Many Muchen Meese (This post is in reverse order)

How can people follow cults? It honestly does not make sense to me. Some will say that there is no such thing as the Trinity. They say the word "Trinity" is not used in the Bible. Well, this is true. But assuming that God just becomes different people at different times just seems wrong. In essence then, Jesus, when he is praying to the Father, is praying to emptiness. If God just became Jesus and stopped occupying the Heavens then those who were on Earth during Jesus had no one who heard their prayers.
Also, the Word (meaning Christ) was with God, the Creator in the beginning. It does not say that Christ was the same one as the Creator. Yeah, I know it gets confusing, but confusion is not a reason to stop believing something. Usually people don't stop baking when ingredients get confusing. Hmm, that is a horrible example. Sorry about that. Let's just say that we can't stop believing in something because it is confusing. We do not have three Gods, but one God in three persons.
I got an email from my sister this morning with the title "Raising Boys." One of the realizations in this email is that if you mix Clorox and Brake Fluid a lot of smoke erupts. As you read further down, at the bottom of the email it says "80 percent of men who read the email will mix the Clorox and Brake Fluid together." It is crazy how guys do stuff like that
Okay I can deal with people that will only sing Psalms, but not these people who want to read only the King James Version of the Bible? What is that about? This version of the Bible is dedicated to King James, duh. Every version of the Bible has a bias. Except, of course, for the original manuscripts. The Bible is infallible. I really think that the English version should show this, but it can't because we translate some words in different ways. Open up to almost any passage in two different translations and you will find different words. This is because we sometimes do not have exact equivalents to words that were used. That seems to me to be common sense. Then, someone pointed out that all Bibles except the KJV are copyrighted. Okay, so that just means that the people wanted to make sure that they were given credit for that translation. If you look at most Bibles it will say some society or foundation has the copyright. What is wrong with this? The name of it is also copyrighted. The name "New International Version" is a copyright. What is wrong with that? Nothing at all. You can copyright the title of a book. It is very ridiculous to base your case on something like this. "Oh, the KJV doesn't say copyright so it must be the best version to read." Hmm, seems like dumb logic to me.

So, I must admit that that JW book is now my bathroom reading. I find it very crazy, so that is the only time that I will read it. Anyways, this morning I read about the divine name, you know Jehovah. People will say that you could translate this also as Yahweh. I actually prefer Yahweh. Okay, the rational that they use for saying Jehovah instead of another name is a weird bit. They say that you would never have a best friend whose name you didn't know, so why would you "Jehovah" Lord or any other name. Then they go on to say that Jehovah means "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be." That is their rendering of Ex. 3:14. Normal Bibles usually translate this "I AM WHO I AM." Okay, so my question coming off of that then is why could God not become human? If he shall prove to be what he shall prove to be. No man is born without sin. Therefore someone or thing greater than man must atone for our sins. This is the only way to account for Jesus Christ. God became human. Okay, so I just looked up in their Bible what Jer. 31:31-34 says and they always refer to Jehovah as concluding a covenant. Am I going to say that it is wrong to say this? Yes. That rendering just makes no sense. To conclude means to bring to an end or possibly to reach finality. The only thing is there is an old covenant and a new covenant. If both of these covenants are concluded then we are not under a covenant. If you want to go by the other definition the old covenant is finished, but the new covenant is not yet up. Therefore, this passage in Jeremiah really wouldn't make sense. But, hey, that is just me. I am sure that someone reads it differently than me.

Okay, so onto the open criticism. I am currently reading "Why True Christians Don't Use the Cross in Worship." Here is an exact quote, "The cross is pagan in origin." They also say that Christ was not hung on a cross, but rather on a stake. It was easier for pagan converts to understand Christ on the cross, so this symbol entered into Christianity in the Fourth Century. Apparently a torture stake is different from a cross. A torture stake consists of one beam, or something of the sort, since trees were not available everyone that the people went. But, how is it possible to be persecuted on anything but a tree? Can you drive nails through anything but wood? I doubt that they had plastic or metal back then. And how could you hammer stone into the ground? What in the world are they talking about? Sure we don't worship the cross. We recognize that Christ was crucified.
Okay, you knew eventually I would get to it. What of their translation of John 1:1? Well, as I have been informed by my very own friend, the greek grammar rules show that in the certain construct you cannot translate it differently than is translated in the NIV. To say that the word was a god, or as they put it "mighty one" is to deny Jesus Christ. They will acknowledge that Jesus was the Word, but that he was not God. However, we, as true believers, know that all earthly people have sinned and fallen short. They even recognize that Christ was BEGOTTEN of the Father. The word begotten means "of the same substance." Well, if Christ was of the same substance then he would have to be God. Wait, hold up, maybe I will do the "Universe of Yahweh" thing that my dad always talks about. (Just so you know, my dad is not a believer in this Universe of Yahweh, he just finds it ridiculous.) Well, anyways, okay begotten comes from beget. Well beget means the same thing in English as sire. Sire means a male ancestor. Hmm, maybe I haven't gone far enough back. Because to me a male ancestor would still mean that they are of the same substance. Therefore, I conclude that Jesus had to be of the same substance of the father. My father begot me. I am of the same substance as my father. Therefore, Jesus is of the same substance as his father, which would happen to be God the Father. Was Jesus a mighty one? Of course he was. He conquered death. Was he THE mighty one? Of course. But, he was and still is GOD. As far as is pointed out that Jesus doesn't know when the second coming is, it kind of lends itself to the same reasoning that Jesus had to learn. I mean, ultimately, Jesus wouldn't have had to learn because he could have had complete knowledge, since he was God. However, Jesus had to walk the way that we did and eat what we did and partake of what we partake in to be the atoning sacrifice.
Okay, the randomness is here again. If Jesus was not God why is there a New Testament? Doesn't the NT basically show us how Christ atoned for our sacrifices? How could a mere human die for others? That just doesn't make any sense. If he was not God he would have been filled with sin. It is impossible to understand Jesus as any less than God. Oh, and a thing to notice is that the JW's proof for others who translate it "a god" comes from a Mormon Bible and a Unitarian Source, along with a translation that no one has ever heard of, which is used by translators for tribal languages. I am not able to get more information on that. Alright, it is time for bed.
So, I was watching some kind of preview for a show called "God or the Girl." These men who were going to become catholic priests were tempted to drop that calling to follow a girl. One of the men admitted that it was a sin to kiss or hug his girlfriend. Okay, why does he have a girlfriend if he wants to become a priest? I have yet to understand why Catholic ministers have to be celibate. Someone told me that it was explained in one of my classes at seminary, but I must have missed it. At first I thought the rational was because Peter, assumed to be the first pope by the church, was not married. But this cannot be true because of Matthew 8:14.
So, anyways, back to this show. These men are supposed to choose between serving God or getting married. Does Paul not address this concern when he says that men can marry? God did institute marriage for "it is not good for man to be alone." Yes, I completely agree that above all our devotion is to be to God, but a reality show that tries to make you choose between God and a girl is a horrible thing.
One of the participants says this: "This was an opportunity that He put in my life and it was a huge struggle because if I did decide to go into the priesthood and I wanted to enter a seminary, yet this show portrays me and us in a scandalous way, then all of a sudden my diocese won't let me in the seminary and I've lost my call to the priesthood." I honestly do not believe that a bunch of priests can make a decision on whether you are called to the priesthood. No man can revoke your call to the priesthood. That is a horrible thing to say. I don't really know the Catholic church that well, but I would hope that that is not a possibility. As I look around this seminary there are guys in their 30's, 40's, and 50's just now studying to get into the ministry. The people in these clips are all in their 20's. It is possible that they don't have a call right now to this service, but it could happen in the future. And, if he is revoked by his diocese for the priesthood I am sure that in the future he could try again. Wow, this is really going on a slippery slope so I better stop.
In other news, my car got broken into the other day, and the only thing that could possibly be missing is my softball bat. That is the craziest thing ever. My laptop, obviously, is still intact. My car was made a mess of, but no real worries there. I just had a whole bunch of papers in the car. If I did have CD's they were quite possibly Christian CD's or sermons. I listen to really no other music on CD than those. Interesting, very interesting. What more can I ask for?
So, I got my first ever visit by a JW. I have to admit that it was a little strange. All she talked about was how the Bible is practical for our lives today. I am sorry, but any Christian group should try and say that. There was no specific talk about the JW's in this girl's speech. It really surprised me. Of course, I think she may have been a little bit scared when she found out that I was a seminary student. This girl could not have been more than 16. But, that begs the question of why she is going door to door on a Thursday instead of being in school. Maybe she was a little bit older, but there are more productive things for someone that age to do at 10 am. I now have some literature to read. I remember a few months ago I recieved a care package from my parents. One of the items of "care" was the two nicely packed Watchtower magazines with the note attached "Dad thought that you might get a laugh out of these."