Jehovah`s Witness/ceasing to exist vs dying
I was reading Eddie Gs comments about Jesus dying on the cross. To Christians who believe in the soul being apart from the body its crystal clear. Why else would Jehovah say we will never perish? Or Paul's words about not fearing those who can kill the body but not kill the soul. So if Jesus ceased to exist, I'd expect to read about His re-creation .not resurrection.
He seems to me his argument doesn't make sense, he's just trying to make you look stupid. After reading his understanding of our beliefs he's the one I'd have to question. If you want to argue about someone's intelligence or morals, try to show some yourself.
Hello, Kevin. Well, what can I say? You have hit it right on the head, once again.
You mention Eddie's comments about Jesus dying on the cross. Not sure if you're referencing the ones from back when he tried to educate this board about that subject a little over a year ago, or something more recent, But I remember that little debacle quite well. It was the first time I actually caught Eddie outright lying, and then refusing to correct it. That has seemed to be his pattern ever since then. He honestly never recovered from that discussion, and it is likely one of the reasons we see him now so desperately trying to "catch me" in a lie.
You wrote...."He seems to me his argument doesn't make sense, he's just trying to make you look stupid. After reading his understanding of our beliefs he's the one I'd have to question. If you want to argue about someone's intelligence or morals, try to show some yourself."
Exactly! This guy's hypocrisy is astounding. He has literally been exposed as a fraud several times over the last 2 weeks, and he simply ignores the evidence against him, apparently thinking that if he does, nobody else sees it either.
Consider the lies he has told, that he has refused to correct, that have been repeatedly brought out...(and keep in mind, this is very same guy talking about "honesty", and "apologies")....
1. Lying, and claiming that I had never given the name of the Triune God "until now", when it was clearly shown by quotes, some even made to HIM MONTHS AGO, that this was not the case.
Why would a person with an ounce of integrity, not say..."Okay, I still disagree with you about the nature of God, but it appears I was wrong when I said you had never stated your position before, so I retract."
Now, here's the thing....I have no idea how many readers this board has, but its bound to be in the thousands. Perhaps even more. And EVERY one of them, saw me give verifiable quotes, that showed his statement in error. So, what does he do? Recognize how stupid he looked for making that statement, so in order to maintain some credibility, simply admit he was mistaken? Uh, no....Just ignore it altogether, and pretend he never said it.
Because the implications are quite embarrassing for him....It shows he cannot get ANY details correct when he writes, and that he has no problem just making something up out of the clear blue, when he thinks it suits his purpose. And then if he's corrected and proven wrong, oh well....Just ignore it, and pretend it never happened.
What true "Christian" does that?
But such is the practice of Eddie G, whom Rando calls "a man of integrity". That compliment really means a lot, coming from the biggest liar in the history of this board, eh? I would view that about as nicely, as Paul viewed the demon-possessed woman who was going around saying "these men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation."
(Acts 16:16-18). There are just some people whom I would not want thinking highly of me....Rando is one of those people.
But at any rate, Eddie G is perfectly happy to make a completely false statement, tell an outright lie, and then when evidence is given that shows him to be wrong, to just pretend he never said it.
2.. Falsely accusing you and misquoting you, of writing a question you did not write.
Again, not that there was anything wrong with the question at all. In fact, it was a perfectly legitimate question. But he railed on you for writing it, and you didn't.
Now Kevin, this is the one that really speaks the loudest to me, about how little integrity this guy has. He is full of pride and arrogance, and there is simply no other explanation for his continuing to ignoring this blunder. But let me explain WHY I think this one is the most telling, although Ms. T says "what does it matter??"
, like its just no big deal if you slander someone or falsely accuse them.
This is one that you would just THINK, was merely an oversight or a mistake. And that's what I thought too, UNTIL....Several posts passed, and it was pointed out to him numerous times, and he decided to just ignore it. If it were just a mistake, why not just SAY that, admit it, apologize, and move on? Why just ignore it? Does he think he is above lowering himself to apologize to you, or something? What is up, with this ego of his?
But I said that I think this is the most telling lie, while some others seem to think its no big deal.
For this reason....Its not even a doctrinal matter. I mean, we ALL expect these people to lie and slander, when they think they are defending doctrine, or their Organization. Unlike the first example I listed above, this was a simple case of attributing one man's quotes to another, and chastising the person who did not write the post, for writing it. Doctrinal issues aside, the only DECENT thing to do in that case, is say "Kevin, I apologize for the mistake"
If the guy had an ounce of human decency, he would have already done it by now. It should not have taken this many posts, to point it out.What would keep a person from saying a simple "I apologize"
? One word....PRIDE. And inability to admit error.
And he doesn't realize it, but these lies of his are not all separate issues. His inability to admit error in the smallest areas, only hurts his case in the one area where he is still yapping about, in trying to convince this board that I misrepresented the WT position on salvation, when everyone can see I did not say what he claims I did. But because he OBVIOUSLY got these "smaller" issues wrong, and he refuses to admit it, he has only hurt his argument on this other one, as well. People see him as a person who gets nothing correct, and cannot see or admit just how badly he misunderstands/distorts things. He is basically trying to convince himself, that he is convincing others, when in reality, he is a laughing stock.
Which is why we see Eddie doing his very best to simply ignore these 2 issues, and focus on the one where he thinks he can distort and twist it into something it wasn't. But he doesn't realize his own credibility has been shot. He would have done better, had he admitted his mistake on the other 2, because then, it would at least look like he is CAPABLE of recognizing his own error, and admitting it.
Now, I haven't had a chance to address his latest repeat of the same stuff he's been saying, because our church is in meetings every night this week, and I haven't had as much time in the evenings. I hope to by the week-end, however. But at any rate, he is really making a fool of himself. He first claimed "Yes, you said it", and now he claims...."Well, that is what you really meant".
He is so funny. He has to try and be a mind reader and hope to convince everyone that he really knows what my intent was, because, well....The statement he claimed was there, was not. But I think pretty much everybody else can clearly see the statement was made in reference to the WT teaching that Jesus is only Mediator for some, when God actually provided a Mediator for all people, because He wants to save all people, because ALL PEOPLE NEED a Mediator, unlike the WT position that says they do not need one.
Eddie sure does like to hold onto any piece of his demolished argument that he can, to stay afloat. Funny how he keeps trying to convince himself that its working. Read the comments on the board, Eddie....Its not working. I know he would love to "catch me" in a lie, but so far, he has fallen well short of his goal. Eddie, on the other hand, has been caught in several here lately, that he seems to want to ignore. Its really no surprise that he would try to attack me with a vengeance for pointing it out, but hey....If he would just quit his lying, then there would be nothing to worry about.
But Kevin, his failure to even admit making a mistake about you writing the question, shows me just how hypocritical this guy is, for presuming to talk about morality OR intelligence. I mean, he hardly ever gets even a small detail, correct. Then he rants on and on with arguments that are built off of his initial straw man, and basically makes himself look ridiculous.
But an apology to you would have been just common human decency. Eddie G showed his real character with that one. Whether he likes someone or not, it is STILL the right thing to do, to apologize when you misrepresent them.
But Eddie thinks its best to just pretend nothing happened. You hit it right on the head...He should show some intelligence and morality himself, before yapping about it to everyone else.
You're exactly right....His arguments don't make any sense, and he is really only making himself look stupid.
As for your other points, again, well said. I am amused reading all these posts from these people, saying that we don't think Jesus really died. Isn't that just amazing, how ignorant these people can be? I believe it is US, who believe He resurrected bodily....Which implies a bodily death, does it not? There is a reason there are NO examples of "spirit" resurrections in the Scriptures, but only bodily ones. They need to let that one sink in.
You know, its odd how they interpret "death" in a way that the Bible does not. If "death" actually meant "extinction from being" or "annihilation", then was Paul drunk, on dope, or deceived, when he wrote the following.....
Philippians 1:21- "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."
So, I guess Paul was really saying this...."Its better for me to die and enter into a state of extinction, rather than to live, and continue winning the lost to Christ, and planting churches, and serving God every day of my life"
No, Paul really left no doubt as to what he meant by that statement, if we just keep reading....
v. 23- "For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:"
So for Paul, to DIE in the flesh, meant to go immediately to be with Christ. Doesn't sound like "annihilation" to me.
Oh, but wait!! "Paul was one of the "anointed"!!!!" Yeah? Scripture, please? I would just love to see the Scripture that says there are "anointed" and "non anointed" Christians, and some Christians have this hope, and others have that hope.
What then, did Paul mean, when he said this....
2 Cor. 5:1-7- "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
(For we walk by faith, not by sight"
And then, he nails it down with this....
v. 8- "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."
Did Paul just say "WE", and not "I"? Did he just say that being ABSENT FROM THE BODY, is to be PRESENT WITH THE LORD"?
I have a question, then....What was it that was "absent from the body", but "present with the Lord"? I mean, the body was dead, right?
So, we have Paul saying that it is "gain" to die, and that being absent from his body, would make him present with the Lord. Obviously, Paul needed to talk to DW, and learn why this is not "logical".
But you're correct, Kevin....Why did He say we would never perish? Why did Jesus say that, in John 11:25-26?
"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"
I would say that its pretty apparent, that they don't fully understand the difference between physical death, and spiritual death.
You brought up another excellent point, when you referenced this passage, which are actually the words of Jesus Himself....
Luke 12:4-5- "And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him."
Now Kevin, this verse you made reference to, is a powerful one. Regardless of a person's Biblical understanding on certain subjects, I believe that there are some points from this passage, that even a 2nd grade level reader should be able to gather. But I'm not optimistic about these JWs, however, here are the basic points....
1. We should not fear man, because man can kill only your body, but not your soul....
LOGICAL conclusion....Your body and soul, are separate, and not the same.
2. We SHOULD fear God, because God can do what man cannot....He can kill your body, but can cast you into Hell after killing your body.
LOGICAL CONCLUSION....For God to cast you into Hell after killing your body, there would have to be SOMETHING to cast into Hell. Even God Himself doesn't cast "nothing" into somewhere.
Very simple Scriptures, when simply left alone, and read as they are written. And you are right on, Kevin, when you say its "crystal" clear.
Unlike the ramblings of these people, which are "clear as mud"....
As always, you have brought out some excellent points. Thank you for your contributions.
And one more thing....I did not mean to misunderstand what you were writing the other day, about JWs being disciplined for not going to the Conventions. I guess I was reading more into it, than what you said. No, you didn't say he claimed he was going to be disciplined....only that it was require. I guess I was thinking that the word "required", implied some sort of repercussion, if the requirement were not met. Again, not sure exactly what it would be, if any. But sorry about the mix up on that. I probably read too much into it.
But thanks for writing, and keep watching the board. Its probably going to stay pretty entertaining for awhile....:) And please keep in touch, with any observations or comments that you would like to point out.
God bless, and have a great evening.