Disqus - Latest Comments for nickbatchelor

Re: Who is Jesus and What is the Trinity?

nickbatchelor — Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:51:39 -0000

Oh no! The writer used “Jonah” with a “J”. It would have been “Yonah” correct? But why quibble over this?

We say God’s Name Yehowah/Jehovah in our own language. In Italian it’s “Geova” with a “G.”

God accepts his Name in all tongues and languages.

Hebrew is Hebrew, Greek is Greek, and English is English. Most of us speak English and so saying Jesus or Jehovah is fine and acceptable.

If the inspirers bible writers of the Gospel can translate names that didn’t sound like the original so can we.

The writer of this article is correct in rejecting the trinity doctrine that is unscriptural. Jesus or Yeshua wasn’t Trinitarian.

Re: 7 reasons why the Sixers will be better than the Lakers

nickbatchelor — Sat, 15 Jul 2017 20:03:41 -0000

The writers Reason 1 on DEFENSE was just poorly written and not well thought out. HE didn't even mention how Kentavious Caldwell-Pope will help compensate any of "Ball's deficiencies." Only point which is obvious to every one that the East is weak and will be easier for the 76ers to get in the playoffs. Lakers don't want it to be easy. They want to better and stronger and are on their way to doing what they will do and that is win more championships. I wonder if the writer can write about who is closer to doing that? It's not the 76ers. BTW, Lakers will win both times we play them this season.

Re: Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Campbell on the Trinity

nickbatchelor — Mon, 06 Mar 2017 13:51:42 -0000

Jehovah God, the God of Jesus, is the Almighty. (Psalm 83:18)

Re: Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Campbell on the Trinity

nickbatchelor — Mon, 06 Mar 2017 00:29:30 -0000

Jesus wasn't Trinitarian.

Re: Timofey Mozgov: Conversation With Luke Walton Was 'Key' To Signing With Lakers - Lakers Nation

nickbatchelor — Sat, 02 Jul 2016 03:03:17 -0000

Who will rescue us?? I bleed purple and gold and don't want to watch the Lakers History Channel again this year. Open message to the front office: Do Something Spectacular or give the reigns to someone who can.

Re: In the New Testament, Jesus has a god (who is also ours)

nickbatchelor — Thu, 26 Nov 2015 13:47:35 -0000

Thanks for your thoughts Dale. Where there are ambiguous scriptures the best approach is to see what other texts tell us and that usually clears it up as you know. We do have God's name in Psalm 2:2, Psalm 110:1, Isaiah 61:1 and Micah 5:4 and that is enough for me to see that Yahweh/Jehovah is not Jesus but the God of Jesus.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."- Ephesians 1:3

Re: In the New Testament, Jesus has a god (who is also ours)

nickbatchelor — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:59:56 -0000

Nice reasoning Dale. Jesus always has someone God to him whether on earth or in heaven. He worships his God and Father. That doesn't make me think he is that God. Do you think if God's name was left in bible translations there would be less confusion on the identity of God?

Re: An Important Lesson from The Hawaiian Bobtail Squid

nickbatchelor — Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:57:25 -0000

Jehovah's witnesses do believe in micro evolution. That there can be built in adaptation that is made evident over time. They reject the idea of macroevolution. Can you supply an example of macroevolution?

Re: An Important Lesson from The Hawaiian Bobtail Squid

nickbatchelor — Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:54:00 -0000

The argument in the article is only one facet of proof of a purposeful designer. True, the laws in the universe have compelling evidence of a Grand Maker. What do you make of Jesus words that "the meek will inherit the earth?" (Matthew 5:3) Who will those who do go to heaven rule over? An empty planet?

Re: An Important Lesson from The Hawaiian Bobtail Squid

nickbatchelor — Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:47:55 -0000

Hi Gina, My father is a Pentecostal (Trinitarian) and my mother now belongs to the Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Growing up I heard both sides and spent much time and energy carefully researching the identity of God. My conclusion is that the Trinity doctrine is a post-biblical, formulated teaching that is not articulated in scripture. For example, where does the Bible tell us that the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit are "one God?"

Re: An Important Lesson from The Hawaiian Bobtail Squid

nickbatchelor — Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:41:28 -0000

Which is the correct one? Who then harmonizes the truth of the Bible better?

Re: An Important Lesson from The Hawaiian Bobtail Squid

nickbatchelor — Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:39:30 -0000

There are many ways to understand Thomas' words. One thing for sure, there is always someone God to Jesus.

Re: From Isaiah 61:1, how could Jehovah anoint Jesus if they are the same person?

nickbatchelor — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:07:23 -0000

Hello Gramps, I wonder why is it if anyone else is "anointed" by someone else they cannot be that person?? If you do some further research you will find that the Hebrew manuscript evidence is split on "me" or "him" in Zechariah 12:10. Why do we know "him" is more likely? How did John understand that text?

All translations, including the King James Version, show John here translating Zechariah 12:10 as "They shall look upon him [or `the one'] whom they pierced." So we have this Apostle and inspired Bible writer telling us plainly that Zechariah 12:10 should read: "They shall look upon him (not `me')." So Jehovah is speaking in Zechariah 12:10 of someone else who will be pierced - not Himself!

Re: Evils of religion: The scam that became Mormonism

nickbatchelor — Sat, 20 Dec 2014 17:03:18 -0000

No! Not a mistake. There was still wheat in the field. Faithful ones who stood up to the atrocities of the apostate Church. But to think you are wheat because you have been in the field for a long time is a mistake too. For the weeds have been in their for some 1,800 years. So how do you tell the difference? Look at the fruitage! (Matthew 7:20)

Also remember that sentiments were hurled at Galileo, as follows: 'To be Galileo is to believe that all the centuries the Church thought the earth was the center of the universe was a mistake, until Galileo came along to point out otherwise.'

If JWs are, in fact, the regathering of the Wheat during "the harvest," "conclusion of the system of things," then one would expect them to point out the foretold apostatizing of Christianity as clearly communicated in the Wheat & Weeds account. The fact that we've "come along" "1800 years or so" after the Catholic Church simply makes JWs one of the most likely candidates for being the Wheat class.

Again, there is no "mistake" here; Jesus prophecied this inevitable detour from the Christianity he instituted, and he indicated that this situation would continue UNTIL just before the end comes [so far, that's been 1800 years or so]. We are simply testifying to its fulfillment by pointing it out--giving Jesus the credit, not us.

You tell me you will leave the Church and join JWs, if we can present evidence we're God's people and the Catholic Church is not; then you proceed to simply brush aside the Wheat & Weeds prophecy and instead, attack JWs with mild sarcasm. So far, I see no attempt by you to objectively consider any evidence, not even from Jesus himself [i.e. the Wheat & Weeds prophecy already presented to you], that you can possibly be mistaken.

I have to mention I question the objectivity and reasonableness of anyone who claims to be "quite familiar" with the history of the Catholic Church and yet can "maintain that its witness is one of love." You are either woefully unaware of the Church's history or is hopelessly 'drunk with the wine of' false religion's sins that have "massed together clear up to heaven" to the point that you are unable to see straight, spiritually speaking (Revelation 14:8; 18:5).

Then you told me you I have not 'addressed your previous points/question,' but I have; I introduced you to Jesus' wheat & weeds prophecy [NOT JWs' mere claim] that Christianity WOULD DEFINITELY apostatize for "1800 years or so". I believe it is you who needs to respond to Jesus words which, in fact, utterly dismiss your claim that the Catholic Church was God's Church for the past 1800 years or so. Jesus' words demand an acknowledgement, or at least a response, and not to be swept under a rug of JW prejudice/biases.

Re: Evils of religion: The scam that became Mormonism

nickbatchelor — Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:21:23 -0000

Hey there Tom! Who said anything about Christianity being a mistake? The Bible itself foretold a great apostasy that was already at work in the days of the apostles. For myself, looking at the fruits and teachings is the deciding factor. The teaching of hell-fire, the inherent immortality of the soul and Trinity doctrine, pope worship and holidays the church as perpetuated tell me that the Catholic Church could not be the true faith. Especially with the big one being pitting spiritual brother against spiritual brother at war-time.

When I read scriptures like 1 John 3:10-12 it does not make me think that the Catholic Church is practicing true Christianity. The Christ-like stance Jehovah's Witnesses take is significant to me. Jesus said you would know his true disciples BY THE LOVE they would have among themselves. (John 13:35)

Re: Evils of religion: The scam that became Mormonism

nickbatchelor — Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:07:04 -0000

We welcome better, more accurate understanding. When it becomes clear that our understanding of a scripture is in need of correction or adjustment, we make the correction or the adjustment. We do not continue in proven error.

The Bible says that the light would get brighter and increase during the time of the end. (Proverbs 4:18; Daniel 12:4, 9) Absolutely, 'time will tell.' I am here to tell you today for those who see the "sign of the Son of Man" many will raise their head erect knowing their deliverance is near, however, many will "beat themselves in lamentations," thinking shoulda, woulda, coulda...

"Come, Lord Jesus!" (Revelation 22:20) Nice talking with you.

Re: Evils of religion: The scam that became Mormonism

nickbatchelor — Wed, 17 Dec 2014 03:45:23 -0000

Hi Tom, Strange I wrote a response and it seems to have disappeared? Oh well! Can I ask you how do you feel about Jesus illustration of "the wheat and the weeds"? (Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43)

Since the field is the world and is over sown with weeds, who would be in the majority, the wheat or the weeds? Wouldn't it be “the weeds”? Doesn’t this also mean that the weeds would be in the dominant, controlling role at this time? After all, if the wheat were in control, wouldn’t they put a stop to, or at least hamper, the weeds spreading?

That being the case, wouldn’t the weeds have to be all dominant, organized religions that developed after the apostle died? Doesn’t the actions of the Catholic church match what Jesus foretold in the “wheat and weeds” account?

The illustration of Jesus rules out as wheat ANY religious organizations that rose up over the centuries—they would, by virtue of the timing of their appearance, have to be the weeds Jesus foretold. This understanding is confirmed by the religious atrocities of history.

On the other hand, the wheat-like true Christians would have to appear during the “harvest” season—just before the end comes. They would also have to be the ones preaching the “good news of the Kingdom” as foretold to occur during the ‘harvest’ “conclusion of the system of things” (Matthew 24:14). I am convinced that Jehovah’s Witnesses are these ones! We certainly qualify as very likely candidates in view of the foregoing, would we not?

Re: Evils of religion: The scam that became Mormonism

nickbatchelor — Wed, 17 Dec 2014 03:11:19 -0000

Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses, like everyone else enjoy freedom. We might be
reminded that among those freedoms are freedom of religion, Freedom of the
press and free speech, and certainly freedom of conscience. To say that anyone
who doesn’t participate in war is not deserving of these and other freedoms
negates the very reason many people go to war, to provide these freedoms for
ALL, not just for those who believe like they do. Should those who go to war fight for just their freedom, or freedom for all? In that way there would be freedom for
some.

JWs fought in a different way, through the courts where not one person was killed or injured. There hasn’t been a draft for several decades now, and those who do go into the military do so voluntarily. Interestingly, thousands of our Witness men served in the military during all the wars from WWl to present. But they weren’t JWs at the time. They served their country, but since becoming JWs, they are now serving their God and his kingdom.

There are many law professors for instance one at the University of New Mexico who has nothing but praise for JWs because, as he said, “Jehovah’s Witnesses have defined and clarified our freedoms, not just for JWs, but for all, and not just
for Americans but for most of the world of democratic countries who follow the
lead of the United States.” JWs have done more for our freedoms without firing a single bullet or killing a single fellow human! The nations can’t say that!

You asked, “What would happen when Adolf Hitler comes along?. . .we would all be slaves to Hitler.” The religious and political leaders of Christ’s day were concerned about the same thing. If they allowed Jesus to continue gathering
disciples—well, here’s what John 11:47, 48 states: “So the chief priests and Pharisees gathered the Sanhedrin [Supreme Court] together and said: “What are we to do, for this man [Jesus] performs many signs? If we let him go on this way, they will all put faith in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place [the temple and their religious standing] AND OUR NATION.” Recognize any similarity to what you are saying? Those leaders were concerned that if everyone believed that way, the Hitler of their day would take over and perhaps make slaves of them.

However, why did early Christians take the stand they took? I can prove on another occasion that they did just as the international Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses do today.

Instead of joining in the killing of others, which would include our own brothers, JWs would not take part in Hitler’s military forces either. As a result, thousands of JWs, including even some women, were killed along with the Jews in Hitler’s death camps. The Witnesses, unlike the Jews, could have been released if they would sign a document disavowing their association with JWs internationally, and disowning their God, Jehovah. Very few did.

Hitler gave a speech from his parade grounds in Nuremburg where, among other things, he said “I will rid this brood [JWs] from Germany! Soon afterwards he was dead, and the Witnesses were once more thriving in Germany where over 112,000 gathered for a several day convention in that very parade grounds.

Whose side did the True God, Jehovah, prove to be on then? Russia tried some of the same tactics, but also failed, as have a score of other especially African and Arabic countries. None have been successful. In every case, JWs continue to take their stand for Christian neutrality and put things in God’s hands. Because we don’t engage in war, we also accept any consequences that God allows to happen. We consider the verse at Acts 5:29 as very important in our decision-making: “We must obey God as ruler rather than man.” This, of course, applies when man’s laws differ from, or oppose God’s laws. Then we obey God rather than man.

You have that wrong about JWs not being “allowed” to be police officers. If their individual conscience allows them to be police officers they can be, but they would usually have a police duty, like a desk job or inspector that would not require carrying a gun. A police officer can come into the truth and can publish the good news as a JW, even if he has to carry a gun on the job if his conscience allows him.

Interestingly, the police in Great Britain have never carried guns unless they have changed their policy on that in recent years. As far as I know they still don’t, but they do carry “Billy-clubs.” It seems to work well for them. As things continue to worsen, that policy might change, if it hasn’t already.

Since JWs are tax-paying citizens, though we choose not to be police officers in most cases, we have every right to the services of those who “protect and serve,” people whose consciences allow them to carry guns as part of the employment they choose. We don’t look at being a police officer as being “unchristian” to use your word, but a matter of choice and conscience on the part of each individual. Though I have known two individuals (no—three) JWs whose conscience allowed them to be police officers, it is not generally considered to be an occupation JWs would normally choose. I know you don't want to debate and I don't either but I hope some of this helps clarify a few things for you.

Re: Evils of religion: The scam that became Mormonism

nickbatchelor — Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:04:58 -0000

Thanks for your reply. First off, "the Watchtower," rather "the Watchtower, Bible and Tract Society," is simply the legal entity used for us to publish the good news of God's Kingdom. I find it interesting that our opposers have preferred to call us by the name(s) of our publishing corporations rather than by the name of our religious institution.

Even former Witnesses refer back to us as "the Watchtower" rather than "Jehovah's Witnesses." We are thus divorced from the Name of our God with them. It is almost like calling a member of the Lutheran or Baptist or Mennonite Church by the name of their principal publication. As I said before, just because we were in error in the past does not mean we still are. The same is true with early Christians. They were faithful to God and Christ and had completely wrong ideas and expectations. I don't worry about what we used to believe but what we believe now is my main concern. Most of the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses are the same, especially the core teachings we believe today. No hell-fire, No Trinity, Jehovah is the Name of God, the earth will be restored to a paradise, a 1000 year reign of Christ, to mention a few. I worship God with "spirit and truth." (John 4:24)

I am willing to examine any religion out there who claims to worship God in truth and then test it full strength by fruits and what they teach. The Catholic Church I believe is a big part of Babylon the Great, the empire of false religion. God would never use a religious prostitute like that to be His representatives on earth. For one thing they are very much "apart of this world" which Jesus said true Christians would not be. (John 17:16) Can you see the difference between Jehovah's Witnesses who avoid the political arena of this world and those of the Catholic Church?

Re: Evils of religion: The scam that became Mormonism

nickbatchelor — Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:59:41 -0000

We can agree on that! Each one decides for themselves. I will continue to save what little I have for retirement. Not selling the farm anytime soon either. :) However, are you prepared for the great day of God the Almighty? What will you do when you see the "sign of the Son of Man" in heaven appears? It's not a question if it will be here but when? In the mean time, "as for me and my household we shall serve Jehovah." There is a reason why Jesus tells us to "prove ourselves ready." (Matthew 24:44) All the best!

Re: Evils of religion: The scam that became Mormonism

nickbatchelor — Mon, 15 Dec 2014 03:01:41 -0000

Dear Tom, Sorry for not responding. I was away for some months and forgot about this discussion. Jehovah's Witnesses have done a great deal to help others even in natural disasters for example. My problem is why would you want to be attached to the Catholic Church which such a dark side of it?? Have you seen the torture devices they have used in the past? Seriously, what do you think of that? If I did good things but had a side of me that tortured others would you like to be my friend? Let me know your thoughts when you can. Thanks!

Re: Evils of religion: The scam that became Mormonism

nickbatchelor — Mon, 15 Dec 2014 02:53:24 -0000

As I have said before Jehovah's Witnesses can be Bible prophecy misunderstanders but that doesn't mean we claim Divine inspiration. We are serious bible students and stay alert to the times. If we die or not we still keep proclaiming the near of this old system is near and we preach the good news of the Kingdom just as Jesus Christ said his true followers would be doing. Let opposers and ridiculers have their day. The day of Jehovah is coming! It will not be late. Even if it should delay in our eyes it will come! Sorry for the late reply. I was in Asia and traveling and forgot about this discussion. Kind regards.

Re: Evils of religion: The scam that became Mormonism

nickbatchelor — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:45:02 -0000

No, I knew exactly what you meant and I explained to you why there was a huge difference. You didn't discern the difference. And now you are trying to throw everything you can at me and hope that something sticks.

I will explain to you the difference between an "inspired prophet" and how "prophet"can be understood. Jehovah’s Witnesses are NOT “inspired prophets.” We also are NOT “infallible” as well. We can and have made mistakes in our understanding of Scripture. When it comes to the word “prophet” many people think of a prophet just as one who predicts what the future holds. But the Bible indicates that prophets of God were also spokesman of Jehovah. Not all of those known as “prophets” in Scripture were used to utter divine predictions.

The New American Bible correctly states: “Prophet means ‘one who speaks for another,’ especially for God. It does not necessarily mean that he predicts the future!” So in a sense, one truly bears witness to God and Christ is a prophet. In this way, God’s people can be spoken of as God’s prophets on the earth. But not in the way some people imagine that “Jehovah’s Witnesses” are receiving divine revelations or inspiration as in Biblical times. We make no such claim.

NEVER did we ever presume to originate predictions ‘in the name of Jehovah.’ Never did we say, ‘These are the words of Jehovah.’ The Watchtower, the official journal of Jehovah’s Witnesses, has said: “We have not the gift of prophecy.” (January 1883, page 425) “Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible.” (December 15, 1896, page 306)

The Watchtower has also said that the fact that some have Jehovah’s spirit “does not mean those now serving as Jehovah’s witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without mistakes.” (May 15, 1947, page 157) “The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic.” (August 15, 1950, page 263) “The brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not inspired as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) And so, at times, it has been necessary, as understanding became clearer, to correct views. (Prov. 4:18)”(February 15, 1981, page 19)

I'm not sure if this is some kind of hobby for you to try to play "gotcha" with Jehovah's Witnesses. As I asked you from the beginning, what hope do you have? What could you possibly offer that could replace what we have? Come back with something better and we can continue this discussion. Signing off!

Re: Evils of religion: The scam that became Mormonism

nickbatchelor — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 00:44:57 -0000

Yes, they asked that question and they had wrong expectations. That is a scriptural fact. Jehovah's Witnesses have stated time and time again that we do not have the gift of prophecy. You don't want to hear the full truth because you are bent on finding fault and tearing down.

Let me give you an example of someone who prophecies falsely. Oral Roberts who said he was told by a 900 foot Jesus that he was going to be used to find a cure for cancer and people should send him 8 million dollars or God was going to kill him. His cancer medical center was only open for a few years.

This is a clear example of one who meets the requirements of a "false prophet," since he was not just interpreting Scriptural prophecies but he claimed a direct communication from God which proved untrue. (Deuteronomy 13:1)

Jehovah's Witnesses have done no such thing. This is what we have said:

“We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises,...We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophesy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them.” (Zion's Watch Tower Jan.1,1908)

Assume the following: A divinely inspired book predicts that two nations will enter into war and a king will be the reason both nations are unable to win the war and enter an indefinitely lasting armistice.

Navi, a devoted worshipper and student of the divinely inspired book writes commentary on this prediction saying that a king from a third nation will be the spoiler, the reason no decisive war is fought. However,when the prophecy is fulfilled it turns out it is one of the two kings having the war who is responsible for the process ending in an armistice, not a third king.

Navi would be a false prophet if the prophecy he was interpreting was false. His incorrect understanding of the true prophecy does not make him a false prophet, but it would make him one who incorrectly parsed that prophecy. The apostles saw the prophecies in the Old Testament that foretold that the Coming Messiah would set up a kingdom (Psalm 2; Isaiah 11; Daniel 7) and applied them incorrectly to the Messiah's first coming. The prophecies they read were correct but their understanding was incorrect. (Luke 24:19-21; John 6:15) They were not false prophets even though their understanding of those prophecies was incorrect.

HaRa is a deeply religious man. One day after he leaves his home he gathers a group of friends and acquaintances and relates that two nights ago, an angel come into his room and told him that because of the prevalence of immorality in their community, there would be no rain for 5 months and that he would rise up to the heavens within a week in the presence of many of them. Two months later it rains and to this day HaRa has not been lifted up to the heavens. HaRa is a false prophet. The prophecy was false and the voiced prediction was false.

So, did the Witness predictions come from Bible prophecy or did they come from outside the Bible? That is a difference that makes a difference and determines who is the false prophet and the person who misunderstood true prophecy.

Re: Evils of religion: The scam that became Mormonism

nickbatchelor — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:53:41 -0000

It is clear that the apostles and others initially felt that the prophecies relating to the Second Coming and the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom applied to their time.But that was wrong. Where is the evidence for that? Note what the apostles asked our Lord before his ascension to heaven: “So when they met together, they asked him, ‘Lord, are you at this time going to restore’ the kingdom to Israel?'

Based on their question, which prophecies in the Old Testament had they applied to the Messiah? Were they right or wrong? Did Jesus destroy the wicked and set up a kingdom over the entire earth back then or was that a still future event? Should we call those disciples of Christ false because they misapplied or misunderstood the Messianic prophecies? (See
also Luke 24:13-21)   "Beth Sarim," is a good example of misunderstanding something in Scripture, namely Psalm 45:16. Further, more exhaustive study showed that these princes of the earth would be resurrected post-Armageddon, not before. God's promise didn't change, of course, just our understanding of it did.

Wrong expectations do not disqualify anyone from God's approval if they are willing to modify, fine-tune, or abandon a view or position. As you now know many of God's people had to be put straight on their own mistaken ideas and understanding of God's time of events. Again, our recent understanding adjustments does not shake our confidence in our Creator's promise in anyway. We have new understanding. No big scandal, no cover up, no falling out in the faith, just new recognition and correction. You have a problem with that, we don’t.