Jump to content
The World News Media

Why do Jehovahs witnesses belive in two Gods?

Shiwiii

By Shiwiii
in Topics

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Member
Donald Diamond Newbie

Donald Diamond

Posted
  • Member
Posted
15 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Yes, the formatting was a little bit messed up. I'll just cut and paste to answer you. 

 

-God is not the fruit of David’s loins – that is ridiculous.  The prophecy in 2 Sam 7 is about a human son.  Jehovah (YHWH) says “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”.

So are you saying that Jesus was only human? Colossians 2:9 says otherwise. Also look at Jesus explanation to the Pharisees in Matthew 22:42-46 on this very subject. 

 

-Well, his opposers claimed it was what he said, not how he said it, so your premise is false.

According to scripture (and your own admission) “Son of God” does not mean “God”.   As you

pointed out, the Jews were sons of God.  Angels are probably called sons of God in Job, Adam

was son of God – in no case does “son of God” mean “God Himself”.   You have no scriptural

basis for your claim.  So my understanding of the term “Son of God” comes from scripture,   Why would God use the phrase towards humans, if it is a term that means God Himself?

It IS how He said it. He claimed to be THE Son of God, meaning to come directly from God and not a son of God as the Jews were. This would be His claim to be of the same nature as God, the form of a  cat begets a cat, the form of a dog begets a dog, the form of God begets God. You do not get a camel from a hippo. Just as you are human, so too were your parents. Jesus was begotten of God, and thus the same form/substance/nature, God. Does that make Him the Father? Nope. My scriptural support comes from many places and we can get into each one if you'd like, but I have given you Matthew 26 and Jesus affirms that He is THE Son of God, THE Christ. 

 

-The high priest claims this is blasphemy.    Why do you believe this when in the same passage we are told:

John 11:49,50  But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all.  Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish."

 

So are you saying the Jews didn't really think it was blasphemy? Just trying to attach something to Jesus to kill Him?

 

They wanted false testimony in order to get Jesus killed.  Why do you build your case on the evidence of those who opposed Jesus and were prepared to lie to get him killed.  You have to read the accusations of the Jewish leaders in the light of the plot to kill him.

Matt 26:59  Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death,

Matt 12:14  But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.

John 7:25,26  Some of the people of Jerusalem therefore said, "Is not this the man whom they seek to kill?  And here he is, speaking openly, and they say nothing to him! Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Christ?  (not that this is God!).

Keep reading in your quote of Matthew 26, in verse 60 specifically. It says they did not find this false testimony. They did not find anything to prove their want. Their deeds were being done for what? So they would not lose their place among society (John 11:47&48). It was only at verse 63-66 of Matthew 26 did they find anything that could stick, it was Jesus claim to be of the same nature of God, being THE Son of God. Matthew 12:14 only speaks that the Pharisees were getting nervous and started to think about what they could do to stop Jesus. It doesn't say they had made up any lies or false testimony. Your John 7 reference does nothing but confirm that Jesus is the Christ, you have added what you want it to say with "(not that this is God!)." This is an argument from silence. 

 

-If you reread my post you will see that at John 5 Jesus said “My Father” – the Jews claimed he said “My own Father” – they put their spin to misrepresent what he said.   As I pointed out, Jesus used the term “My Father” dozens of times with no adverse reaction.  There is nothing blasphemous about calling God “My Father” – it was a trumped up charge.

 

I understand what you are saying, but I've already discussed this above. The fact that Jesus said "My Father" is true, but when did He say this to the Scribes and Pharisees and they not get angry? He said this to the crowds and to the disciples, but the only times He said this to the Pharisees and Jewish leaders they got angry and wanted to kill Him. So it wasn't like the Pharisees and Jewish leaders heard this and dismissed it as you claim, but rather regular people and the disciples heard it most. 

-Again, I believe I have clearly explained the three uses of the term god in scripture.  It can be used a) Of the true God, Jehovah (YHWH),

b) Of false gods

Of representatives of the true God (like Psalm 82, John 1:1, Moses)

I have real problems with formatting this post - so please excuse if disjointed.

D.

 

A representative does not have the fullness of deity, nor is the representative an exact image of God. (Colossians 2:9 & Colossians 1:15) So where does Jesus fit in your three? What other representative in the Bible have these qualities? 

 

 

Having made such a mess of formatting, I will not attempt to cut your post up to address your response.

I showed from scripture that the term Son of God does not mean "of the same nature as God".

Neither Col 2:9 not Matt 22 state that Jesus is God. Try reading these passages without trinitarian blinkers (I don’t mean to be offensive). I agree with you that Matt 26 states that Jesus was the son of God, the Christ. That is not the same as being God Himself. When I was a trinitarian, I was told that is was, but when I studied the scriptures I realised it had no basis in scripture.

 

You said:

So are you saying the Jews didn't really think it was blasphemy? Just trying to attach something to Jesus to kill Him?

At last – progress. Just as they claimed he broke the Sabbath or cast out devils by Beelzebub.

Matt 26 shows that the leaders were prepared to support false accusations, and John 11:49:50 tells us "Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish."

It is spelt out in black and white. Why do you treat Jesus' opposers as if they were genuine believers speaking the truth?

 

Although you say you have addressed it, it remains the fact that:

a) Calling God "My Father" is not blasphemous

b) The opposers claimed that Jesus said "My own father" when he did not.

 

The terms "representative" and "image" mean that it is not the original.

D.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Views 2k
  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Evacuated

It could be tempting to speculate on some sort of heavenly judicial scenario in the spirit world, incorporating scriptural glimpses such as Job 1;6; 2:2, and maybe ancient Jewish commentaries, alterna

Ann O'Maly

Psalm 82:1, 6 God takes his place in the divine assembly; In the middle of the gods he judges: ...  “I have said, ‘You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High.   Is the p

Ann O'Maly

The question sets up a fallacy of the excluded middle. That's why I quoted Ps. 82. Here I'd like to acknowledge those who pointed out that 'gods' here refer to humans - you're right. I should hav

  • Member
Shiwiii Newbie

Shiwiii

Posted
  • Author
  • Member
Posted
21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

I showed from scripture that the term Son of God does not mean "of the same nature as God".

Where did you show this? and from what scripture? 

 

21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

Neither Col 2:9 not Matt 22 state that Jesus is God. Try reading these passages without trinitarian blinkers (I don’t mean to be offensive). I agree with you that Matt 26 states that Jesus was the son of God, the Christ. That is not the same as being God Himself.

Colossians 2:9 says that the fullness of deity dwelt in Jesus. What does that mean to you? Does it mean that there is something of God that did not dwell in Jesus? please explain. 

Jesus' claim of being THE Son of God, means He has the same nature, is of the same substance. You cannot get a zebra from a duck, they are different in nature. 

22 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

At last – progress. Just as they claimed he broke the Sabbath or cast out devils by Beelzebub.

Jesus DID break the Jews Sabbath, but He did not break God's Sabbath. Big difference, but one that helps us see clearly the mind of the Jewish leaders. Each time Jesus said that He was the Son of God to the Jewish leaders/Pharisees and they got angry. Why? You may think it was a false anger to trump op a charge against Him, but you yourself agreed that they could not find any false testimony. So while they might have wanted Jesus gone, they couldn't do it with false testimony or false witnesses, so it had to be true testimony. Jesus statement was true and according to Jewish law, not God's law, this would be considered blasphemy. Does your Bible reference Leviticus 24:16 from John 19:7? Consider why it does. What reason, just because of the word blasphemy? nope, or it would be referenced most other places.

 

22 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

Matt 26 shows that the leaders were prepared to support false accusations, and John 11:49:50 tells us "Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish."

It is spelt out in black and white. Why do you treat Jesus' opposers as if they were genuine believers speaking the truth?

I don't think you are grasping the meaning of what this is saying. Why would the whole nation perish? Because they would lose their position, as in verse 48: 

If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”

Like I just showed above, they could not kill Jesus on false testimony or false witnesses, it had to be true. Also, notice how the account is written in John 5:18. This is all written by John, he is not recording a statement by anyone when he wrote this. He was recording the facts, inspired too I might add. 

22 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

Although you say you have addressed it, it remains the fact that:

a) Calling God "My Father" is not blasphemous

b) The opposers claimed that Jesus said "My own father" when he did not.

 

The terms "representative" and "image" mean that it is not the original.

a) According to the Jewish law it is, because it is claiming the same nature as God. That is why it is blasphemous. Lev 24:16

b) This is not even a point actually. Its like saying Jesus didn't speak English so the Bible I use is wrong. 

I never said Jesus was the Father, but Scripture says that Jesus has the fullness of deity (all that makes God God) in Himself. If you look in the mirror who's image do you see? If Jesus is the exact image of God, then Jesus is what God looks like. Like I said what other representative has the qualities that Jesus has? None, so He does not fit into that category of your three and He doesn't fit into the false god category either.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Member
Donald Diamond Newbie

Donald Diamond

Posted
  • Member
Posted
9 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Where did you show this? and from what scripture? 

 

Colossians 2:9 says that the fullness of deity dwelt in Jesus. What does that mean to you? Does it mean that there is something of God that did not dwell in Jesus? please explain. 

Jesus' claim of being THE Son of God, means He has the same nature, is of the same substance. You cannot get a zebra from a duck, they are different in nature. 

Jesus DID break the Jews Sabbath, but He did not break God's Sabbath. Big difference, but one that helps us see clearly the mind of the Jewish leaders. Each time Jesus said that He was the Son of God to the Jewish leaders/Pharisees and they got angry. Why? You may think it was a false anger to trump op a charge against Him, but you yourself agreed that they could not find any false testimony. So while they might have wanted Jesus gone, they couldn't do it with false testimony or false witnesses, so it had to be true testimony. Jesus statement was true and according to Jewish law, not God's law, this would be considered blasphemy. Does your Bible reference Leviticus 24:16 from John 19:7? Consider why it does. What reason, just because of the word blasphemy? nope, or it would be referenced most other places.

 

I don't think you are grasping the meaning of what this is saying. Why would the whole nation perish? Because they would lose their position, as in verse 48: 

If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”

Like I just showed above, they could not kill Jesus on false testimony or false witnesses, it had to be true. Also, notice how the account is written in John 5:18. This is all written by John, he is not recording a statement by anyone when he wrote this. He was recording the facts, inspired too I might add. 

a) According to the Jewish law it is, because it is claiming the same nature as God. That is why it is blasphemous. Lev 24:16

b) This is not even a point actually. Its like saying Jesus didn't speak English so the Bible I use is wrong. 

I never said Jesus was the Father, but Scripture says that Jesus has the fullness of deity (all that makes God God) in Himself. If you look in the mirror who's image do you see? If Jesus is the exact image of God, then Jesus is what God looks like. Like I said what other representative has the qualities that Jesus has? None, so He does not fit into that category of your three and He doesn't fit into the false god category either.   

  

As the Jews were sons of God, angels are called sons of God in Job and Adam was son of God (Luke 3:38), I have demonstrated absolutely that son of God does not mean “of the same nature as God”.   
Col 2:9 states that something of God dwells in Christ.  That is very different from what you are claiming.

 
The Jewish leaders did not make the false distinction between God’s Sabbath and the Jews Sabbath that you suggest.   They were claiming that Jesus broke the Sabbath law of God – otherwise there is no point to their argument.  Of course, he did not – their claims were false.
 
Your quotation of Lev 24:16 is taken out of context.   The full context shows that it related to reviling God.
 

Lev 24:10-16   Now an Israelite woman's son, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the people of Israel. And the Israelite woman's son and a man of Israel fought in the camp, and the Israelite woman's son blasphemed the Name, and cursed. …..  And they put him in custody, till the will of the LORD should be clear to them.   Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,  "Bring out of the camp the one who cursed, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him.  And speak to the people of Israel, saying, Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin.  Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

 

 

There is no way that John 19:7 is referring to this text.   Jesus was not reviling God.    The problem with your argument is that when the Jewish leaders said: "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God." – they were lying.   There is no such law as the Jewish leaders claimed.  More evidence of false witness. 

 
I demonstrated that the high priest wanted Jesus dead – yes?
While the Jewish leaders could not find anyone to bear false witness at that time, I have shown clearly that they were perfectly happy to support it – yes?
 
John could not have written that Jesus broke the Sabbath.   What is recorded is the claims of Jesus’ opposers.
 
At John 5 Jesus said “My Father” – the Jews claimed he said “My own Father”.   This is not an argument about English.  The word “own” (in Greek this would be idios).   Jesus did not use that word – he used the normal adjective “my”  – it has nothing to do with translation.  Jesus’ opposers had to change it.   It was false witness.     In your church do you regularly stone members who refer to God as “my Father”?    I’d better not join.
 
D.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Member
Shiwiii Newbie

Shiwiii

Posted
  • Author
  • Member
Posted
21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

As the Jews were sons of God, angels are called sons of God in Job and Adam was son of God (Luke 3:38), I have demonstrated absolutely that son of God does not mean “of the same nature as God”

Was Jesus claiming to be another son of God or THE Son of God? There is a difference, even if you want to dismiss it. 

 

21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

Col 2:9 states that something of God dwells in Christ.

Yes, it does......ALL that is God dwells within Jesus. The fullness of deity. The word used is pan or pas (G3956) and its meaning is all or whole, meaning completeness when used in conjunction with pleroma (G4138). 

 

21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

The Jewish leaders did not make the false distinction between God’s Sabbath and the Jews Sabbath that you suggest.   They were claiming that Jesus broke the Sabbath law of God – otherwise there is no point to their argument.  Of course, he did not – their claims were false.

So are you telling me that God required men to not even spit on the ground on the Sabbath because that would be considered plowing, thus "work" ? Really? You do not see a distinction between God's Sabbath and that of the Jewish leaders? That was the whole point of Jesus healing on the Sabbath, to show the Jews the true meaning of it. Not some over the top addition of man's rules upon Gods declaration of rest. 

 

21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

your quotation of Lev 24:16 is taken out of context.   The full context shows that it related to reviling God.

 

21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

There is no way that John 19:7 is referring to this text.   Jesus was not reviling God.    The problem with your argument is that when the Jewish leaders said: "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God." – they were lying.   There is no such law as the Jewish leaders claimed.  More evidence of false witness.

Take that up with your Bible writers, I did not put that reference in your Bible, they did. You tell me why. I just pointed it out to you and can see why they did. There is a reason why that is referenced in 99% of Bibles out there at John 19:7. Your argument is not with me on this one. 

 

21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

John could not have written that Jesus broke the Sabbath.   What is recorded is the claims of Jesus’ opposers.

Jesus broke the rules of the Pharisees in regards to the Sabbath, He did not break the Sabbath. Jesus told them it is alright to do good on the Sabbath (Matt 12:12). 

 

I found out why the formatting is messed up. Once you are done with your post, highlight all of it and select the drop down for size and reduce it to 14 or less. 

Now let us get back to the point of this discussion. Do you believe Jesus is a legitimate God or not? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Member
Donald Diamond Newbie

Donald Diamond

Posted
  • Member
Posted
22 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Was Jesus claiming to be another son of God or THE Son of God? There is a difference, even if you want to dismiss it. 

But your argument was that the phrase “son of god” meant God Himself, or “of the same nature as God”.   It clearly does not.

 

Quote

Yes, it does......ALL that is God dwells within Jesus. The fullness of deity. The word used is pan or pas (G3956) and its meaning is all or whole, meaning completeness when used in conjunction with pleroma (G4138). 

I agree with you that all the fullness of God dwells in Jesus.  But in that very statement, there is a distinction between God and Jesus.

 

Quote

So are you telling me that God required men to not even spit on the ground on the Sabbath because that would be considered plowing, thus "work" ? Really? You do not see a distinction between God's Sabbath and that of the Jewish leaders? That was the whole point of Jesus healing on the Sabbath, to show the Jews the true meaning of it. Not some over the top addition of man's rules upon Gods declaration of rest. 

Where did I say that Jesus couldn’t even spit on the ground?  I agree that the Pharisees had added traditions to the Sabbath requirements, but the point here is that if John believed and wrote that Jesus broke the Sabbath, he is agreeing with Jesus’ opponents that he was a sinner.    That cannot be true.   John can only be quoting the accusations of Jesus’ enemies.

 

Quote

 

Take that up with your Bible writers, I did not put that reference in your Bible, they did. You tell me why. I just pointed it out to you and can see why they did. There is a reason why that is referenced in 99% of Bibles out there at John 19:7. Your argument is not with me on this one. 

I have no need to take up anything with “Bible writers” - references are put in Bibles for various reasons.    It is your argument that Jesus’ opponents were telling the truth when they said there was a law that required Jesus should die for claiming to be the Son of God.    The onus is on you to demonstrate that this is correct.   As you cannot, the only conclusion is that this was another lie on their part.

 

Quote

Jesus broke the rules of the Pharisees in regards to the Sabbath, He did not break the Sabbath. Jesus told them it is alright to do good on the Sabbath (Matt 12:12). 

Absolutely.  Therefore the comment that Jesus broke the Sabbath must have been the Pharisees view - not the Gospel writer.

Quote

I found out why the formatting is messed up. Once you are done with your post, highlight all of it and select the drop down for size and reduce it to 14 or less. 

Thanks for that - hopefully OK now.

Quote

Now let us get back to the point of this discussion. Do you believe Jesus is a legitimate God or not? 

I believe I have explained more than once how I understand the term “god” when used in relation to Jesus (including how he himself used it in John 10 – which was the original question).   I have pointed out that you expressed your question in terms of a false dichotomy (i.e. only allowing one of two answers when there can be more).  This is a debating technique,    So you must see that I am suspicious of you demanding a specific form of words.   Please define what you mean by a “legitimate god” – do you consider Zeus to be a legitimate god?  Dagon?  Baal?  If you mean, is he God (Jehovah) then the answer is no - but I think you already know that.

D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Member
Shiwiii Newbie

Shiwiii

Posted
  • Author
  • Member
Posted
1 hour ago, Donald Diamond said:

I agree with you that all the fullness of God dwells in Jesus.  But in that very statement, there is a distinction between God and Jesus.

But all that is God, is in Jesus. You admitted that, but you still want to say that He is not. ok. Do you then think that Jesus has all that is God and then some more of something that is Himself too? Meaning Jesus has more whatever in Him than God does? 

 

1 hour ago, Donald Diamond said:

Where did I say that Jesus couldn’t even spit on the ground?  I agree that the Pharisees had added traditions to the Sabbath requirements, but the point here is that if John believed and wrote that Jesus broke the Sabbath, he is agreeing with Jesus’ opponents that he was a sinner.    That cannot be true.   John can only be quoting the accusations of Jesus’ enemies.

You didn't, but it was the point I was trying to make. Jesus broke the Pharisees laws about the Sabbath, that is what John wrote about. Jesus is without sin. It is not an accusation, it is fact, Jesus broke the Pharisees laws, not God's. 

 

1 hour ago, Donald Diamond said:

I have no need to take up anything with “Bible writers” - references are put in Bibles for various reasons.    It is your argument that Jesus’ opponents were telling the truth when they said there was a law that required Jesus should die for claiming to be the Son of God.    The onus is on you to demonstrate that this is correct.   As you cannot, the only conclusion is that this was another lie on their part.

actually it is on you, because it is referenced in both your Bible and mine, I just pointed it out. You said that there is no way that John would attribute Lev 24:16 to this, however both of our Bibles do. see below

On 5/1/2016 at 10:10 AM, Donald Diamond said:

There is no way that John 19:7 is referring to this text. 

 

1 hour ago, Donald Diamond said:

Absolutely.  Therefore the comment that Jesus broke the Sabbath must have been the Pharisees view - not the Gospel writer.

exactly, and that is what the Jewish leaders used to kill Jesus. John just wrote it, not agreed with it. 

 

1 hour ago, Donald Diamond said:

Thanks for that - hopefully OK now.

yup, its good now. 

 

1 hour ago, Donald Diamond said:

I believe I have explained more than once how I understand the term “god” when used in relation to Jesus (including how he himself used it in John 10 – which was the original question).   I have pointed out that you expressed your question in terms of a false dichotomy (i.e. only allowing one of two answers when there can be more).  This is a debating technique,    So you must see that I am suspicious of you demanding a specific form of words.   Please define what you mean by a “legitimate god” – do you consider Zeus to be a legitimate god?  Dagon?  Baal?  If you mean, is he God (Jehovah) then the answer is no - but I think you already know that.

What categories are there then? You laid out three, I showed you how Jesus could not fit in two. What more is there? 

No Zeus is not a legitimate god. Neither is Moses, nor Kings, nor anyone according to Isiah 43. God said that there was not one before nor after Him. So if you believe that at John 1:1 Jesus is a god, then what kind of god is He? There really is only two kinds, true and false. True God is YHWH, false is satan, false is Moses, false is the rest. This all hinges on Isiah 43, there is no God other than YHWH. So if you believe that Jesus is a god, and if you believe He is not YHWH, then He is not true god, thus making Him on par with Moses/kings and satan and not fitting into Isiah 43. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Member
Shiwiii Newbie

Shiwiii

Posted
  • Author
  • Member
Posted

Gregorio, I watched your link and appreciate your contribution to this topic. 

Here are a few things I have a problem with in Mr. Barron's video. First point is that he seems to be implying that the Jews had used the term God rather frequently and thus making the meaning of less importance unless it is considered of YHWH. While on the surface this may sound acceptable, however Jews today and back then reserve God in the utmost importance. There is no evidence to support that the Jews would equate any other gods on par with God, its just not there. Furthermore, the suggestion that the writers of the NT were Jews and wrote from within a Jewish mind frame is unsupported and is actually the opposite of what they actually wrote. The writers of the NT positioned themselves in opposition to the Jews, not aligned. 

Mr. Barron has a short article this very subject on his website, particularly John 5:18&19, and on it he has this to say: 

" Nevertheless, I must address one own point therein, namely, that in 5:19 Jesus provided an answer to those seeking to kill him. Quite simply, Jesus “answered” the Jews not because he wasn’t breaking the Sabbath or making himself equal to God. If this was their understanding they were entirely correct, but they erred in failing to understand he was rightly sanctioned for both and in subjection to God through it all. " -http://www.scripturaltruths.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Mic Drop
      Phuc Long

      By Mic Drop · Posted

    • Mic Drop
      Hue Restaurant in San Jose, CA

      By Mic Drop · Posted

      try the: Bánh bèo Bánh ít ram
    • Mic Drop
      Sushi Q’s in Sacramento, CA

      By Mic Drop · Posted

      Definitely should try the Bond roll here when you get a chance: this is a mom and pop place that does a great job  
    • George88
      Hebrews 12:5-6

      By George88 · Posted

      An interesting concept, bible discipline. I am struck by the prevalence of ignorance about spiritual discipline on "Reddit." While physical and mental disciplines receive attention, the profound impact of spiritual discipline on a person's physical and mental well-being is often overlooked. Is it possible to argue against the words of the Apostle Paul? When he penned those words in Hebrews 12, he was recognizing that there are moments when an individual must be "rebuked" in order to be corrected. Even Jesus himself established a precedent when he rebuked Peter and referred to him as Satan for failing to comprehend what Jesus had already revealed to the apostles. Did that imply that Jesus had an evil heart? Not at all, it was quite the opposite; Jesus had a loving heart. His need to correct Peter actually showcased his genuine love for him. If he hadn't cared, he would have let Peter persist in his mistaken ways, leading to a fate similar to Judas'. There is a clear emphasis on avoiding the apostate translation and its meaning, yet many seem to overlook the biblical foundation for the reasons NOT to follow the path of the fallen brethren or those with an apostate mentality. Those individuals have embraced the path of darkness, where the illuminating power of light cannot penetrate, to avoid receiving the righteous discipline based on God's Bible teachings. They are undoubtedly aware that this undeniable truth of life must be disregarded in order to uphold their baseless justifications for the unjust act of shunning. Can anyone truly "force" someone or stop them from rejecting a friend or family member? Such a notion would be absurd, considering the fact that we all have the power of free will. If a Witness decides to distance themselves from a family member or friend simply because they have come out as gay, who is anyone within the organization to question or challenge that personal sentiment? It is unfortunate that there are individuals, both within and outside the organization, who not only lack a proper understanding of the Bible but also dare to suggest that God's discipline is barbaric. We must remember that personal choices should be respected, and it is not for others to judge or condemn someone based on their sexual orientation but should be avoided under biblical grounds. No one should have the power to compel an individual to change their sexual orientation, nor should anyone be forced to accept someone for who they are. When it comes to a family's desire to shield their children from external influences, who has the right to challenge the parents' decision? And if a family's rejection of others is based on cultural factors rather than religious beliefs, who can impose religious judgment on them? Who should true followers of Christ follow? The words of God or those who believe they can change God's laws to fit their lives? How can we apply the inspired words of Paul from God to embrace the reality of God's discipline? On the contrary, how can nonconformists expect to persuade those with a "worldview" that their religious beliefs are unacceptable by ostracizing individuals, when God condemns homosexuality? This is precisely why the arguments put forth by ex-witnesses are lacking in their pursuit of justice. When they employ misguided tactics, justice remains elusive as their arguments are either weak or inconsistent with biblical standards. Therefore, it is crucial to also comprehend Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 9:27. The use of the word "shun" is being exaggerated and excessively condemned by those who reject biblical shunning as a form of punishment. Eph 5:3-14 NIV 3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person — such a man is an idolater — has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.  6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.  8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10 and find out what pleases the Lord. 11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. 13 But everything exposed by the light becomes visible. The impact of the message becomes significantly stronger when we emphasize the importance of avoiding any association with unrighteousness and those who remain unrepentant. In fact, it becomes even more compelling when we witness how some individuals, who dismiss biblical shunning as a method of discipline, excessively criticize and condemn the use of the word "shun". Therefore, Jehovah's Witnesses do not shun people; instead, they choose to focus on the negative actions being committed, which is in accordance with biblical teachings. This should be construed as ex-Witness rhetoric. Now, let's consider why ex-Witnesses specifically target one particular religion. What justifications do they provide when other Christian denominations also adhere to the same principle grounded in the Bible? Chapter 1 - Preface Both must therefore test themselves: the one, if he is qualified to speak and leave behind him written records; the other, if he is in a right state to hear and read: as also some in the dispensation of the Eucharist, according to  custom enjoin that each one of the people individually should take his part. One's own conscience is best for choosing accurately or shunning. And its firm foundation is a right life, with suitable instruction. But the imitation of those who have already been proved, and who have led correct lives, is most excellent for the understanding and practice of the commandments. "So that whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  It therefore follows, that every one of those who undertake to promote the good of their neighbours, ought to consider whether he has betaken himself to teaching rashly and out of rivalry to any; if his communication of the word is out of vainglory; if the the only reward he reaps is the salvation of those who hear, and if he speaks not in order to win favour: if so, he who speaks by writings escapes the reproach of mercenary motives. "For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know," says the apostle, "nor a cloak of covetousness. God is witness. Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome as the apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children."   (from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2) Divine promises 2. The manner of shunning, in the word escaping. There is a flying away required, and that quickly, as in the plague, or from a fire which hath almost burned us, or a flood that breaketh in upon us. We cannot soon enough escape from sin (Matt 3:7; Heb 6:18). No motion but flight becomes us in this case. Doctrine: That the great end and effect of the promises of the gospel is to make us partakers of the Divine nature. (from The Biblical Illustrator)  
    • BTK59
      Is Light a Wave or a Particle?

      By BTK59 · Posted

      Clearly, they are already demanding your exile. Yes! It's unfortunate that Pudgy spoiled a great discussion about science. I hope the discussion can continue without any more nonsensical interruptions. Just a suggestion since they are on your heels. Wow! You speak! It seems you have a lot to say! Now they are going to treat like, who do you think you are, mister big stuff! Are those aliens now going to imply that anyone who speaks out against the five or six key contributors to this site will be treated as though it is George just because those in opposition speak the language they hate to hear, the TRUTH? They are seeking individuals who will embrace their nonconformist values and appreciate what they can offer in shaping public opinion contrary to the established agenda of God and Christ. Their goal is to enhance their writing abilities and avoid squandering time on frivolous pursuits, mainly arguing about the truth they don't care for. They see it all as a mere game, even when leading people astray. They believe they have every right to and will face no biblical repercussions, or so they believe. They just want to have fun just like that Cyndi Lauper song. Be prepared to be belittled and ridiculed, all the while they claim to be angels. Haha! By the way, please refrain from using the same language as George. They appear to believe that when others use the same words, it means they are the same person, and they emphasize this as if no one else is allowed to use similar grammar. It seems they think only they have the right to use the same or similar writing styles. Quite amusing, isn't it? See, what I just placed in bold, now I'm George, lol! Now, let's leave this nice science thread for people that want to know more about science. I believe George left it at "Zero Distance."  

  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • lauleb

      lauleb  »  misette

      merci pour ton travail très utile. tu es une aide qui fortifie
      · 0 replies
    • Pamela Dunston

      Pamela Dunston  »  T.B. (Twyla)

      Hi, TB
      I would like to get the weekly meeting and watchtower materials  and the 2024 convention 
      Attend the 2024 Convention—“Declare the Good News!”
      notebook, I just recently got a new computer, If don't mind my brother to add me on and allow me access to our study again.
       
      Thank you, so much
      Sister Dunston
      · 1 reply
    • SpiritualSister 24

      SpiritualSister 24  »  DARLENE2022

      Hello, Darlene, I just love your name, I had a cousin named Darline, and had a classmate also named Darlene! It's a pleasure to know another Darlene! Especially a Spiritual Sister! There's some websites, Ministry Ideaz , JW Stuff.com, and Etsy that I use to order my yearly buttons for the Conventions! They always send me what I order, and their also Jehovah's Witnesses, that send us the merchandise we order!  You can check out these websites, and they might have what your looking for! I hope I have been helpful in assisting you, Darlene! Agape love, Shirley!😀
      · 1 reply
    • SpiritualSister 24

      SpiritualSister 24

      2024"Enter Into God's Rest" Circuit Assembly! 
      · 0 replies
    • Janice Lewis

      Janice Lewis  »  T.B. (Twyla)

      Hello Twyla, when will the weekly study material be available. I am a member.
      Janice Lewis     lewisjanice84@gmail.com
      Thank you
      · 1 reply

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.9k

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,692
    • Most Online
      1,773
    BABA
    Newest Member
    BABA
    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.