- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Ed J @ July 02 2010,11:19) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 02 2010,11:08) ED J, We do agree on something. Jesus clearly told Caiaphas that he would see the Son of Man both sitting on the right hand AND coming in the clouds of heaven.
Our difference is that you say that Jesus returned on Pentecost when Jesus said the destruction of Jerusalem was the sign that preceded His coming. Jerusalem was destroyed in ad70. Ergo, He returned in ad70.
the Roo
Hi Jack,Why, thank you!
There is a problem with your 70 A.D. theory though,
were the legions of angels Roman soldiers sent from God?
Matt. 26:53: Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father,
and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Huh?He said He could have called legions of angels but He didn't. He went to the cross to die.
The ad70 explanation is not a theory. The disciples asked Him for the sign of His coming and He said first that the stones of the temple would be thrown down. Then He went on to explain the destruction of Jerusalem. Then He said that they would see Him coming in the clouds.
It is your Pentecost theory which is beset with all sorts of problems.
the Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 02 2010,11:29) Quote (Ed J @ July 02 2010,11:19) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 02 2010,11:08) ED J, We do agree on something. Jesus clearly told Caiaphas that he would see the Son of Man both sitting on the right hand AND coming in the clouds of heaven.
Our difference is that you say that Jesus returned on Pentecost when Jesus said the destruction of Jerusalem was the sign that preceded His coming. Jerusalem was destroyed in ad70. Ergo, He returned in ad70.
the Roo
Hi Jack,Why, thank you!
There is a problem with your 70 A.D. theory though,
were the legions of angels Roman soldiers sent from God?
Matt. 26:53: Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father,
and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Huh?He said He could have called legions of angels but He didn't. He went to the cross to die.
The ad70 explanation is not a theory. The disciples asked Him for the sign of His coming and He said first that the stones of the temple would be thrown down. Then He went on to explain the destruction of Jerusalem. Then He said that they would see Him coming in the clouds.
It is your Pentecost theory which is beset with all sorts of problems.
the Roo
Hi Jack,So you are saying he came in a cloud of Roman soldiers?
Quote (Ed J @ July 02 2010,11:33) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 02 2010,11:29) Quote (Ed J @ July 02 2010,11:19) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 02 2010,11:08) ED J, We do agree on something. Jesus clearly told Caiaphas that he would see the Son of Man both sitting on the right hand AND coming in the clouds of heaven.
Our difference is that you say that Jesus returned on Pentecost when Jesus said the destruction of Jerusalem was the sign that preceded His coming. Jerusalem was destroyed in ad70. Ergo, He returned in ad70.
the Roo
Hi Jack,Why, thank you!
There is a problem with your 70 A.D. theory though,
were the legions of angels Roman soldiers sent from God?
Matt. 26:53: Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father,
and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Huh?He said He could have called legions of angels but He didn't. He went to the cross to die.
The ad70 explanation is not a theory. The disciples asked Him for the sign of His coming and He said first that the stones of the temple would be thrown down. Then He went on to explain the destruction of Jerusalem. Then He said that they would see Him coming in the clouds.
It is your Pentecost theory which is beset with all sorts of problems.
the Roo
Hi Jack,So you are saying he came in a cloud of Roman soldiers?
the Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 02 2010,11:38) Quote (Ed J @ July 02 2010,11:33) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 02 2010,11:29) Quote (Ed J @ July 02 2010,11:19) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 02 2010,11:08) ED J, We do agree on something. Jesus clearly told Caiaphas that he would see the Son of Man both sitting on the right hand AND coming in the clouds of heaven.
Our difference is that you say that Jesus returned on Pentecost when Jesus said the destruction of Jerusalem was the sign that preceded His coming. Jerusalem was destroyed in ad70. Ergo, He returned in ad70.
the Roo
Hi Jack,Why, thank you!
There is a problem with your 70 A.D. theory though,
were the legions of angels Roman soldiers sent from God?
Matt. 26:53: Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father,
and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Huh?He said He could have called legions of angels but He didn't. He went to the cross to die.
The ad70 explanation is not a theory. The disciples asked Him for the sign of His coming and He said first that the stones of the temple would be thrown down. Then He went on to explain the destruction of Jerusalem. Then He said that they would see Him coming in the clouds.
It is your Pentecost theory which is beset with all sorts of problems.
the Roo
Hi Jack,So you are saying he came in a cloud of Roman soldiers?
the Roo
Hi Roo,It was the Roman solders in 70 A.D. that sacked Jerusalem you know; are you saying Jesus was among them?
Quote (Ed J @ July 02 2010,11:46) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 02 2010,11:38) Quote (Ed J @ July 02 2010,11:33) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 02 2010,11:29) Quote (Ed J @ July 02 2010,11:19) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 02 2010,11:08) ED J, We do agree on something. Jesus clearly told Caiaphas that he would see the Son of Man both sitting on the right hand AND coming in the clouds of heaven.
Our difference is that you say that Jesus returned on Pentecost when Jesus said the destruction of Jerusalem was the sign that preceded His coming. Jerusalem was destroyed in ad70. Ergo, He returned in ad70.
the Roo
Hi Jack,Why, thank you!
There is a problem with your 70 A.D. theory though,
were the legions of angels Roman soldiers sent from God?
Matt. 26:53: Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father,
and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Huh?He said He could have called legions of angels but He didn't. He went to the cross to die.
The ad70 explanation is not a theory. The disciples asked Him for the sign of His coming and He said first that the stones of the temple would be thrown down. Then He went on to explain the destruction of Jerusalem. Then He said that they would see Him coming in the clouds.
It is your Pentecost theory which is beset with all sorts of problems.
the Roo
Hi Jack,So you are saying he came in a cloud of Roman soldiers?
the Roo
Hi Roo,It was the Roman solders in 70 A.D. that sacked Jerusalem you know; are you saying Jesus was among them?
ED,You always bring me to the place where I can't continue a discourse with you. I said that the destruction of Jerusalem was the sign that PRECEDED His coming!
So the discussion is over.
thr Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 02 2010,13:23) Quote (Ed J @ July 02 2010,11:46) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 02 2010,11:38) Quote (Ed J @ July 02 2010,11:33) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 02 2010,11:29) Quote (Ed J @ July 02 2010,11:19) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 02 2010,11:08) ED J, We do agree on something. Jesus clearly told Caiaphas that he would see the Son of Man both sitting on the right hand AND coming in the clouds of heaven.
Our difference is that you say that Jesus returned on Pentecost when Jesus said the destruction of Jerusalem was the sign that preceded His coming. Jerusalem was destroyed in ad70. Ergo, He returned in ad70.
the Roo
Hi Jack,Why, thank you!
There is a problem with your 70 A.D. theory though,
were the legions of angels Roman soldiers sent from God?
Matt. 26:53: Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father,
and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Huh?He said He could have called legions of angels but He didn't. He went to the cross to die.
The ad70 explanation is not a theory. The disciples asked Him for the sign of His coming and He said first that the stones of the temple would be thrown down. Then He went on to explain the destruction of Jerusalem. Then He said that they would see Him coming in the clouds.
It is your Pentecost theory which is beset with all sorts of problems.
the Roo
Hi Jack,So you are saying he came in a cloud of Roman soldiers?
the Roo
Hi Roo,It was the Roman solders in 70 A.D. that sacked Jerusalem you know; are you saying Jesus was among them?
ED,You always bring me to the place where I can't continue a discourse with you. I said that the destruction of Jerusalem was the sign that PRECEDED His coming!
So the discussion is over.
thr Roo
Hi Jack,Well then how did he come 'after' the Romans sacked Jerusalem?
Please explain: I really want to know?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ July 02 2010,13:45) Hi Jack, Well then how did he come 'after' the Romans sacked Jerusalem?
Please explain: I really want to know?God bless
Ed J
Yeah Jack, me too!Did he already take from the world his own, and we are the offspring of the ones who were left behind? I'm serious, just like Ed is.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 02 2010,13:48) Quote (Ed J @ July 02 2010,13:45) Hi Jack, Well then how did he come 'after' the Romans sacked Jerusalem?
Please explain: I really want to know?God bless
Ed J
Yeah Jack, me too!Did he already take from the world his own, and we are the offspring of the ones who were left behind? I'm serious, just like Ed is.
mike
Hey Mike,Did you know you were an apostate called 'the evil slave class'?
That's not a very nice thing to call a JW defector now is it?
Yea; it's true Click Here and see <– Sixth Post downGod bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ July 02 2010,14:01) Hey Mike, Did you know you were an apostate called 'the evil slave class'?
That's not a very nice thing to call a JW defector now is it?
Yea; it's true Click Here and see <– Sixth Post downGod bless
Ed J
Thanks Ed,I just addressed it.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 04 2010,04:23) Quote (Ed J @ July 02 2010,14:01) Hey Mike, Did you know you were an apostate called 'the evil slave class'?
That's not a very nice thing to call a JW defector now is it?
Yea; it's true Click Here and see <– Sixth Post downGod bless
Ed J
Thanks Ed,I just addressed it.
mike
Hi Mike,Did you ever join the JW's 'visible organization'?
They want me to join 'their visible organization', but I know better!
If I were to join, they would kick me out and I would be no longer welcomed. (John 16:1-3)
But since I refuse to join, then I will always be welcomed at ALL the Kingdom halls; funny that way, isn't it!Just like at there “Passover” celebration, they want you to attend but not to participate in the sacraments.
So if I were to go and take of the Eucharist that would be (a BIG No No) looked down upon heavily.
For me to attend “The Passover” celebration with them and not participate is UNACCEPTABLE!
So the reasonable solution here once again, is NOT to attend; funny that way, isn't it?Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
יהוה האלהים(JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
PS> Yes, they do have many things correct!Quote (Ed J @ July 04 2010,04:55) Hi Mike, Did you ever join the JW's 'visible organization'?
They want me to join 'their visible organization', but I know better!
If I were to join, they would kick me out and I would be no longer welcomed. (John 16:1-3)
But since I refuse to join, then I will always be welcomed at ALL the Kingdom halls; funny that way, isn't it!Just like at there “Passover” celebration, they want you to attend but not to participate in the sacraments.
So if I were to go and take of the Eucharist that would be (a BIG No No) looked down upon heavily.
For me to attend “The Passover” celebration with them and not participate is UNACCEPTABLE!
So the reasonable solution here once again, is NOT to attend; funny that way, isn't it?
Hi Ed,I never chose to be baptized as a JW. Unlike most religions, they don't baptize their babies at a young age. Witnesses have to wait until they're deemed old enough to understand their choice to be baptized.
My younger brother chose to be baptized and then left the church. Because my family is mostly JW's, he cannot come to family reunions or associate with them in any kind of a group atmosphere. He can visit my mom and dad, OR he can visit my sister, OR he can visit my brother, BUT if they are all together, he cannot be there. I hate that!
So, there I was, a disgusting drug addict with major problems, and I was welcome at all family functions because I had not chosen to be baptized. And there was my little brother, who was baptized at age 14 and decided the JW organization wasn't for him at age 17, and so even though he was more of a credit to society than I was, HE wasn't welcome! Maybe he would have come back to the JW's if they hadn't treated him like a pariah.
So I'm with you. I'll stay on the sidelines so if I ever do decide to attend one of their meetings or memorial serices, I can.
ps, only those who are convinced they are one of the 144,000 can partake in the memorial wine and wafers.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 04 2010,05:14) Quote (Ed J @ July 04 2010,04:55) Hi Mike, Did you ever join the JW's 'visible organization'?
They want me to join 'their visible organization', but I know better!
If I were to join, they would kick me out and I would be no longer welcomed. (John 16:1-3)
But since I refuse to join, then I will always be welcomed at ALL the Kingdom halls; funny that way, isn't it!Just like at there “Passover” celebration, they want you to attend but not to participate in the sacraments.
So if I were to go and take of the Eucharist that would be (a BIG No No) looked down upon heavily.
For me to attend “The Passover” celebration with them and not participate is UNACCEPTABLE!
So the reasonable solution here once again, is NOT to attend; funny that way, isn't it?
Hi Ed,I never chose to be baptized as a JW. Unlike most religions, they don't baptize their babies at a young age. Witnesses have to wait until they're deemed old enough to understand their choice to be baptized.
My younger brother chose to be baptized and then left the church. Because my family is mostly JW's, he cannot come to family reunions or associate with them in any kind of a group atmosphere. He can visit my mom and dad, OR he can visit my sister, OR he can visit my brother, BUT if they are all together, he cannot be there. I hate that!
So, there I was, a disgusting drug addict with major problems, and I was welcome at all family functions because I had not chosen to be baptized. And there was my little brother, who was baptized at age 14 and decided the JW organization wasn't for him at age 17, and so even though he was more of a credit to society than I was, HE wasn't welcome! Maybe he would have come back to the JW's if they hadn't treated him like a pariah.
So I'm with you. I'll stay on the sidelines so if I ever do decide to attend one of their meetings or memorial serices, I can.
ps, only those who are convinced they are one of the 144,000 can partake in the memorial wine and wafers.
mike
Hi Mike,Well then you are: An apostate called the 'evil slave class'.
At least according to them; However, I believe you made the correct choice!
I know more about them than many of the lower ranking insiders do; I did know ALL that as well! (Love Book P.207)There organization is like a children's orphanage.
Members want to feel like there home there, but the more
they learn the more they realize they are NOT with their family members!
Family members don't call other members 'slaves', nor do they treat them as apostate!Perhaps we should start “A New Thread” for ALL JW defectors,
as a sort of homecoming welcome to Heaven(.net)!
I fried David Here <– Third Post (Isa.54:17)Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
יהוה האלהים(JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ July 04 2010,06:26) Perhaps we should start “A New Thread” for ALL JW defectors,
as a sort of homecoming welcome to Heaven(.net)!
I fried David Here <– Third Post (Isa.54:17)
Hi Ed,I agree with this statement you quoted in the post you linked 100%!
Quote Do not passively allow others to mold your thinking.' And my family thinks me being on HN is a waste of time because they feel all the truth I ever need to know about God can be learned at their meetings. And I try to explain to them that if you only associate with people who believe exactly what you do about the Bible, then how can you test your beliefs? I learned from them that Adam was created “perfect” and continued to believe that until Nick showed me that scripture never says that, for example. And I might have gone on accepting Roo and WJ's assertion that only mankind are sons of God until Dennison showed from Job how that is wrong. How can you know you're right about “plural God” for example, if you never hear the other guy out?
I'll be honest with you Ed, I don't agree with some of your interpretations of the scriptures , but if not for your views and your explanations of them, I wouldn't ever need to delve any deeper into scriptures than the surface.
As far as the topic for ex-WJ's, I think it might be hurtful to some, and what good would it bring? Maybe I'm wrong.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 04 2010,05:14) Quote (Ed J @ July 04 2010,04:55) Hi Mike, Did you ever join the JW's 'visible organization'?
They want me to join 'their visible organization', but I know better!
If I were to join, they would kick me out and I would be no longer welcomed. (John 16:1-3)
But since I refuse to join, then I will always be welcomed at ALL the Kingdom halls; funny that way, isn't it!Just like at there “Passover” celebration, they want you to attend but not to participate in the sacraments.
So if I were to go and take of the Eucharist that would be (a BIG No No) looked down upon heavily.
For me to attend “The Passover” celebration with them and not participate is UNACCEPTABLE!
So the reasonable solution here once again, is NOT to attend; funny that way, isn't it?
Hi Ed,I never chose to be baptized as a JW. Unlike most religions, they don't baptize their babies at a young age. Witnesses have to wait until they're deemed old enough to understand their choice to be baptized.
My younger brother chose to be baptized and then left the church. Because my family is mostly JW's, he cannot come to family reunions or associate with them in any kind of a group atmosphere. He can visit my mom and dad, OR he can visit my sister, OR he can visit my brother, BUT if they are all together, he cannot be there. I hate that!
So, there I was, a disgusting drug addict with major problems, and I was welcome at all family functions because I had not chosen to be baptized. And there was my little brother, who was baptized at age 14 and decided the JW organization wasn't for him at age 17, and so even though he was more of a credit to society than I was, HE wasn't welcome! Maybe he would have come back to the JW's if they hadn't treated him like a pariah.
So I'm with you. I'll stay on the sidelines so if I ever do decide to attend one of their meetings or memorial serices, I can.
ps, only those who are convinced they are one of the 144,000 can partake in the memorial wine and wafers.
mike
hi mikeyou, must have taste the freedom of Christ,because you are free of religion and understand how your family are in prison and slave to an men organization who for its own protection as to cut of all rebel to there way of thinking,people in religion are more incline to refuse doing Gods will ,because they are lessen to men and need there approval,
even when you prove them the scriptures are not in line with there teachings,they will follow their JW leaders even doe they have lied for years.
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ July 04 2010,07:01) hi mike you, must have taste the freedom of Christ,because you are free of religion and understand how your family are in prison and slave to an men organization who for its own protection as to cut of all rebel to there way of thinking,people in religion are more incline to refuse doing Gods will ,because they are lessen to men and need there approval,
even when you prove them the scriptures are not in line with there teachings,they will follow their JW leaders even doe they have lied for years.
Pierre
Hi Pierre,That's why I'm here, not there. We don't all agree, but at least I get a view of how someone else can read the same exact scripture and come up with a completely different understanding than mine. And that's what leads me to look at it closer. And that, my friend is called “taking in knowledge of the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom He has sent”. And that, according to Jesus, means everlasting life.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ July 04 2010,07:01) Quote (Ed J @ July 04 2010,06:26) Perhaps we should start “A New Thread” for ALL JW defectors,
as a sort of homecoming welcome to Heaven(.net)!
I fried David Here <– Third Post (Isa.54:17)
Hi Ed,I agree with this statement you quoted in the post you linked 100%!
Quote Do not passively allow others to mold your thinking.' And my family thinks me being on HN is a waste of time because they feel all the truth I ever need to know about God can be learned at their meetings. And I try to explain to them that if you only associate with people who believe exactly what you do about the Bible, then how can you test your beliefs? I learned from them that Adam was created “perfect” and continued to believe that until Nick showed me that scripture never says that, for example. And I might have gone on accepting Roo and WJ's assertion that only mankind are sons of God until Dennison showed from Job how that is wrong. How can you know you're right about “plural God” for example, if you never hear the other guy out?
I'll be honest with you Ed, I don't agree with some of your interpretations of the scriptures , but if not for your views and your explanations of them, I wouldn't ever need to delve any deeper into scriptures than the surface.
As far as the topic for ex-WJ's, I think it might be hurtful to some, and what good would it bring? Maybe I'm wrong.
mike
Hi Mike,Thanks Mike, a BIG complement! (Acts 17:11)
The JW's views are no better than anyone else's!
This forum is like a big giant continuous Bible Study!
Hopefully we ALL learn from each other here at h-net.My view of the Bible is based on understanding it as a whole,
hopefully you will continue to learn from my understanding of it!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgI'm sure I will, Ed. Even when we don't agree, our different interpretations causes both of us to look at it deeper.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 04 2010,08:19) I'm sure I will, Ed. Even when we don't agree, our different interpretations causes both of us to look at it deeper. mike
Hi Mike,The best way to get others to do this is present a verse doesn't
seem to fit into the other persons bigger picture. This either works or
else they run from us! No names, but I had plenty run using this approach!
But not you, thank God! You've always tried to reconcile the apparent discrepancy.
That's why I told you (and meant it), you were going to make an excellent moderator here!Your Brother in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34 / Isa.60:14)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ July 04 2010,09:09) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 04 2010,08:19) I'm sure I will, Ed. Even when we don't agree, our different interpretations causes both of us to look at it deeper. mike
Hi Mike,The best way to get others to do this is present a verse doesn't
seem to fit into the other persons bigger picture. This either works or
else they run from us! No names, but I had plenty run using this approach!
But not you, thank God! You've always tried to reconcile the apparent discrepancy.
That's why I told you (and meant it), you were going to make an excellent moderator here!Your Brother in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34 / Isa.60:14)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ July 04 2010,08:12) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 04 2010,07:01) Quote (Ed J @ July 04 2010,06:26) Perhaps we should start “A New Thread” for ALL JW defectors,
as a sort of homecoming welcome to Heaven(.net)!
I fried David Here <– Third Post (Isa.54:17)
Hi Ed,I agree with this statement you quoted in the post you linked 100%!
Quote Do not passively allow others to mold your thinking.' And my family thinks me being on HN is a waste of time because they feel all the truth I ever need to know about God can be learned at their meetings. And I try to explain to them that if you only associate with people who believe exactly what you do about the Bible, then how can you test your beliefs? I learned from them that Adam was created “perfect” and continued to believe that until Nick showed me that scripture never says that, for example. And I might have gone on accepting Roo and WJ's assertion that only mankind are sons of God until Dennison showed from Job how that is wrong. How can you know you're right about “plural God” for example, if you never hear the other guy out?
I'll be honest with you Ed, I don't agree with some of your interpretations of the scriptures , but if not for your views and your explanations of them, I wouldn't ever need to delve any deeper into scriptures than the surface.
As far as the topic for ex-WJ's, I think it might be hurtful to some, and what good would it bring? Maybe I'm wrong.
mike
Hi Mike,Thanks Mike, a BIG complement! (Acts 17:11)
The JW's views are no better than anyone else's!
This forum is like a big giant continuous Bible Study!
Hopefully we ALL learn from each other here at h-net.My view of the Bible is based on understanding it as a whole,
hopefully you will continue to learn from my understanding of it!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
edjyou say;My view of the Bible is based on understanding it as a whole,
so i do the same but without numbers,
i have a question for you ;in Israel at the time of the kings there was a king very bad far from God doing evil things,
he lived+or- 70and ruled for like 50 years why
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
