Isaiah 52:14 “was disfigured” 53:3 It was as if his face were hidden from us 10-12 “crush him” / become sick / He will see his offspring / By means of his knowledge / he will apportion the spoil with the mighty.       Isaiah 9:3 As people rejoice in the harvesttime, As those who joyfully divide up the spoil.

 

#3 Was John prophesying of “a different one” ?  

 

(For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!) Matthew / Psalm 118:26

 

*Romans 11:24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree that is wild by nature (Gentiles) and were grafted contrary to nature into the garden olive tree, (Israel) how much more will these who are natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree! 25 For I do not want you to be unaware of this sacred secret.           (Secretly Illustrated?)

 

(Eyes to see; Merging upper and lower kingdoms into one is the last phase of this plan)     Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I'm jumping in on this one and not really familiar with all comments, but has anyone mentioned that 'it had been thought' in the past, that non Witness husbands/wives of baptised JW's might well be 'saved' at Armageddon. Saved through the faith in God and Christ that the married JW had. Is this still the thought or would the spouse not be saved ? The thought of the married couple being 'as one'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Statistics

    61,565
    Total Topics
    113,560
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,487
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Notawelder
    Newest Member
    Notawelder
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This is not technically true. Admittedly, there was much opinion, but there was also at least one bit of solid information content: It would be very hard to dispute with that one.
    • I think a lot of people suspected that pretty quickly, especially as their top 3 issues appear to be the same, and as time goes on, even their pet peeves match up. I don't know for sure that JB was "DF'd" from the site, but it's the impression I got because there was some kind of warning, and then he was gone. At this point if they are the same, I don't think it matters in the slightest. But the reason I jump in on this topic is because I don't want anyone to be confused with my use of the term DF.  According to JB, he was treated as if DF'd in his congregation, even though he was not officially DF'd by a committee of elders. Not all of the reasons for this treatment were clear. Now that you have suspected that 4Jah2me was DF'd, I just figured that the JB story ought to be a reminder that it's always possible 4Jah2me was never DF'd either. 
    • Tweeted Richard Dawkins one fine day (11/13/19): “You could easily spot any Religion of Peace. Its extremist members would be extremely peaceful”  Can it be? Is Richard Dawkins referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses—universally known for being “extremely peaceful” yet declared “extremists” in Russia? If so, I will take back the relatively few bad things I have said about him. I have not really said THAT many bad things about him. At times, I have even been complimentary. When he blessed the atheist buses rolling out in London, I said that he raised a good point—his was a reaction to existing “hellfire’ buses, with advertising from the church. He did wuss-out, though, with a: “There probably is no God.” Probably? It wasn’t until I began following him on Twitter, though, that I noticed how breathtakingly contemptuous he was toward anyone who disagreed with him—not merely about God, but also on geopolitical things—and then I did say a few mean things. For example, I said of him that “he does not suffer fools gladly, and a fool is anyone who disagrees with him.” However, he has largely repented over this online meanness. I’ve noticed it over the months. He has not banished it entirely, but it is much less prevalent, so that I regret that I ever said what I did.  The temptation to be disdainful of opponents is well-nigh irresistible, particularly if you think that they are willfully choosing ignorance. I have (more or less) mastered the temptation, of course, but I have a source of effective and unending counsel that he does not. This is no more concisely stated than it was at a recent Watchtower Study. A Bible verse considered how we ought “do nothing out of contentiousness or out of egotism, but with humility consider others superior to you.” (Philippians 2:3) Practically speaking, this advice is not easy to implement. It may even strike one as nonsensical—how can everyone be superior to everyone else? Said that Watchtower: “The humble person acknowledges that everyone is superior to him in some way.—Phil. 2:3, 4.”  Of course. In some way everyone is superior to everyone else. Search for that way, hone in on it like a laser beam, and it will not be so difficult to treat even opponents with respect. “Disagree without being disagreeable” is the catchphrase today. But Professor Dawkins does not have this advantage. Much of his tradition would sway him in just the opposite “survival of the fittest” direction. So he must be given credit for his new, somewhat softer, online personality. Possibly someone who has his best interests at heart—perhaps his wife—said, “Richard, you sure do come across as a cantankerous crank on Twitter,” and he deliberately walked it back. It’s commendable. Now, I don’t think Richard had Jehovah’s Witnesses in mind with his tweet. He probably has formed his views of them through the contributions of their “apostate” contingent, and those views could hardly be blacker. I looked down among his comments to see whether any of those nasties had reared their heads. Perhaps here was an example: “Not entirely true. Extremists usually have their own misinterpretation of scriptures.” I responded to this one: “If “misinterpretation” results in a religion of peace, perhaps it is not a misinterpretation after all. Perhaps the mainline view is a misinterpretation.” Is that not a no-brainer?  Another one, disagreeing with the above tweet: “Actually no. Most extremists do exactly what is written in their book. ‘Misinterpretation’ is used as an argument by believers that cherry pick morals that fit our secular ethics today.” I know this type, too. This is the type that finds slavery in the Bible or war in the Old Testament and rails at the “hypocrisy.” I responded to this fellow as well: “Everything has a historical context and to deliberately ignore such context is to be intellectually dishonest. If our side does it to theirs, we never hear the end of it.” He blew up at this reference to context. Evil is evil, he carried on, across all places and time-frames. These characters are very predictable—you could even write their lines for them and not be too far off. Has “critical thinking” made us all nincompoops? It was once thought the most intelligent thing in the world to consider historical backdrop; one was irresponsible, even deceitful, not to do it. Very well. If he is going to trash, with blinders affixed, the source that I hold dear, I will do the same with his source: “You should turn your critical thinking skills upon Ancient Greece, the definer of it. When time travel is invented, history revisionists will give a friendly wave to American slaveholding forefathers as they race back in time to fetch wicked Greek pedophiles—it was an enshrined value of that world—back in irons.” He was not chastened by this. Hijacking Twitter as his personal courtroom, he cross-examined: “Is the holding and beating of slaves, as described in Exodus, morally acceptable? Yes or no?” I countered: “Is the raping of children as endorsed by Ancient Greek society morally acceptable? Yes or no?” Incredibly, he was not dissuaded. “Last chance!” he shot back. “Is the holding and beating of slaves, as described in Exodus, morally acceptable? Yes or no?” “To the blockheads, I became a blockhead.”—Paul (sort of) —1 Corinthians 9:19-22,” I tweeted back: “Two can play the game of obstinacy. Last chance: Is the rape of children—it was enshrined in Ancient Greek society—morally acceptable? Yes or no?” Then I went away, and when I came back, he had deleted all this tweets so that it was hard for me to reconstruct the thread. However, someone else had pointed out a grave sin I had committed: “Thomas you are guilty of the moral equivalence fallacy.” Am I? I suppose. You can sort of guess by the wording just what that phrase means—I had not heard it before. At least it is in English. I once heard a theologian quip that if there is a Latin phrase and a perfectly clear English phrase that means the same thing, always use the Latin phrase so people will know that you are educated. But my “moral equivalence fallacy” is still is no more than considering historical context, a praiseworthy intellectual technique for all time periods except ours.  Besides, I actually had posted something about slavery long ago. But it is not a topic so simple that it can be hashed out in a few tweets, and so I declined to go there with this fellow, who would debate all the sub-points. If God corrected every human injustice the moment it manifested itself, there would be nothing left. The entire premise of the Bible is that human-rule is unjust in itself and that God allows a period of time for that to be clearly manifested before bringing in his kingdom—the one referred to in the “Lord’s prayer”—to straighten it all out. In the meantime, the very ones who work themselves into a lather at religion “brainwashing” people are livid that God did not brainwash slavery away once humans settled upon it as a fine economic underpinning. If Dawkins’s tweet and my response hangs around long enough before burial in the Twitter feed, I would expect some of our malcontents to observe as they did in Russia, where the only evidence of extremism cited is proclaiming “a religious view of supremacy.” Huge protest will come at how Jehovah’s Witnesses practice shunning and thus “destroy” relationships and even family. But views inevitably translate into consequences and policies. Refusal to “come together” with those who insist on diametrically opposed views is hardly the “extremism” of ISIS—and yet the Russian Supreme Court has declared that it is, with the full backing in principle of those from the ex-JW community—the ones who go crusading, which is perhaps 10%. I’m going to write this up as a post and append it to his thread. Let’s see what happens. Probably nothing, but you never know. Plus, let’s expand on that particular Watchtower some more. The particular article covered was entitled: “Jehovah Values His Humble Servants” (September 2019 issue—study edition) Unlike nearly all religious services, Witness meetings are ones that you can prepare for. You can comment during them. They are studies of the sacred book, not just impromptu rap sessions, acquiescencing to ceremony, or sitting through someone else’s sermon. You can prepare for them, and you are benefited, as in any classroom, when you do. The focus here, as it so often is, is on practical application.  Humility draws persons to us. Haughtiness repels them, and thus makes next to impossible the mantra to “come together.” My own comment, when the time was right, was that haughty people can only accomplish so much—it may be a great deal, for haughty people are often very capable people—but eventually they run up against the fact that nobody else can stand them, and so people are motivated to undercut their ideas, even if they are good ones, out of sheer payback for ugliness. Humble people, on the other hand, may be far less capable individually, but their efforts add up. They know how to cooperate and yield to each other in a way that haughty people do not. Someone else on that Dawkins thread, an amateur wit, played with that them of unlikely extremists: “Jehova's witnesses are peaceful but their extremists are better extremely annoying...” Why fight this? It is a viewpoint. Viewpoints are not wrong, because they are viewpoints—right or wrong doesn’t enter into the equation. Better to roll with it. I was indeed on a roll, and so I tweeted back:  “I will grant that they can be. Still, if you had a choice between a team of JWs approaching your door and a team of ISIS members, you would (hopefully) choose theformer. Those 2 groups, and only those 2 groups are officially declared “extremist” in Russia.” And with that, I included a link to my ebook, “Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia.” I am shameless in that. No matter how many books I sell, it is not enough. I don’t sell them, anyway. The book is free, a labor of love. It is an application of the theme: “If you have something important to say, don’t hide it behind a paywall.” It is the only, to my knowledge, complete history of events leading up to and beyond the 2017 ban of the Witness organization in Russia. As to the latest developments there, another one was herded off to prison, who, making the best of a sour situation, or perhaps genuinely finding value there, said: "I want to thank … prosecution. I don't just thank you, but thank you very much, because thanks to you my faith has become stronger … I see I'm on the right path." Of course. It is unreasonable to oppose so vehemently a people totally honest, hard-working, and given to peace—and yet the Bible says that such will exactly happen. How can it not serve to strengthen faith?
    • According to scientific knowledge, the entire universe is in two states every day: something becomes and something disappears. Life on Earth is in the same status. I am disappointed with suffer of creatures on Earth, too. And can't connect with "my picture" of God as i accepted through JW Bible interpretations and my own interpretations, then and now. What if we made wrong pictures about Creator? .... based on wrong or failed text? 
    • You will find it's not "people" in general who judge too quickly, but it is ex-JWs. People in general do understand the complexities. Even the ARC understands the complexities, and so do prosecuting lawyers. But of course neither are in the business to understand, but to hopefully help remedy the situation and to get justice (well in the case of the lawyers; to get lots of $$$$ too, lets be honest).
    • What amazed me many times is this: Who writes articles, and about whom, and to whom? Here we have one paragraph about GB. Questions arise.  Who makes this observations and conclusions about GB?? Who is authorized to make comments about GB and their works?? Why examination about  GB, had been presented in a way, manner, as it is done by "Third Party"? Is it possible that GB is not able, in power to talk about themselves and gave self evaluation, introspective about own feelings, thoughts and deeds??!!  What a theatrics for public. They are histriones :))  
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • 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.