Jump to content
The World News Media

When a teaching changes after baptism.....


HollyW

Recommended Posts

  • Member
13 hours ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

Holly, I feel like I'm regurgitating over and over again. I thought that by quoting the text about "babes" would be enough to explain itself. I;m going to simplify dramatically and just use very plain language. I hope you don't mind:

To explain how the scriptures apply to changes we've made since I was baptized

  • My baptism has no bearing on the changes made by the organization. The changes would have occurred whether I became a witness or not
  • 1 Corinthians 13: 8 - 13 demonstrates that gifts like knowlegde, prophesying and tongues would one day cease. These gifts were temporary things in order to grow the early congregation. 

Why do I consider what you've posted as being a worse case scenario?

  • I consider you statements as only focusing on the faults of the Governing Body. You have not shown a balanced unbiased approach

Paul speaking about the growth of humans from babies to adults

  • I agree Paul was not speaking about literal Babies, he was using similitude to demonstrate spiritual growth, which involves adjustments
  • This time and others he was involved in adjustments in thinking: For example, uncircumcision became allowed, previously not allowed 
  •  

When does the baby analogy apply

  • That is correct, according to current thinking, in the 1870's God's people were still a work in progress and will be until the end of the thousand year reign (wt 92 7/15 Pg 30) 

I am willing to accept what they tell me

  • My relationship is with Jehovah first, I care for this firstly by Bible reading and study. It is inferred that the organization is an extension of Jehovah's sovereignty his visible representative such as were the kings of Israel. Hence, if ever the king was to take the nation into apostasy, I must still respect the anointed one of Jehovah, just as David did Saul. It does not mean that I have to take part in anything that would affect my relationship with Jehovah.

 

Even though knowledge, prophesying, and tongues would one day cease, this does NOT fit the changes being made by the WTS for all these decades.  That's why I explained to you in some detail how these scriptures are not applicable to either the question in the OP nor to the history of the WTS.  Even in simple terms, it doesn't seem to have registered with you yet.

What would you consider to be a balanced and unbiased approach to a group of men who say to listen to them as you would to the voice of God?

If they said that because they are still babies, would you consider it wise to listen to them as you would to the voice of God?

The changes made between the Mosaic covenant and the New Covenant were inspired by God and outlined in his Word, such as circumcision being a spiritual event rather than a physical one, and in no way can this be used as an excuse for the changes the governing body has been making to the beliefs of JWs for all these years. 

That you are willing to accept what they tell you to believe reveals your dedication at baptism was not to God but to the governing body of the WTS organization, which is why you believe you are to change your beliefs about what the Bible really teaches whenever the men on the WTS governing body tell  you to change them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 5.3k
  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My Dad used to take me deer hunting when I was a teenager.  We'd go out when it was dark and be in a deer stand in a tree as the light began to come up.  At first you could make out precious little, b

>"I know you probably worked hard on your illustration, but it seems to me to be out of harmony with what the Bible reveals at 1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to

You're probably thinking of one of the questions asked just before being baptized:  "Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with G

  • Member

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. The OP is about what happens when there is a change in understanding after your baptism. You are implying that you were tricked somehow. However, if you had been studying for several months you would've learned that changes happen, especially if you prepared for your studies well. That way when you were baptized you wouldn't be under any illusion as to what may happen after your baptism. But let;s just say you feel tricked or fooled what is the common reply. It is 1 Corinthians 13: 8 - 13 and Proverbs 4: 18 they are used hand in hand. But let's go further and say, you don't understand what either of those texts have to do with changes after baptism. The next thread of thinking, is to take you through history from Adam to present day showing you all the adjustments that took place leading down to Jesus then on to our day. I've touched on some of those things. But personally, it is so clear to me that adjustments in thinking have been happening since the beginning it is irrefutable, but maybe you don't believe the taking away of the kingdom from the Jews and to spiritual Israel was a significant adjustment. Did the apostles complain? Saying "this is not what I was baptized into."
 Did they look for excuses to disregard every explanation given or did they accept each adjustment? When they met with the older men of Jerusalem and the result was Acts 15: 28, 29, then it was conveyed to the existing congregations, do you think that was from men or God? I'm interested in your answer to that.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.

The agreement to disagree is a disgraceful defeat if it means surrendering the hope of agreement through deeper understanding. 

1 hour ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

The next thread of thinking, is to take you through history from Adam to present day showing you all the adjustments that took place leading down to Jesus then on to our day. I've touched on some of those things. But personally, it is so clear to me that adjustments in thinking have been happening since the beginning it is irrefutable, but maybe you don't believe the taking away of the kingdom from the Jews and to spiritual Israel was a significant adjustment. Did the apostles complain? Saying "this is not what I was baptized into."
 Did they look for excuses to disregard every explanation given or did they accept each adjustment? When they met with the older men of Jerusalem and the result was Acts 15: 28, 29, then it was conveyed to the existing congregations, do you think that was from men or God? I'm interested in your answer to that.

It was not changes it was clarification to the people of what was meant. Who was it that made these "changes"? Was it a group of men or was it God? The answer is clear, it was God who corrected the people. There was no group of men changing things back and forth claiming to speak for God. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

The agreement to disagree is a disgraceful defeat if it means surrendering the hope of agreement through deeper understanding. 

It was not changes it was clarification to the people of what was meant. Who was it that made these "changes"? Was it a group of men or was it God? The answer is clear, it was God who corrected the people. There was no group of men changing things back and forth claiming to speak for God. 

 
 
 

Thanks for your opinion, but I disagree with you thoroughly. This is not about being right, it's about maintaining the peace and dignity of all concerned. If you're only interested in arguing you have missed Paul's words on not getting into foolish disputes and arguments about words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
12 minutes ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

Thanks for your opinion, but I disagree with you thoroughly. This is not about being right, it's about maintaining the peace and dignity of all concerned. If you're only interested in arguing you have missed Paul's words on not getting into foolish disputes and arguments about words.

So why don't you tell me who made those "changes"? I said God did and not men. I don't think I said anything about being right. The Bible tells us that God corrected the people. The Bible doesn't say that God changed His mind, but rather opened the mind of people. 

As far as my understanding of Paul, that is between me and God. You can have your opinion about me and what I believe, its ok. I am open to your criticisms and will listen, but that doesn't mean I will change to your views on things. I have the freedom in Christ to do so. If my questions bother you, then by all means let me know. I can rephrase them for clarity. I am simply going off the Bible, and if we both agree that the Bible is the Word of God, then there should be no problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 7/10/2016 at 8:46 AM, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

1 Corinthians 13: 8 - 13 demonstrates that gifts like knowlegde, prophesying and tongues would one day cease. These gifts were temporary things in order to grow the early congregation. 

 

Hello VHC,

  The path of the righteous is like the morning sun, shining ever brighter till the full light of day.  Prov 4:18

We know this morning sun is Jesus, which before his appearance, causes knowledge to increase – until the fulfillment of the Kingdom. Matt 17:2 Rev 1:16; 2 Cor 4:6; Rev 22:16; Luke 1:78; Acts 3:20; Gal 3:27

1 Corinthians 13: 8 – 13  Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

10 – or “that which is perfect”  - God’s Kingdom.

This speaks to individuals of the Body of Christ, and to all of us, not to an earthly fleshly organization. Rom 13:14   Has knowledge passed away? Has prophesy ceased?  Not according to scripture.   Acts 2:17; Rev 11:3

If one in Christ, a righteous one following the path of Christ, stays on course, “priests” will  instructed in knowledge through Holy spirit. Mal 2:7  If we perceive a wavering of teachings that are truly off course, with false prophesy, changing doctrine, then priests who present false knowledge have left the path of Christ, as well as the laws written on their heart.  Heb 10:16  It has been prophesied to happen, do we ignore prophesy?

my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. “Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children.  Hos 4:6

“The days are coming,” declares the Sovereign Lord, “when I will send a famine through the land— not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the Lord.  Amos 8:11

There is a time period before Jesus arrives where his people do not reflect the light of the Sun, but stumble in darkness. Joel 3:15; 2:10; Ezek 32:7; Mark 13:25; Rev 6:12,13; Ezek 7:27; Matt 24:29; 5:14,16 

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.  Isa 5:20  Organization’s old light has become bitter; rejected and replaced for something sweet and appealing. How long will that last?

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.  2 Tim 4:3,4

Only by turning to Jesus who is Truth, clothing ourselves with him, which is identifying our self with him(Gal 3:27),  and away from men who speak visions of their own, will the path of our own righteousness appear as the morning sun.  Jer 23:16; Ps 4:2

Is it not true that previous generation teachings and previous set dates have come to nothing?  Ps 119:118  The knowledge of God builds on a strong foundation and continues until that which is perfect arrives – God’s Kingdom  Matt 7:24-27 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
18 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

So why don't you tell me who made those "changes"? I said God did and not men. I don't think I said anything about being right. The Bible tells us that God corrected the people. The Bible doesn't say that God changed His mind, but rather opened the mind of people. 

As far as my understanding of Paul, that is between me and God. You can have your opinion about me and what I believe, its ok. I am open to your criticisms and will listen, but that doesn't mean I will change to your views on things. I have the freedom in Christ to do so. If my questions bother you, then by all means let me know. I can rephrase them for clarity. I am simply going off the Bible, and if we both agree that the Bible is the Word of God, then there should be no problem. 

 

You said it was a defeat to "agree to disagree" this implies that one is right and the other was not, as it would only be a defeat if the matter was one of right or wrong.

God commissions his people to search his word themselves and he dignifies them by allowing them to draw conclusions based on the available evidence. Hence, the "light" or understanding gets brighter with time. If you read Daniel 12, in the final part of the days men would rove about or search in God's word and such knowledge would abound. There have been great increases in Bible knowledge in the last 100 years, understanding in Bible languages, new documents being found, timing of events and as a result better translations have been produced which more accurately render verse that in the past have been difficult to translate. I believe

There are a number of times that the Bible shows that Jehovah "regretted" and subsequently changed his mind about some action. One example is the case of Jonah and the Ninevites. God first intended to destroy them. But when they showed repentance he was willing to change his view of the Ninevites. Another example is that of the Judges. When the people would drift into apostasy, God's anger would blaze against them. Judges 2: 18 has the phrase "moved with pity". The footnote reads "felt regret". To regret is to no longer think the same way about a matter. In other words, to change one's mind. Today, when Jehovah deals with us individually he does something similar. When we show repentance for some sin we have committed he is willing to forgive based on the value of Jesus' life. Otherwise none of us could stand.

This is a forum, it is a place where people should feel free to express their views. I agree, you can keep your viewpoint, just as I. I haven't come into this trying to convert anyone. I find it a great source of information and resources, though some may disagree. I think, there's a difference between having an opinion and a personal attack. But if that should ever happen we all have the choice to report any offending posts to let the Mods deal with. I find that on other forums, Bible discussions descend into attacking each other easily. It'd be great if we could remain civil.

Saying that you are simply going off the Bible is a little bit like saying the other person is wrong lol. The problem with saying that is that if the other person also says they are going off the Bible then the two must inherently be in agreement, one mind and one thought. We are not in agreement on all matters. The issue really is, what have each person "missed"? With the knowledge that you have of the Bible, what is it that you have missed that I have pointed out? Alternatively, with the information that I may have, what have I missed? For example, if I have not read the whole Bible maybe I missed a part that had something different to say on a matter I had come to understand one way. I have shown you two or three instances that you may not have thought of. Judges, Jonah and forgiveness of sins today. If you are familiar with scripture there should be no need to quote or cite verses, you would recognize where I have quoted scripture.

Thanks for posting, I'm goign to answer one other person then, I'll be back later if you want to keep talking.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
49 minutes ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

There are a number of times that the Bible shows that Jehovah "regretted" and subsequently changed his mind about some action. One example is the case of Jonah and the Ninevites. God first intended to destroy them. But when they showed repentance he was willing to change his view of the Ninevites. Another example is that of the Judges. When the people would drift into apostasy, God's anger would blaze against them. Judges 2: 18 has the phrase "moved with pity". The footnote reads "felt regret". To regret is to no longer think the same way about a matter. In other words, to change one's mind. Today, when Jehovah deals with us individually he does something similar. When we show repentance for some sin we have committed he is willing to forgive based on the value of Jesus' life. Otherwise none of us could stand.

My point was that God made the corrections to men, not men making corrections to men. When you have a group that changes from left to right and back to left again, then you must know that this did not come from God. Could God use this left right left to His advantage? sure, He uses people and circumstances to His advantage all the time, to work out His will. When a group claims to speak for God and these changes become apparent, it is not that hard to see God is not using this group as His mouthpiece. 

You know the saying that the WT uses, the one about tacking into the wind as a sailboat does? A few things came to mind about that. One, if this is describing the mode of operation of the WT how does this compare to say John the Baptist?  John made the pathway before God straight (Isa 40:3/Matt 3:3/John 1:23/Mark 1:3/Luke 3:4). John preached one thing, repentance,  and this didn't change. He did not say "repent" one day and then the next "you don't need to repent yet". The second point that came to mind was how if by tacking, a sailboat gains distance traveled, the sailboat also has a course set out and a destination. What ground/distance is gained in a flip flop of doctrines? It is reversing to a previous point, not advancing. What destination is there in mind when a complete reversal takes place?

1 hour ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

This is a forum, it is a place where people should feel free to express their views. I agree, you can keep your viewpoint, just as I. I haven't come into this trying to convert anyone. I find it a great source of information and resources, though some may disagree. I think, there's a difference between having an opinion and a personal attack. But if that should ever happen we all have the choice to report any offending posts to let the Mods deal with. I find that on other forums, Bible discussions descend into attacking each other easily. It'd be great if we could remain civil.

I completely agree with this, we are here to bounce opinions and ideas off of each other in a civil manner. 

1 hour ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

Saying that you are simply going off the Bible is a little bit like saying the other person is wrong lol. The problem with saying that is that if the other person also says they are going off the Bible then the two must inherently be in agreement, one mind and one thought. We are not in agreement on all matters. The issue really is, what have each person "missed"? With the knowledge that you have of the Bible, what is it that you have missed that I have pointed out? Alternatively, with the information that I may have, what have I missed? For example, if I have not read the whole Bible maybe I missed a part that had something different to say on a matter I had come to understand one way. I have shown you two or three instances that you may not have thought of. Judges, Jonah and forgiveness of sins today. If you are familiar with scripture there should be no need to quote or cite verses, you would recognize where I have quoted scripture.

The difference between us both sticking with the Bible and not being in agreement, it that of a bias we have within ourselves. I am content in using the Bible alone and allowing it to support itself. Are you? 

I agree that neither of us can understand everything there is, and we will miss things along the way, but our willingness to bring forth our ideas for criticism is what helps us remove our bias. Without an independent party (others on this forum and elsewhere) giving us what they see in both our view as well as their view, then we have a group who might as well believe the sky is falling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 7/11/2016 at 10:06 AM, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. The OP is about what happens when there is a change in understanding after your baptism. You are implying that you were tricked somehow. However, if you had been studying for several months you would've learned that changes happen, especially if you prepared for your studies well. That way when you were baptized you wouldn't be under any illusion as to what may happen after your baptism. But let;s just say you feel tricked or fooled what is the common reply. It is 1 Corinthians 13: 8 - 13 and Proverbs 4: 18 they are used hand in hand. But let's go further and say, you don't understand what either of those texts have to do with changes after baptism. The next thread of thinking, is to take you through history from Adam to present day showing you all the adjustments that took place leading down to Jesus then on to our day. I've touched on some of those things. But personally, it is so clear to me that adjustments in thinking have been happening since the beginning it is irrefutable, but maybe you don't believe the taking away of the kingdom from the Jews and to spiritual Israel was a significant adjustment. Did the apostles complain? Saying "this is not what I was baptized into."
 Did they look for excuses to disregard every explanation given or did they accept each adjustment? When they met with the older men of Jerusalem and the result was Acts 15: 28, 29, then it was conveyed to the existing congregations, do you think that was from men or God? I'm interested in your answer to that.

:) What is it we're agreeing to disagree on?  That the apostle Paul said true Christians would be recognized for their constant changing of what they say the Bible really teaches, just the way the WTS has been doing for it's entire history?

Is that what you're agreeing with?  Because I certainly disagree with that.

I wasn't implying anyone was tricked at all.  I thought I was being very clear that JWs change their beliefs when the men on the governing body tell them to because they are listening to those men as though to the voice of God, just as those men have told them to.

[w57 6/15 p.370] Let us now unmistakably identify Jehovah’s channel of communication for our day, that we may continue in his favor. Listen to the inspired answer to the situation, in Matthew 24:45-47 (NW): “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to you, He will appoint him over all his belongings.” And has he? Yes, particularly since 1919 has it been true that he has appointed the collective body of the anointed remnant over all the visible interests of the Kingdom. The “slave” then became responsible not only for ministering to the needs of the anointed body members but also for taking on the responsibility of preaching the good news of the established Kingdom to people of all nations. (Matt. 24:14) Such is true not by their determination of it, but because God himself has so directed. “God has set the members in the body, each one of them, just as he pleased,” is the way it is pictured in 1 Corinthians 12:18 (NW). It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the “slave” as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision.

If the "slave" is really to be listened to as you would to the voice of God, would you listen to a "slave" who said something like the child born in Revelation 12 is the antichrist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
39 minutes ago, HollyW said:

If the "slave" is really to be listened to as you would to the voice of God, would you listen to a "slave" who said something like the child born in Revelation 12 is the antichrist?

That's a new one on me, Holly!  When did the GB say that?  Appalling!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
14 hours ago, Witness said:

That's a new one on me, Holly!  When did the GB say that?  Appalling!

From the very beginning of its existence.

This is from the December 1879 WT (Zion's WT) p.2

 

Quote

 

"The woman, clothed with the sun," is the Gospel church,

covered with the precious promises of God and the glorious

light of truth. The moon is the reflection of the sun's brightness,

so the Law or Jewish age was a shadow of the Gospel.

It was light, but not the real, only reflected light. The woman

had the moon under her feet. She had reached a higher plane,

and yet she rested upon the foundation of the apostles and

prophets, the diadem of twelve stars representing the apostles.

( V. 3). The Roman Empire had seven heads (Rome's seven

successive and distinct forms of government) , and ten horns

(divisions of power). "The red dragon," Pagan Rome, persecuted

the church. "His tail drew the third part of the stars

of heaven and did cast them to the earth." "Stars of heaven,"

-the bright ones or ministers and teachers in the church. The

dragon's tail draws them, i. e., these become followers of Pagan

Rome in hopes of having favor with the empire and escaping

persecution. As a result, they lose their position as stars in

the true church, and are "cast to the earth." Persecuted and

reviled, she was pained to be delivered, and longed for the

completion of the promised "Seed of the woman which should

bruise the serpent's head." Her anxiety and desire in this direction

produced a pre-mature birth-"The Man of Sin" (the

papal hierarchy) being the offspring. This "male child," at

first a weak one (A. D. 314), was gradually "caught up unto

God and to his throne," or exalted to the position and titles,

homage and praise of the true "seed." so that "He as God sat

in the temple [church] of God, showing himself that he is

God." And within three hundred years he did "rule the

nations with a rod of iron."

 

You can download it online at 

http://wtarchive.svhelden.info/english/zions-watch-tower/

And this is from the book Jesus surely would have been inspecting in 1917: The Finished Mystery, Chapter 12 The Birth of the Antichrist, p.187: 12:5. And she brought forth a man child. — The papacy.  — Z.'79-12-2.

http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/finishedmystery/fmr12.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
20 hours ago, HollyW said:

:) What is it we're agreeing to disagree on?  That the apostle Paul said true Christians would be recognized for their constant changing of what they say the Bible really teaches, just the way the WTS has been doing for it's entire history?

Is that what you're agreeing with?  Because I certainly disagree with that.

I wasn't implying anyone was tricked at all.  I thought I was being very clear that JWs change their beliefs when the men on the governing body tell them to because they are listening to those men as though to the voice of God, just as those men have told them to.

[w57 6/15 p.370] Let us now unmistakably identify Jehovah’s channel of communication for our day, that we may continue in his favor. Listen to the inspired answer to the situation, in Matthew 24:45-47 (NW): “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to you, He will appoint him over all his belongings.” And has he? Yes, particularly since 1919 has it been true that he has appointed the collective body of the anointed remnant over all the visible interests of the Kingdom. The “slave” then became responsible not only for ministering to the needs of the anointed body members but also for taking on the responsibility of preaching the good news of the established Kingdom to people of all nations. (Matt. 24:14) Such is true not by their determination of it, but because God himself has so directed. “God has set the members in the body, each one of them, just as he pleased,” is the way it is pictured in 1 Corinthians 12:18 (NW). It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the “slave” as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision.

If the "slave" is really to be listened to as you would to the voice of God, would you listen to a "slave" who said something like the child born in Revelation 12 is the antichrist?

 

There are lots of straws in your hat, and you are picking at all of them :) I can answer you by asking questions too, without of course answering the questions. We can play this silly game all day long, but if we have nothing to agree on, then we should agree to disagree, unless of course you want stay on this merry go round.

Do you believe Moses was God's spokesperson or in my native language mouthpiece? Just curious, because if you can accept Moses you can accept the "slave" along with all it's imperfections, just like Moses. If you don't that Moses was God's mouthpiece who are you, in fact, disrespecting?

Whom do you think the child of Revelation 12 is, or what :)?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • Pudgy

      Pudgy 2,380

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • T.J

      T.J 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ComfortMyPeople

      ComfortMyPeople 544

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,669
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Miracle Pete
    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.