Jesus -Jehovah Witness pov

[reslight]

How do you know the New Testament is inspired?

Basically, I have come to the conclusion that the New Testament is inspired because of my study of God’s purposes as found in the Bible which I have found to be harmious throughout the Bible, both the OT and NT.
studies.reslight.net

Paul S. L. Johnson presents a very good defense for the inspiration of the Bible in his book on “The Bible” (I do no necessarily agree with all details he presents). This book should be available from the Bible Standard Ministries, although I am unable to find their online catalog. One could contact them for information regarding Johnson’s Ephiphany Studies, Vol 12, “The Bible”.
biblestandard.com/

Peter wrote of Paul’s letters:

2 Peter 3:15 Regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you;
2 Peter 3:16 as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they do also to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

He thereby aligns the letters of the apostle Paul with the scriptures.

Peter could have only been speaking of the Old Testament as there was no New Testament at the time.

As I said, Peter may have been speaking directly of the Old Testament, but the same principle applies to the NT prophecies; please note also Peter goes on to include Paul’s letters as being scriptures (2 Peter 3:15,16), which leads me to believe that Peter would have included the NT in his statement at 2 Peter 1:19-21, had he written this later.

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

I have studied many different works, including many who have claimed to have received visions. I have had contact via email and forums with many who have claimed to have received visions. Most of those who claim to have received visions or visits from angels or spirits do indeed adamantly, whether intentional or not, place their visions above the Bible, in effect, teaching their visions are true even if shown how those visions are in direct conflict with the Bible.

Many authors are dedicated to defending the dogma of men, and although they may seek support by use of the Bible, they end up tenaciously defending much human imagination and assumptions that have to be added to the Bible in order to make the Bible appear to be in harmony with that dogma, etc.

I do not believe, however, that any author, including Russell, or even myself, should claim to be 100% without error.

 

[Issa87]

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.
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.

I love this response.

 

[po18guy]

I love this response.

I hope it’s not too brutal. They do not believe in hell, and they need to know that denial of hell does not default you to heaven (or a renewed earth, for that matter).

 

[Issa87]

I hope it’s not too brutal. They do not believe in hell, and they need to know that denial of hell does not default you to heaven (or a renewed earth, for that matter).

From what I remember, their equivalent of hell, or as I take it was the equivalent of hell, is that after Jesus’ second coming, when he defeats Satan all of the bad people go to destruction. So, it’s like a second death, and then everyone else lives in a paradise on earth except for the 144,000 who go to heaven.

What I don’t understand from that is why would God seperate us from each other? And how can Jesus be an angel AND the son of God and how can he be the son of God and not be divine?

 

[po18guy]

From what I remember, their equivalent of hell, or as I take it was the equivalent of hell, is that after Jesus’ second coming, when he defeats Satan all of the bad people go to destruction. So, it’s like a second death, and then everyone else lives in a paradise on earth except for the 144,000 who go to heaven.

What I don’t understand from that is why would God seperate us from each other? And how can Jesus be an angel AND the son of God and how can he be the son of God and not be divine?

There are so many obvious flaws in both JW and BS “theology” that the only factor that I find surprising is the depth of blindness required to follow.

 

[yellowbird]

What I don’t understand from that is why would God seperate us from each other? And how can Jesus be an angel AND the son of God and how can he be the son of God and not be divine?

This was very difficult for a family I knew. The wife “realized” she was one of the 144,000 and would therefore be in heaven - but unfortunately her husband and children were of the “Great Crowd” who would spend eternity on Earth. It was especially hard on the kids knowing they would not be with their Mom. Very very sad.

 

[reslight]

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."

I suppose this is meant to claim that Russell was unlearned/unstable and that Russell, by his showing what the scriptures say and what they do not say, was unstable and therefore wresting the scriptures because he found that the scriptures did not support what the highly esteemed learned doctors of divinity were teaching in their schools of theology .

The word “unlearned” is from the Greek word “Amathes” (Strong’s #261), which means ignorant. The Greek word rendered unstable (Asteriktos, Strong’s #279) means, as connected with the context, unsteadfast. It does imply that one needed to steadfast in understanding of the message of the Scriptures.

The words used in Acts 4:13 by which the Jews reckoned Peter and John are transliterated as “Agrammatos” (illiterate, unlettered) and “Idiotes” (common, uneducated, unskilled). We thus should note, however, that the Jewish leaders deemed Peter and John to be unlearned since they had not been taught in the Jewish schools of that day. – Acts 4:8-13.

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.

I have not found any place where Russell actually stated the above, but yes, Russell was never ordained by any of the denominational bishops or ministers, and he never was indoctrinated by any of the denominational theological seminaries, etc.; he never claimed to have ordained by such men or their earthly institutions.

Russell was indeed instructed by private tutors, and he had been instructed by other unsectarian ministers for several years before being ordained as “pastor” by the Allegheny church.

He continued to study for several more years before he began to publish the Watch Tower magazine in 1879. He was certainly not as uneducated as many would seem to think him to have been. Indeed, anyone truly familiar with his works would recognized that he was not just some “uneducated” man spewing forth a lot of nonsense.

In court, Brother Russell was not permitted to explain, but he did explain later.
mostholyfaith.com/bible/harvest_gleanings_3/HG173.asp
mostholyfaith.com/bible/Reprints/Z1914DEC.asp?special=omhf4%20#R5587:6
mostholyfaith.com/bible/reprints/Z1915DEC.asp#Z358:4

Additionally, Russell was aided by Paul S. L. Johnson, who had been well trained in several of the theological schools, and who had been ordained as a (denominational) Lutheran minister. Johnson was thoroughly trained in both Biblical Greek and Biblical Hebrew.

While some details are not exactly correct, the major facts concerning Johnson are presented at Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_S._L._Johnson

Russell was also aided by several others who had been trained in the theological schools of men.

 

[reslight]

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.

As far as the true facts are concerned, there was no “Miracle Wheat” debacle, at least not while Russell was alive, although The Brooklyn Daily Eagle went out of its way to distort facts so much that, if one is only familiar with what they stated, one would think that Stoner’s wheat was indeed a failure.

Later, however, farmers who were growing Stoner’s wheat failed to keep the strain pure, so that the original “Miracle Wheat” faded out, and in that sense, it eventually proved to be a failure.

Today, we have a new “Miracle Wheat” created by Norman Borlaug, which is definitely not a failure.

As far as “Miracle Wheat” is concerned, there is nothing in anything that Russell said or did that would prove him to have been unsteadfast to the Bible to extent that God had given the ability. On the other hand, The Daily Brooklyn Eagle evidently willfully distorted fact after fact.

 

[reslight]

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.

As far as his wife’s claims that Russell had been mentally cruel, this was in reference to the fact that he and his wife had agreed before their marriage that they would both abstain from sexual intercourse, with the provision that if either should later desire to end that agreement, that the other would agree to such.

While they were together, however, Mrs. Russell never expressed any desire to no longer abstain from sexual intercourse, and that issue had never arisen until Mrs. Russell filed for divorce.

The real issues that had come up before she filed for divorce were along the line of her disagreements over the managment of the Watch Tower; Mrs. Russell wanted to have equal management with her husband and to use the magazine to promote woman’s rights, and Mr. Russell, to whom the WTS Board of Directors had given authority to manage the magazine, refused. Thus, this issue of mental cruelty was evidently introduced simply as a ploy before the court.

That the real issue was Mrs. Russell’s desire to promote woman’s rights can be seen from the fact that in 1906 she published a book entitled “The Twain One”, in which she presented her arguments for “woman’s rights”.
heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/TWAIN.pdf

As to the alimony payments, all amounts requested were paid.

 

[reslight]

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

Indeed.

I urge you to pick a better teacher. Please.

The teacher I have picked is my Lord Jesus through the Bible and God’s Holy Spirit. I do believe that this was the endeavor also of Brother Russell.

Our Lord was the “Way” in that only through his sacrifice, the “ransom,” imputing his merit to sinners, could they be made acceptable to the Father or be received back again into fellowship with him. He was the “Truth” in the sense that only through his words, his instructions, his guidance, could there be any hope of coming into harmony with the Spirit of God, the Spirit of truth. He was the “Life” in that all the race was dead, under divine sentence–had forfeited the rights of life–and none could come again into life conditions except through him, through the life which he gave for ours. Thus he is our Ransom or Way; our Teacher or Instructor in righteousness, in the truth, and our Life-giver–“Neither is there salvation in any other.” “No man cometh unto the Father but by me” --no man need hope for any place in any of the mansions of the Father’s house by any other way, by any other truth, by any other life.–Acts 4:12; John 14:6.
mostholyfaith.com/bible/reprints/Z1908MAY.asp#Z133:8

 

[reslight]

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”.

The very fact that his writings do not exist is evidence that his writings do not exist; my point is that they do not exist, and therefore, we do not know for a certainty what he taught.

By systematically, I mean that the trinitarians, given Constantine’s order, methodically and deliberately sought out any writings of Arius so as to destroy them by fire. Their method of destruction was by burning and they did not to stop until they had eradicated anything and everything of the writings of Arius.

Reconstructing the life and doctrine of Arius has been proved to be a difficult task, as none of his original writings survive. Emperor Constantine ordered their burning while Arius was still living, and any that survived this purge were later destroyed by his Orthodox opponents. Those works which have survived are quoted in the works of churchmen who denounced him as a heretic. This leads some—but not all—scholars to question their reliability.[5]​

Footnote:
^ Dennison, James T Jr. “Arius “Orthodoxos”; Athanasius “Politicus”: The Rehabilitation of Arius and the Denigration of Athanasius”. Lynnwood: Northwest Theological Seminary. Retrieved 2 May 2012.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius#Early_life_and_personality

Arius’s most important work was “Thalia” (The Banquet, 323), a work comprising both prose and poetry, in which he defended his beliefs. The document was destroyed by the trinitarians and is no longer extant, and knowledge of most of Arius’s writings comes only from the works of his critics, who, in condemning him, revealed much information.
arian-catholic.org/arian/arius.html

Constantine’s Letter of Authorization to the Trinitarian Bishops may be found at:
mountainman.com.au/essenes/Council%20of%20Nicaea.htm

In that letter he states:

all the writings of Arius,
wherever they be found,
shall be delivered to be burned with fire,
in order that not only
his wicked and evil doctrine may be destroyed,
but also that the memory of himself
and of his doctrine may be blotted out,
that there may not by any means
remain to him remembrance in the world.

---

If any one shall be found secreting
any writing composed by Arius,
and shall not forthwith deliver up
and burn it with fire,
his punishment shall be death;
for as soon as he is caught in this
he shall suffer capital punishment
by beheading without delay.

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!!!

My main point is that Russell did NOT have the writings of Arius, and his study of the Bible was his own, not that of Arius. From the reports of trinitarians writings about Arius, Russell could not have known for a certainty what Arius did teach. It is not clear from the reports by the trinitarians, for instance, that Arius actually understood the Hebraic usage of forms of the word transliterated as “EL”.

Nevertheless, today, if one only reads of the reports of what trinitarians alledge Russell to have preached, without actually having and noting exactly what Russell did say and why he said what he said, usually one would not actually know what Russell did conclude, or especially why he came to such conclusions, concerning the Son of the Most High. On top of that, most of what many have quoted of Russell has been done so in order to misrepresent him.

At any rate, Russell came to his conclusions based on his study of the Bible, not from any non-existent writings of Arius.

 

[adf417]

Nevertheless, today, if one only reads of the reports of what trinitarians alledge Russell to have preached, without actually having and noting exactly what Russell did say and why he said what he said, usually one would not actually know what Russell did conclude, or especially why he came to such conclusions, concerning the Son of the Most High. On top of that, most of what many have quoted of Russell has been done so in order to misrepresent him.

At any rate, Russell came to his conclusions based on his study of the Bible, not from any non-existent writings of Arius.

Is this the same bible canonized by the very same people who would have burned Arius writings? Would it not have been much easier for the Trinitarians, assuming they have the power you suggest, to have just rewrote the bible more plainly to suit their faith and in doing so discredit Arius?

If you were God and you wanted to protect your bride form harm in the 1st centuries how would you have done it?

Peace!!!

 

[po18guy]

The teacher I have picked is my Lord Jesus through the Bible and God’s Holy Spirit. I do believe that this was the endeavor also of Brother Russell.

Rather, you have chosen a caricature of a savior that has been molded and shaped into something agreeable to your personal preferences. Christ founded a Church and you have rejected that Church. Tell us how you have not also rejected the True Christ.

Why on earth would you follow a single man, 1,900 years after the fact, who has never been a part of the Church that wrote the bible, and trust his oddball, absolutely unsubstantiated opinions with your salvation? Why, indeed.