truthseeker wrote:Can you show in scripture interpreting scripture any verse that allows you to insert both "things" and "other" (two words that do not exist in the Greek) both inserted at the same time? Is there any other place?
truthseeker wrote:Can you show in scripture interpreting scripture any verse that allows you to insert both "things" and "other" (two words that do not exist in the Greek) both inserted at the same time? Is there any other place?
truthseeker wrote:Can you show in scripture interpreting scripture any verse that allows you to insert both "things" and "other" (two words that do not exist in the Greek) both inserted at the same time? Is there any other place?
“Similarly, though Jesus was not part of the “all things” that came into existence through him, he was, nevertheless, a created person, the very first creature of God. The Greek word panta in certain contexts means “all other,” as in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 6:18. (See An American Translation, Moffatt, Common Bible.) Hence, the New World Translation reads: “by means of him all other things were created . . . he is before all other things.”—Col. 1:16, 17.”
truthseeker wrote:Isn’t it true that Watchtower sites James Moffat and his American Translation as their expert on when it's appropriate to insert the words “other” based on his translations of 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 6:18?
The WT says:“Similarly, though Jesus was not part of the “all things” that came into existence through him, he was, nevertheless, a created person, the very first creature of God. The Greek word panta in certain contexts means “all other,” as in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 6:18. (See An American Translation, Moffatt, Common Bible.) Hence, the New World Translation reads: “by means of him all other things were created . . . he is before all other things.”—Col. 1:16, 17.”
So if Moffet is an authority on the Greek word "panta or pas" surely he knows when it's appropriate, accurate and honest to insert the word "other", would he not?
The Greek word panta in certain contexts means “all other,”
as in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 6:18 (See An American Translation, Moffatt, Common Bible.)
...Hence, the New World Translation reads: “by means of him all other things were created . . . he is before all other things.”—Col. 1:16, 17.”
The quoting of other translations that agree with our renderings are to merely show that there are other scholars who would agree with our rendering
truthseeker wrote:Is there one bible out there that does exactly that (in col 1:16-17) of what you mention or scholar that supports nwt insertion of not one, but two words into the text at the same time? Name him and the bible.
Or is this simply bait and switch as I have stated and there is no such support.
Notice moffats translation in the other two texts do not insert two words, just one.
It doesn't matter how you want to rationalize it. Can you name one scholar that supports inserting two fictional words at the same time?
PS. There's nothing wrong with just saying he is before all. Without inserting either word. That is the true translation. If he was eternal there is no problem with this. Matter of fact that is why Paul spoke it this way. Inserting THINGS or OTHER is someone's bias opinion and not part of the Greek Scripture.
Your arguement is that words that don't exist trump the actual text.
http://www.qbible.com/greek-new-testame ... ans/1.html
See the greek. It's understandable exactly what is being said. The only reason the word things is inserted is just to make good sounding english. But that word itself is fiction.
The greek literal trumps all. Including all translations. You lose.
truthseeker wrote:Yes if it is not disclosed to the reader in advance. They are wrong. Newer translations are now changing the color of the words to let the reader know it does not exist or has been inserted.
Your 1984 nwt translation was honest and put the word other in brackets letting reader know it was WTS opinion. Now they removed that to hide it from the reader that there are two insertions.
These older bibles that do insert the word "things" are acceptable if it doesn't change the true meaning.
All things
And
all other things
Are two different meanings entirely.
Your question is flawed because even these older translations are honest enough to just extend the word ALL by adding things.
WT literally lies to the reader inserting TWO words.
Because to use the Moffat bible as support you can only insert the word Other without the word Things.
So it would read he is before all other....
Which makes no sense.
Which is why no one else inserts other.
Because to be intellectually honest with the translation you have to pick one word only. Other or things.
Which is why you cannot find any scriptural support or scholarly support for the WT erroneous and irresponsible insertion of two words.
truthseeker wrote:He is before all...period.
John 1:3 tells us all was made by him and not one thing that exists would exist without him.
It's air tight.
Since it is common sense and a logical absurdity that the maker of All doesn't include himself nothing else needs to be added.
Rotherham wrote:Surely you must see the logical error here.
How can he be before himself?truthseeker wrote:He is before all...period.
John 1:3 tells us all was made by him and not one thing that exists would exist without him.
It's air tight.
Since it is common sense and a logical absurdity that the maker of All doesn't include himself nothing else needs to be added.
truthseeker wrote:You are flip flopping.
Because that would mean there are ZERO raw materials.
You are and have been and still are in Checkmate
truthseeker wrote:Let's say you already exist. And X are things that have come into existence by you, if so then naturally "X" excludes anything that pre-existed to X coming into existence by you.
riddle solved...There are only TWO CATEGORIES. Things before X and things part of X.
Anything created is part of X, and anything NOT created is excluded from X.
John 1:3
X came into existence through him and apart from him not even one thing came into existence
LOGIC
1. The father pre-existed before X came into existence
2. Jesus existed before X came into existence, because Jesus is the one who brought X (created things) into existence. He could not bring things that already existed into existence. That's a logical absurdity.
Colossians 1:17 New International Version (NIV) <====Is saying the same thing as John 1:3
17 He is before X, and in him X hold together.
This is consistent. There can only be TWO CATEGORIES.
You are creating THREE CATEGORIES and claiming that it's the same as TWO.
Category Three: "All Other things."
By inserting OTHER it automatically means All Things other than the things Jesus created. Or "OTHER than X"
This is a direct conflict with John 1:3 and math in word problem form because Jesus is part of the Category "Pre-existed prior X". Anything that is part of X defaults to automatically to being created and coming from Jesus. There is ZERO room for ALL OTHER THINGS as a category or Things other than X. The logic doesn't allow it.
This is why no scholar will back your nonsense, or why you cannot find a bible on the planet that translates Col 1:16-17 with all OTHER things. It's a logical absurdity. It can not exist without conflicting with John 1:3 or the content logic.
1. If all things that exist, exist only from Jesus, or they could not exist. Then there is no ALL OTHER THINGS. It's impossible! Laughably absurdly impossible! You have been duped into believing this nonsense. Which is why even Moffat doesn't mess with the text and leaves it consistent with every translation. Because it's the only way it can be translated without being intentionally dishonest about it.
2. Adding all other things creates a huge problem, a problem where there is another set of "THINGS" besides "ALL THINGS" that Jesus brought into existence. Which is impossible because there are no other things that could exist according to John 1:3. They are either part of the group that pre-existed before X was created or they are part of X...period.
You're clutching at straws. You have been in checkmate and still haven't gotten out.
There is no escaping it. Do it on paper. Draw boxes based on John 1:3.
Box one.
Jesus not part of all things automatically. He goes in box one.
ALL things are what Jesus created. So they come from Jesus. They are automatically in box 2.
If you want to be cute....and say what about God? Since God is not created by Jesus he goes into the same box as Jesus.
Jesus and God are in the box labeled "before all things". All things are box 2 which holds everything else besides them. Period. A 12 year old can do this. try it. SEE...for yourself.
Try drawing with yours. There is no room for ALL other things. Where are these "other" things in John 1:3? None the text does not allow it. Obviously were are speaking of Jesus himself, but he unfortunately is in Box A. There is no Box C by the context.
You lose.
This solves your true meaning of firstborn. It is the term for Jesus used by God when he begotten him after the Resurrection. it is the fulfillment of the prophecy of David "i will MAKE" him my first born, not he is my firstborn already.
Colossians 1:15-17 I'm going to paraphrase what the meaning here really is. There is no room for ALL other things.
15 The Son is right now (in present tense, which after his Resurrection) an exact replica of the original invisible God, This carbon copy of God is the first to be begotten by God of all creatures.
WHY is he the first to be begotten?
Because inside of Jesus all things were created (by God): <====Yes it literally means in or inside Jesus. Ha! This is talking about God creating. So did god create ALL OTHER things inside Jesus?
things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all these things have been created (inside Jesus) then through Jesus and for Jesus. 17 Jesus is before all of these things came into existence (john 1:3), and inside Jesus all of these things still hold together.
That's what it means. You cannot over turn this.
The reason translators wont back up our translation of Col. 1:15 is because they are all Trinitarians and that verse disables the Trinity.
context rules and in the context of Col. 1:15 Jesus is categorically included in creation.
truthseeker wrote:The reason translators wont back up our translation of Col. 1:15 is because they are all Trinitarians and that verse disables the Trinity.
That is a complete false statement and deluded. Being a trinitarian doesn't mean a translator will dishonestly mislead people in his translations of text (like Fred Franz did when ordering the spanish translation department and new word translation committe to purposely mistranslate the word NAOS in the greek. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/2 ... anz?page=1)
I agree trinity is false doctrine but so is Jesus being created and that he is Michael an angel. Impossible.
This exposes WT translation. Answer this plainly how is this possible?
Col 1:16
all things have been created through him and for him.
1 Cor: 15-27
For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.
Hebrews 2:5
It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.
How is this possible if Jesus is an Angel?context rules and in the context of Col. 1:15 Jesus is categorically included in creation.
But this is where you are trapped. Because you claim Jesus is part of creation from the very beginning with no proof.
I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus became part of creation. He gave up everything to become part of creation so of course he is in the category for that very reason. That's using plain context as well as plain verses which can prove exactly when this happened. You have no such proof. Not a single supporting verse that cannot be overturned. Every single use of "firstborn" is a reference that occurs AFTER the Resurrection. The biblical precedent in the NT is AFTER the Resurrection.
Jesus and everything he was ceased to exist at death. The dead have no further reward. But those born again do. He is a new creation. A firstborn. "When he brings his FIRSTBORN into the world..."
The logic is simple, God did not have a firstborn at the time of the old testament which is why he made David his firstborn, and at death David was no longer firstborn. Then it became Jesus, hence why he had to bring his firstborn into the world. Hence Jesus got the blessings of David. Otherwise the firstborn would have already been in the world the whole time. The law forbids appointing another firstborn infront of an actual firstborn. You are stuck. You are stalling. Your still in checkmate.
You are desperate to keep firstborn as the same as first created. Unfortunately, even Jesus as a first created would not make him a firstborn. He would not of had God's DNA and would not of been an actual offspring as firstborn denotes. However, after being born of Mary Jesus had God's DNA. He was biologically as son. And death is just birth pangs until Resurrection where he becomes firstborn, born from the dead out of all all creation. Which is also why he is firstborn of many breathern, because he will have many brothers who will also be born from the dead later at the coming of Christ.
Since Jesus creates "ALL things" as i have qualified as meaning everything that came into existence, that means Jesus was already in existence there fore part of the group pre-existing before all things.
This harmonizes smoothly that Jesus created all the things that came into existence in the beginning. And that God did not physically create him or anything in the beginning. Because, after the Resurrection Jesus is the first thing that God ever created and this occurs AFTER Jesus Resurrection. Rev 3:14 where Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God. Before everything was originated from God but Jesus was the physical creator of ALL that was brought into existence.
Your version has so many holes and unanswered questions and conflicts and contradictions and unfulfilled prophecies. Mine is complete every T crossed and I dottted with ZERO contradictions. Otherwise you would have stumped me already. But you can't.
Since the firstborn son was the heir, if Jesus is not the firstborn son, why then is he the heir of all things? Also, who would be the real firstborn creation?
You claim, if I understand you correctly, that Jesus was not the true firstborn of creation in the sense of being born, but rather he became the firstborn because he became a man and entered the realm of creation, and became the "preeminent" creation by that direction. That would all be well and good if it weren't for the HOTI clause in verse 16, and this is what you keep sidestepping.
.
I'll paraphrase verses 15-16 and provide a brief explanation of the structure behind Paul's logic.
[15] Jesus is the (prototokos) of all creation, [16] because he created all things, and all things were created for him.
Now, verse 15 is Paul's STATEMENT.
We'll call this [A]. Naturally, Paul backs up his statement in verse 16 through REASONING, which we'll call . The idea is that, given [B}, we can conclude [A].
[b]A brief example of how this works:
[A] I enjoy spaghetti because I love pasta.
Given that the speaker loves pasta, it makes sense that he would enjoy spaghetti. Given [B], we can conclude [A].
[b]A brief example of how this DOESN'T work:
[A] I enjoy spaghetti because I love cats.
Given that the speaker loves cats, we cannot take that information and assume they enjoy spaghetti. Given [B], we cannot conclude [A].
[b]To summarize: If the reasoning does not connect with and uphold the statement, the phrase becomes illogical.
Now I'll apply both interpretations of the same verse, and we'll analyze the logical consistency of both interpretations.
----------
The Watchtower doctrine:
[A] Jesus is the (first created) of all creation, [b]because he created all things, and all things were created for him.
...Is this a logically consistent statement? No... given , one cannot outright conclude [A].
A more direct application:
[B] Jesus created all things, and all things were created for him. [A] This is why Jesus is the first created of all creation.
Nothing about the first sentence connects to the second. To say one created all things is not an explicit reason to conclude one was created first. Equally, to say all things were created for him is not an explicit reason to conclude he was created first.
Therefore, the evidence is indisputable: according to the Watchtower, Paul's testament is illogical nonsense.
But what about the real truth? The plain and simple one, without altering the text.
----------
[b]The Jesus-is-eternal doctrine:
[A] Jesus is the (heir) of all creation, [B] because he created all things, and all things were created for him.
Is this a logically consistent statement? Yes, given [B], we can outright conclude [A]
A more direct application:
[B] Jesus created all things, and all things were created for him. [A] This is why Jesus is the heir of all creation.
The first sentence has a clear connection to the second; the two thoughts are tied to one another. To say one created all things is a fair reason to assume they are entitled to them (like an heir). But even MORE explicit is the assertion that all things were created for him, which is literally what it means to be an heir. To have a bounty set aside specifically meant for you to receive it.
----------
So my question for RM is as follows:
How can you justify belief in this interpretation of scripture when it CLEARLY makes Paul's statement totally and indisputably illogical? Why is your dogma more important than the logical consistency of scripture? If Paul's REASONING cannot accommodate his STATEMENT, wouldn't that mean he's speaking nonsense?
I am NOT looking for other Bible verses you use to gloss over and justify this doctrine, I'm already familiar with them. I'm asking you to answer THESE questions about THIS verse ALONE...
Please show me why Paul is not speaking nonsense.
In Reasoning from the Scriptures (p408) WT argues that just as the “firstborn” of Pharaoh refers to the first one born to Pharaoh (born of a person), so Christ as the “firstborn” is the first one created by Jehovah.
Notice, though, Christ is “the firstborn of all creation” (not the firstborn of Jehovah). If we draw a direct parallel between the firstborn of Pharaoh and the firstborn of all creation, then we must conclude that creation “parented” Jesus.
But the exact opposite is the case, for the very next verse says that Christ “parented” creation-that is, he created all things (Col1:16); he produced the creation, the creation didn’t produce him
By his own logic he is overturned.
In Reasoning from the Scriptures (p408) WT argues that just as the “firstborn” of Pharaoh refers to the first one born to Pharaoh (born of a person), so Christ as the “firstborn” is the first one created by Jehovah.
Notice, though, Christ is “the firstborn of all creation” (not the firstborn of Jehovah). If we draw a direct parallel between the firstborn of Pharaoh and the firstborn of all creation, then we must conclude that creation “parented” Jesus.
But the exact opposite is the case, for the very next verse says that Christ “parented” creation-that is, he created all things (Col1:16); he produced the creation, the creation didn’t produce him
By his own logic he is overturned.
truthseeker wrote:1. You asked a question.
2. I answered it.
3. I gave you overwhelming scriptural support, that contradicts your entire premise.
How is this exploding? Maybe because I listed as many witnesses as I could find?
I find it amusing how you say I have left questions unanswered. I have an answer and a witness (scripture for everything I say.) I have covered this point and you ignored it completely. There are ZERO tensions. You have not stumped me once. Let's strictly focus on any and ALL unanswered questions going forward.You claim, if I understand you correctly, that Jesus was not the true firstborn of creation in the sense of being born, but rather he became the firstborn because he became a man and entered the realm of creation, and became the "preeminent" creation by that direction. That would all be well and good if it weren't for the HOTI clause in verse 16, and this is what you keep sidestepping.
.
Don't misrepresent my argument. He became a literal firstborn not just pre-eminant, making him first inline out of ALL creation and heir.
Look at Paul's context. Col 1:18 NWT
He is the beginning, <===He tells us it all starts with Jesus, he is the first, beginning or first of what?
the firstborn from the dead,+ <===firstborn from the dead, so after Resurrection is the actual beginning... why?
so that he might become the one who is first in all things; <===MIght? According to you he already was...but Paul says "might" meaning it's pending.
(Is Paul saying Jesus was first like you claim? Obviously not.)
Again why does Jesus get to be first? Verse 19 tells us.
19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, <=== God fully lived in him.
This is the reason for the HOTI clause wild card. (Which actually supports my argument not yours.)
The correct translation of Col 1:16 and context is:
16 For in him <===Verse 19 shows God was inside dwelling in him and this shows God created everything inside Jesus.
all things were created [implying by God}:
all things have been created through him [implying by God] and for him. <===By God being inside, creating inside, Jesus sees what father does and creates on his own.
The HOTI clause is simple! Yet, you ignored all of it's support. It is showing why Jesus gets to be the heir of all things. Because God lived in him, created in him, and Jesus brought it all into existence the way God wanted. (otherwise God would not be pleased.)
Now let me cut and paste how I answered you but you ignored it and you ignored my question.
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=854
Scroll down to March 25, 2016 7:50 PMI'll paraphrase verses 15-16 and provide a brief explanation of the structure behind Paul's logic.
[15] Jesus is the (prototokos) of all creation, [16] because he created all things, and all things were created for him.
Now, verse 15 is Paul's STATEMENT.
We'll call this [A]. Naturally, Paul backs up his statement in verse 16 through REASONING, which we'll call . The idea is that, given [B}, we can conclude [A].
[b]A brief example of how this works:
[A] I enjoy spaghetti because I love pasta.
Given that the speaker loves pasta, it makes sense that he would enjoy spaghetti. Given [B], we can conclude [A].
[b]A brief example of how this DOESN'T work:
[A] I enjoy spaghetti because I love cats.
Given that the speaker loves cats, we cannot take that information and assume they enjoy spaghetti. Given [B], we cannot conclude [A].
[b]To summarize: If the reasoning does not connect with and uphold the statement, the phrase becomes illogical.
Now I'll apply both interpretations of the same verse, and we'll analyze the logical consistency of both interpretations.
----------
The Watchtower doctrine:
[A] Jesus is the (first created) of all creation, [b]because he created all things, and all things were created for him.
...Is this a logically consistent statement? No... given , one cannot outright conclude [A].
A more direct application:
[B] Jesus created all things, and all things were created for him. [A] This is why Jesus is the first created of all creation.
Nothing about the first sentence connects to the second. To say one created all things is not an explicit reason to conclude one was created first. Equally, to say all things were created for him is not an explicit reason to conclude he was created first.
Therefore, the evidence is indisputable: according to the Watchtower, Paul's testament is illogical nonsense.
But what about the real truth? The plain and simple one, without altering the text.
----------
[b]The Jesus-is-eternal doctrine:
[A] Jesus is the (heir) of all creation, [B] because he created all things, and all things were created for him.
Is this a logically consistent statement? Yes, given [B], we can outright conclude [A]
A more direct application:
[B] Jesus created all things, and all things were created for him. [A] This is why Jesus is the heir of all creation.
The first sentence has a clear connection to the second; the two thoughts are tied to one another. To say one created all things is a fair reason to assume they are entitled to them (like an heir). But even MORE explicit is the assertion that all things were created for him, which is literally what it means to be an heir. To have a bounty set aside specifically meant for you to receive it.
----------
So my question for RM is as follows:
How can you justify belief in this interpretation of scripture when it CLEARLY makes Paul's statement totally and indisputably illogical? Why is your dogma more important than the logical consistency of scripture? If Paul's REASONING cannot accommodate his STATEMENT, wouldn't that mean he's speaking nonsense?
I am NOT looking for other Bible verses you use to gloss over and justify this doctrine, I'm already familiar with them. I'm asking you to answer THESE questions about THIS verse ALONE...
Please show me why Paul is not speaking nonsense.
truthseeker wrote:In other words you are stuck and can't answer...because there's really no way out.
If you want I will just ask you yes or no questions so you can understand.
truthseeker wrote:Go ahead. You quit. It's your idea. So you go first.
truthseeker wrote:Why? What are you afraid of? I'm a guest. You are the one that quit without pointing out an example or showing a valid reason.
Courtesy is to let me get last post is it not?
(I've never heard of such a thing.)
truthseeker wrote:Okay....that's fine. I will come back to this later on I have to attend to something work related. I will let you know when I'm done with my summary. Then just let me know what to do from there.
You yourself have admitted that the Son was the "ANGEL of Jehovah" that appeared in the OT. Trinitarians claim the same thing.
You have fished for weeks for a way out of this to no avail. Your argument about firstborn does not address how he is the firstborn OF ALL CREATION. ALL creation includes ALL creation, not just the "new" creation, and the HOTI clause absolutely proves this.
That would all be well and good if it weren't for the HOTI clause in verse 16, and this is what you keep sidestepping.
Verse 16 GIVES US THE REASON that he is the firstborn. You can't replace that with another reason when it already supplies the reason, and that's what you keep doing. You are replacing the reason he is the firstborn and ignoring the actual stated reason in the Bible.
The actual reason he is the firstborn of creation is given as follows: Because all else was created by means of him. That's the reason. Notice there is no mention of him becoming a man and becoming the pre-eminent creation because he became a creation. That's simply not in there. But the real reason is.
The straight forward logic of the sentence is quite easily understood. Jesus, as a creation, was instrumental in creating all else, so by logical necessity, he is the first. There is nothing in the HOTI clause that supports or allows your explanation. So please explain the HOTI clause and how it supports your explanation.
I'll paraphrase verses 15-16 and provide a brief explanation of the structure behind Paul's logic.
[15] Jesus is the (prototokos) of all creation, [16] because he created all things, and all things were created for him.
Now, verse 15 is Paul's STATEMENT.
We'll call this [A]. Naturally, Paul backs up his statement in verse 16 through REASONING, which we'll call . The idea is that, given [B}, we can conclude [A].
A brief example of how this works:
[A] I enjoy spaghetti because I love pasta.
Given that the speaker loves pasta, it makes sense that he would enjoy spaghetti. Given [B], we can conclude [A].
[b]A brief example of how this DOESN'T work:
[A] I enjoy spaghetti because I love cats.
Given that the speaker loves cats, we cannot take that information and assume they enjoy spaghetti. Given [B], we cannot conclude [A].
[b]To summarize: If the reasoning does not connect with and uphold the statement, the phrase becomes illogical.
Now I'll apply both interpretations of the same verse, and we'll analyze the logical consistency of both interpretations.
----------
The Watchtower doctrine:
[A] Jesus is the (first created) of all creation, [b]because he created all things, and all things were created for him.
...Is this a logically consistent statement? No... given , one cannot outright conclude [A].
A more direct application:
[B] Jesus created all things, and all things were created for him. [A] This is why Jesus is the first created of all creation.
Nothing about the first sentence connects to the second. To say one created all things is not an explicit reason to conclude one was created first. Equally, to say all things were created for him is not an explicit reason to conclude he was created first.
Therefore, the evidence is indisputable: according to the Watchtower, Paul's testament is illogical nonsense.
But what about the real truth? The plain and simple one, without altering the text.
----------
[b]The Jesus-is-eternal doctrine:
[A] Jesus is the (heir) of all creation, [B] because he created all things, and all things were created for him.
Is this a logically consistent statement? Yes, given [B], we can outright conclude [A]
A more direct application:
[B] Jesus created all things, and all things were created for him. [A] This is why Jesus is the heir of all creation.
The first sentence has a clear connection to the second; the two thoughts are tied to one another. To say one created all things is a fair reason to assume they are entitled to them (like an heir). But even MORE explicit is the assertion that all things were created for him, which is literally what it means to be an heir. To have a bounty set aside specifically meant for you to receive it.
----------
So my question for RM is as follows:
How can you justify belief in this interpretation of scripture when it CLEARLY makes Paul's statement totally and indisputably illogical?
truthseeker wrote:I need until the weekend. I'm working double shifts all this week. I'm done with summary but I just want to relax a little. Then come back to it with fresh eyes and make final edits since it's my last post.
truthseeker wrote:I'm not going to be discussing mindcontrol tactics and deception in my summary only the contradictions in the theology you presented.
But since you are painting me as someone who has a problem with Jehovah Witnesses "the people" you are mistaken. They don't know what they are truly involved in. And I find they are very nice. As far as the corporation goes, using unethical tactics on their members is best left to the experts.
Steve Hassan is a good resource for manipulation tactics used by compliance groups including scientology, christadelphians, moonies, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc... He doesn't really go into religious beliefs or doctrine. He specializes in exposing the deceptive tactics these groups use to covertly manipulate their members. His book is called "Combating Cult Mind Control".
If that last post stays then this post stays as you plant I have some kind of axe to grind, you are mistaken in my defense to your accusation I will let the experts give their opinion. I'm just sticking to the nonsense and contradictions in your arguements and the holes it leaves in regards to this topic headline.
PS. According to Steve Hassan his first book did not include Jehovah Witnesses. He thought they were a normal church until he was contacted by members who read his book about the moonies. After he studied the Watchtower group for years he was able to confirm that they are indeed using the 8 tactics plus information control used by compliance and deception experts so he included them in his latest book. Anyone wanting more info about these tactics should look him up. My posts and summary are sticking to the corruption of scripture and doctrine.
So if you want to leave your last post up then you need to leave this one up as my defense. Or take them both down. And let's just stick to the summaries.
My summary is almost done. Need a couple more days.
truthseeker wrote:Yeah I'm just trying to figure out if there is a way to post a link to an old post where it takes you directly to the post and not the whole page. I don't want to quote as it makes the post too long. That's pretty much only thing holding me up.
truthseeker wrote:I'll be ready to post my summary but i need time to transfer it from MS Word to this forum as none of my underlining or or color changing will cut and paste. So i need like 15 minutes. Let me know when to post.
truthseeker wrote:Yeah had to take my computer apart. Couldn't post from my mobile phone. I'm good. Let's post now.
Return to 6. DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest