The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Religion & Philosophy

Jehovah's Witnesses - What do they really believe?

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...9 10 11 12 · >>
MadCornishBiker On January 14, 2014

Banned



St Columb Road, United Kingdom
#151New Post! Mar 18, 2012 @ 08:36:31
@Teleologist Said

Nonsense. I've asked you repeatedly to show me from scripture why your governing body allows JW's to take hemoglobin but forbids them from taking platelets. You refuse to do it because you know there is no Biblical basis for this policy. You teach the commands of men as coming from God even though you know Jesus condemns this. Matt.15:9


I have given you the scriptural example that the Governing Body's decision was based on.If that is not enough then I feel sorry for you, you are showing yourself up to be a "Pharisee" "straining out the gnat but gulping down the camel" as Jesus put it. "Matthew 23:23,24 “Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because YOU give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but YOU have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. These things it was binding to do, yet not to disregard the other things. 24 Blind guides, who strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel". Like those Pharisees you are too dependent on the letter of the law and too busy ignoring the principles and the "weightier matter" I thank God that the governing Body do not have your attitude, life in Christianity would be as intolerable as Christ found it in his day amongst the Pharisees.

Wake up. Show a little Christian mercy and then in turn you just may get some shown you.
bob_the_fisherman On January 30, 2023
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#152New Post! Mar 18, 2012 @ 19:46:33
@MadCornishBiker Said

Wake up. Show a little Christian mercy and then in turn you just may get some shown you.



I find it funny, yet kind of offensive that someone repeatedly claims that everyone that does not think precisely what they think, is a pharisee, a liar, an apostate, and a satanic member of Satan's church doing evil and being like their evil father the devil hating Christians and seeking to destroy the work of God, yet constantly cries foul when people point out problems, errors and inconsistencies in his doctrine.

The inconsistency, to use the Aussie vernacular, 'sticks out like dog's balls on a hot summers day.'
Teleologist On April 13, 2012




Phoenix,
#153New Post! Mar 18, 2012 @ 20:05:06
@MadCornishBiker Said

I have given you the scriptural example that the Governing Body's decision was based on.


What are you talking about? We have the decision of the 1st century GB and it has never been changed. It's that Christians are to abstain from blood. What does that mean? You think it means not taking whole blood or anything derived from whole blood, right? Your GB thinks it means not taking whole blood or certain components such as platelets but allows taking other components such as hemoglobin. You have stated before that you think your GB's position on this is wrong but you still support it. Why? What is it about the plain words of Jesus at Matt.15:9 that you don't understand? On judgement day when Jesus asks you why you promoted a teaching you believed to be false, what are you going to say? That you thought it was false but the men on your GB told you it was from God so you went along with it? Then Jesus is going to say to you: isn't that exactly what I warned you against at Matt. 15:9? Not teaching the commands of men?
0
Teleologist On April 13, 2012




Phoenix,
#154New Post! Mar 18, 2012 @ 20:26:18
@bob_the_fisherman Said

I find it funny, yet kind of offensive that someone repeatedly claims that everyone that does not think precisely what they think, is a pharisee, a liar, an apostate...


Yes, I've called him out on this many times. He claims that his governing body is being merciful by allowing JW's to take certain blood components and my views lack mercy and are like a pharisee. But I'm for JW's being able to take all blood components unlike his GB that just allows certain ones. So by his own standard I'm more merciful than his GB is, yet he continues to call me a pharisee that lacks mercy. Makes no sense.
0
bob_the_fisherman On January 30, 2023
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#155New Post! Mar 18, 2012 @ 21:22:14
@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.

@MadCornishBiker Said
And you accuse me of interpreting things, lol.


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.

@MadCornishBiker Said
And people say I am brainwashed, 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).
0
Edited: March 18, 2012 @ 21:44
MadCornishBiker On January 14, 2014

Banned



St Columb Road, United Kingdom
#156New Post! Mar 18, 2012 @ 23:14:37
@bob_the_fisherman Said

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 it also not even an argument in any meaningful sense.


Everything in the bible fits JW doctrine, and mine, because our doctrine is bible doctrine, not the posturings of some Apostate group or other.. that is why we hold it. Speaking to a representative as if he or she were the one they represent is nothing unusual even today.

I am sorry you find discussing God's word boring. I am sure He will remember you said that.



@bob_the_fisherman Said

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.


Except there is nowhere that "my" doctrine contradicts the bible, yours does, in many places as I have demonstrated fully, however you seem incapable even of understanding that, clear and obvious as it may be.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

I totally agree with you on this.


And yet you refuse to recognise even the most obvious of facts?

@bob_the_fisherman Said

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 do not attack Christians, only "fakes" who claim to be Christian but don't live up to it's teachings, and that is not a luxury it is a necessity.

None who teach unchristian teachings such as the trinity cannot make any genuine claim to being Christian.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

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.


You cannot wither allow me or deny me anything, and the truth out, and that is all I speak.

Christianity has been called a cult since it's inception, so why should it not be so now, lol?

@bob_the_fisherman Said

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.


For one thing it was not pyramid worship,they merely mistaken ly saw them as a sign, they never worshipped them or at them. JWs have never worshipped images of any sort, they even cleared out the false image of the cross in the mid 30's once they found out is was unlikely to have been the actual instrument of murder but rather as the bible says a "Xylon" or "Stauros" (stake or tree).

The desperation of your false accusations is beginning to show through very clearly.

So the mistake went on for a few decades, the pagan teaching of the trinity has endured in Apostate Christianity for over 1500 years, and is still going strong. At least the JWs put the pyramid thing to bed long ago. Apostate Christianity cannot claim that because they still teach it as a fact.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

Do I honestly need to point out how stupid this argument is?


You can try, but you'll fail because it isn't stupid, it is true.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

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.


Sorry that is so inaccurate as to be pathetic.


@bob_the_fisherman Said

There is no doubt you know the bible better than I do, yet it does not seem to benefit you much.


Knowing the bible is unimportant if, like you, one fails to understand it.

That is where you fall down, you simply swallow what others have told you with no independent thought at all. At least I arrived at the vast majority of my understanding independent of anyone.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

And, I say the same about you.


Of course you could, but you'd be wrong.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

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.


I have, as you well know, explained the truth of those scriptures and pointed out where you are misunderstanding them,it is not my problem if you refuse to recognise the true meaning of them.

I suggest you read them all again and check the context, especially the Jeremiah 31:9

@bob_the_fisherman Said

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.


I have never denied the bodily resurrection of Christ, neither do the JWs, though there is some doubt over whether or not Jesus meant the actual body he was standing there in or another the same because of the inability of many who knew Christ well to recognise him at first

However it is a relatively unimportant detail, and we cannot know for certain what Jesus meant exactly by his statement, he may or may not have meant the literal body he was standing there in. The fact is he was raised from#the dead in a physical body as he stated he would be.

I have no intention of being a Pharisee over the understanding of an unimportant detail which makes no difference in the end.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

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).


Son of God means exactly what it says, nothing more nothing less, and John was merely quoting what the Jews were trying to claim Christ meant, not what he actually did mean. Like you they were too intent on making it mean something it didn't. That much is self evident from even the most casual reading. and I think you will find that the scripture which says Christ became a "little lower" was referring to the angels rather than God, but maybe you will give me chapter and verse so that I can be sure we are talking about the same scripture.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

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).
On the contrary it is you that doesn't dare admit that Theos and Theon are two different words which in Greek could only have different shades of meaning, hence so many translations rendering the second as "divine", "of divine sort", "godlike one" or simply "a god".

The reason the Greeks had different words was simply to illustrate different shade of meaning. It is the same with the variation of words for love, etc. all to show different shades of meaning.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

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.


No,but it is amazing how many Greek Scholars do render it differently, as I have shown you in their translations, though I have no reason why since most of them were also believers in the trinity. Maybe they were just more honest?

@bob_the_fisherman Said

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."


No you simply refuse to accept that it was a past mistake which has been corrected and therefore no longer relevant, in our determination to be as unforgiving as the Pharisees of Jesus day.

As I have said before do you not believe that your past mistakes have been forgiven you? If you do, then you have to accept that theirs were also provided they corrected them,which they have. Don't forget "judge not in case you too are judged, because with the judgement that you judge others you yourself will be judged" If you refuse to forgive them errors they have repented over, what chance do you stand? Even if you do eventually wake up to the truth.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

Yes, MCB, we know you hold yourself aloft as being better than others. You are not though.


Then you know more than I do, I do not hold myself above any, I am simply grateful for the understanding God has blessed me with.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

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.


Yes, but what kind of God did I go looking for? The kind that was revealed to me by the words of His son,the "God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" as the Apostles described him. You stick with your pagan trinity, I will stick with worshipping the God that Christ worships. As the Apostles say=id, "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ".

@bob_the_fisherman Said

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.'

There is absolutely nothing ridiculous about God Christ or the message of the bible, and I am sure they will have noted that you say there is. If it is ridiculous, it cannot be true.

The message of the salvation by Christ is not ridiculous, it si purely logical, like for like, perfect life for perfect life, what is more logical than that?

Truth is never ridiculous.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

The JW message, on the other hand, is ridiculous because it is absurd and makes the bible, Christ and God all liars.


On the contrary it is the trinity teaching that does that. The doctrine of the JWs is based purely on the bible, and not on some distorted understanding of it that allows for the inclusion of pagan teachings. It is the doctrine of the Apostles and of Christ himself.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

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.

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.


Shame for you then that the same word so often has different meanings in different places if scripture isn't it. Firstborn is no exception. however to understand that it means anything other than firstborn when applied to the Christ denies the words of Christ himself and makes the word of God invalid in in that it introduces contradictions, and God never contradicts Himself. That is the major test of understanding.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

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."


Context.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

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?


I have shown you where the scriptures are that prove them to be Apostate, You have seen how they prove thier teaching sot be Apostate. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

Why are you hiding?


Hiding? Me, lol,

I am here and once again answering the question that you refuse to accept the answer to.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

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.


I have never missed that question, and have answered it again and again, but I doubt you will accept the answer this time either.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

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.
Quote:


But were the "Arians" wrong? Or were they simply defending the teachings of the Apostles and of Christ. Of course they were doing the latter. It is the Apostates that tried to teach the equality of Christ and his Father that forced the Apostles to repeatedly call Jehovah "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" Can you not see that? Are you so blinded by Satan's minions? Have you not yet worked out either that the Council of Nicea didn't even discuss Holy Spirit? It was not even mentioned? So much for the trinity, because without that you have no trinity?

Your own arguments defeat you. Your own arguments show that the trinity was not official church doctrine until after the mid 4th century.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

Because you are, lol.


Mmmm well one of us sure is.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

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.


If I hated you Bob I would not spend so much time trying to straighten you out, lol.

I am am not attacking, I am defending God, Christ and the JWs. If you stop attacking either to me or to others, I will have nothing to defend against will I. Defending truth is my role in life.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

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 book to win the approval of men, yes? I am sure Christ would say, "assuredly I say to you, you have your reward."

Yes, but not for lying.


No,because God has never lied, it is only ones like you who try to make Him out to be one with your pagan teachings.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

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.


Ah, so now you agree that despite what you have claimed earlier no man has seen God? lol.

How could Christ say that if he and God were not the same person? Well you have said yourself that they aren't just that they are equal, lol. wre you wrong then or wrong now?

The answer is simple. Christ has a complete unity of purpose with his Father. For him to have meant it any other way would still have been false because the Apostles were looking at a human body. God does not have a human body, ergo he could only mean it in the sense of "like father like son", which again does not make them the same or equal.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

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.[?QUOTE]

Again you twist and misinterpret what I say. I have never said I was looking for any God other than the one described in the bible. To find Him I had to find His people, and they are the JWs. I wanted to find the God that Christ worshipped, not the one worshipped in most churches.

At least the one I was looking for is the one in the bible, not the one in the imagination of Apostates.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

The difference is that Christians do not call God a liar in order to gel scripture to a pre-existing belief.


No. but the Apostates who teach the trinity do, as I have shown from scripture many times.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

You and the JWs do.


and yet I frequently quote Paul's words "let God be found true though every man be proved a liar" I defend God's truth,not the false truths of the Apostates.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

Because there *are* no contradictions when one understands the trinity doctrine.


And yet I have quoted and cited many scriptures which completely contradict the trinity teachings.

@bob_the_fisherman Said


****************
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).


Incidentally, did you know that "Grace" only appears in the OT in the vast majority of translation? And rarely at that.


You can have a go at me all you like, I don't matter,and it certainly won't stop me defending God, Christ, and their loyal servants,the JWs against the despicable attacks of the Apostates that you repeat here so often.

I don't take anything you say against me personally anyway because any attack on what I or the JWs teach is an attack on the honesty of God and Christ, and I will defend that as long as I am able.

Also nothing will stop me speaking the truth as long as I am able to, because truth must be told.

As for anything else, I leave others to judge between us on that. I have said nothing to you that Christ would not say, as scripture show, and all for the same reasons Christ would have said them. I try to imitate all sides of Jesus personality, the brutally honest as in scriptures like Matthew 23) as well as the meek and mild.
bob_the_fisherman On January 30, 2023
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#157New Post! Mar 19, 2012 @ 00:11:01
@MadCornishBiker Said

Hiding? Me, lol,

I am here and once again answering the question that you refuse to accept the answer to.

I have never missed that question, and have answered it again and again, but I doubt you will accept the answer this time either.


And, yet again, you do not answer the question. Where in the JW pamphlet about the trinity do they claim the anti-Nicene fathers were apostate?

Where in the JW pamphlet about the trinity do they claim the anti-Nicene fathers were apostate?

Where in the JW pamphlet about the trinity do they claim the anti-Nicene fathers were apostate?

Where in the JW pamphlet about the trinity do they claim the anti-Nicene fathers were apostate?

Where in the JW pamphlet about the trinity do they claim the anti-Nicene fathers were apostate?

Where in the JW pamphlet about the trinity do they claim the anti-Nicene fathers were apostate?

Have I written it enough times now? Will you actually show me in the JW pamphlet precisely where it is that they say the anti-Nicene fathers are apostate?

This is now the 6th, maybe 7th time I have asked, but you fail to do so every time. Show me where in that pamphlet in which the Jws quote the anti-Nicene fathers, that they say these guys were apostate.

Again, I say to you that you do not answer this question because you can't. The JWs lie, and quote the anti-Nicene fathers to make it look like they are "Christians" who do not support the trinity, when in fact, they all are Christians who do support the trinity.

Prove me wrong.

Show me where in that pamphlet the JWs say these early church fathers are apostate.


@MadCornishBiker Said
How could Christ say that if he and God were not the same person? Well you have said yourself that they aren't just that they are equal, lol. wre you wrong then or wrong now?


Maybe you can ask Christ when you meet him. I am sick of trying to point out the obvious.

@MadCornishBiker Said
There is absolutely nothing ridiculous about God Christ or the message of the bible, and I am sure they will have noted that you say there is. If it is ridiculous, it cannot be true.


1 Corinthians 1:18 For the speech about the torture stake is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is God’s power.

Admittedly, this is from the false bible of the JWs, but it still makes the point.
MadCornishBiker On January 14, 2014

Banned



St Columb Road, United Kingdom
#158New Post! Mar 19, 2012 @ 00:47:23
@bob_the_fisherman Said

And, yet again, you do not answer the question. Where in the JW pamphlet about the trinity do they claim the anti-Nicene fathers were apostate?

Where in the JW pamphlet about the trinity do they claim the anti-Nicene fathers were apostate?

Where in the JW pamphlet about the trinity do they claim the anti-Nicene fathers were apostate?

Where in the JW pamphlet about the trinity do they claim the anti-Nicene fathers were apostate?

Where in the JW pamphlet about the trinity do they claim the anti-Nicene fathers were apostate?

Where in the JW pamphlet about the trinity do they claim the anti-Nicene fathers were apostate?

Have I written it enough times now? Will you actually show me in the JW pamphlet precisely where it is that they say the anti-Nicene fathers are apostate?

This is now the 6th, maybe 7th time I have asked, but you fail to do so every time. Show me where in that pamphlet in which the Jws quote the anti-Nicene fathers, that they say these guys were apostate.

Again, I say to you that you do not answer this question because you can't. The JWs lie, and quote the anti-Nicene fathers to make it look like they are "Christians" who do not support the trinity, when in fact, they all are Christians who do support the trinity.

Prove me wrong.

Show me where in that pamphlet the JWs say these early church fathers are apostate.


You can go on all you like, lol, the question is answered whether or not you wish to accept the answer I gave you, and the answer wil not change for you repeating the question. You aren't getting yet another answer to it,you can troll all you like, it doesn't worry me because very time you ask it I will simply point out that I have already answered it. I have no intention of repeating my answer yet again.

As fot your statement that tye are Christians, that cannot possibly be true. If they teach the trinity, which is not a biblical teaching, as I have demonstrated over and again, then they are not Christian. They may be in your eyes, but they are not in God's and in the end that is all that matters.

The biggest irony is that, in your last post you very ably demonstrated that at the Council of Nicea the only issue that was debated was whether or not God and Christ were equal, no mention of Holy Spirit therefore no trinity. That did not come for a decade or two after the Council, lol.

Your own evidence!

Hoist, as they say, by your own petard.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

Maybe you can ask Christ when you meet him. I am sick of trying to point out the obvious.


The problem is that you are pointing out the opposite of the obvious, lol.

As for the thought of meeting Christ, since I have no hope nor desire to go to Heaven, and he will not be literally coming to earth that would be a little difficult, lol. My hope is the earthly one that will be enjoyed by the vast majority of mankind, as the bible describes.

However since I already have the written record of what he said before, and I know that he will not change that, I obviously know what he would say were I to ask..

Shame you don't.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the speech about the torture stake is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is God’s power.

Admittedly, this is the false gospel of the JWs, but it still makes the point.


Why is it the false gospel of the JWs, what's false about it? Do you mean the fact that it has taken the original text which describes a stake rather than the twisted version which changes it from stake to cross?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_about_Jesus%27_execution_method

Notice also, in that article, the lines which say "Some of the details of the method of Jesus' execution in the crucifixion of Jesus are debated by scholars and at least one church.

As with so many of the things you dispute, it is not only the JWs that have been able to see this error, and recognise it for what it is.

As to the section of the scripture at 1 Corinthians 1:18 which reads" but to us who are being saved it is God’s power".

Are you saying that is false doctrine?

Does the sacrifice of the Christ not show to you God's power?

It is after all the guarantee that the earth will be cleansed of all wickedness, and that when it has all humanity will have the opportunity to enjoy what Adam and Eve lost for us, eternal life on a perfect earth as perfect humans in perfect peace. It means, as I said earlier a guarantee of all the promises of God to mankind. 2 Corinthians 1:20 "For no matter how many the promises of God are, they have become Yes by means of him. Therefore also through him is the “Amen” [said] to God for glory through us." It is indeed the power of God, in spades.

To even suggest that is false doctrine is blasphemy of the highest (or should that be lowest??) order.
bob_the_fisherman On January 30, 2023
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#159New Post! Mar 19, 2012 @ 01:05:33
@MadCornishBiker Said

You can go on all you like, lol, the question is answered whether or not you wish to accept the answer I gave you, and the answer wil not change for you repeating the question. You aren't getting yet another answer to it,you can troll all you like, it doesn't worry me because very time you ask it I will simply point out that I have already answered it. I have no intention of repeating my answer yet again.


I will make it easy for you. this is the part in which the anti-Nicene fathers are mentioned. Just highlight the bit that calls the early church fathers apostates.

Taught by Early Christians?

DID the early Christians teach the Trinity? Note the following comments by historians and theologians:

"Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds."—The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.

"The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the [Trinity] idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognised the . . . Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One."—The Paganism in Our Christianity.

"At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian . . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[estament] and other early Christian writings."—Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics.

"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. . . . Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught

THE ante-Nicene Fathers were acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ's birth. What they taught is of interest.

Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is "other than the God who made all things." He said that Jesus was inferior to God and "never did anything except what the Creator . . . willed him to do and say."

Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the "One true and only God," who is "supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other."

Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called Jesus in his prehuman existence "a creature" but called God "the uncreated and imperishable and only true God." He said that the Son "is next to the only omnipotent Father" but not equal to him.

Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: "The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent." He also said: "There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all things, God was alone."

Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is "the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all," who "had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him . . . But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before," such as the created prehuman Jesus.

"There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead."—The Triune God

Origen, who died about 250 C.E., said that "the Father and Son are two substances . . . two things as to their essence," and that "compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light."

Summing up the historical evidence, Alvan Lamson says in The Church of the First Three Centuries: "The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and . . . holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact."

Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter.

**********************************************

That is the end of the extract from JWs. Now, some important points to note.

1. I have already showed that the JWs misquoted sources in the section entitled, "Taught by Early Christians?"

2. Every single church father the JWs quote explicitly taught the trinity doctrine - and I have given quotes from each one of them demonstrating this to be true [edit] Actually this is not true, as I did not find a such a reference from one of them, but cannot remember which one... my apologies.

So, again, show me where in this text the JWs call the early church fathers apostate.



@MadCornishBiker Said
The biggest irony is that, in your last post you very ably demonstrated that at the Council of Nicea the only issue that was debated was whether or not God and Christ were equal, no mention of Holy Spirit therefore no trinity. That did not come for a decade or two after the Council, lol.

Your own evidence!

Hoist, as they say, by your own petard.


What is wrong with your comprehension skills? I pointed out that the Council was convened to deal with one heresy - that of the Arian claim that Christ was not God.
bob_the_fisherman On January 30, 2023
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#160New Post! Mar 19, 2012 @ 01:11:37
@MadCornishBiker Said

I suggest you read them all again and check the context, especially the Jeremiah 31:9


Genesis 41:51 So Joseph called the name of the firstborn Ma·nas´seh, because, to quote him, “God has made me forget all my trouble and all the house of my father.” 52 And the name of the second he called E´phra·im, because, to quote him, “God has made me fruitful in the land of my wretchedness.”

So, Manasseh is the "firstborn" chronologically - that is, he was born first.

Jeremiah 31:9 "With weeping they will come, and with [their] entreaties for favor I shall bring them. I shall make them walk to torrent valleys of water, in a right way in which they will not be caused to stumble. For I have become to Israel a Father; and as for E´phra·im, he is my firstborn.”

Here, God calls Ephraim the firstborn, and clearly this does not mean the first born chronologically, as it contradicts Genesis 41:51.

So, it is true that firstborn means both born first, and preeminent - as again, is shown in psalm 89:27, where God calls David the firstborn, when he is not the first born chronologically.

Therefore, the verses referring to Christ as "firstborn" do not necessarily mean, "created" as again, Paul did not say created, but firstborn, and firstborn also means "preeminent."

Thus, the Christian position still holds. And again, we do not call God, the bible, Abraham, Sarah, Adam and Eve liars by adopting the position we take, whereas JWs do call them all liars by the stand they take.
Teleologist On April 13, 2012




Phoenix,
#161New Post! Mar 19, 2012 @ 01:39:52
@MadCornishBiker Said

Everything in the bible fits JW doctrine, and mine, because our doctrine is bible doctrine, not the posturings of some Apostate group or other..


Really? Well, I'm still waiting for you to show me how the command to "abstain from... blood" fits with the JW doctrine that hemoglobin is okay but platelets are forbidden. Even you admit you think this doctrine is wrong but with some convoluted reasoning you rationalize a way to support it. But you can't fool Jesus. This doctrine clearly
is a teaching from men not God and you will certainly be held accountable for ignoring what Jesus tells you at Matt.15:9
bob_the_fisherman On January 30, 2023
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#162New Post! Mar 19, 2012 @ 01:47:02
@Teleologist Said

Really? Well, I'm still waiting for you to show me how the command to "abstain from... blood" fits with the JW doctrine that hemoglobin is okay but platelets are forbidden. Even you admit you think this doctrine is wrong but with some convoluted reasoning you rationalize a way to support it. But you can't fool Jesus. This doctrine clearly
is a teaching from men not God and you will certainly be held accountable for ignoring what Jesus tells you at Matt.15:9


Sadly, reason will not do much good here. Remember, when the JWs are proven wrong, that is proof that they are right - they even quote a scripture from Proverbs to support this belief.
bob_the_fisherman On January 30, 2023
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#163New Post! Mar 19, 2012 @ 05:46:45
@bob_the_fisherman Said

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.


@MadCornishBiker Said

Sorry that is so inaccurate as to be pathetic.


Wait... so, just to clarify this with you. You are arguing that the Jws would have been more accurate if they stuck with their original prophecy that the world would end in 1874, than they are by changing it to say the end will come after 1914?

As this contention of yours is clearly absurd and lacks even the merest hint of a logical basis, could you explain to me how that works?
MadCornishBiker On January 14, 2014

Banned



St Columb Road, United Kingdom
#164New Post! Mar 19, 2012 @ 07:55:36
@Teleologist Said

Really? Well, I'm still waiting for you to show me how the command to "abstain from... blood" fits with the JW doctrine that hemoglobin is okay but platelets are forbidden. Even you admit you think this doctrine is wrong but with some convoluted reasoning you rationalize a way to support it. But you can't fool Jesus. This doctrine clearly
is a teaching from men not God and you will certainly be held accountable for ignoring what Jesus tells you at Matt.15:9


Get back under your bridge, lol, you know as well as I do that I have answered that question, it is your problem if you can't accept it. Christianity, as I have explained, is a matter of principle, not of law.

That's all you are getting no matter how many times you pretend you haven't been answered, I only repeat myself so many times.

The fact that you insist on pretending that you haven't been told reveals more about you than me, lol, so keep it up.
MadCornishBiker On January 14, 2014

Banned



St Columb Road, United Kingdom
#165New Post! Mar 19, 2012 @ 08:01:31
@bob_the_fisherman Said

Wait... so, just to clarify this with you. You are arguing that the Jws would have been more accurate if they stuck with their original prophecy that the world would end in 1874, than they are by changing it to say the end will come after 1914?

As this contention of yours is clearly absurd and lacks even the merest hint of a logical basis, could you explain to me how that works?


Where on earth do you get that from, or is it just your desperation talking?

No, I am saying that they did the right thing in abandoning that rather silly idea, and the fact that they have "demonstrated repentance" for it by publicly turning away from it, means that it no longer has any relevance, and according to Christian forgiveness cannot be held against them.

But then you know that.

Maybe you ought to go back to your bridge and wait for the goats to come along. I am one of the "other sheep", lol.

Actually, scripturally speaking that would be a form of cannibalism I suppose, lol. (Goats - sheep, get it???)
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...9 10 11 12 · >>

2 browsing (0 members - 2 guests)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Rants & Raves
Thu Nov 23, 2023 @ 19:51
21 8929
New posts   Random
Tue Jan 05, 2010 @ 11:37
15 2688
New posts   Religion
Sat Jun 09, 2012 @ 03:36
10 8232
New posts   US Elections
Fri Jul 24, 2020 @ 23:24
77 25049
New posts   Television
Mon Jan 21, 2013 @ 22:31
25 9006