Sand2022's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Sand2022's Profile › Sand2022's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 16 pages)
There is something about the rich man and Lazarus story I didn't consider while a PIMI JW. I had long believed that the story is a parable, so everything there had to be explained away as pointing to something else other than real life event. This is because of several scriptures including Eccl 9:5-10; Romans 6;23 However, aren't parables built from events familiar to once audience? Think about it, all the parables jesus told was not what his audience never knew about, it wasn't from fiction. It is true that some elements may be exaggerated or added to make a point, but events in a parable are not entirely from fiction. The good Samaritan story, the Wise Steward, the prodigal son all were stories his listeners could relate to. I mean the man who was robbed while journeying from Jerusalem to Jericho. That was a location people knew was dangerous. But the story Jesus told didn't actually happen. But the location exists, that actual event can also happen. It's not fiction. There is a reason to think that Jesus was conveying something from the story/parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Assuming it is a parable, what reality did the parable draw from? We can quickly say, it was fabricated from unrealistic event. It is a fiction. But think about this, Jesus audience was the Pharisees, and the Pharisees believed in the immortality of the Soul, they believe also in after death torment of the wicked. Then Jesus began to tell this story of torment. The big question is: If this torment after death was a false doctrine, why is Jesus making a parable from that? Will that act not in fact be validating a false belief? I was just thinking, let's say a JWs is trying to teach another that a wicked act is wrong, then he begins to tell a story that so and so did this wicked thing to Mr B, then after so and so died, he found himself in hell with torment, how would that JWs think his audience will view that parable, that hell is false? Never! he is in fact validating that doctrine by drawing from it to teach a lesson. Jesus never said nor condemned torment after death, rather he even used imagery that conveys that doctrine. We need to also consider that there is no way to allegorize all that Jesus said there. All attempt to convey the meaning in literal sense fails. The interpretation assigned to this parable by JW leadership doesn't match the account. I will talk about their interpretation and why it doesn't fit next time. Tags: jimRohn or Kobojunkie or FxMasterz, maynman, Dtruthspeaker, Image123, DrJones109, Jesusjnr2022, LordReed, Jaephoenix, JessicaRabbit, Knownunknown, DeepSight, BBIA HellVictorinho6, SIXFEETUNDER, OkpaNsukkaisBae, Bacteriologist, FRANCISTOWN, SIRTee15, Aemmyjah, TheSourcerer, Busybrain2233, 1Sharon, TakeNigeriaBack, Botragelad, isan, Fourthpredator, seun, hopefullandlord, bobestman, Lorrayne, HardMirror, Hahn, SlawG, albreezy4eva, Muslim, Dominique, Mrbroke, EnemyofGod2, kkins25, Wilgrea7, A001, Maynthemayn, achorladey, Jozzy4, MightySparrow, NowYouKnow, TemmyT002, johnw47, Boomark, Emusan, Dtruthspeaker, Gabrielshow24, rottennaija |
FreeIgboho:I agree, it is impossible for us to define His nature. Trinity is the best effort at doing that, but it is not perfect. |
Ruke1991:My brother, just attend church, worship God and go home. Don't pin yourselves to any particular church or leader. You belong to Christ not GO or anything pastor. It is when you pin yourselves to a particular church, want to occupy a position there that you end up being frustrated. If you feel the need to preach, open a TikTok account and preach there. You don't belong to Kumuyi, Pastor A or B, Adeboye etc, you belong to Christ. All they are, are stewards. They too belong to Christ. |
MaxInDHouse:You sound different here. Something is changing in you. |
God1000:Catholic is stinkingly rich, but they contribute to charity. A fine example. |
Love800:They try to maintain their place of worship. Their friendly worship style without loud speakers obviously is charming. JW didn't say you won't die, and uniting with your loved ones should be a good thing. If your interest is going to heaven, that's definitely a hope the saints will attain, but we will still come back to earth. The church teach that. I think if you enjoy sweet environment, the Church of Later day saints trumps the JWs. The LDS outshines the JWs in there pretty modest Church environment. When a core JW, I used to appreciate their Church environment. It's sweet and charming. Woow. |
MaxInDHouse:This is serious. Are you the one who wrote this? This is concerning. |
MaxInDHouse:Wrong answer. Return to our earlier conversation and give proves to all the cases servants of God fought, and show us scripturally when those ones served other gods. |
MaxInDHouse:The WAS is in the imperfect tense. By using the imperfect tense, John is conveying that the Word's existence was not a fleeting moment or a point in time with a beginning. Instead, it suggests a continuous existence in the past, before the creation event described in Genesis 1:1 (which is echoed by "In the beginning..." .Just make research. |
MaxInDHouse:That commandment was there even when David army fought with Absalom. And when Jepthar fought with his brothers. |
MaxInDHouse:The construction won't support that. The WAS in that scripture shows existence of the son prior to the beginning. Obviously something more than spirit. And the grammatical setting shows that what God's nature is, the Son is. |
MaxInDHouse:The verb "was" is used, implying a state of existence before being manifested in Jesus. It is consistent with the earlier "WAS the word". The use of theos in John 1 for Jesus is not the same with that of Moses. The word God in John 1 is saying that the Word is of the same Divine nature as God with whom the Word was with. |
MaxInDHouse:I care about what the bible says. |
The following will help us get a gleams of Gods complex nature. Why the phrase, one essence, three persons is fitting is because of some scriptures that suggests so. 1. Matt 28 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, Here we see singular name, but three persons. JWs will say that the Holy Spirit is not a person. If that were true, the Holy Spirit wouldnt appear here since the Father already has been mentioned. At Genesis we see this sungular nature, but more than one persons being repeated in some verses. Gen 1:26 "Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness... " "God" Is singular, but he says let "us", and also in " OUR" image and not imageS. Of course, we know we are made in God's image, not image of two individuals. This helps us see that there is a sense in which God is both one, and more than one at the same time. Scholars have identified that this One is in reference to his nature, while in personhood, He is three. At Genesis 3:5 satan said that Eve will be like God if she eats the fruit. Now notice a shocking statement by God at verse 22: "...Here the man has become like one of US in knowing good and bad... " Did you see that? Instead of God saying the man has become like me, he rather said has becime like one of US, plural, yet the one speaking is Jehovah, singular. This is even more significant if youre a JWs, since among JWs, the knowledge is a special knowledge of determining what is moral good and bad. This is especially reserved for the Almighty who is the Universal Sovereign. Ok, now we are seeing another Sovereign. Well, is it not tre that only the Father and the Son that is called King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Obviously Universal Sovereign. See another example at Genesis 11 7 Come! Let US go down there and confuse their language in order that they may not understand one another’s language.” From verse 6, we see that only Jehovah is the one speaking, as if speaking to himself, but in verse 7, he says let US. Plural. Now from verse 8, we see that the one who scattered their language is still Jehovah, singular. The account didn't mention that he was speaking to anyone but himself. Side note: I believe that the word Jehovah is probably the name of God's nature. It wasnt only used for the Father in the scriptures. We can see that in one sense, God is one, and in another more than one. Trinity is the effort made to bring all that the sceiptures has to say about God in one name. One Nature, three persons. There are other examples of this singular in one sense and plural in another sense in the scriptures, but I will stop here for now. Tags: achorladey, Jozzy4, MightySparrow, NowYouKnow, TemmyT002, johnw47, Boomark, Emusan, Dtruthspeaker, Gabrielshow24, rottennaija |
italkdlonly:He made a good point. The culture of a wife bearing the husband's name was not present during the bible time. However, in ancient biblical jewish society that is largely patrilineal, the culture of a woman bearing the husbands name would have been accepted, after all, it wasn't cultural to have a woman's name in their genealogical records. Today's society is coming up with different worldview not known during the bible era. This subject shouldn't be a huge issue. Let a family decide how theirs will run. If the husband approves the wife to use her fathers name, then that's ok. What should be borne in mind is that the husband is the head of his wife from God's point of view. |
MaxInDHouse:Another wrong answer. Last chance. |
MaxInDHouse:Wrong answer. Your last chance. |
Janosky:The "US" Implies that jesus enjoyed glory alongside his father. That is my point there. The study pane says: The use of the plural pronoun “us” indicates that at least one other person was with God in this vision. So it is reasonable to conclude that when John wrote that Isaiah “saw his glory,” this refers to Jesus’ prehuman glory alongside Jehovah This is the same with Rev 5:13, 14 from my view. Notice whom John said Isaiah saw: John 12:41 41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory, and he spoke about him." Whose glory did Isaiah see as reported by John? And how many person is represented by the "his"? Refer to Isaiah 1 In the year that King Uz·ziʹah died, I saw Jehovah sitting on a lofty and elevated throne, and the skirts of his robe filled the temple. How many persons did Isaiah say he saw there? |
Gabrielshow24:I am ready for him. |
MaxInDHouse:Wrong answer. Respond to those scriptures and prove scrioturally that they were not worshioing jehovah and try again. |
Maximus692:No, not again. Don't escape those scriptures I gave. Read those scriptures and try again. |
Maximus692:Is it that you don't read scripture or you read but do not believe it? Didn't David's army fight Absalom and his Israelites army, who all were worshiping the same God? (2sam 18) Didn't Jephthah fight his Ephraimite brothers, and God made Jephthah win? (Judges 11; 12) Didn't Ahimelech kingship after killing his brothers, eventually result in a civil in Shechem? (Judges 9) Are all these not worshiping the same God? War is not fun, God himself doesn't like people killing themselves for no just course, whether they are His children or not. But situations can lead to war. if we say that God is against war, how then will you explain these obvious wars fought by His faithful servants? If you're saying joining the army is a sin, you're calling God a sinner and his bible servants sinners. God authorized wars, took a side in conflicts, called Himself Jehovah of armies. I understand that you can't accept because that is not what your GB teach. It's ok, but unfortunately the bible has examples of wars God supported. Of His worshipers fighting another of His worshipers. There is nothing they can do about that. This doesn't mean he enjoys the show, but this is part of what he allows in this side of heaven. This is one issue that should be left for personal decision. |
achorladey:They need help. |
achorladey:I don't blame them. It is lack of personal bible study that left them where they are. |
Janosky:In your JW Library study pane, your organization agrees that Jesus pre human existence is referenced in that Isaiah 6:1-3. They only added that his father was there too. This agrees with my post. In fact that study pane even quoted Genesis 1:26 and that implies that jesus is part of the God there. |
Maximus692:I don't see how I chose to worship my God is your concern. Did I dedicate my life to you to do your will? If you dedicated your life to an organization to do their will, that is your business. If I see someone preaching the word of God, I will listen to the word. I don't care the church name. If you're on fire for jesus, you're my brother, it doesn't matter the church the word is coming from, if it is consistent with the bible, I am in. I have said it time without number, I am not into institution name, I am for Christ. Don't tell me join A or B. I am join to someone already, Christ my Savior. If you belong to GB or belong to Russel or Rutherford. I belong to Christ. |
Courz:You're right. No one can put in a box. He wants relationship. Church A or B doesn't concern God. Churches cause disunity in the body and even obstructs God's plans sometimes. Randy Kay has mentioned this point before. In fact God's next revival will put institutions behind and favour individuals, some of who are not institution based worshioers. Don't think that the increasing evangelism on social media's like TikTok, YouTube etc is random. I feel the next move of God would be in families, individuals and not insitution based. |
achorladey:The self deception is concerning. How someone will benjn Christendom, yet he is saying he is not in Christendom. Don't they have dictionaries? From the first century to the early 19th century, who have been preaching Christ and spreading Christianity? Is it Russel that has not yet been born? He now came up to form his own apostate sect of Christianity, then his followers are saying they are not kn Christendom. Then they are in Islam or Hinduism. Or perhaps a cult. You remember that was how they were saying during the time of Rutherford that they were not religion. That Religion is an error and a racket. But maybe someone that reads dictionary came up to tell them that they are religion. So they now agree. Theirs is also a religion. It's sickening. |
Janosky:That's not what jesus was saying there. The glory he was tling his father was the one he gave them already on earth. This glory will help them to be United with the Father and Jesus. At John 17:5 is a glory prior to the World's creation. At Isaiah 6;1-3 we see the glory jesus enjoyed, worship was included. If you read the scriptures honestly if will help you better. |
NEWBIN:They don't. They don't believe in any supernatural visions, healings, angelic appearances or dreams in our time. They believe all that passed away after the apostles died. They believe that these gifts were given by the laying of hands of the apostles or during their presence. So when the apostles died, the gift ceased. Of course they're wrong. The gift is not tied to the apostles. God is the one distributing the gift. Ananias was not an apostle, it was evidently through him that apostle Paul got his laying of hand. |
OLAADEGBU:I am happy he was the one chosen to say that prayer. Deeperlife is quite different from other churches. Kumuyi is doing a great job in the body of Christ. |
In 1 Peter 4:11, Peter concludes a charge with reverent praise to God the Father: "Whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." (1 Peter 4:11, ESV) This doxology—ending with "Amen"—is reverential and worshipful. It is a form of praise directed not to the audience but to the Almighty God, who is not present as a recipient within the letter’s readership. Such exalted praise is a marker of divine honor. Interestingly, similar expressions of glory and praise—concluded with "Amen"—are directed to Jesus Christ as well: "...who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen." (1 Timothy 6:16, ESV) And again: "But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen." (2 Peter 3:18, ESV) These doxologies affirm that such glorifying language is not reserved solely for the Father, but also given to the Son. This is not competitive but complementary. When we worship the Father, we do not exclude the Son, and when we honor the Son, the Father is not excluded either. Rather, they share in the glory and worship. This is echoed in Jesus’ prayer: "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." (John 17:5, ESV) This shared glory is also seen in Revelation 5:13–14, where both the Father and the Lamb (Jesus Christ) receive worship from all creation: "And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, 'To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!' And the four living creatures said, 'Amen!' and the elders fell down and worshiped." (Revelation 5:13–14, ESV) This unity in glory between the Father and the Son is not new; it existed before the world began. The prophet Isaiah describes a scene of divine worship: "In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings... And one called to another and said: 'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!'" (Isaiah 6:1–3, ESV) John later identifies the recipient of that vision as Jesus: "Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him." (John 12:41, ESV) Thus, just as in Revelation 5, the Father and the Son share in divine worship, so too in Isaiah’s vision and John’s interpretation, the Son is seen as the one glorified. The distinction arises not in essence, but in role. When the Son took on flesh for the purpose of redemption, He assumed a subordinate role—one in which He could say, "My God," reflecting His humanity and mission. Yet, this subordination in role does not diminish His divinity. It adds a redemptive function to His identity, while His divine nature remains fully intact—equal in essence and worthy of the same eternal glory. Tags: achorladey, Jozzy4, MightySparrow, NowYouKnow, TemmyT002, johnw47, Boomark, Emusan, Dtruthspeaker, Gabrielshow24, rottennaija |


.
