Jesus -Jehovah Witness pov

[po18guy]

Russell did not believe himself to any central authority; he did not believe that the WTS was a central authority.

Which begs the question: Just how did he arrive at his condemned-for-1,500 years Arian beliefs, and why would he assume himself competent to teach and lead lead innocent souls? Using William of Ockham’s razor, it is because the same spirit that lead Arius also lead Russell. The same spirit that appeared to Muhammad also appeared to Joseph Smith. As to EGW, I think that her organic brain damage produced hallucinations rather than visions.

All were guilty of privately interpreting scripture.

 

[reslight]

Needless to say I don’t think a referee is lacking. You’re correct that the NWT is later but that begs the question; why was a re-write necessary? Precisely because, like the Arians before them, they could not demonstrate their teachings from the tota scriptura. Hence the convenient changes (“the word was A god”). Yes, I do propose showing the KJV to them (the one that doesnt say Jesus was killed on
a stake and says that he is co-substantial with the Father, etc).

I am not with the JWs, nor do I defend the New World Translation, but if their translation is a rewrite of the Bible, so are the King James Version and the Duoay-Rheims Version, and any and every translation, or updated “version” that has been made.

Regarding John 1:1, Jesus declared that he had been with his Father, and he further declared his Father to be the only true God. (John 17:1,3,5) John was not declaring Jesus to be the only true God whom he later reported Jesus as stating he had been with.

Focusing on the anarthrous THEOS in John 1:1 actually tends to disregard the Hebraic usage that can be demonstrated from the KJV itself. Russell himself pointed out this usage in his book on the Atonement. Forms of the Hebrew word transliterated as EL (Strong’s #410, 430, etc.) mean “strength, might, power”, etc. The KJV renders forms of EL many times as might, mighty, strong, etc., when the word is applied to others than Jehovah. Forms of EL are translated into the Greek with forms of the Greek word transliterated as THEOS. As being the MIGHT of the universe, there is only one such might who is the source of all might. (1 Corinthians 8:6) Thus, in this sense, there is only one true Might, both Jesus and Paul identifies that one true MIGHT as being the Father of Jesus. (John 17:1,3; 1 Corinthians 8:6)

The Hebraic usage allowed for the words for “God”, however, to be used of others in a general sense of might, strength, power, in that God has granted such to others. Had the KJV recognized this Hebraic usage as applied to the Logos who was with the only true Might, then we would have “the Word was mighty”, or “the Word was a mighty one.” In fact, the KJV translators refused to recognize the Hebraic usage in John 1:1 because of their bias in the their belief that Jesus is the Almighty.
godandson.reslight.net/?p=2973

 

[reslight]

The only problem is that nowhere and no one in scripture declares for all time, clearly and without doubt, that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One God in three Divine Persons. It was that “helpful” Church council that did that. The scriptures which you and I read are the ones that lead Arius to his heretical teachings - just as with Paul in Acts 15, the authoritative Church had to settle the dispute. That referee idea again. Paul did not believe the scriptures to be the supreme authority, because he went to the Church - that is irrefutable bible truth.

Regarding Arius, we do not know for a certainty what he taught, because all of his works were systematically destroyed by the trinitarians. Two of his letters are all that we have which were preserved in the writings of Athanasius. At any rate, I believe, like Arius stated in one of his letters, that the real heresy was the teaching of a triune God, and the adding of his doctrine of men to the faith once delivered to the saints. – Jude 1:3.

notrinity.blogspot.com/2008/10/arius.html

Private interpretation of scripture, without authority, is precisely what allowed Charles Russell to formulate the JW doctrines from the exact bible that you hold. Nothing else. By what authority then can you then declare him wrong? Your opinion? His proponents throw the exact same bible back at you, as do countless other denominations that disagree with you. I guess it just doesn’t matter who’s right. Or, does it?

Russell did not formulate JW doctrine at all, since he did not believe in the doctrine that is unique to the JWs. I do agree that Russell sought to stay as close to the Bible as possible, and his main endeavor was to show what the Bible says and what it does not say. He also showed how many of the added-on doctrines of man would invalidate the redemption through Jesus as given in the Bible.

 

[reslight]

Thousands of divided and disagreeing denominations are the proof. This is the elephant in the protestant living room.

Yes, as long as Satan is still allowed to mislead the people, there will be many denominations, sects, religions, etc. Once Satan is abyssed, those denominations and sects will no longer exist, and people will learn righteousness. – Zephaniah 3:9; Isaiah 2:2-4; 26:9; John 12:47,48; Revelation 20:1-4.

 

[bzkoss236]

I am not with the JWs, nor do I defend the New World Translation, but if their translation is a rewrite of the Bible, so are the King James Version and the Duoay-Rheims Version, and any and every translation, or updated “version” that has been made.

Regarding John 1:1, Jesus declared that he had been with his Father, and he further declared his Father to be the only true God. (John 17:1,3,5) John was not declaring Jesus to be the only true God whom he later reported Jesus as stating he had been with.

Focusing on the anarthrous THEOS in John 1:1 actually tends to disregard the Hebraic usage that can be demonstrated from the KJV itself. Russell himself pointed out this usage in his book on the Atonement. Forms of the Hebrew word transliterated as EL (Strong’s #410, 430, etc.) mean “strength, might, power”, etc. The KJV renders forms of EL many times as might, mighty, strong, etc., when the word is applied to others than Jehovah. Forms of EL are translated into the Greek with forms of the Greek word transliterated as THEOS. As being the MIGHT of the universe, there is only one such might who is the source of all might. (1 Corinthians 8:6) Thus, in this sense, there is only one true Might, both Jesus and Paul identifies that one true MIGHT as being the Father of Jesus. (John 17:1,3; 1 Corinthians 8:6)

The Hebraic usage allowed for the words for “God”, however, to be used of others in a general sense of might, strength, power, in that God has granted such to others. Had the KJV recognized this Hebraic usage as applied to the Logos who was with the only true Might, then we would have “the Word was mighty”, or “the Word was a mighty one.” In fact, the KJV translators refused to recognize the Hebraic usage in John 1:1 because of their bias in the their belief that Jesus is the Almighty.
godandson.reslight.net/?p=2973

What about John 10:30 where Jesus says that “The Father and I are one”? Does that not show Jesus claiming that he is God? He doesn’t say that he is next to the Father here, he says that they are “one”, meaning a union as one entity.

24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long are you going to keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus answered them, “I told you and you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify to me.
26 But you do not believe, because you are not among my sheep.
27 My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. No one can take them out of my hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can take them out of the Father’s hand.
30 The Father and I are one.”
31 The Jews again picked up rocks to stone him.

 

[po18guy]

Regarding Arius, we do not know for a certainty what he taught, because all of his works were systematically destroyed by the trinitarians. Two of his letters are all that we have which were preserved in the writings of Athanasius. At any rate, I believe, like Arius stated in one of his letters, that the real heresy was the teaching of a triune God, and the adding of his doctrine of men to the faith once delivered to the saints. – Jude 1:3.

The disappearance of Arius and his followers means that Christ’s “true Arian Church” failed, which means that the “christ” of Arius was a liar or a fraud, or that Matthew 16:18 in the KJV is false. You can’t have it both ways.

Russell did not formulate JW doctrine at all, since he did not believe in the doctrine that is unique to the JWs. I do agree that Russell sought to stay as close to the Bible as possible, and his main endeavor was to show what the Bible says and what it does not say. He also showed how many of the added-on doctrines of man would invalidate the redemption through Jesus as given in the Bible.

Like the “added on” private interpretation that Russell used exclusively to arrive at his false teachings? He violated the very bible that he thumped by allowing his ego to interpret. That is the hallmark of a false teacher. Sorry.

 

[SteveVH]

Regarding Arius, we do not know for a certainty what he taught

But we do and it was discussed in detail at the Council of Nicaea and found to be heresy.

Russell did not formulate JW doctrine at all, since he did not believe in the doctrine that is unique to the JWs.

Can you give us some specifics? What are the JW doctrines with which Russell would disagree?

I do agree that Russell sought to stay as close to the Bible as possible, and his main endeavor was to show what the Bible says and what it does not say. He also showed how many of the added-on doctrines of man would invalidate the redemption through Jesus as given in the Bible.

Again, please be more specific. What are the “added-on doctrines of man” of which you speak. And sorry, but the redemption has already taken place and cannot be invalidated by anyone. Christ redeemed all of humanity. Done, over with. But redemption does not translate, necessarily, into salvation.

 

[reslight]

All three groups were founded on private interpretation of the KJV. White’s visions came later on. All were lead by a spirit, whether seen or unseen. But, notice that among these three similar but disparate groups, all retain that bible so that they could privately interpret it to fit their opinions of what it says? And, if you follow anything that Russell taught, how do you know he is not a false teacher or a false prophet? What we have is a whole lot of emotion, zero physical evidence, and one man’s opinion. One man. You and I have exactly as much authority to found a religion as Russell. Maybe more.

I strongly believe that we should buy American - but not a made in USA religion.

The only scripture that mentions “private interpretation” is that of:

2 Peter 1:19 We have the more sure word of prophecy; whereunto you do well that you take heed, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns, and the day star arises in your hearts:
2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation [Epilusis, loosing].
2 Peter 1:21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit.

The “word of prophecy” was mostlfy that of the Old Testament, but it could have included the writings of the apostles which also contain prophecies. At any rate, none of the prophecies written in the Bible are of any private source; they are inspired by God through His Holy Spirit. That is what Peter is writing about.

Russell, however, never formed any religion, denomination or sect. Joseph Rutherford formed the JW organization after Russell died, which was teaching that was the very opposite of what Russell taught. Later, the Jehovah’s owned up to that organization as being a “religion”. Russell himself did not believe that organization nor in that religion.

Russell’s works, however, are replete with scriptural references. Regarding his books, Russell wrote:

If these books are to be of any value to us it must be because we see in them loyalty to the Word of God, and as far as our judgment goes, see them to be in full harmony with the Word and not antagonistic to it. Therefore, in reading them the first time, and perhaps the second time, and before we would accept anything as being our own personal faith and conviction, we should say, “I will not take it because these studies say so; I wish to see what the Bible says.” And so we would study the Scriptures in the light of these SCRIPTURE STUDIES; we would prove every point, or disprove it, as the case might be. We would be satisfied with nothing less than a thorough investigation of the Bible from this standpoint.

And…

Neither must you lean upon the DAWN and the TOWER as infallible teachers. If it was proper for the early Christians to prove what they received from the apostles, who were and who claimed to be inspired, how much more important it is that you fully satisfy yourself that these teachings keep closely within their outline instructions and those of our Lord;–since their author claims no inspiration, but merely the guidance of the Lord, as one used of him in feeding his flock.

---

Indeed, time and again I have seen that the teachings of those who make utterances of their own, but in the name of Christ, by claimed inspiration, or special revelations, or boasted wisdom (which is the real spirit of popery), and without proof from the Scripture, are received by many. And I am confident that the DAWN and TOWER would have many more friends and believers if they followed this (popery’s) course;–for as some one has said, “People prefer to be humbugged.” But such a course I dare not follow; I must be true to the Lord and declare his Word, and let him take charge of the consequences. -1893; letter written by Pastor Russell, published in “The Watch Tower”, June, 1893 pg. 168
agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r1535b.htm

 

[SteveVH]

At any rate, none of the prophecies written in the Bible are of any private source; they are inspired by God through His Holy Spirit.

How do you know the New Testament is inspired? Peter could have only been speaking of the Old Testament as there was no New Testament at the time.

Russell’s works, however, are replete with scriptural references.

As are most works published by people who are writing about the meaning of scripture, at least one would hope they are.

 

[po18guy]

The only scripture that mentions “private interpretation” is that of:

From your own bible:
2 Peter 3:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Let’s check Russell’s own words as to his educational qualifications: “never been ordained by any bishop or minister, and had never attended a theological seminary or any schools of higher learning” Seventh grade education. Claimed private tutors. Uh huh.

Added to this portfolio, we have the fact that he claimed no visions or prophecy. And, from his “Miracle wheat” debacle and his alimony payments for mental cruelty, we see that his personal life was certainly unstable.

2 Peter 3:16 “…the unlearned and unstable wrest…”

Indeed.

I urge you to pick a better teacher. Please.

 

[adf417]

Regarding Arius, we do not know for a certainty what he taught, because all of his works were systematically destroyed by the trinitarians. Two of his letters are all that we have which were preserved in the writings of Athanasius. At any rate, I believe, like Arius stated in one of his letters, that the real heresy was the teaching of a triune God, and the adding of his doctrine of men to the faith once delivered to the saints. – Jude 1:3.

Hi reslight,
I sure would like to see this system you speak of. I have heard of it before but I have not researched into it. Can you provide evidence? I assume there is evidence simply by definition of “systematically”.

Some would say by not preserving ALL early writings is the irresponsibility of the early Church. Is that where this comes from? Even writings of no relevance to the faith?

Peace!!!

 

[reslight]

Which begs the question: Just how did he arrive at his condemned-for-1,500 years Arian beliefs, and why would he assume himself competent to teach and lead lead innocent souls? Using William of Ockham’s razor, it is because the same spirit that lead Arius also lead Russell. The same spirit that appeared to Muhammad also appeared to Joseph Smith. As to EGW, I think that her organic brain damage produced hallucinations rather than visions.

All were guilty of privately interpreting scripture.

The Bible is still the Bible; neither Arius nor Athanasius nor anyone else can authoritarively change the faith that was once delivered to the saints. – Jude 1:3.

Russell, with the aid of others who came before him, arrived at his conclusions through study of the Bible, as can be seen by his writings. I do believe that Russell was indeed being guided by God’s Holy Spirit, as are all of God’s spirit-begotten children. – Romans 8:14.

 

[reslight]

What about John 10:30 where Jesus says that “The Father and I are one”?

Yes, and he also prayed that his followers be one with him and one with his God even as he is one with his God. – John 17:1,3,11,21,22,23.

Eventually, after Satan is abyssed, this oneness will be fully realized when the sons of God will be revealed. – Romans 8:18,19; Revelation 20:1-4…

Does that not show Jesus claiming that he is God?

No, it shows that Jesus was in full agreement with his God, even as he prayed for such agreement for his disciples. – John 17:1,3,11,21,22,23.

He doesn’t say that he is next to the Father here, he says that they are “one”, meaning a union as one entity.

I assume that you are using the word “entity” to express the trinitarian concept of “essential nature”? What Greek word are you suppling that would mean “entity”?

Actually, to get the trintiarian concept into Jesus’ words, the trinitarian would have to call upon the spirit of human imagination so as to add to and read into Jesus’ words the assumption that he was in some way saying that he and his God and Father are one being, or one God, etc. And then it would be necessary to futher call upon the spirit of human imagination to add to and read into Jesus’ words the assumption that Jesus was a person of God, and then further call upon the spirit of human imagination so as to read into Jesus’ words the assumption that the Father is a separate and distinct person of the same God. And then, the trinitarian usually further calls upon the spirit of human imagination so as add to and read into what Jesus said the assumption that Jesus was speaking there, not as the man, but as God, and then further call upon the spirit of human imagination so as to assume that Jesus has dual natures at that same time, one of being God Almgithy (above the angels) and another of being a man (which is defined as having a glory less than the angels – Psalm 8:4,5). And thus, it is in reality, all these assumptions that the trintarian actually is offering as proof of the trinity in John 10:30.

And when the Jews took up stones to kill him, did Jesus say that they were seeking to kill him because he claimed to be his God? No, Jesus showed the real reason that the Jews wanted to kill him, when he stated to them: " “I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of those works do you stone me?” (John 10:32) By “my Father”, as Jesus had shown earlier, Jesus meant the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whom these disobedient Jews claimed to their father. (John 8:40-42,52) Peter likewise showed that it was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who raised Jesus up as a prophet like Moses, and thereby distinguished Jesus from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. – Exodus 3:14,15; Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Acts 3:13-26.

godandson.reslight.net/?s=%22John+10%3A30%22

 

[reslight]

The disappearance of Arius and his followers means that Christ’s “true Arian Church” failed, which means that the “christ” of Arius was a liar or a fraud, or that Matthew 16:18 in the KJV is false. You can’t have it both ways.

There is no such thing as an alleged “Christ’s ‘true Arian Church’”. We do have the Church that is built upon Christ and the apostles, and that church has never failed. Arius sought to defend the Christ of the Bible; that Christ is not a liar, for he foretold the day of darkness that was to come in which truth would be suppressed. – John 9:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-7; 1 John 2:8; 4:3.

Like the “added on” private interpretation that Russell used exclusively to arrive at his false teachings? He violated the very bible that he thumped by allowing his ego to interpret. That is the hallmark of a false teacher. Sorry.

While I do not agree with all that Russell presented, overall, he sought to stay by the Bible as closely as possible for him at that time. He did not, by showing what the Bible says and what it does not say, at all violate the Bible.

Evidently, Russell’s ego was so great that he kept himself in the background until he realized that Barbour was intenet on teaching that the blood of Jesus was not necessary for deliverance from the grave. And his ego was so great that he often reminded his readers and listeners that he was not an inspired prophet, that one should esteem the Bible over his writings, that he held no authority in the church other than to speak what he had learned from the words of the prophets, Jesus and the apostles, etc.

 

[reslight]

Can you give us some specifics? What are the JW doctrines with which Russell would disagree?

The JWs have rejected the very basic teachings of Russell concerning the atonement (ransom for all by means of Jesus’ death and resurrection), Israel (the return of the natural Jews to Palestine); Armageddon (as the chastising – not eternal destruction – of the peoples of the nations); resurrection of judgment (of every last member-- including Adam – of the world now alienated from God), and, or course, church organization (Russell preached against any authority in the church other than Jesus, his apostles, and the prophets; Russell was a non-sectarian who believed that the true church existed amongst all the professing Christian denominations, and that any denominational authoritarianism is not authorized by God.).

This, of course, is only a few of the major differences between Russell (and the Bible Students; not all Bible Students may agree with Russell on all points regarding the above) and the JWs.

The essential doctrine that binds the Bible Students is that of the “ransom for all”, which doctrine Rutherford began to reject in 1923, and which he openly rejected and misrepresented in 1938, in favor of his dogma of: join “Jehovah’s organization” or be eternally destroyed in Armageddon. In that same year, Rutherford openely rejected the basis of the ransom by saying that Adam was not covered by the ransom.

 

[reslight]

But we do and it was discussed in detail at the Council of Nicaea and found to be heresy.

By the formulation of a triune God dogma, in effect, was a denial of the only true God that Jesus proclaimed as his God. (John 17:1,3; 20:17; Revelation 3:12) The council of men, in effect, gave fuel to the night of darkness in which the light of truth (John 3:21) was suppressed. – John 9:4; 12:35

Again, please be more specific. What are the “added-on doctrines of man” of which you speak.

To name of few of the greatest ones: the triune God dogma (which effectually would have Jesus to have been God Almighty in the flesh, thereby denying the effectiveness of the scripture that Jesus condemned sin in the flesh – Romans 8:3), the inherit immortality dogma (which would effectually deny the need of Jesus’ coming in the flesh to offer that flesh in sacrifice for the dying world), the dead are conscious dogma (usually claimed that the soul or spirit is alive and conscious while the body is dead which also would deny the need of the sacrifice of Jesus), I could list more. Nevertheles, unless one actually takes the time to understand how these doctrines deny the purpose of Jesus’ coming the flesh , one will still remain in relative darkness caused by acceptance of such doctrines of men. – 1 John 4:2,3.

I believe, as testified in the Bible, that God has revealed his truths by means of his holy spirit through the apostles. He Who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God and Father of Jesus, by means of His holy spirit, especially led the apostles into all the truths concerning Christ and what he said, and thereby the faith was delivered to the saints in the first century. – John 14:26; 16:4-13; Galatians 1:12; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Timothy 2:2; Jude 1:3.

Today, we have the truths revealed in the first centuryf in the writings of the Bible. (Ephesians 3:3-12; Colossians 1:25,26; 1 John 4:6) Of course, without the holy spirit, these things that are recorded will still be a mystery to us. — Mark 4:11; 1 Corinthians 2:7-10.

It that revealing, we find that it is foretold that there was to be an apostasy, a “falling away” from the truth of God’s Word, with strong delusions. – Matthew 13:24-30; Acts 20:29,30; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 4:3,4.

We find also in that revealing that such a falling away had already begun in the first century, with some receiving a different spirit and preaching “another Jesus”; the apostasy was restrained for only a short while. – 2 Thessalonians 2:7; 1 John 2:18,19; 2 Corinthians 11:4.

After the death of the apostles, the apostasy spread rapidly leading to the development of the the great “Man of Sin”, or more correctly “Insubordinate Man,” “Lawless Man”, or “Illegal Man”, a great religious system, which claimed to have the authority to add to God’s Word since their revelation was allegedly of God’s Spirit, and these revelations were claimed, in effect, to add more to the faith that scriptures say had once delivered to the saints. – Jude 1:3.

The redemption as revealed to saints in the first centry became replaced with the doctrine that Jesus had to be God Almighty in order to provide atonement for sins. Having established this spirit of error, the writings of the apostles had to be totally reinterpreted by means of the spirit of human imagination and assumptions so as to accommodate the error, and many of the Hellenic Jewish philosophies were adapted and added to and blended in with the New Testament, even as the Jews had done with the Old Testament.

Isaiah, in prophesying concerning the stone of stumbling (Isaiah 8:14; Romans 9:23) to both the houses of Israel (Romans 9:6,31; 11:7; 1 Corinthians 10:18; Galatians 6:16), warns us: “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them [the dawn is not in them].” – Isaiah 8:20, New King James Version.

The “law”, of course, is what we call the Old Testament; the “testimony” of this prophecy is the testimony of the apostles, as given in the New Testament. This the way to test the spirits. (1 John 4:1) It is to these and through these scriptures that the holy spirit today gives true direction, and anything not in agreement with these scriptures is not of the light of the day. (John 11:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:5) In effect, any spirit that does not testify in agreement with what has been revealed is not of the light of new day.

The distortion of who Jesus truly was and is — who while on earth before his death was only human, a little lower than the angels, who gave his flesh for the life of the world — is one of the greatest stumblingblocks to understanding the true Gospel revealed in scripture. Thus Jesus becomes a stumbling stone, not only to the house according the flesh which was corrupted from true doctrine (Israel after the flesh — Luke 13:25-28; Romans 9:30-33), but also the house which claims Jesus, which has also become corrupted from true doctrine. — Matthew 27:21-23; Revelation 2:13-15,20-24.

 

[reslight]

And sorry, but the redemption has already taken place and cannot be invalidated by anyone. Christ redeemed all of humanity.

Yes, this is true. Nothing can truly annul or invalidate that redemption, although, if the teachings of men are true, then the basis of that redemption as given in the Bible is not valid, and that is my point.

If, for instance, Jesus is still a human being of flesh and bones in the heavens (another dogma of man), then either Jesus has never completed the offering of his sacrifice, or he has took back that sacrifice. Thus, in this, man has produced another doctrine that, if it were true, would nullify the basis of the ransom sacrifice as taught in the Bible.

Done, over with. But redemption does not translate, necessarily, into salvation.

The words related to redemption and salvation have different applications in the Bible, depending on what is being spoken of. As being saved from the condemnation in Adam, yes, Jesus sacrifice means that the whole world is to be saved and brought back into the resurrection of judgment in the last day, including all those Jews who rejected Jesus in the first century, as well as Gentiles in the world who never became of the new creation in this age. Jesus is truly the savior, not just of those who belief in this age, but of the whole world, which will be witnessed in due time. – Isaiah 2:2-4; John 3:17; 4:42; 5:28,29; 12:47,48; Acts 17:31; 24:15; Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 2 Corinthians 5:27; Ephesians 2:1-10; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; 1 John 2:2; 4:14; Revelation 20:11-15.

The salvation of the whole world, however, does not mean that all thus saved will live forever, since their worthiness to live forever is to be determined in the day of judgment.

Mankind’s Course to the Day of Judgment

google.com/search?q=%22salvation+of+all%22+site%3Amostholyfaith.com

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Well they can’t possibly imitate God, so a sinless created being who created the universe with God is the best they can hope for.

 

[po18guy]

The Bible is still the Bible; neither Arius nor Athanasius nor anyone else can authoritarively change the faith that was once delivered to the saints. – Jude 1:3.

You have hit the nail squarely on the head. It is all about authority. Such authority was never transferred away from Christ’s Church to the individual, or any group functioning outside of Church authority. When you do that, you are guaranteed error. And, by what authority do you declare the JWs in error? They declare you to be in error!

Authority has been preserved in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. If you use the KJV, you implicitly trust the early Catholic Church for that portion of sacred scripture (66 out of 73 books) which you do have. The B.S. opinion of the bible infers that the ability to read combined with mere possession of a bible magically leads to truth. I see this as utter nonsense.

The devil twists scripture into a new meaning. Man follows. The bible says so. Believe it.

Russell, with the aid of others who came before him, arrived at his conclusions through study of the Bible, as can be seen by his writings. I do believe that Russell was indeed being guided by God’s Holy Spirit, as are all of God’s spirit-begotten children. – Romans 8:14.

Relativism! We cannot all have the truth. Why aren’t you Anglican then? They have the KJV. Why aren’t you SDA? They have the KJV, as do hundreds of other groups. Why are the peculiar “Bible Students” beliefs so appealing to the ego that all other possibilities are automatically excluded?

First, you may believe that the Holy Spirit is like “the force” in Star Wars - not a Divine Person, but something like gravity or magnetism. Whatever, He always and everyewhere leads to unity. Always. If your Bible Students teaching leads you to division, it is not and cannot be the Holy Spirit. Read 1 John. Test the Spirits. Follow the bible for once. But, the ego must be suppressed to do so.

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

 

[po18guy]

By the formulation of a triune God dogma, in effect, was a denial of the only true God that Jesus proclaimed as his God. (John 17:1,3; 20:17; Revelation 3:12) The council of men, in effect, gave fuel to the night of darkness in which the light of truth (John 3:21) was suppressed. – John 9:4; 12:35

But a single verse from your own bible, and not twisted:

1 John 5:7
King James Version (KJV)
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

How in the grave (which is hell to you folks) do you twist this into the Holy Spirit being a “disposition” of God? Really.

For those who wish to see that portion of truth, as well as the profound error that is contained in Bible Students’ beliefs, here is a link:

washingtonbiblestudents.com/Bible%20Student%20Beliefs.pdf