Posted on 09/18/2006 1:23:37 PM PDT by agooga
Thanks... I knew you could put in some wonderful and meaningful insight here.
Okay.....another JW thread, and I'm going to try and get an answer to this question once again. Why do Kingdom Halls not have windows? I've heard that some do, and that it isn't a requirement or anything, but every Kingdom Hall I have ever seen either has no windows, or a few very narrow windows that might as well not even be there. I'm not imagining this phenomenon. Since about five years ago I have started to keep a mental accounting of every Kingdom Hall I have ever seen, and so far only two had the very narrow windows I mentioned above, and very few at that. What gives?
So far, that is the most plausible explanation I have gotten. It's strange you know? To see these huge octagonal buildings that are solid brick or metal. That has always nagged at me as to why on earth they would do that. I have had answers ranging from 'they have to build them in x amount of time, and windows greatly slows construction time' to 'so satan can't see into their services'. It's just bizzare.
I met this former elder while at a speaking engagement.
At the end of the program there was a Q&A and this was one of the first questions he was asked! Having grown up in the city, I thought it was for theft reasons.
I learned quite a bit talking to him that day!
LOL
Thank you AG-- that was helpful.
I will do my research and form my opinions-- tell her what I think, once, and let it go. If and when she chooses to leave the religion, I'll be there.
If not-- I'll still be there.
Thanks
What if she is a Protestant? Wouldn't it be equally important to know that her sister is abandoning Christianity for a non-Christian religion? Just curious...
The poster mentioned that his family is Catholic. Obviously it would be equally true for a Protestant, but I don't think that's the woman in question was a Protestant.
They were told to believe in Jesus Christ. Since Jesus Christ revealed himself as God, it is impossible to believe in Jesus Christ and simultaneously disbelieve that he is God.
Semantic tricks won't save your argument. Or your soul.
I had a hilarious experience when I was a (Mormon) missionary in Arkansas.
My companion and I were bringing a lady to visit our church and she had questions about what our services would be like. We had a really good relationship with her, so we were joking that we'd probably be sacrificing a goat on that particular Sunday.
Imagine our backpedaling when we arrived at the church to see a goat tied to the rear bumper of someone's pickup! It took some fast talking and red faces to convince her that we were only joking with her.
(The goat was being sold by one of the members to another member.)
This cult was founded by Charles Taze Russell, in the 1880s. He denied the Trinity and Christ's deity and denounced Christians as having false beliefs and practices. He believed that World War 1 was the Armageddon. He died in 1916.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that there is one God, who is one person. They allege that "wicked scribes removed God's proper name, Jehovah, from the Bible." They condemn the Trinity, as they believe that Jehovah is only one person; they believe that Jesus Christ was Michael the Archangel before his incarnation as a man; after His death and spiritual resurrection Jesus again became an angel. They believe that the Holy Spirit is not a person nor a member of the Godhead but is Jehovah's active force, which emanates from him to accomplish his will.
JW's believe that after death, we cease to exist but after Jehovah's resurrection, he will recreated him them from his memory. They believe that in the eternal state that there will be different classes of believers with different destinities.
This is a true cult and should your sister become one, she will have very little contact with you or your family, save trying to convert you.
Please avail yourself with a book called "Truth and Error," Alan W. Gomes to help understand JW's as well as other cults that are pseudo Christians. Many claim to be Christians but have no understanding of the faith
You are correct. The list of heresies by Russell and Rutherford would take several books to explain.
What a strange lot. Foregoing windows to save a few bucks on insurance!
No. He didn't. He tells us that he is a prophet.
Mat 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
Luk 24:19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
He was a man.
Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Jhn 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.
Jesus makes no distinction between himself and others. We are explicitly told that he is a man, and a prophet.
I'm not the one playing semantic tricks. I'm not the one adding words to what is written. I've backed my position with quotes. You haven't. God sent Jesus to preach repentance and to show/instruct people how to follow Torah properly.
Matthew 3
2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Matthew 3:
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
Matthew 4:17
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Matthew 9:13
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Matthew 11:20
Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
Mark 6
11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.
13 And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.
Mat 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
He placed 'moral' law above 'ceremonial' law. This is why some 'thought' that he 'broke' the law. You have to remember that Jesus taught in a period of transition, during the development of different schools of interpretation in Judaism. It is inevitable that there would be variant interpretations of the Law as recorded in the Gospels. With the Pharisees, Jesus accepts the Law of the Sabbath; he differs only in the interpretations of that law as found in the Oral Law. The Oral Law detailed the many conditions that allowed for the breaking of the Sabbath.
For example, the Rabbis of the Hillel School of Pharisaism declared that is was permissible to violate the Sabbath to preserve life, that in doing so you violate a Sabbath to ensure the observance of future Sabbaths. This was accepted interpretation by the Hillel Pharisees of which Jesus belonged, but not to the Shammai Pharisees or the Sadducees who were ultra-strict, always adhering to the 'letter of the Law' over the 'spirit of the Law' (Oral Law). It has been said that in elevating the spirit of the Law over the letter of the Law one can understand the minimizing of the ceremonial laws. But it is not that simple according to Jesus. As gentiles, we are not aware that the Oral Law brought a proper understanding to the Written Law if matters were in doubt.
These (least commandments) you ought to have done, without neglecting the others (grave-weightier commandments). In drawing such a contrast, Jesus does not annul the Written Law (613 laws), nor even the ceremonial laws; he only brings priority to the obedience of all the Laws. Jesus did not stand against the Written Law or Oral Law, nor even Pharisaism, but only against the elevation of the 'letter of the Law' above the 'spirit of the Law'.
Rev 2:19
I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last [to be] more than the first.
Notice that works is mentioned twice. The 'moral laws' and 'ceremonial laws'.
Period.
LOL
There is nothing special about the 'I am' above.
I 1473 - from the Greek
ego {eg-o'}
1) I, me, my
am 1510 - from the Greek
eimi {i-mee'}
1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present
Those very words are spoken by numerous people throughout the NT and guess what. They weren't God either. Instead of trying to force the text to say something that isn't there, why don't you just accept what the text actually says?
Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Is Jesus asking why he forsook himself?
John 14:28
My Father is greater than I.
God and Jesus are NOT the same entity.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus.
God and Jesus are NOT the same entity.
Luk 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
Are angels stronger than God? There are two wills spoken of in the above verses. God and Jesus are NOT the same entity.
God is not mocked.
You pretend to know Greek, but you do not have any serious understanding of the language.
Nowhere in the New Testament, or anywhere else in Greek literature, except in this passage is a present indicative active form of the verb "to be" used to indicate a time prior to an aorist construction.
It is a clear and unmistakable reference to Exodus 3:14.
Jesus of Nazareth is Almighty God.
I was not mocking God. I was laughing at you.
Nowhere in the New Testament, or anywhere else in Greek literature, except in this passage is a present indicative active form of the verb "to be" used to indicate a time prior to an aorist construction. It is a clear and unmistakable reference to Exodus 3:14.
Clear as mud.
You are trying to connect the phrase "I am" with the words spoken by God in Exodus 3:14 and often translated: "I AM THAT I AM . . . . Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: I AM has sent me to you." However, the literal and proper translation of this verse is: I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE. . . . Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: I WILL BE has sent me to you." Since the author of the Gospel of John utilized the Greek Septuagint translation of the Bible in his writings, it cannot be assumed that John's Jesus is referring to the words in Exodus 3:14. Although Jesus actually spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek, John recorded Jesus' alleged words in Greek. Ego eimi ("I am"), used by John's Jesus, is not the same as ho on ("The Being, The One Who Is"), which is used in the Septuagint's rendering of Exodus 3:14: "And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and He said, Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: THE BEING has sent me to you." Even though ho on appears in the Gospel of John, it is never used as a title or name or exclusively as a reference to Jesus. In the Book of Revelation, also credited to John by Christian commentators, ho on appears five times (Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17; 16:5). Significantly, in each instance, it is used as a title or designation applied to God, not Jesus. Thus: "John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is [ho on] and who was and who is to come; and from the seven spirits who are before His throne" (Revelation 1:4). That this verse refers to God and not Jesus is seen from the following verse, which continues the greeting by now including Jesus as one of those sending greetings. Hence, John says, in verses 4 and 5, that greetings are sent by God, the seven spirits, and Jesus.
In verse 8, John writes: "'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is [ho on] and who was and who is to come, the Almighty'" (Revelation 1:8). This verse also speaks of God, not Jesus. In Revelation 4:8, ho on is applied to "the Lord God, the Almighty," not Jesus, who, as the "Lamb" referred to in Revelation 5:6-7, comes to God, who is sitting on His throne. That they are two separate entities is seen from Revelation 5:13: "To the one sitting on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever." In addition, ho on is applied to the "Lord God, the Almighty," not Jesus, in Revelation 11:17 and Revelation 16:5. That ho on in Revelation 16:5 refers to God and not Jesus can be seen from verse 7, which, referring to the subject of verses 5 and 6, states: "And I heard the altar saying: 'Yes, Lord God, the Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments.'" These are further indications that ho on and ego eimi are not used as synonymous terms by John.
In John 8:56-58, John is expounding his belief that Jesus had a prehuman existence as an angelic being in heaven. John's Jesus is proclaiming here that this prehuman existence began before Abraham was born: "Before Abraham came into being, I am." The fact of the matter is that the text does not at all indicate how long Jesus supposedly lived before Abraham. In no honest way can John's statement be taken to identify Jesus as God.
Jesus of Nazareth is Almighty God.
No, he isn't. Try again?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.