@MadCornishBiker Said
You can't explain ti because it isn't true. I have not been shown to be interpreting the bible wrong. For every wrongly interpreted scripture you have brought up I have brought up a number that show you how wrong you are.
Ok, this has got boring. When you say the bible, Jehovah, Abraham, Adam, Sarah and Eve all bear false testimony because it does not fit your doctrine, the argument you present - namely, that it is not Jehovah because it does not fit our doctrine - is not only non compelling, but also, it is not even an argument in any meaningful sense.
When your doctrine blatantly contradicts the bible, maybe it is not a bad idea to change your doctrine, instead of dribble about how it is an angel, when not one shred of the text supports or even suggests that. When an angel speaks to people, it is an angel that speaks to people - for example, Mary being told she is pregnant.
@MadCornishBiker Said Accept it or accept it not, facts are facts and you cannot change them.
I totally agree with you on this. So, I must ask, why do you and the JWs feel the need to incessantly change facts?
@MadCornishBiker Said What about them. They have been corrected, that is all that matters. If they got something wrong then God reveals that when He wants to, not when we want Him to.
No. You do not have the luxury of incessantly attacking every thing you dislike about Christians, then crying when the stupidity of the JW position gets pointed out to you.
I have allowed you that luxury for awhile, by not being hostile or insulting back. However, there is a limit to how much I will take from someone who is not even in the cult they defend.
The pyramid worship of the JWs went on for a long time, as evidenced in the image I showed of the JW pyramid idol next to Russell's grave site.
@MadCornishBiker Said It is revealed truth, which gets closer to infallible as it is revealed.
Do I honestly need to point out how stupid this argument is?
It is painfully obvious that any prediction of an end date after 1874 is going to be closer to the truth than the 1874 date. My grandmother's pet dog could create a more accurate date than that merely by vomiting on a current calendar. This hardly shows that a vomiting dog is inspired by God, does it? *And* it is painfully obvious that saying the end will come sometime after 1914, is more accurate than saying the world will end in 1914.
Try to think, before you say something as dumb as that - you leave the door open for attack, and I am being polite. THINK! Do not just swallow the cult party line, MCB. Actually re-engage your mind and think critically about these things.
There is no doubt you know the bible better than I do, yet it does not seem to benefit you much.
@MadCornishBiker Said The trouble is that you cannot see the truth for all the prejudiced ideas you have been fooled into taking on board.
And, I say the same about you.
It is not me that denies the testimony of many witnesses that Jehovah was seen by people.
It is not me that denies that *both* John and the Jews say that Christ claimed equality with God by claiming to be God's Son.
It is not me ignoring the fact that Isaiah called both Christ and God "el giboor" or "Mighty God."
It is not me denying that Christ said, "I and the father are one," because he meant it. Or, that when he said, "If you have seen me you have seen the father," because he meant it.
It is not me ignoring Thomas saying, when seeing the resurrected body of Christ, "My Lord and my God." Because he too, actually meant it.
It is not me denying that every created thing was created by Christ, meaning that Christ was not created.
It is not me that says Paul did not mean Christ had "equality with God" when he said that Christ had equality with God.
And it is not me ignoring the fact that Psalm 89:27 uses the term "firstborn" to mean being given preeminence, just as it does in Jeremiah 31:9.
It is also not me that calls Christ a false prophet and liar by denying that he resurrected his body despite telling the Jews that he would do precisely that.
It is not me that says, Christ cannot be God because he was sent by the father, yet ignores that Christ became less than God to become a man, *and* that Christ and God are not the same, but share the same essence (as being called "Son of God" clearly demonstrates to anyone who bothers to study the meaning of that term as it was applied).
It is not me that does not understand that "theos" and "theon" are precisely the exact same word, but in different noun forms, and that, therefore, "the word was God" is in fact, grammatically correct and is an unequivocal support of the actual deity of Christ (or that this statement of Christ's divinity is immediately backed up by the very next statement of John, when he says *everything* was created through Christ).
It is not me that thinks it is ok to translate every "ego eimi" statement as "I am" except the one that has Christ say, "Before Abraham was, ego eimi," because this is an obvious reference to God's name in Exodus.
It is not me incessantly vomiting up the doctrine of a pyramid worshiping cult with a history of failed prophecies, and accusing others of believing in the "doctrines of men."
@MadCornishBiker Said At least I found my beliefs on my own without interference from any man, long before I came across the JWs. Everything I post comes from scripture, yours all comes from Apostate literature and interpretations.
Yes, MCB, we know you hold yourself aloft as being better than others. You are not though.
You went looking for a God of a certain kind, and, you found it. So what? There are many weird kinds of beliefs out there that people have come to because they went looking for a certain kind of Christ or God in the bible. You are no different to anyone else.
@MadCornishBiker Said Lets face it, you can't even see how ridiculous the trinity is despite the fact that it was obvious enough to an 8 year old. I guess I had the advantage as a child of trusting no-one. You could do with losing your trust in men and putting it in God instead.
You are right. The trinity is ridiculous. The entire message of the cross is ridiculous - or, to put it biblically, it is "foolish to those that are perishing". Man was incapable of saving himself, so, God became man, and died as a perfect sacrifice for human sin, so that, through faith in this fact, man could be reconciled to a loving God that *every single human being in their natural state* (which includes you and me), hates.
The message of the cross is ridiculous because God said, 'you cannot save yourselves, I will do it for you, by dying for you, because I love you even though you hate me.'
The JW message, on the other hand, is ridiculous because it is absurd and makes the bible, Christ and God all liars.
No, I more accurately say you expunge cult-vomit. I agree with you that you do not inteprete the message, as that requires critical thought, and that is verboten in the JWs.
@MadCornishBiker Said I don't know that firstborn means pre-eminent for the simple reason that it only does so in the warped minds of trinitarian Apostates.
Except for the tinsy little problem that firstborn means preeminent in psalm 87, and Jeremiah 31. If it wasn't for the fact that you are totally wrong, you could be onto something.
@MadCornishBiker Said In reality it means exactly what it says. Firstborn means the one who was born first. It always ahs, and does so especially in the context of that scripture.
I have given two examples of where it unequivocally doesn't.
Again we turn to psalms, where God is speaking of David and he says, (Psalm 89:27)
Also, I myself shall place him as firstborn,
The most high of the kings of the earth.
Now, there is no sense at all in which David is first born. He was not the first son of Jesse, he was not the first king that people had had, and, he was not the first king that Israel had.
Nevertheless, God says, I will place him as firstborn, the most high of the kings of the earth. It does not get more blatant than that.
I will place him as firstborn, [as] the the highest of kings...
Not, "I will place him as first born, the first king ever to be born."
@MadCornishBiker Said Be fair, you can't even accept the acknowledged word of Historians, even from within the Catholic Church that the trinity wasn't an accepted Christian teaching until the 4th century, and if anyone should know it is the Catholics since they introduced it. You are simply too fully duped by Apostates, Satan's messengers.
https://www.earlychristianhistory.info/trinity.html
I am still waiting for you to prove that the JWs are not liars by showing me where in their little pamphlet about the trinity they call the anti-Nicene fathers apostates. You have not done it, despite this being at least the 5th request. The reason you do not do it, is because the JWs are liars, and you know it.
Instead of accept that they lie, you will cower away and ignore the truth. Who is the liar MCB? Who is the apostate?
Why are you hiding?
Show me where the JWs say the early church fathers are apostate.
Show me where the JWs say the early church fathers are apostate.
Show me where the JWs say the early church fathers are apostate.
You cannot possibly miss this request now. So, show me where they say it, MCB, or, admit that the JWs are liars.
@MadCornishBiker Said As this points out, even at Nicea the Holy Spirit was "left out, lol.
Learn some history MCB. The whole *point* of the First Council was dealing with the Arian heresy that Christ was not God. Why would they mention the Spirit, when the Spirit was *not* the issue. The early Christians dealt exclusively with the heresy that *you* buy into lol.
Because you are, lol.
@MadCornishBiker Said No you would rather stick with your traditions of men, just as the Pharisees that Jesus condemned did.
Umm, the JWs are people, MCB... Hello!!!
As to Pharisees, I have not been attacking you recently. I have avoided calling you a liar and apostate and a false that and satanic whatever else. Who is the good little pharisee hating and attacking all the time? Not me.
True, I am giving you a serve of it now, but I think it is reasonable, as, after all, you rarely fail to throw in little pointless hate-filled jibes at people that disagree with you.
You claim that you "witness" because it is your "duty" to do so. How much more Pharisaical can one get? As a JW, you would no doubt have even filled out a witnessing logbook to win the approval of men, yes? I am sure Christ would say, "assuredly I say to you, you have your reward."
@MadCornishBiker Said Jehovah is given credit for many things in scripture because He was the originator.
Yes, but not for lying.
@MadCornishBiker Said Abraham could only have been talking to Jehovah through the Angels.
Only if you refuse to accept that the Bible, Adam, Eve, Abraham, Sarah and Jehovah all told the truth.
@MadCornishBiker Said So, Jesus says no man has seen God at any time? If that is true how can you harmonise it with Genesis 18? Simple. As I say, Abraham was addressing Jehovah through the angle. That is the onyl way it can possiblty work otherwise Either God, or Jesus was lying, and that could never be.
Jesus says no man has seen the Father, but, God the Son, is not God the Father. That is why Jesus could say to his disciples, "have I been with you so long and yet still do not know me? If you have seen me, you have seen the Father," and yet, still be telling the truth in saying no one has seen the Father.
@MadCornishBiker Said This is what I mean when I say, as I often do, the bible interprets itself if you make the effort to find out how, but you have to know it extremely well to get there.
Again, I agree with you. The bible interprets itself. However, you need to read it, not with a view toward finding a particular God, as you admit that you did, but, with a view to finding truth.
@MadCornishBiker Said You have to go for the "obvious" or you couldn't believe what you do, but once you accept the fact that the bible really is God's word then you have to accept that if two scriptures appear to contradict, as John 1:18, and Genesis 18:1 appear to do, you have understood something wrongly. The difference between you, your Apostate "teachers", and the JWs and I is that we have learned that lesson and have changed our beliefs to fit the new understanding everytime we have had to rationalise apparent contradictions.
The difference is that Christians do not call God a liar in order to gel scripture to a pre-existing belief. You and the JWs do.
@MadCornishBiker Said No matter how often I show you the contraindications that the trinity teaching brings in you still cling to it as if it were a life raft in the middle of the ocean.
Because there *are* no contradictions when one understands the trinity doctrine.
****************
And finally, I readily accept that in having a bit of a go at you here, you will simply take this as proof that you serve God and are right. However, anyone who constantly insults others is going to get it given back to them at some point - being Christian has literally nothing to do with it. It is merely being judged by the measure you use (although, to be fair, I do not mete out anywhere near as much insulting diatribe as you do).