Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Thursday, December 13, 2012
From the Mouths of Pagans! (X-mas has nothing to do with Christ)
Though the pagans adapted some of what came from the true God and real
history to their own culture and twisted it, Christians have also
adopted some things from the pagan culture and slapped a holy name on
it, sadly enough. Discernment is necessary and advised. To the
unbelievers out there, learn the difference! To the Christians out
there, X-mas has zero to do with Christ. Dragging his name into it is an
option, but it doesn't mean it's right or that it makes sense in the
least. I am not judging anyone's stance with God nor their eternal
salvation for celebrating holidays. I am simply telling the truth about
them. Take it or leave it.
Did the pagans borrow these customs from the bible? Or did Christians borrow these customs from the pagans? Seriously.
Did the pagans borrow these customs from the bible? Or did Christians borrow these customs from the pagans? Seriously.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Does Hebrews 1:10-12 prove that Yeshua is Yahweh?
In Hebrews chapter 1 ,verses 10-12, the author quotes Psalm 102:25-27, and most Christians use it as proof that Yeshua is creator and hence Yahweh, conflating him with the essence of the One God who he called "father" and "my God' and "greater" and "the only one good" etc, ultimately rendering all such sentiments from Yeshua as only words to be qualified or misused to their very death. Even though the milk of the word should have already easily established for them that the father alone was creator in Genesis (Mal. 2:10), they decide to misuse Hebrews where the author says:
Hebrews 1:10 “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”
The fact is that the writer of Hebrews quotes Psalm allright, but he quotes the Septuagint version and not the Hebrew. And there is a difference! In the Hebrew text, the one supplicating to Yahweh is still supplicating to Yahweh from verse 24 on. In the Septuagint, however, Yahweh begins to answer the one who has been praying from verse 24 on. And it is this version the writer of Hebrews quotes! The writer of Hebrews apparently views the suppliant as the Messiah. I think this proves without a doubt that even though the words said in Hebrews 1:10-12 could apply to Yahweh in one fulfillment, they could apply to Yeshua in a separate one.
It is common for the writer of Hebrews to apply OT texts that formerly were applicable word for word to people like David and Solomon to Yeshua in separate applications and fulfillments and never because he's a person of their essences, of course. (2 Sam 7:14, Heb. 1:5, Ps. 45:6, Heb. 1:8) So it shouldn't be any wonder that he would do the same thing with creation scriptures because there is an old one and a new one. And, lo and behold, which one is the context of Hebrews 1? Well, we have, in context, the "inhabited earth to come" (2:9), "the last days" (1:2), and a "kingdom"(1:8), etc. How apropos considering that in the context of Psalm 102 in the LXX (which is what Hebrews is quoting), we have “the generation to come” and "the people that shall be created" (v. 18) Really, nothing more should have to be said. It's obvious Yeshua is agent of the new creation. Isaiah 51:16 sheds light. Here Yahweh says prophetically:
"I have put My words in your mouth and have covered you with the shadow of My hand, to establish the heavens, to found the earth, and to say to Zion, 'You are My people.'"
Even trinitarian bias commentaries would have to admit this is about a "new economy under the Messiah."
Barnes' Notes on the Bible says about the text:
"It refers to the restoration of the Jews to their own land; to the re-establishment of religion there; to the introduction of the new economy under the Messiah, and to all the great changes which would be consequent on that. This is compared with the work of forming the heavens, and laying the foundation of the earth. It would require almighty power; and it would produce so great changes, that it might be compared to the work of creating the universe out of nothing. Probably also the idea is included here that stability would be given to the true religion by what God was about to do permanency that might be compared with the firmness and duration of the heavens and the earth."
If trinitarians were consistent (and generally they cannot possibly be while at the same time maintaining a trinity), they would be able to apply such reasoning consistently with the texts in Hebrews as well. It seems odd and kind of sad that they can reason in Isaiah, but not in Hebrews. I guess I can only make an appeal to consistency in reasoning. Quite frankly, Isaiah 51:16 could interpret Hebrews 1:10-12 for you. In which case I would again refer you to trinitarian scholars and commentaries that easily recognize a new creation there! Trinitarians also pretend to care about context, yet won't acknowledge it in some of the new creation passages. Wonder why?
A couple questions that may come to mind though when this alternative view is made known are:
How could Yahweh say in the LXX , in Psalm 102:23 & 24, "tell me the fewness of my days. Take me not away in the midst of my days?" Well, given that in context there is a "set time" (verse 13) where He will "have mercy upon Sion", Yahweh is simply asking the suppliant to acknowledge the shortness of this set time and not to summon him when it is but half expired. (For more on that, see “Heb. 1:10-12 and the Septuagint Rendering of Ps. 102:23” by B.W. Bacon.)
Another common question is:
If the texts are about a new creation, how could such ever be "changed"? Considering the poetic, as opposed to literal, sound of the texts, at least to me personally, I'm not sure this even needs to be answered because poetry isn't to be taken literally. However, as the biblicalunitarian website notes, there is a "heaven and earth of the Millennium, the 1000 years Christ rules the earth, which will perish (Isa. 65:17; Rev. 20:1-10), and then the heaven and earth of Revelation 21:1ff, which will exist forever. " In addition, Anthony Buzzard notes that "Even the millennial age of the future will be replaced by a further renewed heaven and earth (Rev. 20:11; 21:1)."
There are some brothers and sisters out there who share my essential beliefs but who would disagree on my view of these texts. There are at least two other views from the biblical unitarian community that are probably worth at least considering and noting, but this is the one I think is right, though I'm not dogmatic and won't pretend these others don't make good points worth at least considering. I will explain and provide links for the other two views below. :-)
Here's a better video than this one in agreement with this view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtncxnqbq6w
The second possible view is that these texts are about the father and not Yeshua at all.
From the biblicalunitarian website:
"Although we ascribe to the explanation above(and they're speaking of the same view I presented in this blog, basically), a number of theologians read this verse and see it as a reference to the Father, which is a distinct possibility. Verse 10 starts with the word “and” in the Greek text, so verse 9 and 10 are conjoined. Since verse 9 ends with, “Your God has set you [the Christ] above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy,” these theologians see the reference to “the Lord” in the beginning of verse 10 as a reference back to the God last mentioned, i.e., the Father. Norton explains this point of view:
"Now the God last mentioned was Christ’s God, who had anointed him; and the author [of the book of Hebrews], addressing himself to this God, breaks out into the celebration of his power, and especially his unchangeable duration; which he dwells upon in order to prove the stability of the Son’s kingdom…i.e., thou [God] who hast promised him such a throne, art he who laid the foundation of the earth. So it seems to be a declaration of God’s immutability made here, to ascertain the durableness of Christ’s kingdom, before mentioned; and the rather so, because this passage had been used originally for the same purpose in the 102nd Psalm, viz. [Author uses KJV] To infer thence this conclusion, “The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed be established before Thee. In like manner, it here proves the Son’s throne should be established forever and ever, by the same argument, viz., by God’s immutability.” (Norton, Reasons, pp. 214 and 215)
Theologians such as Norton say that as it is used in the Old Testament, the verse shows that the unchanging God can indeed fulfill His promises, and they see it used in exactly the same way in Hebrews: since God created the heavens and the earth, and since He will not pass away, He is fit to promise an everlasting kingdom to His Son."
I would also like to personally add that in surrounding scriptures like Hebrews 1:5-7 and 2:5-8 there are OT passages about the father reapplied to the father again in Hebrews here. So it wouldn't be far fetched in the least in this context to see Hebrews 1:10-12 the same way. It's very possible. Since the writer switches back and forth from talking about the Son and the Father so much. As noted before, this isn't the view I subscribe to while at the same time being open minded about the possibility.
Here's a youtube with this particular view presented pretty well! He doesn't start talking about verse 10 till about 6 and a half minutes in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuv5-OVN0k4
The third view could be summed up by saying that what is said of Wisdom in the OT could be reapplied poetically to Yeshua in the New because he became to us "wisdom from God."
From Gary Fakhoury:
"So here (in Heb. 1:10-12) we are confronted with a choice. We can believe the writer is contradicting both himself and the vast body of clear scriptural teachings that YHVH alone made the worlds, or we can conclude that v. 10-12 is yet another example of the writer seeing something in an OT passage which illuminates Christ in some important sense, even though every detail of the passage does not apply literally to Jesus. But in what sense does he see Christ in Ps. 102?
First, as we’ve noted, the NT teaches that Jesus is the embodiment of God’s creative wisdom, that “hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages” which was “established from everlasting, from the beginning, before there was ever an earth,” in that “The Lord by wisdom founded the earth…” (I Cor. 2:7; Prov. 8:23; 3:19). Thus Christ,the embodiment of creative wisdom, can be truly said to be “in the beginning, (laying) the foundation of the earth” (v. 10)."
full pdf (it would be great to read the context):
http://www.christianmonotheism.com/media/text/Gary%20Fakhoury%20-%20The%20Christology%20of%20Hebrews.pdf
I suppose even if the NT authors had passages like Proverbs 8:22-31 in mind when writing Hebrews 1:10-12 then they were simply recognizing how Christ has become that same wisdom that God created the world in.(Prov. 3:19, Jer. 10:12) Yahweh gave fruition to a plan known as the Messiah before he even made the world, again. (1 Pet. 1:20, Rev. 13:8 ) And this plan was his "wisdom" for the reconciliation of the world unto himself.(2 Corinthians 5:19) Christ at last became that *wisdom* in these last times(1 Cor. 1:30,1 Cor. 2:6,7) ,and so, again, represents (and actually fulfills to perfection and completion) what was there from the beginning.God creating in his wisdom becomes God creating in Christ because Christ became the wisdom of God. Simply stated, again, Yeshua "has become our wisdom sent from God."(1 Cor. 1:30) The father's wisdom came to life and manifest in Christ's flesh at the proper time, as opposed to some literal spirit named Wisdom crawling into a womb to become a man. To quote Karen Armstrong (from A History of God:From Abraham to the present:the 4000 year quest for God, p. 106):
"When Paul and John speak about Jesus as though he had some kind of preexistent life, they were not suggesting he was a second divine "person" in the later trinitarian sense. They were indicating that Jesus transcended temporal and individual modes of existence. Because the "power" and "wisdom" he represented were activities that derived from God, he had in some way expressed "what was there from the beginning." These ideas were comprehensible in a strictly Jewish context, though later Christians with a Greek background would interpret them differently."
I do believe it would make sense that when Yeshua became Yah's "wisdom", what was said of "Wisdom" could be reapplied to Yeshua in the NT. Because he "became" that Wisdom, not because he was named such in the OT as a second person of Yah's essence. It was a pattern for bible writers to apply OT truths to Yeshua in the NT. Functions that he fulfilled, ones that he was made and given. Also,foreshadowings and prefigurings that he became. Do you think that halted with Wisdom? I personally don't. I don't think this is necessarily the case in Hebrews however given the kingdom (as opposed to the Genesis) context. Just something to ponder though considering the Hebraic poeticism and personification, and subsequent fulfillment in Christ, of Yahweh's word and wisdom.
Again, not the view I personally think is most likely, but at the same time I won't readily discount or discard it.
Some of this is explained further here:
http://yahislove.blogspot.com/2011/08/wisdom-in-old-testamentperson-or.html
Hebrews 1:10 “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”
The fact is that the writer of Hebrews quotes Psalm allright, but he quotes the Septuagint version and not the Hebrew. And there is a difference! In the Hebrew text, the one supplicating to Yahweh is still supplicating to Yahweh from verse 24 on. In the Septuagint, however, Yahweh begins to answer the one who has been praying from verse 24 on. And it is this version the writer of Hebrews quotes! The writer of Hebrews apparently views the suppliant as the Messiah. I think this proves without a doubt that even though the words said in Hebrews 1:10-12 could apply to Yahweh in one fulfillment, they could apply to Yeshua in a separate one.
It is common for the writer of Hebrews to apply OT texts that formerly were applicable word for word to people like David and Solomon to Yeshua in separate applications and fulfillments and never because he's a person of their essences, of course. (2 Sam 7:14, Heb. 1:5, Ps. 45:6, Heb. 1:8) So it shouldn't be any wonder that he would do the same thing with creation scriptures because there is an old one and a new one. And, lo and behold, which one is the context of Hebrews 1? Well, we have, in context, the "inhabited earth to come" (2:9), "the last days" (1:2), and a "kingdom"(1:8), etc. How apropos considering that in the context of Psalm 102 in the LXX (which is what Hebrews is quoting), we have “the generation to come” and "the people that shall be created" (v. 18) Really, nothing more should have to be said. It's obvious Yeshua is agent of the new creation. Isaiah 51:16 sheds light. Here Yahweh says prophetically:
"I have put My words in your mouth and have covered you with the shadow of My hand, to establish the heavens, to found the earth, and to say to Zion, 'You are My people.'"
Even trinitarian bias commentaries would have to admit this is about a "new economy under the Messiah."
Barnes' Notes on the Bible says about the text:
"It refers to the restoration of the Jews to their own land; to the re-establishment of religion there; to the introduction of the new economy under the Messiah, and to all the great changes which would be consequent on that. This is compared with the work of forming the heavens, and laying the foundation of the earth. It would require almighty power; and it would produce so great changes, that it might be compared to the work of creating the universe out of nothing. Probably also the idea is included here that stability would be given to the true religion by what God was about to do permanency that might be compared with the firmness and duration of the heavens and the earth."
If trinitarians were consistent (and generally they cannot possibly be while at the same time maintaining a trinity), they would be able to apply such reasoning consistently with the texts in Hebrews as well. It seems odd and kind of sad that they can reason in Isaiah, but not in Hebrews. I guess I can only make an appeal to consistency in reasoning. Quite frankly, Isaiah 51:16 could interpret Hebrews 1:10-12 for you. In which case I would again refer you to trinitarian scholars and commentaries that easily recognize a new creation there! Trinitarians also pretend to care about context, yet won't acknowledge it in some of the new creation passages. Wonder why?
A couple questions that may come to mind though when this alternative view is made known are:
How could Yahweh say in the LXX , in Psalm 102:23 & 24, "tell me the fewness of my days. Take me not away in the midst of my days?" Well, given that in context there is a "set time" (verse 13) where He will "have mercy upon Sion", Yahweh is simply asking the suppliant to acknowledge the shortness of this set time and not to summon him when it is but half expired. (For more on that, see “Heb. 1:10-12 and the Septuagint Rendering of Ps. 102:23” by B.W. Bacon.)
Another common question is:
If the texts are about a new creation, how could such ever be "changed"? Considering the poetic, as opposed to literal, sound of the texts, at least to me personally, I'm not sure this even needs to be answered because poetry isn't to be taken literally. However, as the biblicalunitarian website notes, there is a "heaven and earth of the Millennium, the 1000 years Christ rules the earth, which will perish (Isa. 65:17; Rev. 20:1-10), and then the heaven and earth of Revelation 21:1ff, which will exist forever. " In addition, Anthony Buzzard notes that "Even the millennial age of the future will be replaced by a further renewed heaven and earth (Rev. 20:11; 21:1)."
There are some brothers and sisters out there who share my essential beliefs but who would disagree on my view of these texts. There are at least two other views from the biblical unitarian community that are probably worth at least considering and noting, but this is the one I think is right, though I'm not dogmatic and won't pretend these others don't make good points worth at least considering. I will explain and provide links for the other two views below. :-)
Here's a better video than this one in agreement with this view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtncxnqbq6w
The second possible view is that these texts are about the father and not Yeshua at all.
From the biblicalunitarian website:
"Although we ascribe to the explanation above(and they're speaking of the same view I presented in this blog, basically), a number of theologians read this verse and see it as a reference to the Father, which is a distinct possibility. Verse 10 starts with the word “and” in the Greek text, so verse 9 and 10 are conjoined. Since verse 9 ends with, “Your God has set you [the Christ] above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy,” these theologians see the reference to “the Lord” in the beginning of verse 10 as a reference back to the God last mentioned, i.e., the Father. Norton explains this point of view:
"Now the God last mentioned was Christ’s God, who had anointed him; and the author [of the book of Hebrews], addressing himself to this God, breaks out into the celebration of his power, and especially his unchangeable duration; which he dwells upon in order to prove the stability of the Son’s kingdom…i.e., thou [God] who hast promised him such a throne, art he who laid the foundation of the earth. So it seems to be a declaration of God’s immutability made here, to ascertain the durableness of Christ’s kingdom, before mentioned; and the rather so, because this passage had been used originally for the same purpose in the 102nd Psalm, viz. [Author uses KJV] To infer thence this conclusion, “The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed be established before Thee. In like manner, it here proves the Son’s throne should be established forever and ever, by the same argument, viz., by God’s immutability.” (Norton, Reasons, pp. 214 and 215)
Theologians such as Norton say that as it is used in the Old Testament, the verse shows that the unchanging God can indeed fulfill His promises, and they see it used in exactly the same way in Hebrews: since God created the heavens and the earth, and since He will not pass away, He is fit to promise an everlasting kingdom to His Son."
I would also like to personally add that in surrounding scriptures like Hebrews 1:5-7 and 2:5-8 there are OT passages about the father reapplied to the father again in Hebrews here. So it wouldn't be far fetched in the least in this context to see Hebrews 1:10-12 the same way. It's very possible. Since the writer switches back and forth from talking about the Son and the Father so much. As noted before, this isn't the view I subscribe to while at the same time being open minded about the possibility.
Here's a youtube with this particular view presented pretty well! He doesn't start talking about verse 10 till about 6 and a half minutes in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuv5-OVN0k4
The third view could be summed up by saying that what is said of Wisdom in the OT could be reapplied poetically to Yeshua in the New because he became to us "wisdom from God."
From Gary Fakhoury:
"So here (in Heb. 1:10-12) we are confronted with a choice. We can believe the writer is contradicting both himself and the vast body of clear scriptural teachings that YHVH alone made the worlds, or we can conclude that v. 10-12 is yet another example of the writer seeing something in an OT passage which illuminates Christ in some important sense, even though every detail of the passage does not apply literally to Jesus. But in what sense does he see Christ in Ps. 102?
First, as we’ve noted, the NT teaches that Jesus is the embodiment of God’s creative wisdom, that “hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages” which was “established from everlasting, from the beginning, before there was ever an earth,” in that “The Lord by wisdom founded the earth…” (I Cor. 2:7; Prov. 8:23; 3:19). Thus Christ,the embodiment of creative wisdom, can be truly said to be “in the beginning, (laying) the foundation of the earth” (v. 10)."
full pdf (it would be great to read the context):
http://www.christianmonotheism.com/media/text/Gary%20Fakhoury%20-%20The%20Christology%20of%20Hebrews.pdf
I suppose even if the NT authors had passages like Proverbs 8:22-31 in mind when writing Hebrews 1:10-12 then they were simply recognizing how Christ has become that same wisdom that God created the world in.(Prov. 3:19, Jer. 10:12) Yahweh gave fruition to a plan known as the Messiah before he even made the world, again. (1 Pet. 1:20, Rev. 13:8 ) And this plan was his "wisdom" for the reconciliation of the world unto himself.(2 Corinthians 5:19) Christ at last became that *wisdom* in these last times(1 Cor. 1:30,1 Cor. 2:6,7) ,and so, again, represents (and actually fulfills to perfection and completion) what was there from the beginning.God creating in his wisdom becomes God creating in Christ because Christ became the wisdom of God. Simply stated, again, Yeshua "has become our wisdom sent from God."(1 Cor. 1:30) The father's wisdom came to life and manifest in Christ's flesh at the proper time, as opposed to some literal spirit named Wisdom crawling into a womb to become a man. To quote Karen Armstrong (from A History of God:From Abraham to the present:the 4000 year quest for God, p. 106):
"When Paul and John speak about Jesus as though he had some kind of preexistent life, they were not suggesting he was a second divine "person" in the later trinitarian sense. They were indicating that Jesus transcended temporal and individual modes of existence. Because the "power" and "wisdom" he represented were activities that derived from God, he had in some way expressed "what was there from the beginning." These ideas were comprehensible in a strictly Jewish context, though later Christians with a Greek background would interpret them differently."
I do believe it would make sense that when Yeshua became Yah's "wisdom", what was said of "Wisdom" could be reapplied to Yeshua in the NT. Because he "became" that Wisdom, not because he was named such in the OT as a second person of Yah's essence. It was a pattern for bible writers to apply OT truths to Yeshua in the NT. Functions that he fulfilled, ones that he was made and given. Also,foreshadowings and prefigurings that he became. Do you think that halted with Wisdom? I personally don't. I don't think this is necessarily the case in Hebrews however given the kingdom (as opposed to the Genesis) context. Just something to ponder though considering the Hebraic poeticism and personification, and subsequent fulfillment in Christ, of Yahweh's word and wisdom.
Again, not the view I personally think is most likely, but at the same time I won't readily discount or discard it.
Some of this is explained further here:
http://yahislove.blogspot.com/2011/08/wisdom-in-old-testamentperson-or.html
15 Questions for Evolutionists!
A thoughtful playlist from youtube user CMIcreationstation.
The accompanying webpage:
15 Questions for Evolutionists
The accompanying webpage:
15 Questions for Evolutionists
Monday, November 26, 2012
Quick Question for Jehovah's Witnesses # 2
1 John 3:9 Everyone who has been born from God does not carry on sin, because His [reproductive] seed remains in such one, and he cannot practice sin, because he has been born from God.
So far what's evident is that one cannot habitually practice sin if he is born of God. The next verse says:
"The children of God and the children of the Devil are evident by this fact: Everyone who does not carry on righteousness does not originate with God, neither does he who does not love his brother."
So verse 10 reiterates the thought that those "born of God" carry on in righteousness and notes that there are "children of God" and "children of the devil." This creates a sobering dilemma for Jehovah's Witnesses because even the Watchtower would have to admit that being born of God means being born again. In the Watchtower Insight book, volume 1, under "incorruption", 1 John 3:9 is given as a reference text for those who are "born again." Yes, being born again (which, again, is synonymous with being "born of God") is 1 John's admonition if one is to carry on in righteousness and hence be a child of Yahweh.
So my question for Jehovah's Witnesses is, given that there are only two options in 1 John 3:10 which are:
1. to be a child of God, born of him, yes, born again essentially or
2. to be a child of the devil
Whose child are you? If you say God's, then you must be born again according to 1 John.
In addition, 1 John 2:29 says:
"Everyone who does what is right has been born of him."
Quick Question for Jehovah's Witnesses
In Acts chapter 2, people listening to Peter's message about the resurrection and extolling of the Messiah were "cut to the heart" (verse 37) and so Peter told them to "repent and be baptized." Verse 41 says :
"Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day."
In another example in Acts, an Ethiopian eunuch was baptized right after hearing the good news about Yeshua. He said "Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” (Acts 8:26-39)
I've only given these 3,001 examples to make a point. Hopefully that will be sufficient. In light of these, I ask the following:
Since the Watchtower organization makes the lofty claim to be the only place where someone can worship Yahweh while at the same time being absolutely true to the*biblical* model of how this is supposed to be done, how can such an assertion be maintained when in fact their baptism requirements are positively nothing like the bible's at all? Doesn't the Watchtower require insistent indoctrination for a long period of time and a lengthy test before baptism? Where is this model found in scripture? Shouldn't it be found there since the WT claims all their dogmas and practices come straight from the bible? Depending on the individual Jehovah's Witness of course and how zealous that one is in his or her studies, field service, and meeting attendance, isn't approximately a year or more a far cry from (the biblical model of) instant baptism upon sincere belief? If the Watchtower's method of doing things is a far cry from scripture's, which way is right? I'm not suggesting it's wrong to get baptized after studying, believing, and obeying for a long time. I'm only noticing how the Watchtower forbids anything but, which is notably unbiblical.
There's something else worth noting about the Christian baptisms in scripture as well. None of them at all were performed without those who were baptized then becoming members in Christ's body. Is this the Watchtower way? Because it's the bible's. I know which way I'd rather follow. What about you?
A Jehovah's Witness (I'm assuming) commented on this question on youtube and said :
"A huge difference between the 3K&1 ppl that u mentioned having gotten baptized all had the ML & prophets in their minds. By this I mean they knew things. Ppl can't commit themselves to something they don't know can they? Let's not 4get the practice we have for those who leave the truth. How does 1 get baptized a 'JW' then learn the doctrine/s & say 'no I don't agree w/xyz doctrine/s'? Those who persist in rebelling against doctrine will b DF'd. So y not avoid this by making sure ppl know the main things about Jesus & other JW doctrine?"
My answer:
Leave the truth? The truth is not an organization. My message here isn't "get baptized as a JW quickly without their intensive indoctrination." My message is not to get baptized as a JW at all because of this and many other red flags. To avoid that indoctrination altogether. My intent is to point out that 1st century Christians weren't baptized into an organization after being intensely indoctrinated with a publishing corporation's materials. They were baptized into Christ after believing a *simple* gospel and repenting. See the difference? When you say they "knew things", all they knew was that the prophesied Christ had come, died for us, and was raised up to sit at the right hand of Yahweh. They believed and repented and were baptized after only hearing a simple message that spoke to their hearts.
"Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day."
In another example in Acts, an Ethiopian eunuch was baptized right after hearing the good news about Yeshua. He said "Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” (Acts 8:26-39)
I've only given these 3,001 examples to make a point. Hopefully that will be sufficient. In light of these, I ask the following:
Since the Watchtower organization makes the lofty claim to be the only place where someone can worship Yahweh while at the same time being absolutely true to the*biblical* model of how this is supposed to be done, how can such an assertion be maintained when in fact their baptism requirements are positively nothing like the bible's at all? Doesn't the Watchtower require insistent indoctrination for a long period of time and a lengthy test before baptism? Where is this model found in scripture? Shouldn't it be found there since the WT claims all their dogmas and practices come straight from the bible? Depending on the individual Jehovah's Witness of course and how zealous that one is in his or her studies, field service, and meeting attendance, isn't approximately a year or more a far cry from (the biblical model of) instant baptism upon sincere belief? If the Watchtower's method of doing things is a far cry from scripture's, which way is right? I'm not suggesting it's wrong to get baptized after studying, believing, and obeying for a long time. I'm only noticing how the Watchtower forbids anything but, which is notably unbiblical.
There's something else worth noting about the Christian baptisms in scripture as well. None of them at all were performed without those who were baptized then becoming members in Christ's body. Is this the Watchtower way? Because it's the bible's. I know which way I'd rather follow. What about you?
A Jehovah's Witness (I'm assuming) commented on this question on youtube and said :
"A huge difference between the 3K&1 ppl that u mentioned having gotten baptized all had the ML & prophets in their minds. By this I mean they knew things. Ppl can't commit themselves to something they don't know can they? Let's not 4get the practice we have for those who leave the truth. How does 1 get baptized a 'JW' then learn the doctrine/s & say 'no I don't agree w/xyz doctrine/s'? Those who persist in rebelling against doctrine will b DF'd. So y not avoid this by making sure ppl know the main things about Jesus & other JW doctrine?"
My answer:
Leave the truth? The truth is not an organization. My message here isn't "get baptized as a JW quickly without their intensive indoctrination." My message is not to get baptized as a JW at all because of this and many other red flags. To avoid that indoctrination altogether. My intent is to point out that 1st century Christians weren't baptized into an organization after being intensely indoctrinated with a publishing corporation's materials. They were baptized into Christ after believing a *simple* gospel and repenting. See the difference? When you say they "knew things", all they knew was that the prophesied Christ had come, died for us, and was raised up to sit at the right hand of Yahweh. They believed and repented and were baptized after only hearing a simple message that spoke to their hearts.
Quick Question for Trinitarians # 3
Question # 3:
1 Corinthians 15:27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
One simple kindergarten question for the trinitarians: WHO is the "God" who will be "all in all" in verse 28? Is it the same God who Christ will be subjected to? If you say the father alone, then why would this make sense if the One God is a trinity composed of three coequal and consubstantial persons? Why would just one of those three persons instead of the entire triune Godhead be "all in all"? Where's the holy spirit? Yes, is the One God who will be "all in all" in 1 Cor. 15:28 one, two, or three persons? Is Yeshua's God one, two, or three persons? Where did Yeshua say HIS One God is a different God from the One God of Deuteronomy 6:4? (John 20:17, Revelation 3:12)
1 Corinthians 15:27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
One simple kindergarten question for the trinitarians: WHO is the "God" who will be "all in all" in verse 28? Is it the same God who Christ will be subjected to? If you say the father alone, then why would this make sense if the One God is a trinity composed of three coequal and consubstantial persons? Why would just one of those three persons instead of the entire triune Godhead be "all in all"? Where's the holy spirit? Yes, is the One God who will be "all in all" in 1 Cor. 15:28 one, two, or three persons? Is Yeshua's God one, two, or three persons? Where did Yeshua say HIS One God is a different God from the One God of Deuteronomy 6:4? (John 20:17, Revelation 3:12)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)