- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 30 2006,20:00) Hi Is 1.18
So what does the kenosis mean to you?If God
empties Himself
to come as man
as you say you believe
in what way is He exactly the same as before he did so?Can God empty Himself and yet remain fully God?
Scripture says that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever so if he was our God how can he become the servant of God?
If God was anointed by the Spirit of power and God is in him in the fullness of deity, reconciling the world to Himself, then whose powers were used, his or God's?
NH,
If I answer these questions for you, will you return the favour?I have some for you too….
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 02 2006,05:34) yep if scriptural, as best I can
Hi all,
I'm interested in this thread and would like to offer my thoughts,on this post, would you mind Nick, if I answered you not necessarily Scriptual?Hey NH,
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 30 2006,20:00) Hi Is 1.18
So what does the kenosis mean to you?
The word denotes “an emptying”…Quote Kenosis is a Greek word for emptiness, which is used as a theological term. As an ancient Greek word, κένωσις kénōsis means an “emptying”, from κενός kenós “empty”.
The word is mainly used, however, in a Christian theological context, for example Philippians 2:7, “Jesus made himself nothing (ἐκένωσε ekénōse) …” (NIV) or “…he emptied himself…” (NRSV), using the verb form κενόω kenóō “to empty”. source
As for what Philippians 2:7 means to me, I hope I have made that clear in previous posts, like this one
Quote If God
empties Himself
to come as man
as you say you believe
in what way is He exactly the same as before he did so?
Well obviously He wasn't in every sense….what ever He was before, at the incarnation He BECAME a man.
The Word did empty Himself and took on the form of a bondservant….but I don't believe it was deity that He emptied Himself of, as that conclusion would introduce a lot contradictions into scripture. For instance, how could we reconcile these two verses:
Hebrews 2:9
But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever. (also Heb 1:12)Obviously if the Logos divested Himself of that which defined the intrinsic nature of his being, it could not be legitimately said of Him that He is the same yesterday, today and forever….His ontology MUST have remained unchanged. This is true no matter what you believe He existed AS before His incarnation. So, as I previously mentioned, I do not hold to the premise that He divested Himself of deity, but rather the independant usage of His divine attributes. This would explain why He was able to receive worship, was called God (in the nominative and vocative), and fulfilled prophecies that only YHWH could fulfill etc etc…while still a man.
Deity put on humanity….
Quote Can God empty Himself and yet remain fully God?
I guess that would depend on what He emptied Himself of….I've given my opinion, can I enquire what yours is?
Also, can you tell me what He pre-existed His incarnation as? What kind of being was the Logos?
Quote Scripture says that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever so if he was our God how can he become the servant of God?
Philippians 2:6-7 tells us He existed (huparcho) in the form (morphe) of God, that he did not regard equality with God a thing to be held on to, but instead emptied Himself and took on the form (morphe) of a bondservant. So the Logos became flesh (John 1:14), but the man Yahshua is nonetheless the exact representation of His Father’s nature (hypostasis) – Heb 1:3 (cf. 2 Cr 4:4).1. Huparcho – From G5259 and G756; to begin under (quietly), that is, come into existence (be present or at hand); expletively, to exist (as copula or subordinate to an adjective, participle, adverb or preposition, or as auxilliary to principal verb): – after behave, live. (Strong’s Concordance).
“not the common verb for being (eimi). Huparcho stresses the essence of a person's nature – the continuous state or condition of something” (cf. William Barclay, The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], p. 35).
2. Morphe – Perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts); shape; figuratively nature: – form. (Strong’s Concordance).
“always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it” (James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930], p. 417).
3. Hypostasis – From a compound of G5259 and G2476; a setting under (support), that is, (figuratively) concretely essence, or abstractly assurance (objectively or subjectively): – confidence, confident, person, substance. (Strong’s Concordance).
“… in Heb. 1:3, of Christ as “the very image” of God's “substance;” here the word has the meaning of the real nature of that to which reference is made in contrast to the outward manifestation (see the preceding clause); it speaks of the Divine essence of God existent and expressed in the revelation of His Son. The AV, “person” is an anachronism; the word was not so rendered till the 4th cent. Most of the earlier Eng. versions have “substance;” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words)
He can become the servant of God by becoming a man.
Quote If God was anointed by the Spirit of power and God is in him in the fullness of deity, reconciling the world to Himself, then whose powers were used, his or God's?
Given that He apparently emptied Himself of the independent usage of the divine attributes, He must have operated by the Holy Spirit's Power while on Earth. However, it seems that these attributes have been restored:Hebrews 1:3
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on highQuote If God was anointed by the Spirit of power and God is in him in the fullness of deity
Can you explain to me precisely what you mean by “God is in him in the fullness of deity”, and where is this recorded in scripture?Summary of questions
1. What, in your opinion, did the Logos empty Himself of?
2. What kind of being was the pre-incarnate Logos?
3. What does “God is in him in the fullness of deity” mean? (and where is it written?)
Hope this post brings into clearer focus for you my position on the kenosis. Now can you do the same for me?
Cheers
Is 1:18Quote (Debra @ Oct. 02 2006,08:57) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 02 2006,05:34) yep if scriptural, as best I can
Hi all,
I'm interested in this thread and would like to offer my thoughts,on this post, would you mind Nick, if I answered you not necessarily Scriptual?
Hi Debra, nice to meet you. I'm interested in your thoughts….Hi Is 1:18
Thank you, the way I understand is through an example in my life. When I gave birth, part of me went into my children…Empties Himself.. I perceive to mean emptied His seed into Mary the Mother of His child Jesus.
He is the same because He is God.
I'm still me intact, eventhough apart of me is somewhere else in my children.
Yes God can empty Himself.
Jesus is the same because He is God's seed. He is God in essence.
The last one, I havn't anything to say yet I don't have a thought on it.Hi Is 1.18,
You say“The Word did empty Himself and took on the form of a bondservant….but I don't believe it was deity that He emptied Himself of, as that conclusion would introduce a lot contradictions into scripture. For instance, how could we reconcile these two verses:”
But such a statement presupposes that Jesus WAS a DEITY.
He could not give up his status as a deity unless he had such status.
A deity is a god that is worshipped.
How can one be emptied of DEITY?
It is something you are or are not, not a disposable state.
Can you show me any scriptures that say that Jesus was a deity, a god that was worshipped, before coming as a man?I do not accept that the Word who was with God was part of that God and worshipped AS that God or was worshipped WITH that God but await your evidence of such things.
“His ontology MUST have remained unchanged. This is true no matter what you believe He existed AS before His incarnation. So, as I previously mentioned, I do not hold to the premise that He divested Himself of deity, but rather the independant usage of His divine attributes.”
Your use of ONTOLOGY presupposes that all divine beings are equal and since you say there is only one divine being then you have to say that he was still part of God and not a son of God. But scripture mentions many other gods, not gods that are worshipped or deities but called God by God's Spirit in scripture. I have never heard you claim that the other gods or ELOHIM, angelic beings are also part of God but await your statement on this too.
Again I do not accept that emptying can be read, “not really emptying but just not using”. He was made alike to us in all ways except sin so since none of us were born WITH such unsed powers then it would mean he did not HAVE THEM either.
The quaint thought that he was still worshipped or earth[proskneo] proves he is STILL a deity must be matched with evidence that he was worshipped as a deity in heaven.You cannot have it both ways and say his deity was combined with God in heaven but separate from God on earth.
And if you do you will also have to produce evidence the Spirit is also worshipped as a deity in heaven and on earth for the equal trinity theory to hold water.
Heb
Hebrews 2:9
“But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.”He was a divine being above the angels with glory of his own seen by the witnesses on the mountain and he shed all those advantages and powers to be just a spirit being and the Spirit added the third dimension of a human body through Mary so that he was alike to us and EMPTY of power and Glory.
What is this restriction on the INDEPENDANT USE OF his powers? You mean God did not anoint him with His power but he just used his own on instruction from God?
Then what of Acts 10.38?
” 38How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.”Did he have two lots of powers?
Heb 13
” 8Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.”
refers not to his tent body as that dies, but to his inner being, the person of Jesus, the Son of God, the Word of God. He is the one who came in the flesh, and not God.Like all men he was a vessel which the Father filled with His Spirit at the Jordan.
After his victory all his new powers from God Himself remained with him and greater glory yet was given him to sit with God at God's right hand on the throne.
God was in him.
2Cor 5
“19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.”
Col 1.
“19For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; “
Col 2
” 9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. “Now of course he could not be that God which was in him.
God was in him in the fullness of deity.
I hope this answers your queries.Blessings to you and yours.
Wow! My last entry on Friday generated a consternation amongst us and some pretty good “comebacks” and defenses. I enjoy this much as it reminds me of the previous days when theologians of the past would write apologies (defense of) for their position. Many, many good points made from what I could briefly review. I can only do this while I am at work (I am supposed to only be doing this during break and lunch however) since I do not have Internet at home yet. I will print all these and go through each point at home. Thanks, to all who have contributed. As stated many good points made. You are really making me do more homework than I personally already have of my own studies in regard to scholarly books at home of the Trinity.
On a side note I had some really nive gentleman from the kingdom hall visit with me this weekend. I have visited with witnesses before but these gentlman were very kind and open minded as we discussed points fro both sides. We will continue a raport.Let me reitterate something here. I do not claim to hold to any one position as of yet. I am merely playing the devil's advocate here since it seemed no one was arguing FOR the Trinity. Not to mention my works at home are mostly from theologians of the Trinity persuasion. I quote them a lot being that they have invested more hours and defended more rebuttles of the same statements presented here. Not to mention what measly man such as I am I to think I know more than these great men of faith. Lest we become arrogant in our at times vain attempts to prove a point, I think we need to consider if we are attempting to disprove the Trinity, we are going against hundreds, nay thousands of theologians and scholars throughout 1800 years of apologetics. Men of Luther, Calvin, Knox, Huss, and modern day men of James R White, RC Sproul…etc,etc.
Isaiah 1:18…I hope the above statement helps clear things up a bit on my position. I waver in what I think. It seems subordinationism has very good points. For I do not believe in phrases such as “God the Son” or “eternal Son” for they are not scriptural not supported by the Greek. How can God the Father send another God to be another God in flesh. It makes no logical sense to me. If Jesus were a “God the Son” then who died on the cross. Obviously Jesus the man. Now, however Scriptures seem to say that Jesus is God yet not God the Father. Some say this is a contradiction yet this is what the Trinity states. I have problems with co-eternal and of the same substance yet I can't get around why Scripture says Jesus is YHWH as propported in the Old Testament. On that note, how come (except yourself) do subordinationist on this thread avoid Old Testament passages that speak of YHWH himself coming to earth. It is stated that Jesus is His representative but Scipture speaks more than that. If I send my son Jacob as a representative before me in my Name he will not be me but will represent me and my words…yet He cannot be Casey. He could only be Jacob. And God is way above (Isaiah 55) our thinking for He has a Spirit that can indwell and Jesus be declared as God.
So where do I stand, on this site I will be a Trinitarian to see what sort of arguments will be presented to disprove millenia of apologies for the Trinity. I actually am hoping maybe this thread will help me come to a conclusion.
I do not think Scripture says if you do or do not believe that Jesus is God you are damned. Yet, one is right and one is wrong. I am trying to find out who is right.Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 30 2006,14:40) Quote (Sultan @ Sep. 30 2006,13:30) Isa 1:18,
You use alot of fancy words (lexical ambiguities), and opinions of men in your posts. You may consider simplifying them so that all can understand, and enjoy your input.
Hi Sultan,
The posts were primarily for Casey, who has shown a little acumen with lexicography, grammar etc….I think most others here would understand most of the content, it's not indecipherable….Did I give you opinions of men? Yes. They were for the most part the top echelon of Greek scholars. Would you have a problem with me quoting their English equivalents, or English dictionaries?
Quote Just my opinion of course.
Haven't you just given me an opinion of a man?“You use alot of fancy words (lexical ambiguities), and opinions of men in your posts“
Quote You believe that Jesus was actually Yahweh based on Col. 2:9.
One of (very) many….Quote My question for you is simple. When in Jesus' life did Col 2:9 apply?
IMHO, He always was deity…I don't believe someone can become divine….
Isa 1:18,I asked you a question
Quote My question for you is simple. When in Jesus' life did Col 2:9 apply? You responded
Quote IMHO, He always was deity…I don't believe someone can become divine…. If this is true that He was always from birth to death the fulness of deity, doesn't that line of thinking contradict this text
And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. (Luke 2:52). If Jesus was full where was there room for growth?Quote (Casey S Smith 29 @ Oct. 02 2006,15:50) Let me reitterate something here. I do not claim to hold to any one position as of yet. I am merely playing the devil's advocate here since it seemed no one was arguing FOR the Trinity. Not to mention my works at home are mostly from theologians of the Trinity persuasion. I quote them a lot being that they have invested more hours and defended more rebuttles of the same statements presented here. Not to mention what measly man such as I am I to think I know more than these great men of faith. Lest we become arrogant in our at times vain attempts to prove a point, I think we need to consider if we are attempting to disprove the Trinity, we are going against hundreds, nay thousands of theologians and scholars throughout 1800 years of apologetics. Men of Luther, Calvin, Knox, Huss, and modern day men of James R White, RC Sproul…etc,etc.
Hi casey,
Does God regard as great men of faith those who would add to His teachings concepts that He did not teach?The bible does not teach the trinity theory either through Jesus or
the prophets
or the apostles.Men have derived such ideas by scriptural study but they are vain and dangerous speculations as they are not actually written.
“Come out of her my people lest you suffer for her sins”
First of all…it is sad I know some Greek, Church History, Theology…etc,etc, but cannot seem to figure out how the underlines, quotes, icons by your names are getting done. When I hit the little grey box it just puts a little letter…what a dufus!
You gotta be able to laugh at yourself once in a while so you know you are actually human after all. 
Well, very very interesting thread going here. Only it seems that many “proof texts” are being used by all positions taken here, how that is I am not sure. Maybe the only argument is semantics and not theology.
To say we are using “man's” opinion here is a bit bias. To become wise in our own eyes can lead us to lies deceiving lives. Did not the wisest man in the world (aside from Yeshua himself) say, with the counsel of many men a plan is brought about (My extreme paraphrase).I think it foolish to ignore the theologians of the past, great doctors who proved themselves, and think we little people with the Internet can resolve such a great chasm. Yet, here we all are…why I ask?
Maybe it is something we will never comprehend. Maybe we will get there and go, “whoa, so that's what He meant!” I doubt we will go, “ha ha, I was right and you were wrong!” The very essence of ALL our THEOLOGY is meekness and humility which in eternity will be lived out in the fullest.
Quote (Casey S Smith 29 @ Oct. 02 2006,16:22) Isaiah 1:18…I hope the above statement helps clear things up a bit on my position. I waver in what I think. It seems subordinationism has very good points. For I do not believe in phrases such as “God the Son” or “eternal Son” for they are not scriptural not supported by the Greek. How can God the Father send another God to be another God in flesh. It makes no logical sense to me. If Jesus were a “God the Son” then who died on the cross. Obviously Jesus the man. Now, however Scriptures seem to say that Jesus is God yet not God the Father. Some say this is a contradiction yet this is what the Trinity states. I have problems with co-eternal and of the same substance yet I can't get around why Scripture says Jesus is YHWH as propported in the Old Testament. On that note, how come (except yourself) do subordinationist on this thread avoid Old Testament passages that speak of YHWH himself coming to earth. It is stated that Jesus is His representative but Scipture speaks more than that. If I send my son Jacob as a representative before me in my Name he will not be me but will represent me and my words…yet He cannot be Casey. He could only be Jacob. And God is way above (Isaiah 55) our thinking for He has a Spirit that can indwell and Jesus be declared as God.
So where do I stand, on this site I will be a Trinitarian to see what sort of arguments will be presented to disprove millenia of apologies for the Trinity. I actually am hoping maybe this thread will help me come to a conclusion.
I do not think Scripture says if you do or do not believe that Jesus is God you are damned. Yet, one is right and one is wrong. I am trying to find out who is right.
Hi casey,
There are other threads for this discussion but Jesus told us the Father was God and that he is the Son of God. God spoke from heaven to say Jesus is His Son. Many others attested to thus fact such that we cannot ignore such witness without discarding the essence of the bible.God did come to earth and will come to earth, in the willing vessel of the Son, who had divine origins with God, but emptied himself and was anointed by God with His Spirit in the fullness of deity at the Jordan such that from thence whoever saw the Son saw the Father also.
Quote (Casey S Smith 29 @ Oct. 02 2006,18:44) First of all…it is sad I know some Greek, Church History, Theology…etc,etc, but cannot seem to figure out how the underlines, quotes, icons by your names are getting done. When I hit the little grey box it just puts a little letter…what a dufus! You gotta be able to laugh at yourself once in a while so you know you are actually human after all. Well, very very interesting thread going here. Only it seems that many “proof texts” are being used by all positions taken here, how that is I am not sure. Maybe the only argument is semantics and not theology.
To say we are using “man's” opinion here is a bit bias. To become wise in our own eyes can lead us to lies deceiving lives. Did not the wisest man in the world (aside from Yeshua himself) say, with the counsel of many men a plan is brought about (My extreme paraphrase).I think it foolish to ignore the theologians of the past, great doctors who proved themselves, and think we little people with the Internet can resolve such a great chasm. Yet, here we all are…why I ask?
Maybe it is something we will never comprehend. Maybe we will get there and go, “whoa, so that's what He meant!” I doubt we will go, “ha ha, I was right and you were wrong!” The very essence of ALL our THEOLOGY is meekness and humility which in eternity will be lived out in the fullest.
Hi casey,
Theology is a vain attempt by natural men to grasp what can only be grasped by the Spirit of God as it is spiritual. We do not try to learn about God as much as try to know Him and through Jesus we can be reborn into God's family.Be brave and throw out all the teachings of men and go to the true source of truth, the bible alone. Jesus told us to abide in the Word and in Jn 17 prayed.
” 17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”If we follow Jesus then we do not worship at the feet of vain men but obey the instructions Jesus brought us from God.
Hi,
The JWs follow a series of bizarre and nonbiblical teachings in their vain attempts to qualify to be in the 144,000 they say go to heaven. They teach all men are forgiven at death thus being aligned with the universalist heresy. Desperately earnest they are also sadly rather seriously deceived.Nick you say,
Theology is a vain attempt by natural men to grasp what can only be grasped by the Spirit of God as it is spiritual.
Be brave and throw out all the teachings of men and go to the true source of truth.
The irony? I was just told that by a priest (and man of God I hold the utmost respect for). He said to go to the source himself, and yet he follows Rome. You say that and you follow ___? I assume Penecostal groups?
The problem with that ideology of going to the Word of God alone is it is not Scriptural. If you recall, at the end of Judges it is said that, “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”
Paul said for us to submit to our authorities (in the Church) and likewise said that there are teachers in the fivefold ministry (to go along wtih the lable). I may not agree with David on some beliefs, yet one thing you have to admire about the witnesses, they submit to their elders. Likewise they believe that there is a body of believers that are closest to being right. Though I may not think them so, I respect that they do. Remember the Rechabites? They would not drink wine since it was a tradition passed from their fathers. God rebuked the Israelites for not being like them and hence blessed them. Are the JW's right? I don't think so but it is without a doubt they are blessed for adhering to the Watchtower.
Not to mention the Church of Rome. They likewise submit and hold to their Catechism.I don't think that God intened for us to read the Bible alone for truth. Yes, His Word is Truth but His Word must be hermeneutically, geographically considered, grammatically correct. When man has taken the Word and given himself a private interpretation (Peter rebuked so), he has made a “g”od unto himself and made him his own denomination.
Having said that, I search not merely to find “who is right” but so I can find a body of believers to share my joy, pain, grief and same beliefs and to be encouraged to grow in our shared faith.
Hi casey,
Jn 9
“13They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.14And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.
15Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.
16Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
17They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.
18But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.
19And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?
20His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:
21But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.
22These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.
23Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.
24Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.
25He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.
26Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?
27He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?
28Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.
29We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.
30The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.
31Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
32Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.
33If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.
34They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.
35Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
36He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
37And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
38And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
39And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.”
Jesus went looking for the man rejected of the traditions of men and ministered to him personally.
There is no need to follow behind men who will lead you into a pit.
Follow Jesus.
He is the way and he demands we abide in the Word which men show by their actions they despise.2Peter 1
” 19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
The word is not of personal interpretation – because it is interpreted according to the Word.
Nick H
Quote Hi,
The JWs follow a series of bizarre and nonbiblical teachings in their vain attempts to qualify to be in the 144,000 they say go to heaven. They teach all men are forgiven at death thus being aligned with the universalist heresy. Desperately earnest they are also sadly rather seriously deceived.More importantly, Rejoysing, the person who created this thread, and was wondering about JW's stated:
“I have begun to study with the JWs and I find that so much peace is experienced when you can see that every thing taught is supported in the word of GOD. [You will find several encyclopidias that make the point of saying that all JW's beliefs are based on scriptures] ….Most of all I know that they are seeking to please Jehovah God. I have not found this in any other church in the way God says we should seek to please HIM. Not just lipservice but real genuine seeking God's Word. As I said in another place the so called christian churches, that I have experienced have ministries that are more interested in building the membership, the buildings, and their pocketbooks by whatever means possible. . . . I have study this extensively now on my own, before I began studying with them. I am studying every criticism that I hear about them. Most are unfounded and the teachings are more biblical than the accusers. I also noticed that people who know nothing of the JWs have an unexplained vehement anger toward them. This continues to amaze me.”–JWchurch thread, page 8, bold added
He also said of Jehovah's Witnesses in another thread:
“For me, I determined that the JW's were the only group where each member is involved in preaching the gospel. They dont just go to church, shout, PAY THEIR TITHES, and expect the preachers (most interested in increasing their church membership, buildings, and pocket books) to do the good works with THEIR TITHES. Just so they can be blessed financially.”
And as Casey himself said of JW's, on page 10 of this thread:
“I find they are kind and to their credit, devout in studying the Scriptures unlike most of us Protestants our here. In regard to the NWT, I applaud the Watchtowers honesty avoiding being biased as best as they can.”And Mercy, spoke of JW's this way:
“They are more scriptural accurate than the average Churchianity out there.”
(So, even people who disagree with many of their teachings realize that they follow scripture as their guide for believing what they do.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
