Ask about Jehovah's Witnesses

An unreasonable God is a God that is not worth K(NOW)ing.

I think you may have just reduced God to a mobster.

I would prefer a GOD who makes no promises. GOD doesn't owe me anything.

Can you blame the Iseralites? If I just received the Commandment from Moses “thou shall not kill” and years later I was told to kill people by GOD I think I would be shaking my head in disbelief too.

I understand this but are you sure that the entity that THE BIBLE is writing about is the ONE TRUE GOD? Does the BEing depicted in THE BIBLE sound like a Supreme BEing? A BEing who is ALL-Powerful, ALL-K(NOW)ing wise and perfect? Does the BEing in THE BIBLE represent someone who UNDERSTANDS the human condition who is mature enough to go above and beyond common human emotions like anger or becoming offended? Who has accurately UNDERSTOOD what UNCONDITIONAL LOVE is? Is this a BEing that you plan to follow because you have actually taken the time to get to K(NOW) this entity or are you following the will of this entity as discussed in THE BIBLE out of fear?

Even though this is not an answer it is a good answer. Not quite the answer that I anticipated but still a good answer.

I must have read this paragraph at least three times and it still sounds like a competitive grudge between GOD and Satan at our expense.

Obey or cease to exist is not an ultimate choice. It is an extreme choice.

 

can god really support the cruelty involved in farming animals for meat ????
Jesus taught compassion....why arn't christians compasionate when it comes to the supply of their chops and steaks ???

 

Isn't that what "dominion" means?

Bob

 

One of the most peculiar of the WTS’s teachings is their assertion that Jesus is actually Michael the Archangel. If the JW has difficulty explaining any particular doctrine, it will be this one. Even JWs will admit that if one were to have walked up to any of the apostles or disciples of Christ and asked them who Jesus was, they would not have said, "Well, he’s Michael the Archangel!" Not only was the very idea was unheard of before Charles Taze Russell (the founder of the WTS), but the Bible explicitly rejects the possibility of it.

For example, the author of Hebrews states, "To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my son? . . . Let all the angels of God worship him. . . . Your throne, O God, stands firm forever. . . . O Lord, you established the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands’ . . . to which of the angels has he ever said ‘Sit at my right hand . . . ’" (Heb. 1). Here, the author of Hebrews separates Jesus from angels, and commands the angels to worship him (cf. Rev. 5:13-14,14:6-7). The obvious problem is this: Archangels are creatures, but the Bible forbids any creature to worship another creature. Thus, either the Bible is in error by commanding the angels to worship an archangel, or Jesus is uncreated and cannot be an archangel. Since this gave the JWs a tremendous problem, they even had to change their own Bible translation, called the New World Translation (NWT), to eliminate the references to worshipping Christ. (The 1950, 1961, and 1970 editions of the NWT read "worship" in Hebrews 1:6.) Beyond this, Jesus has the power to forgive sins and give eternal life, but no angel has this capacity.
www.catholic.com

What these beliefs of the Witnesses amount to is the ancient heresy of Arianism, which is nothing new. Athanasius battled it a millennium and a half ago.

Peace,
Scott

 

simple lie, meant to draw attention away from the debate.

there is a question asked to you, and you don't answer it?
heb1...

...Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom...when he had made purification of sins, sat down at the right hand...become by so much better...he hath inherited...he again bringeth in the firstborn...Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows...

one of the most non-trinitarian chapters in all of the scriptures as far as i can tell.our messiah again appears to have a god from this chapter.does his father ever have one?[yhwh] has no fellows, but this chapter seems to tell our messiah he has had them(and using little logic, one can fully see that it is referring to the very angels he has been made better than), though he is now better, or should i say "has BECOME better".

the bible does not forbid any creature to worship another creature.it displays many times creatures worshipping creatures with no mention of reprocussion, you should learn about the words used.

Let us now review several examples of ‘proskyneo’ from the LXX, which is the source Paul quoted in Hebrews 1:6, and see if a qualified sense emerges. The English is from the RSV:


1 Samuel 24:8 (I Kings in LXX, 24:9) “Afterward David also arose, and went out of the cave, and called after Saul, “My lord the King!” And when Saul looked behind him, David ‘bowed with his face to the earth, and did obeisance’. Here, in LXX, prosekynesen is a form of proskyneo.

Isaiah 25:23: “When Ab’igail saw David, she made haste, and alighted from the ***, and fell before David on her face, and ‘bowed to the ground’. (prosekynesen auto epi ten gen)

Isaiah 25:41: “ And she rose and ‘bowed with her face to the ground’.. prosekynesen epi ten gen epi prosopon, and said “Behold, your handmaid is a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord.”

2 Samuel 1:2 (2 Kings in LXX) “And on the third day , behold, a man came from Saul’s camp, with his clothes rent and earth upon his head. And when he came to David, he fell to the ground and did obeisance..” epesen epi ten gen kai prosekynesen auto.

**(see also 2 Samuel 9:6, 14:4,22,33: 16:4; 18:28; 24:20; 1 Kings 1:16, 23; 2 Kings 2:15; 4:17; 1 Chronicles 21:21; Isaiah 60:14; Ruth 2:10). From these scriptures we can see that on a number of occasions God’s servants were appropriately given ‘proskyneo’, without there being a compromise to Jehovah’s law on exclusive devotion. (Exodus 20:5).


if jesus wasn't a messenger(angel), then answer the following verses.
Ga4:14-and that which was a temptation to you in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but ye received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.
John7:16-Jesus therefore answered them and said, My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me.
John7:29-I know him; because I am from him, and he sent me.
1Tim2:5-For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, [himself] man, Christ Jesus.
Acts3:13-The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus...
Acts5:31-Him did God exalt with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.
Rev3:14-And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:
John5:26-For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself
Acts2:36-Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.

do you believe jesus raised himself on the third day, or his father?
Ro4:24&8:11&0:9 /2Co 4:14/Ga 1:1/1Th 1:10, well?

Rev3:12-He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name.

ironic, 'jesus' fails to call his father his partner, ever.maybe it's not that ironic.(eph1:17,ro15:6,2co1:3,1pe1:3,john20:17,2co11:31)

How could jesus of been promoted?simple
john3:35-The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
(also see 2sam7:12-16)

if man can forgive sins, why can't messengers that act as the almighty(Jud3:21/Ex23:21/Zec1:1-3) do the same?

John20:23"whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained."


of course i've discussed this before, here i'll relay my former discussion.

 

some michael messiah research:


AN EXPOSITION OF THE BIBLE, produced by 27 different scholars, says of
Michael:

"It is even itself probable that the Leader of the hosts of light (in Rev. 12:7-9) will be no other than the Captain of our salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.... Above all, the prophecies of Daniel, in which the name Michael first occurs, may be said to decide the point." -- publ. in Hartford, CT, 1910, by the Scranton Co., vol. 6, p.882


Matthew Henry Commentary:
Concerning Revelation 12:9 in Henry’s unabridged and concise commentaries.
2. The parties-Michael and his angels on one side, and the dragon and his angels on the other: Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and all his instruments. This latter party would be much superior in number and outward strength to the other; but the strength of the church lies in having the Lord Jesus for the captain of their salvation.
Verses 7-11 The attempts of the dragon proved unsuccessful against the church, and fatal to his own interests. The seat of this war was in heaven; in the church of Christ, the kingdom of heaven on earth. The parties were Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and his instruments.

Concerning Daniel 10 in Henry’s unabridged commentary.
Here is Michael our prince, the great protector of the church, and the patron of its just but injured cause: The first of the chief princes, v. 13. Some understand it of a created angel, but an archangel of the highest order, 1 Th. 4:16; Jude 9. Others think that Michael the archangel is no other than Christ himself, the angel of the covenant, and the Lord of the angels, he whom Daniel saw in vision, v. 5.

John Wesley:
Chapter XII
A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4. A conference concerning the time of these events, ver. 5 - 7. An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13.1 For the children - The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.
Wesley on Daniel 10:21
Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes
of the earth desert or oppose it.

Geneva Study Bible:
Da 12:1
12:1 And at that {a} time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since
there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
(a) The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ's coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel.
Da 10:1310:13 But the {h} prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, {i} Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. (h) Meaning Cambyses, who reigned in his father's absence, and did not only for this time hinder the building of the temple, but would have further raged, if God had not sent me to resist him: and therefore I have stayed for the profit of the Church. (i) Even though God could by one angel destroy all the world, yet to assure his children of his love he sends forth double power, even
Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels.

"The two passages in the New Testament, in which Michael is mentioned, serve to confirm the result already arrived at. That the Michael referred to in Rev. xii. 7 is no other than the Logos, has already been proved in my commentary upon that passage. Hofmann (Schriftbeweis i., p. 296) objects to this explanation, and says, 'in this case it is impossible to imagine why the Archangel should be mentioned as fighting with the dragon, and not the child that was caught up to the throne of God.' But we have already replied to this in the commentary, where we said, 'if Michael be Christ, the question arises why Michael is mentioned here instead of Christ'. The answer to this is, that the name Michael [Who is like God?, that is, 'Who dares to claim that they are like God?'] contains in itself an intimation that the work referred to here, the decisive victory over Satan, belongs to Christ, not as human, but rather as divine [compare 1 John iii. 8]. Moreover, this name forms a connecting link between the Old Testament and the New. Even in the Old Testament, Michael is represented as the great prince, who fights on
behalf of the Church (Dan. xii. 1).' The conflict there alluded to was a prediction and prelude of the one mentioned hero. The further objections offered by Hofmann rest upon his very remarkable interpretation of chap. xii., which is not likely to be adopted by any who are capable of examining for themselves."

—Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the
Messianic Predictions, 1836-9, Vol. IV, pp. 304-5 (in the T. & T. Clark publication; p. 269 in the Kregel publication).
Paul says, 'For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,
with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God" and the dead
in Christ will rise first.' I Thes. iv. 16. From this text it appears
that when the Lord shall descend with a shout, his voice will be that of
the Archangel, or head Messenger; therefore the Lord must be that head
Messenger. This text says the dead shall rise at the voice of the
Archangel; and Christ affirms that the dead shall be raised by his
voice. He says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming,
and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and
they that hear shall live. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming,
in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come
forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they
that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." John v. 26,
28, 29.

Brown's dictionary of the Bible on the words Michael, and Angel says, that both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel. Wood's Spiritual Dic- tionary teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same on this subject that Brown's does. The former was a Calvinist, the latter a Methodist. Buck in his Theological Dictionary says, under the article Angel, d) that Christ is in scripture frequently called an Angel.[1] Butterworth, Cruden, and Taylor in their concordances, assert that Michael and Angel are both names of Christ.
Doc- tor Coke, a Methodist bishop, in his notes on the Bible, acknowledges that Christ is sometimes called an Angel. See his notes of that passage where the Angel of the Lord spake to the people at Bochim. Winchester has taught the same doctrine in the 152 page of the first volume of his lectures on the prophecies. Whitefield, in his sermon on the bush that burnt and was not consumed, says that the Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush was Christ. Pool, in his Annotations, explains those passages where the Lord appeared to the Patriarchs under the character of an Angel, as referring to Jesus Christ. Bunyan makes the pilgrim ascribe his deliverance from Apollyon to Michael. He says, "Blessed Michael helped me." Pilgrim's Progress, Cincinnati edition, page 54. Guyse in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, on Rev.
xii. 7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it as his opinion.
Doctor Watts in his [G]lories of Christ, page 200, 201, 202, 218, 223, and 224, teaches the same doctrine. Watts, Dodridge and some others have called this Angel of the covenant, or Angel of God's presence Christ's human soul, whom they think was the first Being that God ever created. I agree with them that Christ is the first Being that God created, but I cannot see the propriety of calling the pre-existent Christ a human soul, seeing he did not descend from humans but existed before the human family was created.

E.W. Hengstenberg, in his Christologie des Alten Testaments und Kommentar uber die messianischen Weissagungen, Bd. iii. 2 Aufl. 1857 identifies the archangel Michael with the Logos-Christ.

Thomas Scott, in his notes on the Bible, says the Angel that appeared to Hagar when she fled from her mistress, one of the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, the Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush, and the Angel that spoke to the Jews at Bochim, was
Jesus Christ: and also asserts that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. See Gen. xvi. 9, 10. Chap. xviii throughout. Exod. iii. 2-7. Judg. ii. 1-5, Dan x. 13, 21. Chap. xii. 1, Rev. xii. 7.




tbc

 

"the influence of the late-Jewish speculation about the archangel Michael in the earlier period of Post-Apostolic Christianity helped to preserve the Angel-Christology: indeed it even provided new stimulus for the further development of Christology. In his day Wilhelm Bousset had already alluded to the fact, being the first to do so, in his writing about the 'Antichrist'. The figure of the archangel Michael had perhaps already influenced Philo's speculation about the Logos, and Philo bad affected Christian authors of the Post-Apostolic period. in any case Philo did not identify the Logos with the Messiah, but with an archangel,s and he predicated to him that which was appropriate to the archangel Michael. Thus the late-Jewish speculation about Michael (which imparted Messianic traits to the archangel), the Philonic Logos-doctrine and the PostApostolic Logos-Christology appear in a sequence and indicate that the late-Jewish doctrine of angels was their common presupposition."
Martin Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma, p. 133
Clement of Alexandria, 153—193—217 C.E. explains:
Formerly the older people [the Israelites] had an old covenant, and the law disciplined the people with fear, and the Word was an angel; but the fresh and new people [the Christians] has also been given a new covenant, and the Word has appeared, and fear turned into love, and that mystic angel is born—Jesus.—The Instructor, Book I, chapter VII (7); ANF, Vol. II, p. 224.
Hippolytus, 170—236 C.E.:
"And lo, Michael." and Who is Michael but the angel assigned to the people? As (God) says to Moses. "I will not go with you in the way, because the people are stiff-necked; but my angel shall go with you.—Scholia On Daniel, 13; ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 190. (Compare, Exodus 14:19; 23:20, 3; 32:34; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Insight On The Scriptures, Volume 2, p. 816, paragraph 9.)
Melito, 160-170-177 C.E.: (estimated dates of composition):
He who in the law is the Law; among the priests, Chief Priest; among kings, the Ruler; among prophets, the Prophet; among the angels, Archangel; in the voice of the preacher, the Word; among spirits, the Spirit; in the Father, the Son; in God, God; King for ever and ever.—On Faith; ANF, Vol. VIII (FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=icon_cool.gif", pp. 756-7.
In Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly writes concerning The Shepherd of Hermas, of the 2nd or 3rd century:
In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God's inner council, and who is regularly described as 'most venerable', 'holy' and 'glorious'. This angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael...Christ's pre-existence, was generally taken for granted, as was His role creation as well as redemption. This theme, which could point to Pauline and Johannine parallels, chimed in very easily with creative functions assigned to Wisdom in later Judaism...There is evidence also...of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of supreme angel ... Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign, although the Church's triadic formula left its mark everywhere—pp. 94-5.
(see also Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible)-The Shepherd of Hermas was so near and dear to the ante-Nicene Fathers that many of them considered it canonical scripture.
"For Justin the Logos-Christ was, therefore, the archistrategos, the highest angel-prince and leader of the angelic host." Werner, ibid. 135



keep in mind there are some trinitarian sects that believe michael is jesus and [yhwh].


here's scriptural notes


Michael has authority over the angels (Rev.12:7) and so does Jesus Christ (Mat.16:27; 25:31; 2Thes.1:7).
Michael leads the angels to defeat Satan and hurl him to earth (Re 12:7). So does Jesus. (Re 19:13,19).
At 1Thes.4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel. The Greek for 'with an archangel's voice' is literally 'EN FWNHi ARXAGGELOU', in the oblique dative case. In all other occurrences of this idiom in the Greek New Testament it describes the voice of the subject in the clause.

See: BAGD, page 878, [FWNH/phone - 1. Voice]
All these references have 'phone' (FWNH) in an oblique case, genitive or dative, thus signifying not just a noise, but a voice.
+ [Re 5:2] NRSV And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming with a loud voice:
[ EN FWNHi (dat.) MEGALH (WH)]
+ Re 14:7 (cf 9)] NRSV said in a loud voice: [ LEGWN EN FWNHi (dat.)
MEGALH (WH) ]
+ Joh 5:28] NRSV Do not astonished at this; for the hour is coming in
which all those who are in their graves will hear his voice [ AKOUSOUSIN
THS FWNHS (gen.) AUTOU (WH) ]
+ 1Th 4:16 ] NWT because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with
a commanding call, [ EN KELEUSMATI (WH) ] with an archangel's voice [ EN
FWNHi (dat.) ARXAGGELOU (WH) ] and with God's trumpet, and those who are
dead in union with Christ will rise first.
+ Ac 9:7 ] NRSV (not referenced in BAGD) The men who were traveling
with him stood speechless because they heard the voice, [ AKOUONTES MEN THS FWNHS (gen.) (WH) ] but saw no one.
See also: Lu 4:33; Rev 5:2; 7:2; 10:3; 14:7,9,15,18;19:17; Ac 7:60.

What about Heb 1:5, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee?" The main point of Hebrews 1 is to elevate Jesus above the angels (an elevation that an Almighty would not need). Hence the ARCH in ARCHangel. For more click here.
If the title "archangel" also applied to other angels, then the reference to "an archangel's voice" would not be appropriate.
Jesus has been given authority by his Father to raise the dead. (Jn.5:25,26).
But the voice of the archangel also raises the dead (1Thes. 4:16; cf Dan.12:2).
Michael is called "the great prince" (Dan. 12:1).
Christ is called a "princely ruler" and "prince of peace" (Isa.9:6).
In Daniel chapter 7, there is a prophecy about the march of world powers to the end of the age. At the climax of that prophecy we read that "someone like a son of man" was "given rulership and dignity and kingdom," and that one is Jesus Christ. (Dan.7:13, 14) In another prophecy Daniel wrote that reached down to "the time of the end" (Dan.10:13;11:40) Michael would stand up: "And during that time Michael will stand up." (Da 12:1) In Daniel's prophecy, 'standing up' frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as King. (Dan.11:2-4,7,16,20,21)
Michael's "standing" indicates a ruler and supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah's/Yahweh's appointed King.


Both prophecies deal with the same time and the same event...thus the conclusion is obvious.
Satan is abyssed by an *angel* for a thousand years. (Rev.20:1, 2, 10)
The demons identified Christ as the one who was to hurl them into the "abyss" (Mt 8:29).
The nations are destroyed by Jesus and *his* army of angels. (Rev.12:12; 17:16, 17; 19:11-16)
Jesus is also prophesied as the seed that is to crush Satan's head (Gen.3:15), but yet Michael with "his angels" who does this in Revelation 12

Who is a higher ("highest ranking messenger")messenger than jesus?I don't believe anyone is.


+++michaels name(=like god) and status(archangel after jesus' life) changes+++both applied to jesus @
Heb1:2-4
"2has in these last days spoken to us by the Son, whom He has appointed heir of all, through whom also He made the ages,a 3who being the brightness of the esteem and the exact representation of His sub- stance, and sustaining all by the word of His power, having made a cleansing of our sins through Himself, sat down at the right hand of the Greatness on high, 4having become so much better than the messengers, as He has inherited a more excellent Name than them."


michael was/is jesus' name as one of the chief angels[dan10:13](now archangel[jude1:9] due to what was accomplished[dan10:21], i mean the rescue of us all[dan12:1(referenced also to jesus @ Dan9:12 who is the coming PRINCE @Dan9:25{Dan10:13})]).jesus christ was the greatest name(Php2:9*) which was given(Mt1:18,21,25:+php2:9*) along with becoming superior(heb1:2-4^) ,a reward for what he did(heb1:2-4^).And michael did(rev12:7+8 ) what jesus was promised to do(Ge3:15).The meaning of michaels god-given name("like god") applied to jesus @ (Php2:9*).Jesus the angel(Ga4:14[Rev1:1 & 3:14 & 22:16]),michael of course is an angel.


What does the bible plainly say to me?(plz tell me if you say any of these are unscriptural)
1.jesus is an angel
2.jesus was elevated above all angels and given a name above all others
3.michael was/is an angel
4.michael was/is elevated above all other angels(define archangel)
5.michael was a prince whom was/is to come
6.jesus was a prince that was/is to come
7.jesus was prophesied to strike satan on the head
8.revelations shows michael casting satan out after a battle
9.god-given name michael means like god
10.scriptures depict jesus as being like god
ect.

LU ~ 22:28 -
"But ye are they that have continued with me in my temptations;29and I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto me,"

1Co 1:30
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption:

 

What negatives could possibly exist in an All-Positive, All Perfect, All-Purpose God? Is there somewhere in THE BIBLE that explains that GOD was in error or that GOD dabbles in the negative? There is not supposed to BE any negative in GOD. That is why He is GOD.

You cannot use the word “unreasonable” and follow it up with GOD offering “hope”. Offering hope is unreasonable. A Supreme BEing doesn’t offer hope or encourage faith. A Supreme BEing supplements TRUTHs. Does a book entitled THE BIBLE that promises hope and proclaims faith contain the TRUTHs (which requires no need for hope or faith) of the definitive and comprehensible UNDERSTANDING of GOD? Can you name me one organized religion that has this TRUTH?

The provision is not the book, it was never the book. THE BIBLE is not a provision that is “made ready”. THE BIBLE has to BE translated, deciphered, interpreted (accurately I might add), comprehended, scrutinized, then religious organizations have to BE declared and facilities have to BE built and “study aids” have to BE distributed to help in the further understanding of this book way before the application of faith can even BE applied. Does this sound like a provision from an unreasonable (albeit hopeful) loving creator? This sounds like a lot of responsibility for a book (that professes to BE the TRUTH) that people will inevitably only put faith into. It seems it would BE a lot easier for GOD or us to access each other directly, don’t you?

I do not K(NOW) what a paradise on earth could BE like; the prospect of accurately realizing a paradise has never presented itself to me in this physical existence. I can speculate this prospect all I want but I have a feeling our definitions of paradise would BE quite different. I would even say my ideas of paradise would probably BE quite different from GOD’s.

See, that’s just it. We have the “contract”, we read the contract, some people may or may not want to understand the contract but-WHERE ARE THE SIGNATURES?!?! Would you sign a lifetime contract from an entity you have never met? Who are these authors of THE BIBLE? Why do they think they have been inspired by GOD? How do we K(NOW)? Is that the ONE TRUE GOD that they have been describing in THE BIBLE or some other entity? If it is not GOD, then who is it? This is the TRUTH we are lacking and no one has been able to provide us with the evidence needed to draw this to TRUTHFUL conclusion. Do you have it? If not, do you K(NOW) of anyone who does?

Its not that it is too much to ask, it is too unnecessary to ask. What could GOD do or BE with exclusive devotion? What would BE the reason of asking this of us?

This is a proper statement.

If it is GOD’s intelligence that you are considering I would analyze or even entertain the possibility that GOD does not judge. Even though you believe He has the right you may have to consider the possibility with that kind of intelligence (that is not the same as ours) that GOD has no need to judge us, that GOD may not subscribe to the same principals of right and wrong that we do. To me that would BE a sign of high intelligence. We judge right or wrong, we do it every day, we are quite adept at it. if GOD is all powerful, all forgiving, all LOVING I believe it is safe to assume that if GOD’s intelligence is highly developed over ours that GOD does not judge, regardless of what THE BIBLE says.

I do not judge people by their wickedness or their goodness. I do not put any hope or unreasonable expectations on this planet or its population.

I do not think you understand my situation. I am here. I do not expect or desire anything from GOD which is why I am living this life to the best of my ability NOW. If this is the only existence that I will K(NOW) I am grateful and very appreciative no matter who gave me the opportunity. I do not live in the past and I will not hope for the future. I do not think the world is all that wicked. Given my age and my past accomplishments and factoring in the population of the earth and the many different attitudes that people express I would say this world is very lenient and has great potential. I think GOD feels the same way. From the way you speak, you sound like you cannot wait for Jehovah to commit Armageddon, that this world has nothing else to offer you or anyone else. That there are no redeeming qualities to this planet other than what Jehovah has apparently promised you (or His people) for the future. That you are not supposed to BE living this existence in this manner and that you may resent your PURPOSE for BEing here. You may CORRECT me if I am mistaken but is this the impression that you want to honestly reflect upon us?

END OF PART 1

 

Well then I would imagine that GOD UNDERSTANDS our desires, our plights, our responsibilities, our ignorance, our fantasies, our hang ups, our time constraints, our PURPOSES, our need to experiment and experience, our shortcomings, our faults, our independence, our materialism, our drives, our addictions, our selfishness, our fears, our peeves. If GOD UNDERSTANDS all of these human qualities and applies this to His UNCONDITIONAL LOVE then I do not believe GOD to BE a BEing of judgment or vengeance. That is how you UNDERSTAND the human condition. That is how a SUPREME BEing would respond.

Yes, but I didn’t care for the ending.

The only thing that THE BIBLE has taught me was how primitive and superstitious the people of that time had lived their lives. Jehovah does not come off as a bright and shining beacon of hope either. In the OT Jehovah seems to BE described as an unsatisfied, immature tyrant, hardly an entity worthy of exclusive (or any) devotion. The NT kind of picks up nicely and seems out of place with the OT scriptures which explains to me that the two books should have never been combined like that. In other words the OT, compared to the NT are day and night. I do not mean any disrespect for THE BIBLE but that is what I received from it. I am sure if you asked someone else they will have their own review.

Like I mentioned before that I have nothing against the historical accuracies of THE BIBLE, the psalms, the expressions, the stories or the practical advice for life at the time but THE BIBLE is far removed from the PURPOSE or the TRUTH that I am pursuing today.

And if I do not comply? Then what? Am I to be thrown in a lake of fire? Am I to BE forgotten during the resurrection? What is the penalty/sentence/judgment for disloyalty and disobedience for not showing exclusive devotion from a BEing who practices UNCONDITIONAL LOVE? UNCONDITIONAL LOVE means “without any conditions”. There are conditions to Jehovah’s LOVE, there are restrictions to our free willed lives. You will have to make a decision, do you believe in a GOD who has UNCONDITIONAL LOVE and allows us free will with no judgment or penalties or do you follow a GOD who asks (which is a condition) for exclusive devotion. Choose wisely my friend because many religious organizations do not allow you to follow two Gods.

END OF PART II

 

There are many things that Jehovah could or could not have done? Jehovah did have options. I just wish we could have been consulted in the matter since He was going to hold us accountable for the rest of our existences.
A minor point I assure you but you cannot “miss” something that you have never experienced before. If GOD made a different decision and we weren’t here to talk about it we would not never K(NOW) the difference.

The better decision would BE to do it NOW. What is Jehovah waiting for? Why is Jehovah even waiting at all if this is such a careful certainty? Certainly our concerns (however major or minor) at the present are more imperative than anything Jehovah could BE waiting for? Give me several good reasons why Jehovah is withholding the cure for universal sickness, or the secret to resurrect dead loved ones, or guarantee His blessing on the earth for us to be the inhabitants of it forever and I will tell you that He’s too late.

PART 3 OF 3

 

I too apologize for breaking up my posts in parts because of time constraints. If you find that you do not have the time to respond or feel that a response is unnecessary for some reason I will UNDERSTAND. The only thing that I ask is that you consider the possibilities.

 

What question is that?

 

Heb1:5

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee? and again, I will be to him a Father, And he shall be to me a Son?"

(2sam7:12-16)