Re:@ e-watchtowerman - 2006/04/28 00:11warmthofthesun wrote: ABM, I read your interpretation on the MOL long ago when you posted your thoughts. You are not the only person who thinks the MOL are the rulers of Jehovah's Witnesses..
The bible does say there would be a small remnant.
I do not agree with your interpretation. For starters, you have jumped a whole step by assuming that the Temple resides with Jehovah's Witnesses alone..
No assumptions necessary:
The scriptures show that baptism is the only way to have access to the temple.
The baptismal commandment necessitates the use of God's name.
either you believe the scriptures or you don't.
Secondly you have removed the clearly political aspect of the MOL and it's connections to Daniel 11's willful King in verses 36 onward...
It is politics but nothing to do with any national king, president or prime minister.
The bible assures us that Jehovah considers these as a drop in a bucket or dust on the scales.
The amount of time and words dedicated in the bible in concern with these is an equivalent measure.
What the bible concerns itself with is how Satan and his weeds have an effect on his chosen people.
But you would have everyone assume that because they have not agreed to your interpretation that they have no oil in their lamps.
I would rather they did not assume and prefer that they knew.
Eventually they will and so the weeping and gnashing of teeth will be justified.
When they do gnash their teeth and weep my concience will have some comfort knowing that I personally made some effort to help them.
When I stand in front of Jesus Christ the King to be judged I do not want him asking me why I did not help.
Regards
ablebodiedman
| | The topic has been locked.
ablebodiedman
User Platinum Boarder
Posts: 353
Re:@ e-watchtowerman - 2006/04/28 00:36Daniel 7
13 “I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! with the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One. 14 And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin.
15 “As for me, Daniel, my spirit was distressed within on account of it, and the very visions of my head began to frighten me. 16 I went up close to one of those who were standing, that I might request from him reliable information on all this. And he said to me, as he went on to make known to me the very interpretation of the matters,
17 “‘As for these huge beasts, because they are four, there are four kings that will stand up from the earth. 18 But the holy ones of the Supreme One will receive the kingdom, and they will take possession of the kingdom for time indefinite, even for time indefinite upon times indefinite.’
That the Kingdom will not be brought to ruin implies that someone is making an effort to ruin it.
That the holy ones (kings) will eventually take possesion of the kingdom implies that some other entities (also kings) have possession of the kingdom prior to this.
If you possess a kingdom you are a king wether the kingdom truly belongs to you or not.
I hope this helped.
regards
ablebodiedman
| | The topic has been locked.
warmthofthesun
User Fresh Boarder
Posts: 3
Re:@ e-watchtowerman - 2006/04/28 03:43No assumptions necessary: The scriptures show that baptism is the only way to have access to the temple. The baptismal commandment necessitates the use of God's name. either you believe the scriptures or you don't.
Number 1. Prove from the Bible, when someone was Baptized with NAME of the Father being spoken, and that being Baptized saying "In the name of the Father" is not acceptable.
If you Can prove that this was done, and that God's ACTUAL name was used and that saying "in the name of the Father" is not acceptable then procede to number two.
Number 2. Prove that Jehovah's Witnesses are the ONLY people currently using a person name of God in baptism. There are many groups that use God's personal name.
Number 3. Jesus said, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"
If we go by your literal interpretation, the Father's name is YHWH, the Son's name is Yehshua. What is the Holy Spirit's name?
| | The topic has been locked.
polemotheos
User Platinum Boarder
Posts: 530
Re:@ e-watchtowerman - 2006/04/28 08:08warmthofthesun wrote: What is the Holy Spirit's name? Bob
Number 1. Prove from the Bible, when someone was Baptized with NAME of the Father being spoken, and that being Baptized saying "In the name of the Father" is not acceptable.
If you Can prove that this was done, and that God's ACTUAL name was used and that saying "in the name of the Father" is not acceptable then procede to number two.
The bible says that Satan would sow weeds in God's Kingdom.
The weeds would therefore consider that Satan is their father.
Biblical proof:
John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
That is why just saying; "In the name of the Father" is not acceptable.
Number 2. Prove that Jehovah's Witnesses are the ONLY people currently using a person name of God in baptism. There are many groups that use God's personal name.
There may be a few other religions who use God's personal name in their baptismal vows however compared to 6 million their numbers are insignificant.
The insignificant number of people who might also be using God's name would also have to have most members who:
are operating in error. 2 Th 2:11 are deceived 2 Th 2:10 believe a lie 2 Th 2:11
and some members who:
opposes a small "g" god. 2Th 2:4 lift themselves up as an object of reverence 2Th 2:4 publicly show themselves to be a small "g" god inside the temple 2Th 2:4
and a very few persecuted members who are aware of the above. 2Th 2:13
So even if there are a few people on the planet who also use God's personal name in their baptismal vows the chance of them also fitting all the other criteria as the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses do, are very, very, very minimal.
Number 3. Jesus said, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
God's name is Jehovah, the sons name is Jesus and the Holy Spirit is a gift aquired by the person being baptized in the names of the Father and Son..
Biblical Proof:
Matthew 28
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Acts 8
17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
18When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money 19and said, "Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit."
If we go by your literal interpretation, the Father's name is YHWH, the Son's name is Yehshua. What is the Holy Spirit's name?
If we go by the names you are suggesting we shall have to find not only an organization which does baptize people using those names, it would also have to fit all the other criteria explained in the scriptures quoted above.
Jehovah's Witnesses fit all those criteria.
Hope this helped.
ablebodiedman
.
Post edited by: ablebodiedman, at: 2006/04/28 13:24
| | The topic has been locked.
warmthofthesun
User Fresh Boarder
Posts: 3
Re:@ e-watchtowerman - 2006/04/29 03:39I think I will just let this thread stand at this point and let others be the judge of whether you answered my question in any acceptable way.
Forum 
