Could this be the END Times as we know it?

[]{arao]{e]

Many people join military service to protect and help others, not because they enjoy killing or being killed.

I would say our chaplain blessed our peace efforts and not our war efforts. If he didn't- if nobody did, wouldn't it be like Vietnam all over again? Soldiers go and risk their lives to come home and be spit upon.

I don't think a comment about little boys is a good one to make here because it does not apply to every priest and of course it should be apologized for.

I didn't say it applied to every priest...it applies to the organization because they allow the molestors to continue in their organization. It was on the national news recently. Should the news apologize for reporting it?

I never heard anyone say that about the armed services before. Now, I understand it better; Why it's appealing to men and women like yourself. It's a very noble idea.

However, it ties in with alliances and organizations representing the antichrist. Because the people you work for have the right to ASK you to kill or wound anyone that they deem as a THREAT to the peace and stability of a nation (foreign or otherwise). Do you honestly feel blessed in being put in the position to have to murder someone based on their political/cultural/religious views? Those Vietnam veterans were put in a position that NO ONE should be put in and they suffered irreprehensible dammage for it. What makes you any different from those veterans? You're fighting for an idea with weapons instead of words and actions. Isn't the Chaplain required to put on a uniform and pledge allegiance to your side? Is that true neutrality?

[z edge]

Originally posted by ]{arao]{e:
I didn't say it applied to every priest...it applies to the organization because they allow the molestors to continue in their organization. It was on the national news recently. Should the news apologize for reporting it?

No I don't think the media should neccesarily apologize for reporting that, and I don't blame the Pope for apologizing on behalf or for catholicism as a whole. I don't believe the Pope is the/an antichrist though.

I never heard anyone say that about the armed services before. Now, I understand it better; Why it's appealing to men and women like yourself. It's a very noble idea.

Thank you, i'm actually not IN anymore.

However, it ties in with alliances and organizations representing the antichrist.

HuH?

Because the people you work for have the right to ASK you to kill or wound anyone that they deem as a THREAT to the peace and stability of a nation (foreign or otherwise)

Rightfully so

Do you honestly feel blessed in being put in the position to have to murder someone based on their political/cultural/religious views?

As a last resort, and if it means protecting my family or other families or people that are not able to protect themselves then hell yes

Those Vietnam veterans were put in a position that NO ONE should be put in and they suffered irreprehensible dammage for it. What makes you any different from those veterans?

I didn't go to Vietnam, I can't comment what went on there. I know it is not our practice to strap bombs and "boobytraps" to our kids.

You're fighting for an idea with weapons instead of words and actions.

Words don't work too well against terrorists, Iraq, etc.

Isn't the Chaplain required to put on a uniform and pledge allegiance to your side? Is that true neutrality?

Of course, he/she is there to comfort and console the troops and offer religious advice and sermon in peacetime and war. This could include marriage counseling, depression, anything you could imagine. How comforting would a Chaplain be if they were to NOT pledge allegiance to your side, and condemn your actions???


[This message has been edited by z edge (edited 03-05-2002).]

[This message has been edited by z edge (edited 03-05-2002).]

[This message has been edited by z edge (edited 03-05-2002).]

[z edge]

YaY for me I finally learned how to properly post to quotes! It only took me a year+ 3500 posts.... ....never said I was smart

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by z edge:
YaY for me I finally learned how to properly post to quotes! It only took me a year+ 3500 posts.... ....never said I was smart

how does one do that?

[80sU2isBest]

]{arao]{e,
I am interested in something. Will you post John 1:1 for me? Thanks.

[z edge]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
how does one do that?

Are you serious? Gosh I thought I was the only one who didn't know

When replying to a large quote, and wanting to reply to bits at a time you can go

to start their quote, and to end their quote you go

and then interject your comments and /or response, then do it again

for their comments that you want to reply to

Ummmmm, it just occoured to me that you will have to click on 'edit my post' to see what i actually had to type in to get it to do this, sorry...

[Zoomerang96]

i dont know if this has been said or not, but i heard something rather interesting from my uncles friend when i was in germany in fall.

he stated, intelligently and more precisely to the effect that there is a bishop (im not catholic, so it might not be a bishop, whos next in line to become a pope? isnt it a biship or archbishop?)

anyway, the next in line, we'll say, has a very "promising" individual. this particular person has an almost equal background in i believe, christianity, judaism, muslim and islam. whats so fascinating about that, is when you look in the middle east, if there was one person who could ever make the violence stop, wouldnt it be someone like him? the first half of tribulation will be very peaceful, the way i understand.

as for the end times themselves, well i think a certain jack van impe has made his fair share of money taking wild stabs at predicting, or "forecasting" Christs return. really it bothers me that all he focus's on is trying to convince non-believers to become christians simply for what revelation says. its totally missing the point. christianity is not something one should be made scared shitless into believing, but rather the opposite. intimidation tactics are for schoolyard bullies.

[Zoomerang96]

i also wonder if there is another aspect we could look at here in this thread...

as you know, nearly every country in the world has major debt. lots of it. whats gonna happen when the bankers decide, enoughs enough we want our money back?

could this have something to do with the "ten" kingdoms (it might be 12, i forget what it says) of land? could they ask for that in return and have control of the best land in the world?

im just rambling trying to come up with something new here.

[z edge]

Thanks a lot for getting us back on topic, the end times, what I'm interested in more than hearing about everbodies religion (no offense intended).

I agree we should not be "scared" into becoming religious.

And I've heard/read somewhere that there is a "false sense of peace" that takes place (I believe) under the reign of the antichrist, just before all hell breaks loose.

Given my original question to the topic, where do we stand now with all of this? All hell is breaking loose between Israel and Palestine. It could be worse though, a LOT worse. We are under some pretty intense fighting in Afghanistan too.

[sulawesigirl4]

I've always wondered what it would have felt like to live in the Middle Ages or the Spanish Inquisition or World War II for that matter. Any of those time periods seem much more dire and I imagine had I lived then, I would have been convinced that things could not possibly worsen and that the end of the world was at hand. And yet behold...here we are. I think things can almost always get a lot worse and when it comes down to it, we have such a limited perspective, it seems of little value to speculate.

[melon]

Originally posted by ]{arao]{e:
Uh, Melon...please don't attack my religion like you know what it's about. You don't, I do.

OH I see. And so you found yourself qualified to make a comment on the Pope being the antichrist? You don't know this religion whatsoever.

But I see you are trying to cover up the religion, or you just aren't a very good Jehovah's Witness. Please, if I'm so wrong...make a summary of what I said under the "****************" using direct quotes. Or did you not read it?

My aunt was one, so I know all about your little "religion."

And as always..you're taking the discussion into a totally different area...that has nothing to do with the original question that z-edge posted to all of us and our VARIOUS faiths. You have a faith I presume and it influences your remarks and rants just like my religion influences my train of thought.

You turned a one-sentence disclaimer about your religion (which you concealed) into a diatribe against Catholicism. You were the one who took this into a completely different discussion!

All anyone has to do is read the bible and the WATCHTOWER. They are offered regularly to anyone interested in Bible prophecy, like z-edge. No, I won't consider you to be a mindless zombie for reading them ).

And all I did was say where your beliefs came from and made no judgment about how much I think they are a bunch of crap. I make no secret that I am Catholic, and, thus, my beliefs will diverge from Protestantism, but you made absolutely no disclaimer that you were a Jehovah's Witness. I called your bluff, and you exploded from it.

Thanks AGAIN for bringing attention to the WATCHTOWER magazines that are widely recognized by people as being published by the Jehovah's Witnesses who study the BIBLE in depth concerning biblical prophecy and end-times. They have made it really easy for me to understand Bible prophecy and have made it enjoyable to learn.

Right. Then why didn't the world end in 1914 like the Jehovah's Witnesses had predicted?

I'm tired of this pissing contest you have started, but wish to blame on me. If you wish to blend in and start making supposed beliefs that all Christians supposedly have, and then implicitly try and convert people without their knowledge, I will blow your cover again and again and again and again in this forum. I believe wholly in the freedom of information, and, after that, if they wish to go to your sources, then they have my blessing.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[melon]

z edge, Jehovah's Witnesses do not acknowledge the existence of secular governments and are strict pacifists. That is the position ]{arao]{e is coming from.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[scatteroflight]

Originally posted by melon:
z edge, Jehovah's Witnesses do not acknowledge the existence of secular governments and are strict pacifists. That is the position ]{arao]{e is coming from.

Melon

Sorry, Melon, you're wrong about this. And yes, I am a JW, so you know where I'm coming from. "Do not acknowledge the existence of secular governments" is incorrect. No, we don't vote and we are politically neutral. However, we pay our taxes, show respect for the position of the government, and obey the laws insofar as they don't conflict with our consciences. From Acts (sorry, can't remember chapter and verse): "We must obey God as ruler rather than men"--but this has to be balanced with "Pay back Caesar's things to Caesar but God's things to God," as Jesus said. Our reason for being politically neutral is that we believe our allegiance should go to the Kingdom rather than secular governments. If we didn't acknowledge the existence of secular governments, as you suggest, we would presumably be going around doing our own little thing without reference to laws or standards.

And your comment about JWs believing everyone except the 144,000 is going to hell indicates that there are some pretty severe gaps/misconceptions in your knowledge of this little "religion." There are two biggies in that one thought alone.

------------------
Your sun so bright it leaves no shadows, only scars
Carved into stone on the face of earth
The moon is up and over One Tree Hill
We see the sun go down in your eyes

[This message has been edited by scatteroflight (edited 03-05-2002).]

[scatteroflight]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
]{arao]{e,
I am interested in something. Will you post John 1:1 for me? Thanks.

80's, the translation published by JWs actually is not the only one to say "And the word was with God, and the word was a god." I think that's what you're wondering about. There are other translations which are phrased similarly, which goes back to the differences in the Greek between "God" (as in Almighty God) and "a god."

I am posting in this thread at all against my better judgement, so I think I'm going to take off now.



------------------
Your sun so bright it leaves no shadows, only scars
Carved into stone on the face of earth
The moon is up and over One Tree Hill
We see the sun go down in your eyes

[]{arao]{e]

Originally posted by scatteroflight:

I am posting in this thread at all against my better judgement, so I think I'm going to take off now.

I agree with your better judgement, scatter...because it was published by the Society of Jehovah's Witnesses to not engage in religious discussions anonymously on the internet...because we don't know who we're talking to...it could be a disfellowshipped person...therefore, they may not be seeking accurate knowledge but to defame any and all JWs...and anything we have to say in defense of the scriptures is totally disregarded and could be used against us and thus defeat the purpose of the whole discussion. There's a time and place for everything...and I hope anyone who is honestly interested in our view point will consult the bible, the Watchtower (http://watchtower.org), or their local JW Kingdom Hall for more information.

Thanks

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by scatteroflight:
80's, the translation published by JWs actually is not the only one to say "And the word was with God, and the word was a god." I think that's what you're wondering about. There are other translations which are phrased similarly, which goes back to the differences in the Greek between "God" (as in Almighty God) and "a god."

Hi,
I'm interested in knowing what other versions besides the New World Translation read "a god". The following versions all read "God":

New American Standard Bible,
NewInternational Version,
King James Version,
New King James Version,
American Standard Version,
Revised Standard Version,
Living Translation
New Living Translation
The Message

I don't know of any translation besides the New World Translation that reads "a god".

This is a very important distinction, because it concerns the very identity of God. The whole of Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is not only the son of God, but God Himself, as a member of the Trinity.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe this.

[scatteroflight]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Hi,
I'm interested in knowing what other versions besides the New World Translation read "a god". The following versions all read "God":

New American Standard Bible,
NewInternational Version,
King James Version,
New King James Version,
American Standard Version,
Revised Standard Version,
Living Translation
New Living Translation
The Message

I don't know of any translation besides the New World Translation that reads "a god".

This is a very important distinction, because it concerns the very identity of God. The whole of Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is not only the son of God, but God Himself, as a member of the Trinity.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe this.

New Testament in an Improved Version: "the word was a god"
Moffatt: "the Logos was divine" (not the same as being God or Almighty God--we don't dispute that Jesus is God's Son and thus a divine being)
The Bible--an American Translation: "the Word was divine" (see above)
The New Testament (trans James L. Tomanek): "the Word was a God"
La Bible du Centenaire (a French trans): "and the Word was a divine being"

In the Bible, judges, kings, and even the Devil are all referred to as being "gods" because of their positions.

I would also question your assertion that all other parts of Christendom believe that Jesus is God. There were massive conflicts over this question for the first five hundred years after Christ. The Catholic Church only laid down a decision somewhere around 400-500 AD. Jehovah's Witnesses simply believe that if you examine all scriptures dealing with the identity of Christ and his relationship to his Father, you will find that he is indeed the Son of God, the Messiah and redeemer--and the second most powerful being in the universe: not God Almighty, Jehovah.

Help, I came back against my better judgement! Maybe I can stay away next time.

------------------
Your sun so bright it leaves no shadows, only scars
Carved into stone on the face of earth
The moon is up and over One Tree Hill
We see the sun go down in your eyes

[This message has been edited by scatteroflight (edited 03-06-2002).]

[z edge]

Originally posted by scatteroflight:
"Do not acknowledge the existence of secular governments" is incorrect. No, we don't vote and we are politically neutral.

Isn't this a bit contradictory?

However, we pay our taxes, show respect for the position of the government, and obey the laws insofar as they don't conflict with our consciences.

This is too, what happens when they do conflict with your consciences?

From Acts (sorry, can't remember chapter and verse): "We must obey God as ruler rather than men"--but this has to be balanced with "Pay back Caesar's things to Caesar but God's things to God," as Jesus said. Our reason for being politically neutral is that we believe our allegiance should go to the Kingdom rather than secular governments.

I'm curious on your beliefs here, if we are being attacked do we fight back or die at the hands of our enemy with mercy to the "Kingdom". My belief is that God gave us the intellect and instinct to survive, and we have to use it if and when peaceful means fail.

And what is to be said of those who wage war or "jihad" against us in the name of their god or "Allah". Aren't they twisting their beliefs a bit?

If we didn't acknowledge the existence of secular governments, as you suggest, we would presumably be going around doing our own little thing without reference to laws or standards.

Wasn't our government founded on the principle "In God We Trust"?

I'm sorry if it seems that I am picking at you, thats not really my intention.

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by scatteroflight:
New Testament in an Improved Version: "the word was a god"
Moffatt: "the Logos was divine" (not the same as being God or Almighty God--we don't dispute that Jesus is God's Son and thus a divine being)
The Bible--an American Translation: "the Word was divine" (see above)
The New Testament (trans James L. Tomanek): "the Word was a God"
La Bible du Centenaire (a French trans): "and the Word was a divine being"
In the Bible, judges, kings, and even the Devil are all referred to as being "gods" because of their positions.
I would also question your assertion that all other parts of Christendom believe that Jesus is God. There were massive conflicts over this question for the first five hundred years after Christ. The Catholic Church only laid down a decision somewhere around 400-500 AD. Jehovah's Witnesses simply believe that if you examine all scriptures dealing with the identity of Christ and his relationship to his Father, you will find that he is indeed the Son of God, the Messiah and redeemer--and the second most powerful being in the universe: ot God Almighty, Jehovah.
Help, I came back against my better judgement! Maybe I can stay away next time.

Why do you say "against your better judgment"? Having these kinds of conversations are good for us.

I don't know anything about the version of the translations that you quoted (except the Moffatt version, which is commonly regarded as "iffy"), but I do know they are not as "accepted" and "available" as the translations I mentioned.

I also don't know much about the Catholic history, so I can't comment on when they "decided" that Christ is God, but I do know that Christ testifies to it himself, as did his apostles.
"I and the Father are one" - John 10:30

"That that have seen me hath seen the Father" - John 14:9

The prophecies of Isaiah even point Christ as God. "...and the Government shall be upon his shoulders...and his name shalled `Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, The prince Of Peace'"

The Mighty God - That's what Isaiah said, not "a God who is mighty". THE Mighty God, the same exact name given to the Father in other Old Testament verses.

The Everlasting Father - Isaiah is defintely saying that the Son and The Father are one.

The Counselor - Christ told teh disciples that when he left, the counselor would come to them. That counselor he spoke of is teh Holy Spirit. Again, this verse in Isaiah points to the Trinity, as it says that Christ is the Counselor.

I used to have a conversation every Saturday morning with a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses who came to my door, so I did a little studying. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but knowing that Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that Christ is God, I felt the duty to say something about it, as I believe that anyone who denies that Christ is God does not have the accurate picture of God, and are thereby presenting a false image of him in certain very important aspects.

[melon]

Originally posted by scatteroflight:
I would also question your assertion that all other parts of Christendom believe that Jesus is God. There were massive conflicts over this question for the first five hundred years after Christ. The Catholic Church only laid down a decision somewhere around 400-500 AD. Jehovah's Witnesses simply believe that if you examine all scriptures dealing with the identity of Christ and his relationship to his Father, you will find that he is indeed the Son of God, the Messiah and redeemer--and the second most powerful being in the universe: not God Almighty, Jehovah.

Well, I am going to put in my historical two cents. I appreciate the thoroughness of your post, as I do enjoy comparative religions.

In short, you are correct. None of the Gospels assert that Jesus is God. They do assert that Jesus is the Messiah, but "Messiah" doesn't necessarily mean the same as "God." St. Paul in his epistles, however, was the first who asserted that Jesus was, in fact, a divine being equal to God.

You are also correct in that Jesus' divinity was greatly contested in early Christianity. Mainstream Christianity (essentially, the present-day Roman Catholic Church) at the time was the one who asserted that Jesus was 100% divine and 100% human. Gnosticism, common from about A.D. 150-350 (and the first Christian fundamentalists in regards to the Bible), believed that Jesus was 100% human, not divine. Arianism was the opposite, believing that Jesus was 100% divine, not human. Both were wiped out successfully by mainstream Christianity and the imperialist backers of it.

Ultimately, the doctrine of the trinity, in that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, are one in the same boils down to tradition, rather than scriptural basis. Of course, that does not bother me; I still believe in the Trinity, but, obviously, there is plenty of room for discussion on the subject.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time