Jump to content
The World News Media

Demonism and the Watchtower


Alessandro Corona

Recommended Posts

  • Member
11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

I would add that probably you know really how insignificant this reference is in support of your claim of:

There is as much credibilty and relevance in this claim as there would be in suggesting  that Luke the Gospel writer relied on an occult source for the words recorded at, for example, Luke 4:9-11. I can't be bothered to cite other examples in Scripture as the claim is so preposterous.

Gone Fishing,

 

Why do you think that this is “insignificant” in the context of the thread?

 

Is it true? Yes!

 

Luke 4 records Jesus’ interaction with the Devil, but nowhere in that discourse does Luke “support” the actions or speech of the Devil. So it is preposterous for you to say that that is similar!

 

Does the Watchtower agree with the occultist teachings? Yes.

 

Why does 1 Tim. 4:1 speak out against demon inspired teaching if it’s insignificant? Because this is what is to happen and is happening!

 

Why play down the fact that the Watchtower is in accord with demonic teachings?

 

The Watchtower's occult links are true. <><

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 8.6k
  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In order NOT to be labeled a liar and a slanderer, Alessandro Corona ... and justifiably so ... you are going to have to PROVE EVERY ASPECT of those statements you just made.  YOU PERSONALLY ...

Every once in awhile ... even a blind pig finds an acorn.

I rest my case ....

Posted Images

  • Member
4 minutes ago, Cos said:

Why do you think that this is “insignificant” in the context of the thread?

insignificant

ɪnsɪɡˈnɪfɪk(ə)nt/

adjective

1. too small or unimportant to be worth consideration.

"the sum required was insignificant compared with military spending"

synonyms:unimportant, of minor importance, of no importance, of little importance, of little import, trivial, trifling, footling, negligible, inconsequential, of little consequence, of no consequence, of no account, of no moment, inconsiderable, not worth mentioning, not worth speaking of, nugatory, meagre, paltry, scanty, petty, insubstantial, unsubstantial, flimsy, frivolous, pointless, worthless, irrelevant, immaterial, peripheral, extraneous, non-essential; 

2. meaningless.

"insignificant yet enchanting phrases"

The point of reference has no relevance to the assertions made.

8 minutes ago, Cos said:

nowhere in that discourse does Luke “support” the actions or speech of the Devil.

By the same token, nowhere does the WT "support" the actions or speech of the Devil. To claim otherwise is "preposterous".

In fact, Jesus faced similar stupid assertions from religionists in his day:

(Matthew 12:24)

"the Pharisees said: “This fellow does not expel the demons except by means of Be·elʹze·bub, the ruler of the demons.”

and dealt with them graciously:

(Matthew 12:25-28) 

"Knowing their thoughts, he said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.  In the same way, if Satan expels Satan, he has become divided against himself; how, then, will his kingdom stand?  Moreover, if I expel the demons by means of Be·elʹze·bub, by whom do your sons expel them? This is why they will be your judges.  But if it is by means of God’s spirit that I expel the demons, the Kingdom of God has really overtaken you."
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
22 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

insignificant

ɪnsɪɡˈnɪfɪk(ə)nt/

adjective

1. too small or unimportant to be worth consideration.

"the sum required was insignificant compared with military spending"

synonyms:unimportant, of minor importance, of no importance, of little importance, of little import, trivial, trifling, footling, negligible, inconsequential, of little consequence, of no consequence, of no account, of no moment, inconsiderable, not worth mentioning, not worth speaking of, nugatory, meagre, paltry, scanty, petty, insubstantial, unsubstantial, flimsy, frivolous, pointless, worthless, irrelevant, immaterial, peripheral, extraneous, non-essential; 

2. meaningless.

"insignificant yet enchanting phrases"

The point of reference has no relevance to the assertions made.

By the same token, nowhere does the WT "support" the actions or speech of the Devil. To claim otherwise is "preposterous".

In fact, Jesus faced similar stupid assertions from religionists in his day:

(Matthew 12:24)

"the Pharisees said: “This fellow does not expel the demons except by means of Be·elʹze·bub, the ruler of the demons.”

and dealt with them graciously:

(Matthew 12:25-28) 

"Knowing their thoughts, he said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.  In the same way, if Satan expels Satan, he has become divided against himself; how, then, will his kingdom stand?  Moreover, if I expel the demons by means of Be·elʹze·bub, by whom do your sons expel them? This is why they will be your judges.  But if it is by means of God’s spirit that I expel the demons, the Kingdom of God has really overtaken you."
 

Gone fishing,

 

The Watchtower DO support the utterance of demons, they acknowledge this by citing for support of their own teaching, an occultist!

 

Gone Fishing, I thought you were a bit more astute, but it seems not, the Jews FALSELY accused Jesus of being in league with the Devil, how is that the same as the Watchtower agreeing with demon inspired teachings?

 

Answer this simple question; did the Watchtower use the renderings of Johannes Greber’s NT to support their own renderings of NT passages? Yes or no?

 

The Bible firmly condemns any alliance with occult teachings! <><

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
10 hours ago, Cos said:

how is that the same as the Watchtower agreeing with demon inspired teachings?

This is a FALSE accusation as was the accusation of the Pharisees and scribes regarding the teachings of Jesus.

10 hours ago, Cos said:

did the Watchtower use the renderings of Johannes Greber’s NT to support their own renderings of NT passages? Yes or no?

Only in that Greber's rendering is perfectly acceptable and conveys the correct meaning of the text. As do other renderings of the passage in question. The Word of God does not need the support of Greber, or any other human authority for that matter.

The reluctance of religionistas to accept that Greber could get a scriptural passage right due to his personal beliefs is quite unfounded and displays a level of prejudice and ignorance of the Word of God. Demon inspired individuals can pronounce God's truths, like it or not. We have a number of scriptural examples of this.

Unfortunately for opponents, this rather baseless accusation only serves to embarass it's proponents and display a remarkable lack of appreciation for Jesus' masterful response to the accusers of his day. "“Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand." Matt 12:25 (Consider the context).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

This is a FALSE accusation as was the accusation of the Pharisees and scribes regarding the teachings of Jesus.

Only in that Greber's rendering is perfectly acceptable and conveys the correct meaning of the text. As do other renderings of the passage in question. The Word of God does not need the support of Greber, or any other human authority for that matter.

The reluctance of religionistas to accept that Greber could get a scriptural passage right due to his personal beliefs is quite unfounded and displays a level of prejudice and ignorance of the Word of God. Demon inspired individuals can pronounce God's truths, like it or not. We have a number of scriptural examples of this.

Unfortunately for opponents, this rather baseless accusation only serves to embarass it's proponents and display a remarkable lack of appreciation for Jesus' masterful response to the accusers of his day. "“Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand." Matt 12:25 (Consider the context).

Gone Fishing,

 

You claim my comment "Watchtower agreeing with demon inspired teachings" is a “false accusation”, but then you contradict yourself by saying “Greber's rendering is perfectly acceptable…demon inspired individuals can pronounce God's truths”.

 

That is a contradiction sir and no wonder, just like the Watchtower, that warned its readers about Greber demon inspired NT, then goes and quotes it for support.

 

Despite knowing full well that Greber was a occultist, the Watchtower Society continually cited Greber as an authority in support for their own false teachings.

 

And in the end the Society lied outright by claiming that they were unaware of Greber’s occult association. <><

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
21 hours ago, Cos said:

Greber's rendering is perfectly acceptable…demon inspired individuals can pronounce God's truths”...That is a contradiction sir......

There is a danger of drawing a false conclusion from your statement here. Greber's rendering of John 1:1 is not true because it is demon-inspired. It is true because it is true. That is what the Watchtower agrees with.

Satan himself quoted accurately from scripture, yet this does not detract from the truthfulness of those texts. (Luke 4:10-11). Luke was not supporting Satan by including his words in the sacred text.

Caiaphas, the High priest,  prophesied correctly in connection with Jesus death. (John 11:49-50) Although  he was one of the "offspring of vipers" (Matt.23:33) and from his "father the Devil" (John 8:44), this did not effect the truthfulnes of his utterance. The apostle John's inclusion and explanation of this man's utterance did not indicate a support for him and his wicked master. 

So there is no contradiction ...sir.

However, there is a further danger that these words of Jesus could apply to your argument if you omit to check the reasoning carefully before pressing "Submit Reply":

"Jesus said to them: “You are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God" Matt 22:29 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 3:32 PM, Gone Fishing said:

There is a danger of drawing a false conclusion from your statement here. Greber's rendering of John 1:1 is not true because it is demon-inspired. It is true because it is true. That is what the Watchtower agrees with.

Satan himself quoted accurately from scripture, yet this does not detract from the truthfulness of those texts. (Luke 4:10-11). Luke was not supporting Satan by including his words in the sacred text.

Caiaphas, the High priest,  prophesied correctly in connection with Jesus death. (John 11:49-50) Although  he was one of the "offspring of vipers" (Matt.23:33) and from his "father the Devil" (John 8:44), this did not effect the truthfulnes of his utterance. The apostle John's inclusion and explanation of this man's utterance did not indicate a support for him and his wicked master. 

So there is no contradiction ...sir.

However, there is a further danger that these words of Jesus could apply to your argument if you omit to check the reasoning carefully before pressing "Submit Reply":

"Jesus said to them: “You are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God" Matt 22:29 

Gone fishing

 

The fact that the Watchtower lied about not knowing of Greber’s occultism should worry you…what other lies are they telling you…?

 

I showed you your contradiction. You called what I said about the Watchtower agreeing with demon inspired teachings a “false accusation”, but then you go on to support that they did agree with Greber.

 

Look, if you want I can show how the Watchtower teachings, which are in line with demon teachings, are false. Let me know and we can look at them closely.

 

Sure the Devil can quote Scripture, I never said he can’t, but he distorts what he quotes and falsely applies it, read it for yourself.<><   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I read the Greber changes. It is all supported by the Bible. Idk why a demon would tell the truth, but if you read the Bible you would know whatever it said was in harmony with the scriptures. That isn't a pass to go read Greber's translation, but the demon who told him these things were already there for mankind to read. 

 

What I am more curious about is the reason it would tell the truth, for example, in Acts 16:16+ a demon possessed girl is telling everyone that Paul will lead you to everlasting life. 16 Now it happened that as we were going to the place of prayer, a servant girl with a spirit, a demon of divination, met us. She supplied her masters with much profit by fortune-telling.  17 This girl kept following Paul and us and crying out with the words: “These men are slaves of the Most High God and are proclaiming to you the way of salvation.”  18 She kept doing this for many days. Finally Paul got tired of it and turned and said to the spirit: “I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And it came out that very hour. 

 

Why would a demon tell anyone the truth about Paul? I don't understand. 

 

Again, I've heard stories of people playing with ouija boards, and they make a Bible based question and the board responds with Jehovah's Witnesses, a couple at a convention asked the board what the true religion was and it responded with JWs, so they converted, this doesn't mean that Jehovah's Witnesses are teaching the absolute truth, because 1914 is a false prophecy, but they are the only denomination that don't believe the trinity, don't worship the cross, don't celebrate pagan holidays, know the truth about death, etc. 

Rutherford claims that an angel revealed to him the identity of the great crowd, we know Angels wouldn't contact humans unless Jehovah sent them, so this was obviously an Angel of light. Does it mean the identity of the great crowd is wrong? If you read the Bible, in Revelation, you will see there are two groups of survivors, one that is numbered at 144000 and another that no man can number, is this a lie? No. 

I left Jehovah's Witnesses because I don't believe in 1914, Luke 21:8, and the fact that bethel was practicing spiritism. But the rest of the stuff they teach is and I believe Jehovah's Witnesses are being misled by the man of lawlessness in 2 thessalonians 2, and from what I have heard over the years, demons usually tell 50% truth and 50% lies. I don't know why they do the things they do, because even Jesus said a house divided does not work, so maybe the angel of light had some new ideas after Jesus said that. I just want people to become aware of the mystery of this lawlessness surrounding 1914. 

If you read the sahidic coptic new testament, which the oldest New testament known to man, you will see the correct rendering of John 1:1, which is the word was a God, not a god, nor God, but a God. Greek doesn't use indefinite articles, which is why "a" couldn't have possibly existed at the time John 1:1 was written. Secondly, Jesus is MonoGenes, begotten, made, he has not always existed and in Philippians 2:5 it says he isn't equal to the father, the trinity is false. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 9/8/2017 at 3:01 PM, Gone Fishing said:

Only in that Greber's rendering is perfectly acceptable and conveys the correct meaning of the text.

And so this makes it ok to accept teachings from demon inspired people, when God prohibits it? I'm not sure about you, but my God does not approve and tells me that through His word we can gather all the teachings He wants us to know by the means of the Holy Spirit.

John 16:13-15

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

ok to accept teachings from demon inspired people

The teaching was not Greber's. It is merely of interest that his translation is in harmony with the truth which proceeded him.

Jehovah can interfere with any source of "inspired" teaching and turn it to His own ends if He wishes. He has demonstrated this amply. I'll let you figure out where and when.

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

YES IT DOES

OH NO IT DOESN'T

This is getting a bit Punch and Judy. I'm off before the big stick comes out......................................:)

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

    No members to show

  • 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.