Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? - Religion (3) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? (8070 Views)
Take The Gospel Story Quiz To Prove Your Bible Knowledge! / How To Make The Most Benefit Of Your Bible Reading (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Emusan(m): 3:26pm On Feb 25, 2015 |
JMAN05: The point is, on what basis do you based your word rearrangement? If rearrangement is normal in Bible translation you should also agree that rearrangement can also CHANGE the meaning of a sentence, which is what you're trying to use as an excuse here. Compare the NWT with other versions: "They kept on investigating what particular time or what season the spirit within them was indicating concerning Christ..." NWT "searching what [time] or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto,..." ASV "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify..." KJV Both KJV and ASV said the SPIRIT of CHRIST in them was pointing to something which means it is Christ's spirit But NWT was claiming that it was the spirit that was INDICATING CONCERNING Christ which is not the Spirit of Christ. |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Emusan(m): 4:41pm On Feb 25, 2015 |
JMAN05: I said it before I provided that link a NL JWs has said something like that sometimes ago and also during house to house evangelism one JWs also made the same claim, the point you're missing here is that for you to see a quote with my claim should tell you that SOME people may hold the believe among JWs but might not be ALL JWs. That question suites you better. Maybe you dont know what literal means. Please tell me the meaning Again, if God said 50 times at the same time, Jesus is that word 'cos he is the literal word of God. That is your puerile point man. You're talking about dumbness but can you see how that word fit you? Bible is the word of God, but is Bible THAT LITERAL WORD OF GOD THAT COMES OUT FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD? I can see how you misunderstood the point at hand. I hope am not talking to a lad here? See your life outside, if you're talking about the same thing you won't repeat "His" you will rather write "His knowledge (Omniscient)" not with a comma to SEPERATE the two phrases. God's knowledge is vast, that his knowledge was expressed in His creation does not mean that it is limited there. I give up for purposely PERVERTED the word of God and BOLDLY spew this lie. DOES God's knowledge was expressed in CREATION or the KNOWLEDGE was TO PARTAKE IN CREATION? What that verse says is that HIS KNOWLEDGE was INVOLVED in CREATION and you know that IT IS JESUS WHO CREATED EVERYTHING. Remember your claimed was that Bible never CALLED JESUS knowledge of God but what you are here doing is separating God's knowledge in creation from God's knowledge Himself In fact the highest way God ever applied His knowledge is CREATION because after creation it's only GOD HIMSELF. I wonder how that relates to Jesus who knew a fringe of what God knows. Is he still God's knowledge and yet had things he never knew that God does? Did Bible called Jesus knowledge of God or not mr twister? God's word is alive to its promises. Its promises come true, not that His utterance is a conscious being. Enough of your dancing to run away from the main issue. seems you love that so well. Until you clear the mess you posted above before I will reply this. |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Nobody: 11:34am On Feb 27, 2015 |
Emusan: JW do not teach that. finish with. You go ask that JW why he said so, he is the rightful person to answer that. Please tell me the meaning sorry, I wont. If you a lad, check your dictionary before talking. You're talking about dumbness but can you see how that word fit you? Now you are specific, yet the point is childish. When JESUS was doing his baptism, what do you call that voice that came from heaven? When Jesus died, what happened to God's speech? See your life outside, if you're talking about the same thing you won't repeat "His" you will rather write "His knowledge (Omniscient)" not with a comma to SEPERATE the two phrases. oga, comma can take the place of a parenthesis. That is done, only try and get the point the writer is making. I give up for purposely PERVERTED the word of God and BOLDLY spew this lie. God's knowledge is not a person. God's knowledge was expressed in His creation. I never claimed Jesus was not called God's knowledge. I implied that God's omniscience, which is part of him, cannot be Jesus. If Jesus is called God's knowledge, does it then mean that he is the literal knowledge of God? Even without being told, the answer must be no. why? for that will mean that God lacked knowledge when Jesus died. Or that He lacked knowledge in heaven when Jesus was on earth. Secondly, Jesus' knowledge cannot be compared with the endless knowledge of Jehovah. rom 11:33 If there is something Jesus do not know, God shouldn't know it. If that statement is not true, then Jesus isn't the literal knowledge of God. Did Bible called Jesus knowledge of God or not mr twister? Where is he called this "knowledge of God"? Maybe we can start from there. Col 2:2 didnt say so. 1 Like |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Nobody: 12:23pm On Feb 27, 2015 |
Emusan: Of course, rearrangement do change meaning of the verse. That is why an overall understanding of the bible is essential to bible translation. But is there scriptural basis for the rearrangement? Yes, I however cannot give an official reason why the NWT Committee worded it so. I dont actually see the big deal in wording the verse that way. But will we not ask why it was worded - the spirit of Christ? Has Christ come prior to Jesus being born on earth? and They are yet to understand that sacred secret of Christ not to talk of knowing his spirit was in them. So that arrangemnt is correct than the other ones. The question is; is there anything grammatically or scripturally wrong with the arrangement? |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Emusan(m): 9:12am On Mar 02, 2015 |
JMAN05: So you agree that rearrangement can CHANGE THE MEANING OF A VERSE and at the same time you know there's a SCRIPTURAL BASIS for the rearrangement BUT THE FUNNY PART is that YOU cannot give an official reason why the NWT Committee worded it so. Mr. the only reason why you can't give an official reason is the question you asked below "Has Christ come prior to Jesus being born on earth?" this is what Watchtower has hide from you people. I dont actually see the big deal in wording the verse that way. But Please ask why it was worded because IT IS A PURE SCRIPTURAL PERVERTION and way of hiding the TRUTH from you. Bible tells us that Christ was in active in the OT "and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ." 1 Corin 10:4 ASV even this particular verse has been worded to mean another thing by NWT Also, you believe Jesus is an Angel and do you thing Jehovah wouldn't have sent Michael (which is now Jesus according JWs) to earth just once throughout the OT? and They are yet to understand that sacred secret of Christ not to talk of knowing his spirit was in them. Who told you they don't? The verse simply says "...they were searching..." we were told that Moses "esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than that the treasures in Egypt" Heb 11:26 So that arrangemnt is correct than the other ones. Very pathetic conclusion when you don't even know the reason why rearrangement was employed. The question is; is there anything grammatically or scripturally wrong with the arrangement? No one is talking about gramma here BUT SCRIPTURALLY is wrong because Christ's Spirit or Spirit of Christ or His Spirit means it belongs to Christ whereas NWT changed the meaning by showing that the SPIRIT was only INDICATING CONSERNING Christ. Can't you see the different? |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Emusan(m): 9:47am On Mar 02, 2015 |
JMAN05: I should go and ask only ONE person when I gave TWO INSTANCE together with A LINK to buttress my claim. Well I've done what you required of me. sorry, I wont. If you a lad, check your dictionary before talking. LOl...since you assumed that I don't know what literal mean, so you who know it why can't you tell me? Now you are specific, yet the point is childish. Didn't it look so ridiculous if you couldn't have known what I'm talking about before I don't even know your problem, The Word of God which (was given the name Jesus Christ on earth) ONLY TOOK ON FLESH NOT THAT HE CEASED TO EXIST AS THE WORD OF GOD, that's why I asked you the other time is it possible for God to speak in all 36 states of Nigeria at once? but unfortunately you couldn't provide answer to it. So if the Word of God was on earth in form of HUMAN, is it still possible for God not to talk again? oga, comma can take the place of a parenthesis. That is done, only try and get the point the writer is making. Alright Just see how your below post confirmed that you're confused. God's knowledge is not a person. God's knowledge was expressed in His creation. Now imaging all these from the above post; "God's knowledge is not a person. God's knowledge was expressed in His creation..., I never claimed [size=14pt]Jesus was not called God's knowledge..., If Jesus is called God's knowledge,[/size] does it then mean that he is the literal knowledge of God?..., you then asked "Where is he called this "knowledge of God"? Maybe you've forgotten that knowledge of God, God's knowledge, His knowledge all mean the same thing. Can you see how confused you are now? SMH...  |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Nobody: 9:05pm On Mar 03, 2015 |
Emusan: The sources you provided was wrong. the other one never gave an authoritative information. that was clear. However, Jehovah's witnesses never said so. LOl...since you assumed that I don't know what literal mean, so you who know it why can't you tell me? So now you know, but you were asking silly question. Didn't it look so ridiculous if you couldn't have known what I'm talking about before just short short up, do I look you like someone you can deceive? Jesus is the literal word of God. If God speaks, that utterance is Jesus. Since the literal word is no longer there in heaven, God can no longer speak. That is the folly of the reasoning. Unless you will raise another funny statement that there are many 'Jesuses'. Jesus is the spoken word, so when God spoke to Jesus, He was transmitting Jesus to Jesus. lol. doctrine. nawa o! So if the Word of God was on earth in form of HUMAN, is it still possible for God not to talk again? If he talk, wettin e talk na Jesus na. ie two Jesuses or a speech of Jesuses. Ekwe! doctrinology. Alright No, I only see how confused you are. what's wrong with what I said. oh! na run you won run? Nwoke m answer the question. Where is he called this "knowledge of God"? If you like tell us that Jesus is the literal knowledge of God. let's keep adding your errors. You will earn an award for that. 1 Like |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Emusan(m): 11:06am On Mar 04, 2015 |
JMAN05: I don't know why you're stressing this to this time, the link I provided isn't from Anti-JWs site but a DEFEND of JW. If my sources was WRONG then the problem is not mine it's theirs. I will repeat this for the last time, since I can provide A LINK and also HEARD it from TWO different JWs then it evident that my claim is right. So now you know, but you were asking silly question. Lol...it's only people like you can reason this way when my statement was a pure rephrasing one to tell me the meaning SINCE YOU ASSUME I don't know it. just short short up, do I look you like someone you can deceive? Jesus is the literal word of God. If God speaks, that utterance is Jesus. Since the literal word is no longer there in heaven, God can no longer speak. That is the folly of the reasoning. Man you need to grow in knowledge because I don't know how simple sentences are so hard for you to comprehend. For the last time, The WORD of God WAS CORVERED with FLESH (INCARNATED) seen in HUMAN form and called Jesus Christ, that's why Jesus Christ has TWO NATURE both Human (flesh) and DIVINE form (God) and the TWO natures never MIXED together. Your problem is viewing my point as Jesus is the Word of God and as being found in human flesh to mean The Word of God CHANGE! CHANGE!! CHANGE!!! to Jesus Christ. Jesus doesn't cease to exist as the Word of God while on Earth since The WORD ONLY CORVERED WITH FLESH. So when the Father speaks while Christ was on earth doesn't mean the Father is speaking out THE HUMAN FLESH OF CHRIST which is what a grown man like you couldn't comprehend. No, I only see how confused you are. what's wrong with what I said. Lolzzz it is so shameful that you couldn't see how confused you are after I've brought out all your points. If I will run away not for a confused soul like your who couldn't comprehend simple statement mixing HUMANITY WITH DIVINTY. Now let me help you open your confusion more clearer; Very IMPORTANTLY both God's knowledge, His knowledge, and Knowledge of God mean the same thing. *You first said: "God's knowledge is not a person." here you agreed [b]God's knowledge (WHICH can also be written as His knowledge or Knowledge of God) is NOT a PERSON. *You also said: "God's knowledge was expressed in His creation...," God's knowledge again (WHICH can also be written as His knowledge or Knowledge of God *You go further to say this fantastic statement: "I never claimed Jesus was not called God's knowledge...," Here you said YOU NEVER CLAIMED Jesus was NOT CALLED God's knowledge (WHICH can also be written as His knowledge or Knowledge of God) *You then asked: "If Jesus is called God's knowledge, does it then mean that he is the literal knowledge of God?...," Now see how you switched in your question from God's knowledge to knowledge of God as if these two phrases have different meaning. *The most RIDICULOUS one is when you finally asked: ""Where is he called this "knowledge of God"? Whereas you've already CLAIMED that Jesus is called GOD'S KNOWLEDGE (WHICH can also be written as knowledge of God or His knowledge) but after this you can still ask that question. Please is there any difference between these two phrases 'God's knowledge and knowledge of God'? It is evident that you don't know that God's knowledge and knowledge of God mean the same thing. If you like tell us that Jesus is the literal knowledge of God. let's keep adding your errors. You will earn an award for that. SMH, just face your confusion above. |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Nobody: 4:25pm On Mar 07, 2015 |
Emusan: Just know that that is not the belief of Jehovah's Witnesses. I wont dwell on what you quoted. those witnesses, if they were here they will answer for themselves, but for the blog, his reasons are clear. You cant hold him for that. Man you need to grow in knowledge because I don't know how simple sentences are so hard for you to comprehend. Look at your definition: Bible is the word of God, but is Bible THAT LITERAL WORD OF GOD THAT COMES OUT FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD? I can see how you misunderstood the point at hand It seems you don't understand even your own words. The word that proceeds out of God's mouth is Jesus according to you. Now you ve brought another thing - that the word took on flesh. That being the case, the flesh covered the word. The word is inside the flesh in other words. On another occasion, during Jesus' baptism, God spoke. That word that proceeded out of God's mouth at that time is who? From your puerile point, that word is Jesus. So God was transmitting Jesus to flesh-covered-Jesus. This has some other implications: 1. Jesus is abstract. But this abstract thing can take up flesh or it can become something or somebody. 2. Jesus are many. there are thus many jesuses. If God speaks, that word that is produced is Jesus. If you do not agree that there are many Jesuses, even more that a 100 Jesuses, then God cannot speak if Jesus is gone. Because Jesus is that literal word. Think up nwoke m. 3. Jesus thus is not God who do produce the word from his mouth. Very simply logic! Lolzzz it is so shameful that you couldn't see how confused you are after I've brought out all your points. Ok. see below. *You go further to say this fantastic statement: "I never claimed Jesus was not called God's knowledge...," Here you said YOU NEVER CLAIMED Jesus was NOT CALLED God's knowledge (WHICH can also be written as His knowledge or Knowledge of God) They are the same. Did I say they are not? *You then asked: "If Jesus is called God's knowledge, does it then mean that he is the literal knowledge of God?...," Now see how you switched in your question from God's knowledge to knowledge of God as if these two phrases have different meaning. First of all, my using those words, God's knowledge, His knowledge etc, I was not using them with the thought that they had different meaning. No. On the other point. I was just explaining what I said initially, which is: God's omniscience - his ability to know all, cannot be Jesus. Note: I have explained previously that when I said " his knowledge, his omniscience", I was just talking about God's omniscience. Because God's knowledge is related to His omniscience, I chose to speak on knowledge. And show that His knowledge is vast. So even if Jesus is called that knowledge, it should not be understood to mean that he is the literal knowledge. I gave reasons. My words: I never claimed Jesus was not called God's knowledge. I implied that God's omniscience, which is part of him, cannot be Jesus. So the italic shows that I was explaining what I meant - God's omniscience is not Jesus. I am not there implying that Jesus is called God's knowledge. No. On the fact that Jesus is not called God's knowledge, I was not being dogmatic [because I ve not checked my concordance to confirm, thats why I went on to comment that even if that is found in the bible, that cannot mean he is a literal knowledge of God or that he knows all that God does. I gave reasons]. However, you have not shown where the bible called Jesus God's knowledge. You just showed where God's knowledge is expressed in His creation. God's knowledge is abstract, it is not a person. The matter remains for you to show where the bible called him such. |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Nobody: 4:53pm On Mar 07, 2015 |
Emusan: It is not a funny part. It was just the truth, so that you dont copy my own reasons to mean the reason of NWT Committee. Please ask why it was worded because IT IS A PURE SCRIPTURAL PERVERTION and way of hiding the TRUTH from you. "will we" is the right setting. You can't even work out that little thing. sorry. It is no perversion. The rockmass being spoken of in that I corinthians is a literal nonliving object. How can that lifeless object be Christ? Is christ a lifeless object? Paul was only drawing a symbolic type from that rock. Lol, how can Christ be a literal rockmass? Jehovah sent Michael, but he was not then the Christ. He was a spirit. Who told you they don't? The verse simply says "...they were searching..." we were told that Moses "esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than that the treasures in Egypt" Heb 11:26 1 Pet 1:12 showed that this secret was not revealed to them. He esteemed the reproach of his anointing than what Pharoah had to offer. That is the meaning of the verse. Christ means anointed one. Very pathetic conclusion when you don't even know the reason why rearrangement was employed. They are good bible students, if my reasons here are biblical, then they must agree with them. If they say Jesus is a god without giving reasons, I can produce a reason cos am a bible student. No one is talking about gramma here BUT SCRIPTURALLY is wrong because Christ's Spirit or Spirit of Christ or His Spirit means it belongs to Christ whereas NWT changed the meaning by showing that the SPIRIT was only INDICATING CONSERNING Christ. Christ came in the first century, Christ is not the angelic creature that was operating from heaven. the Christ is a human. The PROPHESY at Dan 9:25 shows when we are to see the Christ. A prophesy has FUTURE fulfillment, not prior fulfilment. Other translations are thus wrong. |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Emusan(m): 3:45pm On Mar 18, 2015 |
JMAN05: At least I've provided what you asked of me here. Look at your definition: You're too dull for my liken...it's just a shame that you're a time waster. The WORD was covered with FLESH which we know as JESUS, the HUMAN FLESH is the house that the Word dwells. Now you've brought another thing - that the word took on flesh. That being the case, the flesh covered the word. The word is inside the flesh in other words. Did I brought another thing or what THE BIBLE teaches? So you fully understood my point here but see you later wrote below. On another occasion, during Jesus' baptism, God spoke. That word that proceeded out of God's mouth at that time is who? Yet see this your statement "That being the case, the flesh covered the word. The word is inside the flesh in other words." Notice the underlined and compare it with the above statement and see how ridiculous you can be. This has some other implications: The only implication for person who can't apply logic well. 3. Jesus thus is not God who do produce the word from his mouth. But the Word is eternal and Alive. Very simply logic! Yet couldn't apply the logic very well. They are the same. Did I say they are not? See another ridiculous statement below again. First of all, my using those words, God's knowledge, His knowledge etc, [size=14pt]I was not using them with the thought that they had different meaning. No.[/size] So if they don't have the different meaning then you're the most confused one. On the other point. I was just explaining what I said initially, which is: God's omniscience - his ability to know all, cannot be Jesus. Then what is the meaning of GOD'S KNOWLEDGE? I care to know Note: I have explained previously that when I said " his knowledge, his omniscience", I was just talking about God's omniscience. Whether you like change from Omniscient to another thing...God's knowledge, His Knowledge or Knowledge of God has no other meaning. Please what is the different between God's knowledge and God's omniscient? [size=14pt]Because God's knowledge is related to His omniscience,[/size] I chose to speak on knowledge. And show that His knowledge is vast. [size=14pt]So even if Jesus is called that knowledge,[/size] it should not be understood to mean that he is the literal knowledge. I gave reasons. It's evident that Jesus is called knowledge of God but you just decided to give it any meaning that suit your ideology. Again what is the different between God's Omniscient and God's knowledge? My words: Very ridiculous... So the italic shows that I was explaining what I meant - God's omniscience is not Jesus. [size=14pt]I am not there implying that Jesus is called God's knowledge. No.[/size] Please just tell me the difference between God's omniscient and God's knowledge. On the fact that Jesus is not called God's knowledge, I was not being dogmatic [because I ve not checked my concordance to confirm, thats why I went on to comment that even if that is found in the bible, that cannot mean he is a literal knowledge of God or that he knows all that God does. I gave reasons]. However, you have not shown where the bible called Jesus God's knowledge. You just showed where God's knowledge is expressed in His creation. God's knowledge is abstract, it is not a person. This another fallacy, God's knowledge was not EXPRESSED in His Creation BUT God's knowledge TOOK PART in creation. Even in the place Jesus was called the power and the wisdom of God what did you say? FIGURATIVE! So even if you find it your conclusion will still be FIGURATIVE. The matter remains for you to show where the bible called him such. God through HIS KNOWLEDGE the depth were broken up...but who perform all the act of creation? the pre-existence being who later appeared as man and called Jesus. Remember where we're coming from before all this, I simply asked [b]what part of God Bible has never called Jesus? And your twisting tongue lead us to this by begin to differentiate between God's knowledge and God's Omniscient as if they mean different things. You and your organization think you know Jesus FULLY and anyone who think such has turned him/herself to the FATHER because Jesus Himself said “All things have been handed over to me by my Father, [size=14pt]and no one FULLY knows the Son except the Father;[/size] neither does anyone FULLY know the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son is willing to reveal him.” Matthew 11:27 I believe you can see what you and your organization claimed. |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Emusan(m): 4:22pm On Mar 18, 2015 |
JMAN05: This is very pathetic, you're just following what they just say without evidence of what they said. "will we" is the right setting. You can't even work out that little thing. sorry. I don't get you here sir. The rockmass being spoken of in that I corinthians is a literal nonliving object. How can that lifeless object be Christ? Is christ a lifeless object? Your twisting of the scripture is not even funny anymore but see what Paul wrote whether it means the meaning you gave it "and all drank the same spiritual drink.+ [size=14pt]For they used to drink from the spiritual rock that followed them,[/size] and that rock meant* the Christ" 1 Corin 10:4 NWT It's called SPIRITUAL ROCK and this SPIRITUAL ROCK used to FOLLOW them. Jehovah sent Michael, [size=14pt]but he was not then the Christ.[/size] He was a spirit. You've put rope in your own neck. "Likewise, the Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ, before and after his life on earth. Let us consider Scriptural reasons for drawing that conclusion." http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel-jesus/#?insight[search_id]=38448fa5-a8d5-4a05-a712-9c9faa351f3a&insight[search_result_index]=0 1 Pet 1:12 showed that this secret was not revealed to them. But they spoke through spirit of Christ. Lol...According to JWs Michael appeared in OT and it's another name for Jesus Christ. They are good bible students, if my reasons here are biblical, then they must agree with them. Thank God you agree that they were just GOOD BIBLE STUDENTS not Greek or Hebrew Scholars. So why do you chose the word of GOOD BIBLE STUDENTS over that of Greek or Hebrew Scholars? Christ came in the first century, Christ is not the angelic creature that was operating from heaven. the Christ is a human. This shows that you don't even know what Bible but yet you called yourself Bible student and more precisely you don't follow what your organization teaches. "2. Why did Jesus come to the earth? God sent his Son to earth [size=14pt]by transferring his life from heaven to the womb of a virgin Jewess named Mary.[/size] So Jesus did not have a human father. (Luke 1:30-35) Jesus came to the earth (1) to teach the truth about God, (2) to set us an example in how to do God’s will even when we are in difficulties, and (3) to give his perfect life as “a ransom.”—Read Matthew 20:28. http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/good-news-from-god/who-is-jesus-christ/#?insight[search_id]=fc45b9c4-b4cf-4798-a58f-3e6445a315e7&insight[search_result_index]=1 The bolded part shows that the life of Jesus does not stop to exist which is the reason your organization can say MICHAEL is another NAME for Jesus Christ. More importantly JESUS CAME to the earth means He existed somewhere before He came to earth. The PROPHESY at Dan 9:25 shows when we are to see the Christ. A prophesy has FUTURE fulfillment, not prior fulfilment. SMH seriously... |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by ChristisGod: 9:15pm On Mar 18, 2015 |
Emusan:  |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Nobody: 10:47pm On Mar 21, 2015 |
Emusan: I was responding to your cancellation here: But "Will we" are the intended words. Your twisting of the scripture is not even funny anymore but see what Paul wrote whether it means the meaning you gave it "and all drank the same spiritual drink.+ [size=14pt]For they used to drink from the spiritual rock that followed them,[/size] and that rock meant* the Christ" 1 Corin 10:4 NWT Look at this words from Barne's Note 'cos I see you find it hard to understand the scriptures, maybe your fellow trinitarian can open your head: 1 Corinthians 10:4 This cannot be intended to be understood literally, for it was not literally true. The rock from which the water flowed was evidently an ordinary rock, a part of Mount Horeb; and all that this can mean is, that that rock, with the stream of water thus gushing from it, was a representation of the Messiah. The word was is thus often used to denote similarity or representation, and is not to be taken literally. If this trinitarian cant convince you, I wonder who will. But try and improve your bible study, we all learn. You've put rope in your own neck. Another out of context quotation. Please read the whole sentence meditatively so as to understand. This time, have the context in mind. In a discussion about the title "Christ", see what that Insight book says on it: "The coming of the Christ, the one whom Jehovah would anoint with his spirit to be the Messianic King, had been foretold centuries before Jesus’ birth. (Da 9:25, 26) However, at his birth, Jesus was not yet the Anointed One or Christ. In foretelling his birth, the angel instructed Joseph: “You must call his name Jesus.” (Mt 1:21) But when the shepherds near Bethlehem were given the angelic announcement, in anticipation of Jesus’ future role they were told: “There was born to you today a Savior, who is Christ the Lord,” that is, “who is to be Christ the Lord.”—Lu 2:11, ftn." But they spoke through spirit of Christ. 1 Pet 1:12 showed that this secret was not revealed to them. Do you believe that ^^ Thank God you agree that they were just GOOD BIBLE STUDENTS not Greek or Hebrew Scholars. We humbly believe that we keep learning from Jehovah. The so called scholars keep learning too, but they dont want to admit that. Mind you, this does not mean that Jehovah's witnesses do not have those with secular bible scholarship. We do have those who pass through our bible schools. But you must admit that you dont know it all since even Jesus do not claim to know it all nor the apostles. [This is by the way]. This shows that you don't even know what Bible but yet you called yourself Bible student and more precisely you don't follow what your organization teaches. You miss the point again. The issue here is the title "Christ". That title was not borne by Jesus prior to his coming to the earth. This does not mean that Jesus never existed in heaven as Michael, Nope! He did, but he was not the Christ in heaven before coming to the earth. He only acquired that title after his anointing on earth during his baptism. Consider again what I said above: The PROPHESY at Dan 9:25 shows when we are to see the Christ. A prophesy has FUTURE fulfillment, not prior fulfilment. |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Nobody: 2:21am On Mar 22, 2015 |
Emusan: It may not be your fault entirely, but you never gave the belief of JWs as you claim. But it's ok, just take the correction. You're too dull for my liken...it's just a shame that you're a time waster. You are just saying the same thing, but you seem to misunderstand my own point. Jesus is that LITERAL word of God that COMES out of God's mouth. If the Jesus that came on earth is the word which a flesh covers, did God stop speaking when Jesus came on earth? Nope. If God still speaks, what issues forth from his mouth at that time is Jesus because, according to you, Jesus is the literal word of God. So when God spoke to the fleshly-covered Jesus, he was transmitting the uncovered Jesus to the fleshly-covered Jesus. This is quite simple! 2. If you posit that Jesus is God's word incarnate. And you go on to say that there is still the divine word of God in heaven. This is the implication: - It means that Jesus is not God, because God is not an incarnate of His word, rather, His word is a part of Him. However, you hold to the belief that Jesus is that literal word that comes out of God's mouth. Do you want to change that position? Did I brought another thing or what THE BIBLE teaches? It is left for you to prove how the bible imply what you are saying about the expression "word". Your position is against your trinitarian teaching, and its creating more jesuses. Yet see this your statement "That being the case, the flesh covered the word. The word is inside the flesh in other words." I dont understand the point you made there. The only implication for person who can't apply logic well. Tell us how. Remember your position: Jesus is that LITERAL word that COMES out of God's mouth. Jesus took on flesh, but some literal words still came out of God's mouth. Wont this stand mean that those literal words that came out of God's mouth while Jesus was on earth were Jesus? What made that point and the ones below illogical? This has some other implications: But the Word is eternal and Alive. Thats not what we are discussing for now. I said: Jesus thus is not God who do produce the word from his mouth. Is God the word he himself produces? See another ridiculous statement below again. How? Then what is the meaning of GOD'S KNOWLEDGE? I care to know I dont see how that relates to the points I made to which you are replying. Whether you like change from Omniscient to another thing...God's knowledge, His Knowledge or Knowledge of God has no other meaning. Just accept my position, and reply me accordingly. Please what is the different between God's knowledge and God's omniscient? On omniscience, I said his ability to know all. Knowledge on the other hand is not an ability. They are related, but has a slight difference in meaning. It's evident that Jesus is called knowledge of God but you just decided to give it any meaning that suit your ideology. You ve not provided that evidence. This another fallacy, God's knowledge was not EXPRESSED in His Creation BUT God's knowledge TOOK PART in creation. Stop shifting the discussion. You still have not provided the evidence. The proverb is just describing God's abstract qualities, which understanding is inclusive. These things are not persons. |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Emusan(m): 8:47am On Mar 24, 2015 |
JMAN05: And it will never be, I repeat for me to provide a link where a JWs support my idea means there might be some JWs who hold to that teaching but the reason you asked for prove is to think that I was the one who just read into what JWs never believe. You are just saying the same thing, but you seem to misunderstand my own point. Rather you didn't understand yourself. Jesus is that LITERAL word of God that COMES out of God's mouth. For the last time, THE WORD OF GOD dwell in the FLESH which was given the name JESUS Christ THE WORD didn't CHANGE TO JESUS get it clear because I won't repeat it again. If the Jesus that came on earth is the word which a flesh covers, did God stop speaking when Jesus came on earth? Nope. Did the WORD CHANGE to Jesus? Until you're able to the difference between CHANGE TO and DWELL IN. If God still speaks, what issues forth from his mouth at that time is Jesus because, according to you, Jesus is the literal word of God. Did the WORD CHANGE to Jesus? Until you're able to the difference between CHANGE TO and DWELL IN. So when God spoke to the fleshly-covered Jesus, [size=14pt]he was transmitting the uncovered Jesus[/size] to the fleshly-covered Jesus. This is quite simple! In fact how can an intelligent being made that @bolded statement? When JESUS is the name given to His FLESH why the WORD still remains THE WORD. 2. If you posit that Jesus is God's word incarnate. And you go on to say that there is still the divine word of God in heaven. This is the implication: Don't tell you hold to Unitarian view of Jesus being God with this your statement. I love that bolded part, then it also means that Jesus is not created and fully divine, and you say His word is a part of Him then Jesus is God since anything as part of God is God. However, you hold to the belief that Jesus is that literal word that comes out of God's mouth. Do you want to change that position? You hold to believe that Jesus is created and not God, do you want to change that position? It is left for you to prove how the bible imply what you are saying about the expression "word". Your position is against your trinitarian teaching, and its creating more jesuses. Stop making fool of yourself by saying Jesuses, you believe Holy spirit to be an active force of God yet He can rest on more than five people at a time. Does that mean we have many Holy spirits? I dont understand the point you made there. I mean you fully understood my point that THE WORD DWELLS in FLESH not that the WORD CHANGE to HUMAN yet could make those statement again. Tell us how. Remember your position: Tired of repetition read above again. Thats not what we are discussing for now. I said: It's part of it. Is God the word he himself produces? Unitarian view. How? It relates sir because you're trying to portrait it as if God's knowledge is different from God's omniscient. Just accept my position, and reply me accordingly. I should just accept On omniscience, I said his ability to know all. Knowledge on the other hand is not an ability. They are related, but has a slight difference in meaning. What does God knowledge mean? Simple! You ve not provided that evidence. What will you say before? Stop shifting the discussion. You still have not provided the evidence. The proverb is just describing God's abstract qualities, which understanding is inclusive. These things are not persons. I didn't shift anything. Funny it's now that proverb is describing the abstract qualities of God but you people can claim that Proverb 8 is about Jesus even though is talking about WISDOM. |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Emusan(m): 9:29am On Mar 24, 2015 |
JMAN05: Ok Look at this words from Barne's Note 'cos I see you find it hard to understand the scriptures, maybe your fellow trinitarian can open your head: The problem you have is inability to comprehend simple statement. In my post I didn't say Jesus is a literally ROCK had it been you pay close attention to my previous post you will discover that I BOLDEN and UNDERLINDED this sentence "...For they used to drink from the spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock meant* the Christ" and I went further to say "It's called SPIRITUAL ROCK and this SPIRITUAL ROCK used to FOLLOW them." So which means Paul was telling us that Christ was active in OT. SMH Another out of context quotation. Please read the whole sentence meditatively so as to understand. This time, have the context in mind. Of course the discussion is about the Christ as you claimed but the question is, WHO became that Christ? Archangel Michael! Does Michael active in the OT? Yes! when Michael was active does it mean when he became Christ we can't used the new name 'CHRIST' to refer to his early activities? I believe you can't deny this which is the point here. 1 Pet 1:12 showed that this secret was not revealed to them. But that doesn't mean this new name can be used to refer to his early active since it's still the same Michael that was VISIBLE to us and bear a name CHRIST beside the point here is different from what you took it to mean it only says the message they were receiving is not meant for them but we. Do you believe that ^^ When you don't even know the meaning of the verse. We humbly believe that we keep learning from Jehovah. The so called scholars keep learning too, but they dont want to admit that. Mind you, this does not mean that Jehovah's witnesses do not have those with secular bible scholarship. We do have those who pass through our bible schools. But you must admit that you dont know it all since even Jesus do not claim to know it all nor the apostles. [This is by the way]. This is not about learning in fact we will continue to learn till Jesus comes. But the point is centred on what we learn from, the New World Translation you claimed to be learning from was translated by none scholarly people who doesn't possess any knowledge about the Original languages in which Bible was written. Remember what leads to this is the rendering of 1 Peter 1:11 which you claimed you will take the word of these Bible students OVER that of Greek scholars. You miss the point again. The issue here is the title "Christ". That title was not borne by Jesus prior to his coming to the earth. This does not mean that Jesus never existed in heaven as Michael, Nope! He did, but he was not the Christ in heaven before coming to the earth. He only acquired that title after his anointing on earth during his baptism. Consider again what I said above: If Jesus exists in heaven as Michael, does he not active in the OT? Michael was active! Now that his life was transferred to earth and (his spiritual body in heaven is lifeless  as illogical reason of Michael being Jesus) and was given a new name on earth as CHRIST does it mean we can use his new name to refer to his early active? We can!Today Christian including you we say Paul persecuted the early Church YET we know it's SAUL who actually persecuted them but why are will still using PAUL? In fact this is enough for you to see that you're not a good Bible student. |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Nobody: 2:10am On Mar 29, 2015 |
Emusan: And the verse is not saying that Christ followed them nor that he was active. He was just drawing a type from that incident. Of course the discussion is about the Christ as you claimed but the question is, WHO became that Christ? Archangel Michael! Does Michael active in the OT? Yes! when Michael was active does it mean when he became Christ we can't used the new name 'CHRIST' to refer to his early activities? I believe you can't deny this which is the point here. We can. When you don't even know the meaning of the verse. They had no clear understanding of the message, so how will they know that Michael will later become the Christ, not to talk of "having" his spirit. Remember what leads to this is the rendering of 1 Peter 1:11 which you claimed you will take the word of these Bible students OVER that of Greek scholars. The issue is about rearrangement. The rearrangement is not grammatically wrong nor is it scripturally wrong. In fact this is enough for you to see that you're not a good Bible student. And you are? |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Nobody: 4:16am On Mar 29, 2015 |
Emusan: What you said is not the belief of JWs, do you take the correction? Rather you didn't understand yourself. oga, you said Jesus is "THAT LITERAL WORD OF GOD THAT COMES OUT FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD". If you have changed this position, let me know, if not, there is no way I wont refer to it. Now to your second position: If Jesus is the word of God, how then do you take him as God, is God composed only of a literal word? You by that position imply that when God speaks, his utterance is God himself. How then can the word produced be the same or equal to the producer? Did the WORD CHANGE to Jesus? Until you're able to the difference between CHANGE TO and DWELL IN. My dear, your previous position is that Jesus is that LITERAL word that comes out of God's mouth. Remember. So have you changed? Did the WORD CHANGE to Jesus? Until you're able to the difference between CHANGE TO and DWELL IN. The scriptures say "THE WORD became flesh", not that the flesh is Jesus and the content is THE WORD. 2. We can still put it this way: God transmitted his word to the fleshly covered word during Jesus baptism. So, whenever God makes statement, he blots out "Gods". Doesnt that make your "God" inanimate? Don't tell you hold to Unitarian view of Jesus being God with this your statement. I love that bolded part, then it also means that Jesus is not created and fully divine, and you say His word is a part of Him then Jesus is God since anything as part of God is God. Your hand is not you, neither is your nose you, are they? You see your problem? So your god now is a thing. You hold to believe that Jesus is created and not God, do you want to change that position? I take this to mean that you stand on that point, as such, my earlier posers stand. Stop making fool of yourself by saying Jesuses, you believe Holy spirit to be an active force of God yet He can rest on more than five people at a time. Does that mean we have many Holy spirits? Oh, Jesus is an active force. Why haven't you said that since? If your Jesus is an active force he can do so. Is he? Sorry, their are many Gods according to you. Any utterance God makes is God. God was thus transmitting God to the God covered with flesh. Another implication: Jesus is not God, but is the flesh God dwells in. Any believer who God dwells in is thus God. Impeccable. I mean you fully understood my point that THE WORD DWELLS in FLESH not that the WORD CHANGE to HUMAN yet could make those statement again. You have two positions I am trying to reason with you here. Your new being that Jesus is the "container" containing THE WORD. You posit also that Jesus is the LITERAL word that comes out of God's mouth. Which now implies that when God spoke to Jesus(who contains the Word) he transmitted Jesus to flesh-covered Jesus. It's part of it. God's word is alive to its promises. Not that it is a person. Unitarian view. I dont get you. clearly answer the question, is God the word he himself produces? It relates sir because you're trying to portrait it as if God's knowledge is different from God's omniscient. I am trying to portray what? What does God knowledge mean? Simple! If you know what knowledge really means, you relate it to God's. Essentially, knowledge means familiarity with facts acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. I have given you the difference already. dont skip that. What will you say before? oga provide the evidence. |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Emusan(m): 10:20am On Mar 31, 2015 |
JMAN05: I don't need to argue with you much on this because anything that doesn't favour JWs is figurative but see what this scholar says: "The spiritual rock that followed them There is some difficulty in this verse. How could the rock follow them? It does not appear that the rock ever moved from the place where Moses struck it. But to solve this difficulty, it is said that rock here is put, by metonymy, for the water of the rock; and that this water did follow them through the wilderness. This is more likely; but we have not direct proof of it. The ancient Jews, however, were of this opinion, and state that the streams followed them in all their journeyings, up the mountains, down the valleys, &c., &c.; and that when they came to encamp, the waters formed themselves into cisterns and pools; and that the rulers of the people guided them, by their staves, in rivulets to the different tribes and families. And this is the sense they give to Nu 21:17: Spring up, O well, &c. See the places in Schoettgen. Others contend, that by the rock following them we are to understand their having carried of its waters with them on their journeyings. This we know is a common custom in these deserts to the present day; and that the Greek verb akolouyew, to follow, has this sense, Bishop Pearce has amply proved in his note on this place. The Jews suppose that the rock itself went with the Israelites, and was present with them in their thirty-eight stations, for only so many are mentioned. See Alschech in legem. fol. 236. And see Schoettgen. Now, though of all the senses already given that of Bishop Pearce is the best, [size=14pt]yet it does appear that the apostle does not speak about the rock itself, but of Him whom it represented; namely, Christ: this was the Rock that followed them, and ministered to them;[/size] and this view of the subject is rendered more probable by what is said 1Co 10:9, that they tempted Christ, and were destroyed by serpents. Adam's Clarke's commentary Hope you can understand what Apostle Paul was saying. We can. That referring to past activity carried out by Michael in the OT with the new name Jesus Christ as JWs said, right? They had no clear understanding of the message, so how will they know that Michael will later become the Christ, not to talk of "having" his spirit. See another misunderstanding of the scripture, who told you they didn't UNDERSTAND THE MESSAGE? Notice you said message but what the verse says is SEARCHING THE TIME and there's evidence in the NT that Christ was active in the OT. The issue is about rearrangement. The rearrangement is not grammatically wrong nor is it scripturally wrong. And you are? I won't allow you to dodge this my point here again "This is not about learning in fact we will continue to learn till Jesus comes. But the point is centred on what we learn from, the New World Translation you claimed to be learning from was translated by none scholarly people who doesn't possess any knowledge about the Original languages in which Bible was written. Remember what leads to this is the rendering of 1 Peter 1:11 which you claimed you will take the word of these Bible students OVER that of Greek scholars." How can you take the word of none scholar over scholars? And I have shown you how rearrangement can change the meaning of a sentence. So the onus is on you to decide. I'm a good Bible student and I'm still learning from scholars who know more than me. |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Emusan(m): 11:40am On Mar 31, 2015 |
JMAN05: Point of correction you're not correcting me, you should correct those JWs who made the claim. oga, you said Jesus is "THAT LITERAL WORD OF GOD THAT COMES OUT FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD". If you have changed this position, let me know, if not, there is no way I wont refer to it. In fact I'm tired of your reasoning, if you didn't get it this time around I'm sorry I can't help you any more. THE WORD OF GOD remains THE WORD OF GOD while the WORD taken on Human flesh THE WORD STILL REMAINS THE WORD but the appearing of the WORD in FLESH is called JESUS CHRIST. Now to your second position: Nothing like second position and I only have one position. Anything about God Himself is God, the WORD of GOD can function on His own so The Word is God. My dear, your previous position is that Jesus is that LITERAL word that comes out of God's mouth. Remember. So have you changed? And you believe that the LITERAL WORD OF GOD IS PART OF GOD, so can the word of God be created? The scriptures say "THE WORD became flesh", not that the flesh is Jesus and the content is THE WORD. Let me laugh at you small, so you mean when God spoke at Jesus' Baptism He was actually talking to Jesus...please read your Bible very well. I actually want to say something but just have to conceive it so that I won't appear rude because your statement here lacks knowledge which I'm tired for correcting you for. Your hand is not you, neither is your nose you, are they? But if they can function alone through my power then they are. You see your problem? So your god now is a thing. Or your problem as you think you know God FULLY. I take this to mean that you stand on that point, as such, my earlier posers stand. What are these posers of yours? Oh, Jesus is an active force. Why haven't you said that since? If your Jesus is an active force he can do so. Is he? Please stop this your childish statement it's getting out of hand. Did I say Jesus is active force? I only contrasted your understanding of Holy spirit with what you failed to know about the Word of God. This is point I'm trying to make here, if Holy spirit can dwell in more than five people YET YOU CAN STILL REFER TO IT (since you believe is a force) as HOLY SPIRIT (Singular) not Holy spirits (Plural) then when God spoke even why the Word of God was on earth in person of Jesus Christ doesn't mean the words are many. Another implication: Another implication to you! I need to bookmark that bolded part especially the underlined because it's an evidence of the lies JWs are preaching, how? You believe that PERSON CAN'T DWELL in another PERSON which are the strong reason of JWs rejecting the personhood of The Holy spirit but here you confirmed that GOD WHO IS A PERSON can actually DWELL in believer as scripture truly said. My question now is, where did you get the idea of GOD DWELLING in any believer from? You have two positions I am trying to reason with you here. Your new being that Jesus is the "container" containing THE WORD. You're the one separating my point I only have one point which is Jesus is THE WORD OF GOD either from God's mouth or any sense but to further your delusion in viewing the Word of God as being many (i.e many Gods) or God can't speak again since His Word is now on EARTH which if it's true then there are many Gods so I have to explain to you that THE WORD ONLY DWELL in the flesh not that THE WORD CHANGE-CHANGE-CHANGE to flesh. God's word is alive to [size=14pt]its promises.[/size] Not that it is a person. the possessive pronouns ITS means the promises are for the WORD So please how can inanimate object have PROMISES? You have shot yourself again. I dont get you. clearly answer the question, is God the word he himself produces? Unitarian's view is one God who came to earth n human flesh. The believe about God is something that is Eternal & Uncreated, so if the WORD of GOD is conscious of HIS OWN existence, not created and eternal then His God. I am trying to portray what? You're portraying it as if God's knowledge is different from God's Omni-scent Thank God you can provide this definition, now let's look into your definition of knowledge: Knowledge is something that ACQUIRED BY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, OBSERVATION, OR STUDY Please do you think God acquire knowledge from anything, experience anything before having knowledge, observe and study before possessing knowledge? Please do more research on what God's knowledge means. God have said to be the ONLY BEING who possesses LIMITED KNOWLEDGE which is sometimes refers to as God's Omniscient. So my brother there's no difference between God's knowledge and God's omniscient. I have given you the difference already. dont skip that. That's what a primary school student can't even utter. oga provide the evidence. At least you said you didn't say Jesus Christ was not called God's knowledge so ask yourself where you see that before you agree. But it's unfortunate that you don't know that God's knowledge is nowhere difference from knowledge of God which you tried to prove that they are different. |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Nobody: 12:27am On Apr 01, 2015 |
Emusan: I dont agree with that since even the cross references shows what the drink and food referred to, indicating that Paul was highlighting what happened in the past. However since what happened in the OT is a picture of what fulfilled in Christ, Paul was drawing a type from that. Matthew Henry states "Their drink was a stream fetched from a rock which followed them in all their journeyings in the wilderness; and this rock was Christ, that is, in type and figure. He is the rock on which the Christian church is built; and of the streams that issue from him do all believers drink, and are refreshed. Now all the Jews did eat of this meat, and drink of this rock, called here a spiritual rock, because it typified spiritual things." That man is not a JW and I guess he believes the trinity. See another misunderstanding of the scripture, who told you they didn't UNDERSTAND THE MESSAGE? Notice you said message but what the verse says is SEARCHING THE TIME and there's evidence in the NT that Christ was active in the OT. No sir, you said: ...it only says the message they were receiving is not meant for them but we. 2. Can you please show us how these prophets knew that Michael was going to be the Christ? I won't allow you to dodge this my point here again How did you know that the NWT was written by those who doesnt possess any knowledge of the Original language? I dont know how you got your information that they were non-scholars, however, what scholarship of his time did Peter, Matthew and Mark possess? Could people of that time take Peter's writing as that of a scholar? And I have shown you how rearrangement can change the meaning of a sentence. So the onus is on you to decide. So not scripturally wrong rearrangement could be deduced, no be so? We all know that the ancient servants of God were empowered by His spirit to prophecy. Does 2Pet 1:21 not show us whose spirit moved them to speak? The same should be noted by you, how rearrangement can change the meaning of a verse. And the anus is on you to also decide. Humble people keep learning, but why does it seem that you dont even want to agree to what you yourself said? |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Nobody: 3:53am On Apr 01, 2015 |
Emusan: In the name of God who made us, Emusan, are you saying that you didnt say that Jesus is "THAT LITERAL WORD OF GOD THAT COMES OUT FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD"? Nothing like second position and I only have one position. You said Jesus is the LITERAL word. and also said that he is the FLESH, not that WORD. OK, it is a contradiction. Anything about God Himself is God, the WORD of GOD can function on His own so The Word is God. Anything about God himself is God. ok, but Jesus is not God, he is on;y the flesh which covers God (The word). 2. If we are to agree with your position, it means that the right hand of God is God, the sense of God's sight, His eye is God; his anger is God, his justice is God, his patience is God, his love is God. How many Gods do you have? And you believe that the LITERAL WORD OF GOD IS PART OF GOD, so can the word of God be created? My dear, I asked you that question to know if you ve changed your position. This is certainly not a means to achieve the answer to that question. But it seems you didnt change. Am I right? Let me laugh at you small, so you mean when God spoke at Jesus' Baptism He was actually talking to Jesus...please read your Bible very well. You didnt reply to this, and I think the question is logical. I said: The scriptures say "THE WORD became flesh", not that the flesh is Jesus and the content is THE WORD. John 1:14. We know that the "FLESH" there is Jesus. And the scripture says the word became flesh, not that he dwells in the flesh called Jesus. Dont you think this makes sense? Dont you agree that the one called "the word" changed and became flesh? 2. God spoke from heaven, and the voice was heard by Jesus. John the baptist was there, but my emphasis on Jesus is for a reason. The main point is: God transmitted God to the hearing of fleshly covered God, thereby producing another God. At a whole we observe more than three gods - Fleshly covered god, God in heaven, holy spirit, the word coming out of God's mouth. 3. Your position imply that at every occasion that God spoke, God was producing gods. How is that? But if they can function alone through my power then they are. You said anything about God is God. You never added "as far as they can function alone through God's power". So, the "God" which Jesus (THE FLESH) have on him functions by "God's" power? Doesn't this make him inferior to the source of his power? But may I ask: Does God need God's power to function? If these gods cannot function on there own without God's power, how can they be equated with the almighty who functions without any other person's power? Or are they half-gods or inferior gods to the Almighty God? Again, if I cut off your hand and have it with me, is that your hand you? Is the hand as complete as what make you Emusan? Please stop this your childish statement it's getting out of hand. I understood your point. I was only showing you that they were non-analogous. The holy spirit is an active force, it is not a person, while you posit that God, Jesus and THE WORD are all persons. It is just like you cant say "powers" but "power" (electric). You do not scatter persons as if they were impersonal force. Another implication to you! That was the understanding of your fellow johnw74. That's where I got it. Stop derailing. Search on jw.org and get our view. You're the one separating my point I only have one point which is Jesus is THE WORD OF GOD either from God's mouth or any sense but to further your delusion in viewing the Word of God as being many (i.e many Gods) or God can't speak again since His Word is now on EARTH which if it's true then there are many Gods so I have to explain to you that THE WORD ONLY DWELL in the flesh not that THE WORD CHANGE-CHANGE-CHANGE to flesh. Wait Sir, you are confusing yourself. Thats for sure because you want to twist it right. You said that Jesus is that word that comes out of God's mouth. Secondly, you also said that he is the FLESH which contains THE WORD (God). I dont see any separation here sir. You said Jesus are: - The LITERAL word of God that comes out of God's mouth (this makes Jesus an utterance) - the FLESH that the WORD dwells in. (This makes Jesus a flesh, carnal) You also posit that the WORD did not CHANGE to flesh, but that the WORD dwells in Jesus(the flesh). John 1:14 shows that the word became flesh, not that it dwells in the flesh called Jesus. When God speaks, the utterance is Jesus. In short, God's sense of sight, smell, right hand, his love, kindness etc are all Jesuses, creating more than one Jesus. Even when God said that Jesus should sit at His right hand, the right hand is Jesus. Jesus was just sitting on Jesus. the possessive pronouns ITS means the promises are for the WORD Eg, Nation will rise against nation and that God's kingdom will come are not mere promises from God's word, it always come to pass. Unitarian's view is one God who came to earth n human flesh. Now, how can this uncreated God be produced by someone else, yet he is uncreated? Did God almighty emerge through a spoken word, or is He a spoken word in form of a person? You're portraying it as if God's knowledge is different from God's Omni-scent Portraying what? Name it? Thank God you can provide this definition, now let's look into your definition of knowledge: After God's test to Abraham, he said: Then he said: “Do not harm the boy, and do not do anything at all to him, for now I do know that you are God-fearing because you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me.” When did God know that He was Godfearing? Gen 18:21 I will go down to see whether they are acting according to the outcry that has reached me. And if not, I can get to know it If God uses His power to foreknow always, why does he engage in this fact finding mission? That's what a primary school student can't even utter. Can you please go to wikipedia and check the two meanings of omniscience? University graduate. At least you said you didn't say Jesus Christ was not called God's knowledge so ask yourself where you see that before you agree. When did I agree? Is the proof not forthcoming? Who said the bold face words? |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Emusan(m): 9:59am On Apr 01, 2015 |
JMAN05: What is all this? When did I say I deny this? If you don't provide where I deny what you ascertain here forget my next reply. You said Jesus is the LITERAL word. and also said that he is the FLESH, not that WORD. OK, it is a contradiction. The color is your problem and your misunderstanding. Now let me come down to your level. -The Word of God is the Word of God -The Word of God took on Flesh but still remains The word of God. -The Word of God and the Flesh (his humanity) together are called Jesus Christ though each name can be used separately. Anything about God himself is God. ok, but Jesus is not God, he is on;y the flesh which covers God (The word). And you can still say He is not God. 2. If we are to agree with your position, it means that the right hand of God is God, the sense of God's sight, His eye is God; his anger is God, his justice is God, his patience is God, his love is God. [size=14pt]How many Gods do you have?[/size] In fact the bolded made me loose interest in replying you because it's irritating seeing a comment like this from someone who professes himself to be educated My dear, I asked you that question to know if you ve changed your position. This is certainly not a means to achieve the answer to that question. But it seems you didnt change. Am I right? Is part of God, God? That's the answer You didnt reply to this, and I think the question is logical. I said: The Word didn't change to FLESH read your Bible very well I don't need to teach you this. 2. God spoke from heaven, and the voice was heard by Jesus. John the baptist was there, but my emphasis on Jesus is for a reason. The main point is: [size=14pt]God transmitted God to the hearing of fleshly covered God,[/size] thereby producing another God. At a whole we observe more than three gods - Fleshly covered god, God in heaven, holy spirit, the word coming out of God's mouth. Now let me use the bolded part on Holy spirit so that you can see how absurdity your post is; -Holy spirit can dwell in more than five people and can also speak through only one person among the rest of people He already dwelled -By your analogy now since Holy spirit is active force (to JWs) which means it's God who spoke through His active force then we can then say God is talking to Himself which dwells in other people. 3. Your position imply that at every occasion that God spoke, [size=14pt]God was producing gods.[/size] How is that? Not comment. You said anything about God is God. You never added "as far as they can function alone through God's power". So, the "God" which Jesus (THE FLESH) have on him functions by "God's" power? Doesn't this make him inferior to the source of his power? I don't even know your problem honestly. Anything OUTSIDE of you is can be inferior or superior to you but anything ABOUT YOU are you, OK! But may I ask: Does God need God's power to function? If these gods cannot function on there own without God's power, how can they be equated with the almighty who functions without any other person's power? Or are they half-gods or inferior gods to the Almighty God? Then what will happen if all these things were removed from God? Again, if I cut off your hand and have it with me, is that your hand you? Is the hand as complete as what make you Emusan? Stop calling my name with your awkward reasoning. While must it be my hand and not your hand? I understood your point. I was only showing you that they were non-analogous. The holy spirit is an active force, it is not a person, while you posit that God, Jesus and THE WORD are all persons. It is just like you cant say "powers" but "power" (electric). You don't, if not you wouldn't have made that illogical analogy. You do not scatter persons as if they were impersonal force. So where was Holy spirit ever scattered? [size=14ptThat was the understanding of your fellow johnw74. That's where I got it.[/size] Stop derailing. Search on jw.org and get our view. You're a disappointment. And you can't make it clear that you're referring to someone's statement please stop referring me to jw.org, OK! bring all your claim here. Wait Sir, you are confusing yourself. Thats for sure because you want to twist it right. You said that Jesus is that word that comes out of God's mouth. Secondly, you also said that [color]he[/color] is the FLESH which contains THE WORD (God). Can't you see how absurd your reasoning is, as it spells out TWO JESUS? So take this advise, go back to my previous posts and begin to read bit by bit for clear understanding. I dont see any separation here sir. You said Jesus are: Read above. When God speaks, [size=14pt]the utterance is Jesus.[/size] In short, God's sense of sight, smell, right hand, his love, kindness etc [size=14pt]are all Jesuses,[/size] creating more than one Jesus. No comment. Even when God said that Jesus should sit at His right hand, the right hand is Jesus. [size=14pt]Jesus was just sitting on Jesus.[/size] No comment. Eg, Nation will rise against nation and that God's kingdom will come are not mere promises from God's word, it always come to pass. You always prove smartness. The possessive pronoun shows that the promises you made mention of belong to THE WORD I can see your twisting tongues dives into another thing now. Is it the word who made the promise or God? Now, how can this uncreated God be produced by someone else, yet he is uncreated? Did God almighty emerge through a spoken word, or is He a spoken word in form of a person? Is the Word of God created? Is there a time God exist without His Word? Portraying what? Name it? Read again. After God's test to Abraham, he said: Simple question, is God all knowing I mean Omniscient? If your answer is yes, then why will God acquire knowledge again? If your answer is no, then why are you talking about God's Omniscient? Can you please go to wikipedia and check the two meanings of omniscience? University graduate. Two meaning of Omniscient again What we're insinuating here is "God's Omniscient" so what do you understand by it? When did I agree? Is the proof not forthcoming? Didn't you say you're not disputing that Jesus wasn't called God's knowledge or knowledge of God or His knowledge (as many way we can put it) in the Bible? So where did you get the idea from? After all I have provided you the evidence just that you don't have open mind to receive it. |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Emusan(m): 10:26am On Apr 01, 2015 |
JMAN05: Now you can't agree with it just because it against your own perverted reasoning. I think what you miss here is you thinking that CHRIST HIMSELF was present at that time but what this verse is saying is that CHRIST ACTIVITIES was there in the OT even though it's not yet known as HUMAN CHRIST which is what even the commentary you quoted trying to explain as the bolded says "...because it typified spiritual things" notice the word SPIRITUAL. That's why when JWs says Michael is now Christ then we can infer that Christ was active in OT though He wasn't known as CHRIST then. Can you get it now? No sir, you said: You're a bloody liar See what I said "...it only says [size=14pt]the message they were receiving is not meant for them but we."[/size] See what you said [size=14pt]"They had no clear understanding of the message,[/size] so how will they know that Michael will later become the Christ, not to talk of "having" his spirit. So can you see yourself, in fact it's just a wasting of time with you. If I continue with you I may utter what I shouldn't have uttered. So take care brother. |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Nobody: 4:39pm On Apr 03, 2015 |
Emusan: No sir. respond to all my posts. "no comment" is not acceptable. and give reply to others you gave a sketchy response to. waiting. . . 1 Like |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Emusan(m): 8:22am On Apr 07, 2015 |
JMAN05: See excuses, didn't I reply your post? About the NO COMMENT then do the necessary thing by removing all those childish and illogical statement. NOTE: Don't forget to reply the false accusation you put on me. |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Nobody: 10:21pm On Apr 10, 2015 |
Emusan: When you are ready, let me know. |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Emusan(m): 10:47pm On Apr 12, 2015 |
JMAN05: Ready for what? NB: Remember to do the necessary thing to the lie you lied about me which you've used style to boycott and act as if you never see the post. |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by bingbagbo(m): 8:22pm On Apr 24, 2017 |
 |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by bingbagbo(m): 8:01pm On Nov 03, 2017 |
JWs never cease to amaze me |
| Re: Jehova's Witnesses, Do U Have This In Your Bible? by Janosky: 5:22pm On Sep 25, 2019 |
CAPTIVATOR: CAPTIVATOR, thanks for your exposure of that NL fraud man Pharisee |
Yoruba Hymn / Ogun "God Of Iron" Favorite Food (Photos) / Where Is Isreal's Original Land?
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 352 |