Send a Message
to ResLight

Comments

1,134

Joined

Nov 19, 2008

ResLight Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Jehovah's Witness

The Best Breakdown of John 1 YET- and non-JW!

*** Hebrews 11:3 Part 2 *** Although God did indeed create the material universe (Isaiah 44:24), I do not believe that this is what is being spoken of in Hebrews 11:3. The Hebrew word "aiwnas" , as used in the Bible, is always referring to time. The faithful of old, living the age before Christ had come, of course, did not see or actually know of the things Christ did while one earth, although they could see dimly by faith. Likewise, those who belong to Christ in this age cannot actually see the things yet to come, except somewhat obscurely by the eye of faith, as they have been revealed in the Bible. Nevetheless, Hebrews 1:1,2 reveals that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob made (appointed) these ages through His Son (Jesus). In harmony with many other scriptures, this indicates that Jesus (although he did not have the name "Jesus" at that time) did exist before the world of mankind had been made. On the other hand, if Hebrews 11:3 is speaking of the material universe, the Bible does indicate that Jehovah was all alone when he brought forth the material universe. (Isaiah 44:24) In this "the word" or "saying" of God here would not refer to Jesus, but simply be referring to God's design. However, I have no scriptural reason to think tht Hebrews 11:3 is referring to the material universe. We should not confuse the beginning of the world of mankind with the creation of material universe. John 1:14 identifies the Logos of John 1:1 as being Jesus. John 1:10 shows that the world of mankind had been made through Jesus. Isaiah 44:24 indicates that Jehovah was alone when he made the material universe, thus His Son was evidently not yet brought forth into being at that time. The conclusion is that "all" of which nothing was made with Jesus spoken of in John 1:3 is not speaking of the material universe, nor of the spirit sons of God in heaven, but rather of the world of mankind. In the beginning, when God made the land and skies spoken of in Genesis 1:1 (Exodus 20:11; 31:17), we find that there were spirit sons of God already in existence. (Job 38:4-7) In relation to Isaiah 44:24, this indicates that the firstborn Son of God (Colossians 1:15) must have brought forth into being sometime after the formation of the material universe but before the creation of the world of mankind. Colossians 1:15-17 indicates that the firstborn Son of God was brought forth into being before the other spirit sons of God (the angels spoken of in Matthew 18:10), since God of Colossians 1:15 made these other sons of God through His firstborn creature. See my studies related to God's Creations Through Jesus: http://jesus-rlbib le.com/?page_id=52 11  (Saturday Jun 13 | post #14)

Jehovah's Witness

The Best Breakdown of John 1 YET- and non-JW!

Hebrews 11:3 Part 1*** Hebrews 11:3 pistei nooumen kateertisthai tous aiwnas TO FAITH WE ARE MINDING TO HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED DOWN THE AGES 4102 3539 2675 3588 0165 rheemati theou eis to mee ek phainomenwn TO SAYING OF GOD, INTO THE NOT OUT OF (THINGS) APPEARING 4487 2316 1519 3588 3361 1537 5316 to blepomenon gegonenai THE (THING) BEING LOOKED AT TO HAVE OCCURRED. 3588 0991 1096 -- Westcott & Hort Interlinear The online interlinear provided "scripture4al l" renders the Greek word transliterated above as "aiwnas" into English as "eons". By faith we understand the ages to have been framed by the Word of God, so that the things seen should not come into being out of things that appear. - (Hebrews 11:3, Jay Green's Literal Translation) by faith we understand the ages to have been prepared by a saying of God, in regard to the things seen not having come out of things appearing; - (Hebrews 11:3, Young's Literal Translation) The "ages" referred to in Hebrews 11:3 are the ages related to the world of mankind, the same world that is spoken of in John 1:10, the world that God made through his Logos. That world spoken of in John 1:10 did not recognize Jesus as being the Logos made flesh, the Son of God, thus the world spoken of in John 1:10 does not include the angels, or even the demons, since they did recognize him.  (Saturday Jun 13 | post #13)

Jehovah's Witness

The Best Breakdown of John 1 YET- and non-JW!

John 1:4 en autw zwee een kai hee zwee een to phws twn IN HIM LIFE WAS, AND THE LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF THE 1722 0846_5 2222 1511_3 2532 3588 2222 1511_3 3588 5457 3588 anthrwpwn MEN; 0444 -- Westcott & Hort Interlinear. Jesus' life was only the light of men while Jesus was in the world into which sin came, causing the spiritual darkness. -- John 8:12; 9:5. Adam was sinless, and while he was sinless, he was in the light, not the darkness. After he sinned, that which had been "light" became darkness, and through Adam's sin darkness spread to the whole of world of mankind. Jesus, however, was born of this world that is condemned in Adam, but his heavenly Father especially prepared for him a body of flesh. (Matthew 1:18; Hebrews 10:5) Thus, Jesus' flesh was not tainted with the sin of the world, and if he, unlike Adam, remained obedient to God, his human life, body, blood, etc., could be offered to God to offset Adam's sin. Jesus did remain obedient, and thus he did offer himself for all who are dying in Adam. -- Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2. See my study on my website: Light, Darkness and the Logos http://jesus-rlbib le.com/?p=1436  (Saturday Jun 13 | post #12)

Jehovah's Witness

The Best Breakdown of John 1 YET- and non-JW!

The comments Mad JW posted are actually mine. I certainly had no intention of limiting salvation to just those who would agree with my comments. I believe that Jesus gave his life a ransom for all, and that all who are dying in Adam will be saved, delivered, from the Adamic condemnation, regardless what they believe. http://reslight.ne t  (Saturday Jun 13 | post #10)

Jehovah's Witness

Jehovah's APOSTATE Witnesses

CIA Free: <<They also severely criticize any of their members who start to have doubts about the false teachings they receive from the Watchtower and encourage them to wait patiently on Jehovah to make the necessary changes in due time. But that begs the question: Why didn't Charles Russell patiently wait on Jehovah? Why did he run ahead of the Christian faith? And why do Witnesses today still praise Russell for the sin that he committed by turning his back on Almighty God? There is absolutely NOTHING that Witnesses can say to justify Russell's actions or their insistence on following him.>> The JWs often retroactively extend their "Jehovah's visible organizaton" dogma back into the days of Russell. From the JWs "organization " dogmatic standpoint, this may be a valid point; from Russell's own standpoint, however, it is irrelevant. An additional point is that Rutherford "apostacized " away from the basic teachings of Brother Russell, especially as related to church organization, and the atonement in Christ, and replaced these with his "Jehovah's visible organization" dogma that demanded that all had to submit to Rutherford, and the atonement was replaced with with an "Armageddon " message of eternal doom for those who do not accept the alleged "Jehovah's visible organization" . The new message was almost the very opposite of what Russell taught.  (May 3, 2015 | post #27)

Jehovah's Witness

Jehovah's APOSTATE Witnesses

CIA Free: <<and the second dictator of the Watchtower, Joseph Rutherford.> > Russell's Watch Tower ceased to exist when Russell died. Brother Russell, by arrangement with the Board of Directors, controlled the WTS itself during his lifetime, but Russell's Watch Tower held no authority over the congregations. Just before his death, Brother Russell stated, "Let it be borne in mind that the Society exercises no authority, makes no criticism, but merely gives advice; and that in the interest of the Lord’s Cause and the Lord’s people." (The Watch Tower, August 15, 1916, page 248.) After Russell died, Rutherford, however, in effect, created a new Watch Tower Society and claimed the authority that Russell preached against. Russell did not believe in and preached against such an organization as Rutherford created after Russell died. Indeed, by means of the original charter, his will, as well as written instructions, Russell sought to keep the Watch Tower Society from becoming the authoritarian organization that it did become after he died. http://ctr-rlbible .com/?p=1892 CIA Free: << They make it a priority to go out each week to not only recruit more followers but to also condemn the Christian faith and church that Russell abandoned long ago.>> Jehovah's witnesses have abandoned Brother Russell's message of good-will to all men and now preach a message that, if taken to its logical conclusion, would condemn Brother Russell himself. CIA Free: << They still preach about some parousia of Jesus Christ in the year 1914, which cannot be found in the Bible anywhere.>> Barbour presented several Biblical lines of prophecy that point to the year 1914, not as beginning the parousia, but as the end of the Gentile Times. Barbour, at least until 1878, believed that Christ's parousia had begun in 1874, not 1914. Again, several lines of Bible prophecies point to the year 1874. Brother Russell adopted Barbour's views on this in 1876. Russell died in 1916 still holding to the view that the parousia of Christ had begun in 1874. Nevertheless, Brother Russell did not present his views on this as dogma, or something that was necessary for salvation. Unlike the JW leadership, he did not claim authority to condemn anyone for disagreeing with him, especially as related to chronology and time prophecies. However, the enormous amount of scriptural evidence that Russell provided in his second and third Scripture Studies volumes was later ignored by Rutherford, so that today, the only line of evidence they present for 1914 is that of Daniel 4. Rutherford began basically to ignore 1874 and other dates, evidently because he wished to use the prophecies related to those dates in a way that he thought would bolster his "Jehovah's visible organization" dogma.  (May 3, 2015 | post #26)

Jehovah's Witness

Jehovah's APOSTATE Witnesses

CIA Free: <<Toward the late 1800's, a certain Charles Taze Russell, became disgruntled with the true Christian faith and set out to establish his own faith and religion.>> Charles Taze Russell did not leave the Christian faith, but he did realize that man's self-proclaimed orthodoxy was in error on many things. Russell sought to defend the Christian faith -- the faith once delivered to the saints. Russell certainly DID NOT establish his own faith and religion -- he did not believe in doing such a thing. See my research: http://rlctr.blogs pot.com/2008/06/ne w-religion.html CIA Free: << Those he became an apostate for turning his back on God and leaving the Christian congregation and his spiritual brothers and sisters.>> This has no application to Russell, since he didn't do such. Brother Russell's statements: |-- I joyfully recognize as members of the same Church all who profess faith in Christ’s redeeming sacrifice and full consecration to death with Him—whether in or out of earthly sects and parties. I am not a member of any earthly sect, believing that they are all of human organization. I love all who love God and are seeking His ways, but I abominate the creeds of the “dark ages,” which did so much to misrepresent the Divine Character and Plan and which so seriously enslaved so many of God’s people in the chains of ignorance and superstition.--| “The Co-Operative Church Movement,” Watch Tower, October 15, 1911, page 395. CIA Free: << As if leaving weren't enough, in time Russell began investing his money in making little book to criticize the Christian faith and church that he left behind.>> I am not sure what "little book" is being referred to, but Brother Russell did show how man's extra-Biblical creeds do not harmonize with, and even contradicts the faith once delivered to the saints. If the "little book" being referred to is "The F&#8204;inishe d Mystery", that book was not written by Russell. CIA Free: <<Thus, Russell who by now was mentally diseased, came to be in league with Satan the devil and accusing his former brothers ans sister day and night in his little publications and Watch Tower magazines.>> I would say that one who believes this has either actually not taken time to know what Russell actually taught and/or why he taught what he did, or else is willfully misrepresenting Brother Russell. CIA Free: <<2. Today, Jehovah's Witnesses continue to carry on the evil work of there founding father C.T. Russell>> Today, the Jehovah's Witnesses have stopped preaching the central message of good news of great joy that will be for all the people that Brother Russell spent nearly his entire life preaching, and they have replaced it with a message that is basically bad tidings of great woe of eternal destruction that will be for most of the people who do not join their organization. It would be highly misleading, however, to view present Brother Russell as the founding father of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Brother Russell was not the founder of that in which he did not believe, and that which he preached against. See what I have presented related to this: http://ctr-rlbible .com/?page_id=2084  (May 3, 2015 | post #25)

Jehovah's Witness

Found this today about Gods name.

In English, the two most common ways of spelling God’s Holy Name is Jehovah and Yahweh. Jehovah is based on the Massoretic Hebrew text while Yahweh is based on some ancient Greek texts. These should not be viewed as two different names, but they are the same name, having come to us from two different linguistic backgrounds. To speak of “Yahweh” or “Jehovah” as not being the correect name of God is nonsense, since. The problem is that no one on earth today knows for a certainty how original Hebrew sounded. The Massoretes began adding vowel points long after Hebrew had become a dead language; we do not know for a certainty how any Hebrew word sounded. The same is true of Koine Greek. In fact, we do not truly know for a certainty how any name in the Hebrew Bible was originally pronounced. The name “Jehovah” itself — as represented in the Hebrew tetragrammaton – goes all the way back to Genesis. It would be incorrect to think of “Jehovah” in English as a name separate and distinct from the Hebrew name that is represented in English as “Jehovah”. The English word “Jehovah”, is not a name separate from its Hebrew form, but they are both the one and the same name; they are not different names, whether they are pronounced exactly alike or not. Although many have become accustomed to thinking of saying “John” is an English name, and that “Juan” is a Spanish name, this kind of reasoning is misleading, since both are simply linguistic forms of the same name. Actually, both “Jehovah” and “Yahweh” are Anglicized representations of the same Holy Name as found in the Hebrew. Both are English spellings and pronunciations that are commonly used to designate the same Holy Name of God. See my study on my website: The Holy Name in Original Hebrew/Greek http://jesus.rlbib le.com/?p=76 It is generally claimed that the Massoretes took vowels from the words usually transliterated as ADONAI or ELOHIM, and placed these in the tetragrammaton to remind the reader to not pronounce the Holy Name. However, as yet, I have found no real proof from what the Massoretes wrote that they actually did take the vowels for the Holy Name from either ADONAI or ELOHIM. This appears to be a supposition that was offered by someone later and has become accepted as though fact because it has been repeated so much. Nevertheless, to truly NOT pronounce the Holy Name would mean to leave a blank wherever the Holy Name appears. Thus one would read Exodus 3:14,15 as: That they may know that you alone, whose name is, Are the Most High over all the earth. Rather than not pronounce the Holy Name, God’s Holy Name is usually changed, designated and pronounced as another name altogether. See: Should God’s Holy Name Be Pronounced? http://jesus.rlbib le.com/?p=44 Nevertheless, if one should think that one should not pronounce God’s Holy Name for fear of mispronouncing that name, one should really fear to change to Holy Name to other words, such as “the Lord”, or “God”, as most translations do, for both words would certainly be mispronouncing the Holy Name.  (Nov 9, 2014 | post #1970)

Jehovah's Witness

does the wts have secret links with freemasons

What proof do you have that the Rothchilds financed Russell's trips to Palestine? My research regarding Russell and the Rothschilds: http://ctr-rlbible .com/?cat=686  (Oct 30, 2014 | post #57)

Jehovah's Witness

does the wts have secret links with freemasons

Like the accusation that Brother Russell was a member of the Freemasons, likewise, it also false that he was a member of the Rosecrucians. See my research on my website: http://ctr-rlbible .com/?cat=79  (Oct 30, 2014 | post #56)

Jehovah's Witness

does the wts have secret links with freemasons

This would evidently mean that since Brother Russell spent his entire fortune, and almost his entire life, in preaching a message that would lead people away from the Freemasons, thereby he was sabotaging that in which he is alleged to have been "knee deep" in. Brother Russell is NOT buried in a Masonic Cemetery. I called the owners of the cemetery and they told me very bluntly that the Rosemont Cemetery is not owned by the Masons, nor is it a "Masonic cemetery." The claim that Brother Rsusell was buried in a "Masonic cemetery" is just another one of those ways people misrepresent the facts. http://ctr-rlbible .com/?p=3209  (Oct 30, 2014 | post #55)

Jehovah's Witness

does the wts have secret links with freemasons

For the idea of any kind of bloodline to be "Illuminati ", "Satanic ", etc., to have any application as often suggested, it would have to mean that anyone of such a bloodline could not possibly be saved through faith in Jesus. One would, in effect, have to throw the Bible away if one accepts the alledged theories of such a bloodline. See my own research regarding Russell and the alleged Satanic bloodlines: http://ctr-rlbible .com/?p=1837  (Oct 30, 2014 | post #54)

Jehovah's Witness

does the wts have secret links with freemasons

In reality, since Brother Russell was never a member of, and since he preached against a Christian being a member of, the Freemasons, there is zero evidence that Russell had any special "bonds" with the Freemasons, and those who are genuinely familiar with Brother Russell's works KNOW that Russell was not a Freemason, and that he did not condone the Freemasons' organization. All I have ever seen anyone present are imaginations, misrepresentations , quotes out of context, misquotes, and assumptions based on what has to be imagined, as proof of Russell's alleged bonds with the Freemasons.  (Oct 30, 2014 | post #53)

Jehovah's Witness

does the wts have secret links with freemasons

I would like to see this book, or is it the book being spoken actually that written by Fritz Springmeier. Charles Taze Russell, who was never a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization, was certainly NOT supported by the Freemasons. See my own research on my website: Charles Taze Russell and the Jehovah's Witnesses http://ctr-rlbible .com/?page_id=2084 Was Russell Financed by the B’nai B’rith? http://ctr-rlbible .com/?p=1938  (Oct 30, 2014 | post #52)

Jehovah's Witness

does the wts have secret links with freemasons

I did my homework. Regarding Russell's alleged usage of "Masonic symbols:: http://ctr-rlbible .com/?cat=58  (Oct 30, 2014 | post #51)