JMAN05:


Jesus is in your holy ghost, and your holy ghost is in Jesus. Why did that place say "another" comforter? Isnt Jesus that holy ghost comforter?

Yiu believe too that Jesus is the holy ghost, why send a holy ghost that is already there?

Why ask the Father to send, when Jesus is the father?



When Jesus died, God and holy ghost died. right? who then raise Jesus? God is in Jesus, yet Jesus doesn't know when the end will come. impeccable!

the holy spirit dwells in them, so why send them the ghost that is already in them?



Why come to them when he is already in them?



Finally, the over a thousand disciples of Jesus are Jesus, Jehovah and holy ghost.

Oga, you are Jesus, God and holy ghost.

Why was the holy spirit sent to the already Jesuses, Gods, and holy spirits. ie his disciples.

Why does these disciples ask questions when they are God already?



The apostles have the spirit already, why come to make abode. Both Jesus, the Father, your ghost are already living in them.

Jesus is dwelling INSIDE the apostles, yet they are asking Jesus questions. theologians!



the apostles had that spirit in them, Jesus also has that spirit, the father is dwelling in the apostles and in Jesus, and the father will send Jesus,himself and the ghost? Or The Father want to overload them with Jesus, ghost, and the Father?



You are describing a force, or a breeze, not a person.

So his name is comforter, just as Jesus is comforter?

So all disciples of Jesus are equal to God, since God dwells in them?

Jesus had taught them, and now the same Jesus who is in the holy spirit who is in the disciples will come and teach them? churchoid sef!

Joh 14:15, Joh 14:16, Joh 14:17, Joh 14:18, Joh 14:19, Joh 14:20,
Joh 14:21, Joh 14:22, Joh 14:23, Joh 14:24, Joh 14:25, Joh 14:26,

You did not believe one of those 12 verses I posted, but gave rebuttal against every one of them
read your post again and see how ridiculous it is.
And so your very confused arguments against those scriptures are understandable

When the thread is created, we shall talk more there.

I won't be talking with you again
I only post to jw's and persons of other sects a couple of times

unless I forget.

johnw74:


Joh 14:15, Joh 14:16, Joh 14:17, Joh 14:18, Joh 14:19, Joh 14:20,
Joh 14:21, Joh 14:22, Joh 14:23, Joh 14:24, Joh 14:25, Joh 14:26,

You did not believe one of those 12 verses I posted, but gave rebuttal against every one of them
read your post again and see how ridiculous it is.
And so your very confused arguments against those scriptures are understandable



I won't be talking with you again
I only post to jw's and persons of other sects a couple of times

unless I forget.

Answer my comment one by one, don't ignore the questions there. it is meant to get you thinking.

My dear, I believe all those verses. I gave questions that will review to you how puerile the point you make out of them is.

form another thread for this discussion.

johnw74:


Unlike you, when God says "I will dwell in you", I believe Him
and yes that does feel good.



He also dwells in believers:
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Don't you read the scriptures I post
or don't you believe them



You don't understand the poetic language of most Bibles.
Even Chrildren would understand this:
2Co_6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

another thread pls.

JMAN05:
Jah is a spirit being, a spirit person. His holy spirit on the other hand is not a person. it is an impersonal force.

Lol...what is the meaning of THE SPIRIT in 2 Corin 3:17 is my question not whether Jehovah is a person or not?

-the holy spirit is God's active force. it isn't a person. When it is at work on the prophets, it impels them to predict the future.

2Pet 1:21

Then Jehovah is an active force just wait for my thread on this.

Who is taking it to mean a human? abeg dont start given me another work. Go check what trinitarians mean by "person". Don't create unnecessary work for me. If you don't know your subject, keep mom.

I should check what Trinitarians say about 'person' or you should stop using your ideology of JWs view of God as person to interpret Trinitarians view because Trinitarians believe The Father, The Son and The Holy spirit are person YET they can still DWELL in our NATURE so that should tell you that you don't know what Trinitarians mean by PERSON of the Godhead.

Oga, it was that rendering in the NWT that I had in mind when I quoted that verse.

God's holy spirit is His active force.

We talk more on the next thread u guys will create.

Don't shift the discussion to Bruce. You can create another thread for renderings in the NWT if you like.

So that's why you have to apply it to other verses...

No I don't shift issue but what is on ground, so no need of creating another thread I know you people purposely avoid this thread by @Younguz

https://www.nairaland.com/1883337/what-notable-bible-scholars-said

JMAN05:
Go and segment by segment respond to all my posts. some of what you posted had been answered already there.

waiting...

This is just a lame excuse.

The purpose of this thread is to iron out wrong interpretation that JWs gave to Acts 15:14, 17 to mean True Christians SERVE as witness of Jehovah which is far from what the verses are saying.

So you quoted from Bible commentaries on 1 Peter 2 to buttress your claim of Acts 15 and since you can from scholars commentaries I went ahead to show you how scholars also INTERPRETED that Acts 15 not as JWs interpreted it to suit their erroneous claim.

In case you forget this is what scholars say about James quoting from OT book of Amos:

"This quotation is not made literally either from the Hebrew or the Septuagint, which differs also from the Hebrew. The 17th verse is quoted literally from the Septuagint; but in the 16th the general sense only of the passage is retained. The main point of the quotation, as made by James, was to show that, according to the prophets, it was contemplated that the Gentiles should be introduced to the privileges of the children of God; and on this point the passage has a direct bearing." Albert Barnes'

"As St. James quoted them as a prophecy of the calling of the Gentiles into the Church of God, it is evident the Jews must have understood them in that sense, otherwise they would have immediately disputed his application of them to the subject in question, and have rejected his conclusion by denying the premises." Adam Clarke

"To take from the Gentiles a people for his name (labein ex ethnôn laon tôi onomati autou). Bengel calls this egregium paradoxon, a chosen people (laon) out of the Gentiles (ethnôn). This is what is really involved in what took place at Caesarea at the hands of Peter and the campaign of Barnabas and Paul from Antioch. But such a claim of God's purpose called for proof from Scripture to convince Jews and this is precisely what James undertakes to give." Robertson

The purpose of this thread still remains, JWs have wrongfully interpreted those verses which end up calling the Faithful Apostles a false Christian because none of them witness of Jehovah RATHER both The Father, The Holy spirit, Old Testament Prophets, John the Baptist, The Apostles and Christians ARE ALL witness of Jesus.

Emusan:


This is just a lame excuse.

The purpose of this thread is to iron out wrong interpretation that JWs gave to Acts 15:14, 17 to mean True Christians SERVE as witness of Jehovah which is far from what the verses are saying.

So you quoted from Bible commentaries on 1 Peter 2 to buttress your claim of Acts 15 and since you can from scholars commentaries I went ahead to show you how scholars also INTERPRETED that Acts 15 not as JWs interpreted it to suit their erroneous claim.

In case you forget this is what scholars say about James quoting from OT book of Amos:

"This quotation is not made literally either from the Hebrew or the Septuagint, which differs also from the Hebrew. The 17th verse is quoted literally from the Septuagint; but in the 16th the general sense only of the passage is retained. The main point of the quotation, as made by James, was to show that, according to the prophets, it was contemplated that the Gentiles should be introduced to the privileges of the children of God; and on this point the passage has a direct bearing." Albert Barnes'

"As St. James quoted them as a prophecy of the calling of the Gentiles into the Church of God, it is evident the Jews must have understood them in that sense, otherwise they would have immediately disputed his application of them to the subject in question, and have rejected his conclusion by denying the premises." Adam Clarke

"To take from the Gentiles a people for his name (labein ex ethnôn laon tôi onomati autou). Bengel calls this egregium paradoxon, a chosen people (laon) out of the Gentiles (ethnôn). This is what is really involved in what took place at Caesarea at the hands of Peter and the campaign of Barnabas and Paul from Antioch. But such a claim of God's purpose called for proof from Scripture to convince Jews and this is precisely what James undertakes to give." Robertson

The purpose of this thread still remains, JWs have wrongfully interpreted those verses which end up calling the Faithful Apostles a false Christian because none of them witness of Jehovah RATHER both The Father, The Holy spirit, Old Testament Prophets, John the Baptist, The Apostles and Christians ARE ALL witness of Jesus.

Ok! Now you know what we are discussing? Didnt I tell you this when you where segmenting my comments out of context? Now you want to return to what the thread is about? Ok. But any shift by you, I wont reply your post. Bear that in mind man.

Oga, Those you quoted above did not say that the name is Jesus, which is your point. So, I refuse to admit that as a good reply. My point is that some who are not JWs even saw that the "name" as spoken of in that verse is about Jehovah God, not Jesus. None above even said the "name" is Jesus. This is another diversion by you. Sorry sir. Try again.

Oga, you ve agreed that true Christians are witnesses of Jehovah. So stop deceiving yourself by saying the apostles witnessed for Jesus, as if it is for him alone. You ve agreed they witnessed for Jehovah too.

Permit me to import one point here:

when JAMES quoted those verses HE APPLIED IT TO JESUS not just taking them for nothing. Which was further reinforced in their LETTER to the same Gentiles "men that have hazarded their lives for THE NAME of our Lord Jesus Christ." Acts 15:26 (CAPITAL mine), ASV

Firstly, you are the only one with this misunderstanding because of how hard you understand the scriptures. Your commentary didnt even support you.

James never applied anything to Jesus. We read:

Peter's words first:

Peter rose and said to them: “Men, brothers, you well know that from early days God made the choice among you that through my mouth people of the nations should hear the word of the good news and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by giving them the holy spirit, just as he did to us also.

Which incident was Peter talking about? what happened in Cornelius house. We read:

Act 10:34-43

"At this[b] Peter began to speak[/b], and he said: “Now I truly understand that God is not partial, 35 but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. 36 He sent out the word to the sons of Israel to declare to them the good news of peace through Jesus Christ—this one is Lord of all.[/quote]

Whom do you think is the architect of the good news about Jesus?

"37 You know the subject that was talked about throughout all Ju·de′a, starting from Gal′i·lee after the baptism that John preached: 38 about Jesus who was from Naz′a·reth, how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land doing good and healing all those oppressed by the Devil, because God was with him. 39 And we are witnesses of all the things he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem; but they did away with him by hanging him on a stake. 40 God raised this one up on the third day and allowed him to become manifest, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses appointed beforehand by God, to us, who ate and drank with him after his rising from the dead. 42 Also, he ordered us to preach to the people and to give a thorough witness that this is the one decreed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. 43 To him all the prophets bear witness, that everyone putting faith in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

Do you agree with Peter that all the way, God has been the one spearheading many things about Jesus?

Whom do you think is the architect of the witness about Jesus? The God who anointed Jesus or Jesus who was anointed?

Chapter 11:1, it was stated that what the gentiles accepted was the word of God. So those words spoken by Peter is the word of God. Jehovah is the true architect of all that.

In verse 17 of Chapter 11, we read:

If, therefore, God gave the same free gift to them that he gave to us who have believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I should be able to hinder God?

Who gave the free gift? So even believers in Jesus, God is the one who gives them the holy spirit. inshort even the disciples Jesus had was given to him by Jehovah. This proves that witness about Jesus became a new way of witnessing for Jehovah. In fact, he was His representative of earth.

Having gotten that context, let's go back:

Acts 15:14

Sym′e·on has related thoroughly how [size=16]God[/size] for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name

1. Now, this one is not a prophesy in the "OT", and it has clearly identified who's name James had in mind.

2. Secondly, Do you now get the point? Did you remember what happened when Peter was in the house of the first uncircumcised gentile to become a Christian? Do you now know who has that "name"? Jesus or Jehovah?

Was it not Jehovah who is being discussed here?

James was not deviating from this point in the two verses that followed. He was only supporting this experience of Peter from an "OT" scripture.

so that the men who remain may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things, 18 known from of old.’

James made a nice quotation from Amos where God's own name appeared. The statement here is isnt about Jesus, but Jehovah.

In verse 26, it was stated that Paul and Barnabas gave there life for the name of Jesus. Your position is that this shows that the "name" spoken of in verse 14 and 17 is Jesus name. That the "OT" scripture was applied to Jesus.

That is very wrong. The point I made above has shown that it was Jehovah's name that was on the discussion, not Jesus'.

The point is about a prophesy which finds fulfillment on what happened in the house of Cornelius, and the story told by Peter. That was the issue here. It was not about a prophesy that finds fulfillment in Jesus. Get that straight.

The problem is whether the uncircumcised gentiles should be accepted as true worshipers of God, it is not about circumcised gentiles to which Paul and Barnabas belonged. So that verse 26 is not in the context of verses 14 - 17.

Secondly, the letter they wrote to this gentiles was not detailing the discussions that took place before the conclusion was reached. Nope! It was only conveying there final decision. The letter is not showing to the gentiles what Peter witnessed and how the "OT" scripture supported it. Never!

They were just conveying there direction which is a product of the discussion they had. Now, the letter went on to describe the reputation and sacrifices Paul and Barnabas had made for Christ's name (which Jehovah elevated). Do the apostles bear Jesus name? Yes. That is a name God had elevated and had given them to proclaim too. And this is part of witnessing for HIM (Jehovah). But this does not bring the "name" here into the context of verse 14.

The result of there long discussion was only conveyed in verse 29. And you can see clearly that they presented there direction which is a product of there discussion. They were in no way saying what was said about God's name by James.

Emusan:


Lol...what is the meaning of THE SPIRIT in 2 Corin 3:17 is my question not whether Jehovah is a person or not?



Then Jehovah is an active force just wait for my thread on this.



I should check what Trinitarians say about 'person' or you should stop using your ideology of JWs view of God as person to interpret Trinitarians view because Trinitarians believe The Father, The Son and The Holy spirit are person YET they can still DWELL in our NATURE so that should tell you that you don't know what Trinitarians mean by PERSON of the Godhead.



So that's why you have to apply it to other verses...

No I don't shift issue but what is on ground, so no need of creating another thread I know you people purposely avoid this thread by @Younguz

https://www.nairaland.com/1883337/what-notable-bible-scholars-said

Can you stop this rubbish? My friend create a thread and stop leading me to an apostate. Any more of that nonsense, I will see it as a sign of not being serious. So stop stop that rubbish, just stop!

johnw74:

Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

jmano5:

the holy spirit dwells in them, so why send them the ghost that is already in them?

the verse says "He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

but jw's appear to change so many scriptures.

JMAN05:
Can you stop this rubbish? My friend create a thread and stop leading me to an apostate. Any more of that nonsense, I will see it as a sign of not being serious. So stop stop that rubbish, just stop!

What is rubbish in my post here?

Why are you so furious

Apostate thread so what is the different between Younguz and I remember we don't share the same idea of JWs?

johnw74:

johnw74:


jmano5:


the verse says "He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

but jw's appear to change so many scriptures.

another thread pls

JMAN05:
Ok! Now you know what we are discussing? Didnt I tell you this when you where segmenting my comments out of context? Now you want to return to what the thread is about? Ok. But any shift by you, I wont reply your post. Bear that in mind man.

Were you not the one who keep shifting the main point of this thread at least I've repeated THE PURPOSE of this thread more than two times.

Oga, Those you quoted above did not say that the name is Jesus, which is your point.

Now can you see life outside? I didn't say it's the name of Jesus BUT WHO JAMES HAVE IN MIND.

So, I refuse to admit that as a good reply. My point is that some who are not JWs even saw that the "name" as spoken of in that verse is about Jehovah God, not Jesus. None above even said the "name" is Jesus. This is another diversion by you. Sorry sir. Try again.

Always understand the point someone is making before you talk.

Oga, you've agreed that true Christians are witnesses of Jehovah. So stop deceiving yourself by saying the apostles witnessed for Jesus, as if it is for him alone. You ve agreed they witnessed for Jehovah too.

Lol...see how the bolded part define your understanding.

If witness for Jesus also means witness for Jehovah this does not prove that the Apostles bear the name Jehovah's witness we can only say witness for Jesus is also witness for Jehovah in some sense not according to the scriptures.

Permit me to import one point here:

Firstly, you are the only one with this misunderstanding because of how hard you understand the scriptures. Your commentary didnt even support you.

When I said James applied those verses to Jesus I didn't mean it is Jesus name that appear their simply because James quoted from OT my point is WHO DOES JAMES HAVE IN MIND BEFORE HE QUOTED FROM OT which was later reinforced in their letter.

I know you will boycott those commentaries because they simply against your understanding of those verses.

James never applied anything to Jesus. We read:

Peter's words first:

Peter rose and said to them: “Men, brothers, you well know that from early days God made the choice among you that through my mouth people of the nations should hear the word of the good news and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by giving them the holy spirit, just as he did to us also.

Which incident was Peter talking about? what happened in Cornelius house. We read:

Act 10:34-43

"At this[b] Peter began to speak[/b], and he said: “Now I truly understand that God is not partial, 35 but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. 36 He sent out the word to the sons of Israel to declare to them the good news of peace through Jesus Christ—this one is Lord of all.

Whom do you think is the architect of the good news about Jesus?

"37 You know the subject that was talked about throughout all Ju·de′a, starting from Gal′i·lee after the baptism that John preached: 38 about Jesus who was from Naz′a·reth, how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land doing good and healing all those oppressed by the Devil, because God was with him. 39 And we are witnesses of all the things he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem; but they did away with him by hanging him on a stake. 40 God raised this one up on the third day and allowed him to become manifest, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses appointed beforehand by God, to us, who ate and drank with him after his rising from the dead. 42 Also, he ordered us to preach to the people and to give a thorough witness that this is the one decreed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. 43 To him all the prophets bear witness, that everyone putting faith in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

Do you agree with Peter that all the way, God has been the one spearheading many things about Jesus?

Whom do you think is the architect of the witness about Jesus? The God who anointed Jesus or Jesus who was anointed?

Chapter 11:1, it was stated that what the gentiles accepted was the word of God. So those words spoken by Peter is the word of God. Jehovah is the true architect of all that.

In verse 17 of Chapter 11, we read:

If, therefore, God gave the same free gift to them that he gave to us who have believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I should be able to hinder God?

Who gave the free gift? So even believers in Jesus, God is the one who gives them the holy spirit. inshort even the disciples Jesus had was given to him by Jehovah. This proves that witness about Jesus became a new way of witnessing for Jehovah. In fact, he was His representative of earth.

Having gotten that context, let's go back:

Acts 15:14

Sym′e·on has related thoroughly how [size=16]God[/size] for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name

1. Now, this one is not a prophesy in the "OT", and it has clearly identified who's name James had in mind.

2. Secondly, Do you now get the point? Did you remember what happened when Peter was in the house of the first uncircumcised gentile to become a Christian? Do you now know who has that "name"? Jesus or Jehovah?

Was it not Jehovah who is being discussed here?

James was not deviating from this point in the two verses that followed. He was only supporting this experience of Peter from an "OT" scripture.

so that the men who remain may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things, 18 known from of old.’

James made a nice quotation from Amos where God's own name appeared. The statement here is isnt about Jesus, but Jehovah.

In verse 26, it was stated that Paul and Barnabas gave there life for the name of Jesus. Your position is that this shows that the "name" spoken of in verse 14 and 17 is Jesus name. That the "OT" scripture was applied to Jesus.

That is very wrong. The point I made above has shown that it was Jehovah's name that was on the discussion, not Jesus'.

The point is about a prophesy which finds fulfillment on what happened in the house of Cornelius, and the story told by Peter. That was the issue here. It was not about a prophesy that finds fulfillment in Jesus. Get that straight.

The problem is whether the uncircumcised gentiles should be accepted as true worshipers of God, it is not about circumcised gentiles to which Paul and Barnabas belonged. So that verse 26 is not in the context of verses 14 - 17.

Secondly, the letter they wrote to this gentiles was not detailing the discussions that took place before the conclusion was reached. Nope! It was only conveying there final decision. The letter is not showing to the gentiles what Peter witnessed and how the "OT" scripture supported it. Never!

They were just conveying there direction which is a product of the discussion they had. Now, the letter went on to describe the reputation and sacrifices Paul and Barnabas had made for Christ's name (which Jehovah elevated). Do the apostles bear Jesus name? Yes. That is a name God had elevated and had given them to proclaim too. And this is part of witnessing for HIM (Jehovah). But this does not bring the "name" here into the context of verse 14.

The result of there long discussion was only conveyed in verse 29. And you can see clearly that they presented there direction which is a product of there discussion. They were in no way saying what was said about God's name by James.

All this your jumping around won't solve the issue here so stop prolonging and deviating from the main issue.

We are looking at the meaning of Acts 15:14, 17 which beg for the question does Acts 15:14, 17 say they SERVE as witness of Jehovah which your organization claimed they are?

So I quoted three different scholars on what James have in mind or how those verses can be understood but you boycott them

Remember you're the first person to quote from Bible commentaries but now that it turns against you, you begin to dance to another tune. So in case you forget here is it again,

"This quotation is not made literally either from the Hebrew or the Septuagint, which differs also from the Hebrew. The 17th verse is quoted literally from the Septuagint; but in the 16th the general sense only of the passage is retained. The main point of the quotation, as made by James, was to show that, according to the prophets, it was contemplated that the Gentiles should be introduced to the privileges of the children of God; and on this point the passage has a direct bearing." Albert Barnes'

"As St. James quoted them as a prophecy of the calling of the Gentiles into the Church of God, it is evident the Jews must have understood them in that sense, otherwise they would have immediately disputed his application of them to the subject in question, and have rejected his conclusion by denying the premises." Adam Clarke

"To take from the Gentiles a people for his name (labein ex ethnôn laon tôi onomati autou). Bengel calls this egregium paradoxon, a chosen people (laon) out of the Gentiles (ethnôn). This is what is really involved in what took place at Caesarea at the hands of Peter and the campaign of Barnabas and Paul from Antioch. But such a claim of God's purpose called for proof from Scripture to convince Jews and this is precisely what James undertakes to give." Robertson

What I need now is to prove how Acts 15:14, 17 says THEY SERVE AS WITNESS OF Jehovah.

Emusan:


Were you not the one who keep shifting the main point of this thread at least I've repeated THE PURPOSE of this thread more than two times.



Now can you see life outside? I didn't say it's the name of Jesus BUT WHO JAMES HAVE IN MIND.



Always understand the point someone is making before you talk.



Lol...see how the bolded part define your understanding.

If witness for Jesus also means witness for Jehovah this does not prove that the Apostles bear the name Jehovah's witness we can only say witness for Jesus is also witness for Jehovah in some sense not according to the scriptures.



When I said James applied those verses to Jesus I didn't mean it is Jesus name that appear their simply because James quoted from OT my point is WHO DOES JAMES HAVE IN MIND BEFORE HE QUOTED FROM OT which was later reinforced in their letter.

I know you will boycott those commentaries because they simply against your understanding of those verses.



All this your jumping around won't solve the issue here so stop prolonging and deviating from the main issue.

We are looking at the meaning of Acts 15:14, 17 which beg for the question does Acts 15:14, 17 say they SERVE as witness of Jehovah which your organization claimed they are?

So I quoted three different scholars on what James have in mind or how those verses can be understood but you boycott them

Remember you're the first person to quote from Bible commentaries but now that it turns against you, you begin to dance to another tune. So in case you forget here is it again,

"This quotation is not made literally either from the Hebrew or the Septuagint, which differs also from the Hebrew. The 17th verse is quoted literally from the Septuagint; but in the 16th the general sense only of the passage is retained. The main point of the quotation, as made by James, was to show that, according to the prophets, it was contemplated that the Gentiles should be introduced to the privileges of the children of God; and on this point the passage has a direct bearing." Albert Barnes'

"As St. James quoted them as a prophecy of the calling of the Gentiles into the Church of God, it is evident the Jews must have understood them in that sense, otherwise they would have immediately disputed his application of them to the subject in question, and have rejected his conclusion by denying the premises." Adam Clarke

"To take from the Gentiles a people for his name (labein ex ethnôn laon tôi onomati autou). Bengel calls this egregium paradoxon, a chosen people (laon) out of the Gentiles (ethnôn). This is what is really involved in what took place at Caesarea at the hands of Peter and the campaign of Barnabas and Paul from Antioch. But such a claim of God's purpose called for proof from Scripture to convince Jews and this is precisely what James undertakes to give." Robertson

What I need now is to prove how Acts 15:14, 17 says THEY SERVE AS WITNESS OF Jehovah.

Before I respond. Do you agree with what those scholars said on those verses? Again, they never said James had Jesus name in mind.

JMAN05:
Before I respond. Do you agree with what those scholars said on those verses? Again, they never said James had Jesus name in mind.

If I don't agree with them will I quote them

Neither do they say the quotation was to witness of Jehovah.

Thou shall not bear false witness against ....


Including JEHOVAH HIMSELF

Emusan:
How true is the underlined statement?

The Bible verses that was given to read Acts 15:14 "Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name." and Acts 15:17 "That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things."(KJV)

I believe the purpose of referring to these verses is the underlined words "his name & my name" but what actually happen here?

Verse 13 indicates that it was JAMES who is narrating what PETER saw about the Gentiles.

Now the big question is whose name did the Apostles actually proclaim before Gentiles?

The answer is the name of Jesus Christ

So how can Jehovah Witness claimed that the TRUE Christians SERVE as Jehovah's witness when in reality ALL the Apostles actually WITNESS of Jesus Christ and Not Jehovah?

Those who actually witnesses about Jesus:

1) The Father Himself: When reading the scriptures one thing that is very sure is that NOWHERE Jesus Himself witnesses about The Father rather it's The Father who WITNESSED about His Son, in fact the GREATEST witness is that of the Father;
*John 5:36-37 "But I have greater witness than [that] of John:..., And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me..."(KJV)
*John 8:18 "I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me."(KJV)
*1 John 5:9 "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. (KJV)

2) The Holyspirit: 1 John 5:6 "This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." (KJV)
*Acts 5:32 "...and [so is] also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him." (KJV)

3) The Prophets: Acts 10:43 "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (KJV)

4) The Apostles:[/b] *Acts 4:33 "And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all." (KJV)
*Acts 5:32 "And we are his witnesses of these things;..." (KJV)

5) John the Baptist: *John 1:7-8 "The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe. He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light." (KJV)
*John 5:33 "Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth." (KJV)

6) Paul: Acts 23:11 "And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome." (KJV)

The list continues but one thing is very certain ALL the NT characters never witness of Jehovah instead they witnessed of Jesus Christ.

Was the name Jehovah not created by the Spanish Dominican monk Raymundus Martini in 1270 by combining YHWH with Adonai? If this is true how do JWs balance this with their hatred for Catholics and everything remotely Catholic? Now their whole ideology rests on a name created by a Catholic monk. That would be great irony.

What is the meaning of the WORD "TO WITNESS"- Jesus and his disciples preached about the Gospel/Goodnews of the Kingdom of God- they declare God's Glory. So too does JW. It was God who called us his witness in the book of Isaiah.

Emusan:


Were you not the one who keep shifting the main point of this thread at least I've repeated THE PURPOSE of this thread more than two times.

You certainly have a problem. You keep responding out of context, and I warned you. Now, you ve ended up avoiding the response to those your out-of-context comments. I know you will repeat it again. Lets keep watching...

Now can you see life outside? I didn't say it's the name of Jesus BUT WHO JAMES HAVE IN MIND.

You said James applied that prophesy to Jesus. With that, you are insinuating that the "name" there is Jesus'. Secondly, how can what James said differ from what he had in mind? Does you commentary support this?

2. Does your commentary support that those verses were quoted by James to buttress his point of how the OT prophecies find its fulfillment in Jesus Christ? Was James ever buttressing such point at all?

Lol...see how the bolded part define your understanding.

If witness for Jesus also means witness for Jehovah this does not prove that the Apostles bear the name Jehovah's witness we can only say witness for Jesus is also witness for Jehovah in some sense not according to the scriptures.

Stop what you can also say. Just stop where I stopped. I want to clarify something there. You've agreed that true Christians are witnesses of Jehovah. Bear Jehovah in mind too. Thats the point. Dont move out of context again.

When I said James applied those verses to Jesus I didn't mean it is Jesus name that appear their simply because James quoted from OT my point is WHO DOES JAMES HAVE IN MIND BEFORE HE QUOTED FROM OT which was later reinforced in their letter.

Whom does he have in mind? and how does what he has in mind differ from the point Peter made or even the context of the discussion? Where did your commentary support all these?

I have made a detailed comment about the context of the discussion. That shows whom he has in mind.

I know you will boycott those commentaries because they simply against your understanding of those verses.

There must be a good reason for your quoting a reference work, if not, we keep extending the thread unnecessarily. I quoted a reference work above to support my point about the name that appeared in that verse. Your point differ from mine, yet the commentary you gave never supported your point.

The commentaries you quoted did not all say that the name there isnt God's. read down the Robertson commentary and see where it explains "name".

All this your jumping around won't solve the issue here so stop prolonging and deviating from the main issue.

Nope. Please respond to that post for in fact those comments are the main issue here. However, remember that the purpose of the thread has been achieved greatly.

We are looking at the meaning of Acts 15:14, 17 which beg for the question does Acts 15:14, 17 say they SERVE as witness of Jehovah which your organization claimed they are?

So I quoted three different scholars on what James have in mind or how those verses can be understood but you boycott them

Remember you're the first person to quote from Bible commentaries but now that it turns against you, you begin to dance to another tune. So in case you forget here is it again,

"This quotation is not made literally either from the Hebrew or the Septuagint, which differs also from the Hebrew. The 17th verse is quoted literally from the Septuagint; but in the 16th the general sense only of the passage is retained. The main point of the quotation, as made by James, was to show that, according to the prophets, it was contemplated that the Gentiles should be introduced to the privileges of the children of God; and on this point the passage has a direct bearing." Albert Barnes'

"As St. James quoted them as a prophecy of the calling of the Gentiles into the Church of God, it is evident the Jews must have understood them in that sense, otherwise they would have immediately disputed his application of them to the subject in question, and have rejected his conclusion by denying the premises." Adam Clarke

"To take from the Gentiles a people for his name (labein ex ethnôn laon tôi onomati autou). Bengel calls this egregium paradoxon, a chosen people (laon) out of the Gentiles (ethnôn). This is what is really involved in what took place at Caesarea at the hands of Peter and the campaign of Barnabas and Paul from Antioch. But such a claim of God's purpose called for proof from Scripture to convince Jews and this is precisely what James undertakes to give." Robertson

What I need now is to prove how Acts 15:14, 17 says THEY SERVE AS WITNESS OF Jehovah.

You agreed that the natural replaced the spiritual Israelite. Am I right? You ve also agreed that true Christians are JWs.

The commentary you quoted (remember it does not support you at all) shows that the purpose of James quotation is that God had accepted the gentiles into the spiritual Israelites - this Israelites that replaced the natural. There you have it - the gentiles came into the congregation that bore Jehovah's name, thus they are Jehovah's witnesses. Isaiah 43:7, 10

JMAN05, dont waste ur time with that guy, he himself knows Act 15: 14,17 didnt mention the name of Jesus [\b] . CLEARLY WRITEN FOR everyone followin the thread

Emusan
When I said James applied those verses to Jesus, I didnt mean it is Jesus name that appear their

CANTICLES:
JMAN05, dont waste ur time with that guy, [b]he himself knows Act 15: 14,17 didnt mention the name of Jesus [\b] . CLEARLY WRITEN FOR everyone followin the thread

ok, The purpose of the thread is already achieved.

JMAN05:
You certainly have a problem. You keep responding out of context, and I warned you. Now, you ve ended up avoiding the response to those your out-of-context comments. I know you will repeat it again. Lets keep watching...

Imaging I respond out of context, I just don't know what to even say here to you but just let me keep going.

You said James applied that prophesy to Jesus. With that, you are insinuating that the "name" there is Jesus'. Secondly, how can what James said differ from what he had in mind? Does you commentary support this?

2. Does your commentary support that those verses were quoted by James to buttress his point of how the OT prophecies find its fulfillment in Jesus Christ? Was James ever buttressing such point at all?

I believe I've clarified what I mean when I said James applied it to Jesus.

What James had in mind is that the Jews NEED evidence from their own scriptures to accept the coming of Gentiles NOT as JWs misinterpreted that verse.

The commentaries are very clear to understand, James buttressed his point by quoting from their own scripture.

Stop what you can also say. Just stop where I stopped. I want to clarify something there. You've agreed that true Christians are witnesses of Jehovah. Bear Jehovah in mind too. Thats the point. Dont move out of context again.

But you know on basis I agreed which you never answer, so if witness of Jesus is also witness of Jehovah then ALL the true Christians are Witness of Jehovah or Jehovah's witness then who are the TRUE CHRISTIAN according to the scripture?

Whom does he have in mind? and how does what he has in mind differ from the point Peter made or even the context of the discussion? Where did your commentary support all these?

I have made a detailed comment about the context of the discussion. That shows whom he has in mind.

The citation of the OT by James is to give evidence that Gentiles must be partaker of the NEW CONVENANT not to claim that they SERVE as witness of Jehovah which is the point we are making here the evidence in the Bible is that The Apostles witness of Jesus even The Father also witness of His Son.

There must be a good reason for your quoting a reference work, if not, we keep extending the thread unnecessarily. I quoted a reference work above to support my point about the name that appeared in that verse. Your point differ from mine, yet the commentary you gave never supported your point.

This is the where we're going, JWs ONLY emphasized on THE NAME ALONE whereas the PURPOSE of that verse IS NOT on the NAME but evidence that Gentiles must be part of the NEW covenant.

Now let me quote those commentary again so that you can see where you and your organization missed the point.

"This quotation is not made literally either from the Hebrew or the Septuagint, which differs also from the Hebrew. The 17th verse is quoted literally from the Septuagint; but in the 16th the general sense only of the passage is retained. [size=14pt]The main point of the quotation, as made by James, was to show that, according to the prophets, it was contemplated that the Gentiles should be introduced to the privileges of the children of God; and on this point the passage has a direct bearing."[/size] Albert Barnes'

"As St. James quoted them as a prophecy of the calling of the Gentiles into the Church of God, [size=14pt]it is evident the Jews must have understood them in that sense, otherwise they would have immediately disputed his application of them to the subject in question,[/size] and have rejected his conclusion by denying the premises." Adam Clarke

"To take from the Gentiles a people for his name (labein ex ethnôn laon tôi onomati autou). Bengel calls this egregium paradoxon, a chosen people (laon) out of the Gentiles (ethnôn). This is what is really involved in what took place at Caesarea at the hands of Peter and the campaign of Barnabas and Paul from Antioch. [size=14pt]But such a claim of God's purpose called for proof from Scripture to convince Jews and this is precisely what James undertakes to give."[/size] Robertson

So with this you can see that James point wasn't about THE NAME but the reason why the JEWS must accepted the coming of the Gentiles.

So JWs misinterpreted that verse to suit their own purpose.

The commentaries you quoted did not all say that the name there isnt God's. read down the Robertson commentary and see where it explains "name".

Whereas the purpose of James quoting those verses is not ABOUT NAME get that into your head.

Nope. Please respond to that post for in fact those comments are the main issue here. However, remember that the purpose of the thread has been achieved greatly.

Yes as you can see that the emphasis is not about THE NAME that appeared BUT EVIDENCE for the JEWs to accept them.

You agreed that the natural replaced the spiritual Israelite. Am I right? You ve also agreed that true Christians are JWs.

The commentary you quoted (remember it does not support you at all) shows that the purpose of James quotation is that God had accepted the gentiles into the spiritual Israelites - this Israelites that replaced the natural. There you have it - the gentiles came into the congregation that bore Jehovah's name, thus they are Jehovah's witnesses. Isaiah 43:7, 10

I've also demanded of you question about who are the TRUE CHRISTIAN according to the scriptures?

(The funny thing is when you people want to against TITHE you people will say we are not Israelite so we are not to TITHE but now you can remember that we spiritual Israelite have replaced the natural Israelite.) I didn't say you should respond to this here just so funny the way you people reason.

So the point isn't about natural or spiritual Israelite the point here is on those verses James quoted.

Did those verses say TRUE CHRISTIAN SERVE as witness of Jehovah (as your organization claimed) or why the Jews must accept the coming of the Gentiles?

CANTICLES:
JMAN05, dont waste ur time with that guy, [b]he himself knows Act 15: 14,17 didnt mention the name of Jesus [\b] . CLEARLY WRITEN FOR everyone followin the thread

You've been forced to come out of that hidden place of your but your coming out isn't good at all because (oya ni e) means you jump anyhow.

So take this advice next time try to read between the line AND UNDERSTAND what the point is all about before you jump into matter.

I know you've been deceived beyond measure about the NAME there without knowing the purpose of James' citation.

Emusan:

I believe I've clarified what I mean when I said James applied it to Jesus.

What James had in mind is that the Jews NEED evidence from their own scriptures to accept the coming of Gentiles NOT as JWs misinterpreted that verse.

The commentaries are very clear to understand, James buttressed his point by quoting from their own scripture.

How did James apply it to Jesus, and how did your commentary support this? You ve not clarified yourself because he cant apply it to Jesus, and the "name" wont be Jesus'. I no be kid. You went ahead to use verse 26 to support your point.

You are now stating another thing which James had in mind. You are not being straight Emusan. be kind to yourself and be straight. You conveyed the sense that James had Jesus in mind, now you are saying another thing.

2. to your last comment.

you said:

The fact is James quoted those verses to buttress his point of how the OT prophecies find its fulfilment in Jesus Christ which is also the reason why Jesus can tell Paul that he will BEAR HIS NAME before the Gentiles.

And I asked:

Does your commentary support that those verses were quoted by James to buttress his point of how the OT prophecies find its fulfillment in Jesus Christ? Was James ever buttressing such point at all?

Does your commentary support the point you said James buttressed? That's the issue here.

The citation of the OT by James is to give evidence that Gentiles must be partaker of the NEW CONVENANT not to claim that they SERVE as witness of Jehovah which is the point we are making here the evidence in the Bible is that The Apostles witness of Jesus even The Father also witness of His Son.

Those in the new covenant are true Christians, who are Jehovah's witnesses. You agreed that the spiritual replaced the natural. So if the gentiles are now allowed among them, they are allowed among Jehovah's witnesses. That achieves the purpose of the thread.

However, this is not your point dear. You stated why James made the quotation - how OT prophecies find fulfillment in Jesus Christ. If you ve changed your position, say it. We all learn. But if you ve not change that position, then I might not accept your having a contradictory positions.

This is the where we're going, JWs ONLY emphasized on THE NAME ALONE whereas the PURPOSE of that verse IS NOT on the NAME but evidence that Gentiles must be part of the NEW covenant.

Even if we are to accept what you say, the purpose of our quoting the article is justified. But this is not your initial position. Tell me if your position is now changed to this.

Now let me quote those commentary again so that you can see where you and your organization missed the point.

"This quotation is not made literally either from the Hebrew or the Septuagint, which differs also from the Hebrew. The 17th verse is quoted literally from the Septuagint; but in the 16th the general sense only of the passage is retained. [size=14pt]The main point of the quotation, as made by James, was to show that, according to the prophets, it was contemplated that the Gentiles should be introduced to the privileges of the children of God; and on this point the passage has a direct bearing."[/size] Albert Barnes'

"As St. James quoted them as a prophecy of the calling of the Gentiles into the Church of God, [size=14pt]it is evident the Jews must have understood them in that sense, otherwise they would have immediately disputed his application of them to the subject in question,[/size] and have rejected his conclusion by denying the premises." Adam Clarke

"To take from the Gentiles a people for his name (labein ex ethnôn laon tôi onomati autou). Bengel calls this egregium paradoxon, a chosen people (laon) out of the Gentiles (ethnôn). This is what is really involved in what took place at Caesarea at the hands of Peter and the campaign of Barnabas and Paul from Antioch. [size=14pt]But such a claim of God's purpose called for proof from Scripture to convince Jews and this is precisely what James undertakes to give."[/size] Robertson

So with this you can see that James point wasn't about THE NAME but the reason why the JEWS must accepted the coming of the Gentiles.

So JWs misinterpreted that verse to suit their own purpose.

Whereas you previously said it was about a name - Jesus'. Have you changed? Accepting the coming of gentiles into where - true christians - Jehovah's witnesses. not so?

Whereas the purpose of James quoting those verses is not ABOUT NAME get that into your head.

You were talking about "name" - Jesus', and the commentary you gave never supported you, while mine support mine. Why then will you quote what has no relation to your point? to keep extending the thread?

Yes as you can see that the emphasis is not about THE NAME that appeared BUT EVIDENCE for the JEWs to accept them.

The emphasis according to you is that the gentiles will now be among people called by God's name. Who are they? Jehovah's witnesses.

I've also demanded of you question about who are the TRUE CHRISTIAN according to the scriptures?

And I ve given you a link that handle it.

So the point isn't about natural or spiritual Israelite the point here is on those verses James quoted.

Did those verses say TRUE CHRISTIAN SERVE as witness of Jehovah (as your organization claimed) or why the Jews must accept the coming of the Gentiles?

Your new view is not against the point. If you agree that True Christians are Jehovah's witnesses, the point balance.

RikoduoSennin:
What is the meaning of the WORD "TO WITNESS"- Jesus and his disciples preached about the Gospel/Goodnews of the Kingdom of God- they declare God's Glory. So too does JW. It was God who called us his witness in the book of Isaiah.

If it's not the truth, then it's not Good news.

johnw74:


If it's not the truth, then it's not Good news.

Jw preach about the Goodnews about God's kingdom as stated in the Bible, so it is the truth because God's word the bible is the truth.

Reading your post makes it clear that you've used your previous knowledge to address this thread which has lead to the misunderstanding of my post and the purpose of this thread.

Let me refresh the purpose of this thread to you and to show you that I never change my statement nor do I contradict myself.

JMAN05:
How did James apply it to Jesus, and how did your commentary support this? You ve not clarified yourself because he cant apply it to Jesus, and the "name" wont be Jesus'. I no be kid. You went ahead to use verse 26 to support your point.

You are now stating another thing which James had in mind. You are not being straight Emusan. be kind to yourself and be straight. You conveyed the sense that James had Jesus in mind, now you are saying another thing.

2. to your last comment.

you said: "The fact is James quoted those verses to buttress his point of how the OT prophecies find its fulfilment in Jesus Christ which is also the reason why Jesus can tell Paul that he will BEAR HIS NAME before the Gentiles."

And I asked:

Does your commentary support that those verses were quoted by James to buttress his point of how the OT prophecies find its fulfillment in Jesus Christ? Was James ever buttressing such point at all?

Does your commentary support the point you said James buttressed? That's the issue here.

Now let me start with this,
I made this statement @OP I believe the purpose of referring to these verses is the underlined words "his name & my name" but what actually happen here?"

It was stressed out from the OP that the reason why JWs quoting those verses is because of THE NAME that appeared in those verses in which I didn't border to explain further SINCE THIS THREAD ISN'T CENTERED ON the NAME but why the truth in the scripture by LISTING ALL THE PEOPLE who Witness for Jesus including The Father and The Holy spirit.

I also said it somewhere else that the name in those verses wasn't Jesus' name BUT WHO JAMES HAVE MIND.
So with this in mind I believe you should've understood my point that you quoted when I said "The fact is James quoted those verses to buttress his point of how the OT prophecies find its fulfilment in Jesus Christ which is also the reason why Jesus can tell Paul that he will BEAR HIS NAME before the Gentiles."

If the underlined posed a confusion to you then let me reframe what I mean "how this OT prophecy is fulfilled during the advent of Jesus Christ BUT ALL WHAT THEY (The Apostles) HAVE IN MIND AND WITNESS TO IS THE NAME OF JESUS" once this is understood then you can get where I'm coming from.

[size=14pt]Those in the new covenant are true Christians, who are Jehovah's witnesses.[/size] You agreed that the spiritual replaced the natural. So if the gentiles are now allowed among them, they are allowed among Jehovah's witnesses. That achieves the purpose of the thread.

@bolded-We're true Christians but we 're not Jehovah's witness get that into your head.

The spiritual replaced the natural BUT MANY THING ALSO HAPPENED IN BETWEEN so the True Christians Witness of Jesus Christ just has been COMMANDED BY Jesus Christ Himself what everybody including The Father and The Holy spirit did.

However, this is not your point dear. You stated why James made the quotation - how OT prophecies find fulfillment in Jesus Christ. If you ve changed your position, say it. We all learn. But if you ve not change that position, then I might not accept your having a contradictory positions.

I didn't change any position rather it's your gross misunderstanding of my post which you can still repeat here which I have explained above.

Even if we are to accept what you say, the purpose of our quoting the article is justified. But this is not your initial position. Tell me if your position is now changed to this.

You keep clamouring about changing position, can't you read in between the line?

Whereas you previously said it was about a name - Jesus'. Have you changed? Accepting the coming of gentiles into where - true christians - Jehovah's witnesses. not so?

Please show me where I SAID THE NAME IS JESUS, if you can't then you have to agree that you lie about what I didn't say.

You were talking about "name" - Jesus', and the commentary you gave never supported you, while mine support mine. Why then will you quote what has no relation to your point? to keep extending the thread?

Show me where I said the name in those verses is Jesus, you repeated this lie again.

The purpose of this thread is WHO ARE THE APOSTLES WITNESS TO as against the CLAIM OF JWs in UNDERSTANDING OF Acts 15

So as it stands now, those commentaries are still valid and exposed how JWs is being perverted the meaning of Biblical statement to suit their false teaching.
These are the commentaries again:
""This quotation is not made literally either from the Hebrew or the Septuagint, which differs also from the Hebrew. The 17th verse is quoted literally from the Septuagint; but in the 16th the general sense only of the passage is retained. The main point of the quotation, as made by James, was to show that, according to the prophets, it was contemplated that the Gentiles should be introduced to the privileges of the children of God; and on this point the passage has a direct bearing." Albert Barnes'

"As St. James quoted them as a prophecy of the calling of the Gentiles into the Church of God, it is evident the Jews must have understood them in that sense, otherwise they would have immediately disputed his application of them to the subject in question, and have rejected his conclusion by denying the premises." Adam Clarke

"To take from the Gentiles a people for his name (labein ex ethnôn laon tôi onomati autou). Bengel calls this egregium paradoxon, a chosen people (laon) out of the Gentiles (ethnôn). This is what is really involved in what took place at Caesarea at the hands of Peter and the campaign of Barnabas and Paul from Antioch. But such a claim of God's purpose called for proof from Scripture to convince Jews and this is precisely what James undertakes to give." Robertson

So it's evident that Acts 15 never says "True Christians SERVE as witness of Jehovah" as your organization claimed.

The emphasis according to you is that the gentiles will now be among people called by God's name. Who are they? Jehovah's witnesses.

Firstly, the emphasis is not on the NAME the emphasis is an evidence for the Jews to accept the Gentiles which James did.
Lastly, is it only Gentiles that are being called by God's name? What of the Apostles who are Israelite?
Funny you can still conclude that they are Jehovah's witness, so the Apostles are only Jesus witness while Gentiles ALONE are Jehovah's witness.

And I ve given you a link that handle it.

What I said is ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURE I didn't say you give me JWs fabrication OR to quote scripture again is hard for you?

Your new view is not against the point. If you agree that True Christians are Jehovah's witnesses, the point balance.

I will ask again if you agree that True Christians are Jehovah's witness then why do you think that other Christian denominations are not TRUE CHRISTIAN? and that will falsify your organization claim that only you people are Jehovah's witness.

Emusan

The purpose if the thread is achieved.

You accept the spiritual replaced the natural and still now believes that true Christians are JWs. So if the gentiles are now allowed to join the "church", they are now members of JWs.

Thanks for your time in this thread man, go and respond in the other thread let's finish it.

Shalom!

JMAN05:
The purpose if the thread is achieved.

So you agree now that JWs has read into those verses what is not the right meaning.
If you don't agree, how come you said the purpose of this thread is archived?

You accept the spiritual replaced the natural and still now believes that true Christians are JWs.

I'm a True Christian and many people out there, then we are JWs right YET we don't belong to your organization then your organization is false for claiming that only people that belong to your organization will the "Holy Ones and Little Flocks" will come from.

So if the gentiles are now allowed to join the "church", they are now members of JWs.

I'm a Gentile according to you, so I'm a JWs true or false?

Thanks for your time in this thread man, go and respond in the other thread let's finish it.

Shalom!

You're welcome! I will only respond when you do the necessary thing.

Shalom!

Emusan:


So you agree now that JWs has read into those verses what is not the right meaning.
If you don't agree, how come you said the purpose of this thread is archived?



I'm a True Christian and many people out there, then we are JWs right YET we don't belong to your organization then your organization is false for claiming that only people that belong to your organization will the "Holy Ones and Little Flocks" will come from.



I'm a Gentile according to you, so I'm a JWs true or false?



You're welcome! I will only respond when you do the necessary thing.

Shalom!

The purpose of this thread is achieved. So thanks.

When you are ready in the other thread, let me know.

JMAN05:
The purpose of this thread is achieved. So thanks.

You're welcome.
But don't forget to write your organization to stop misinterpreting the scriptures next time since infallible evidence has put it to you what James was driven at.

When you are ready in the other thread, let me know.

So what actually do you want from me after I've told you what you need to do?

So to cap it up, here's a repost:

Jesus himself is a witness of Jehovah. He did or said nothing by his own power, but as he was instructed his Father, Jehovah.

John 6:38 - "For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me".

John 14:23,24: "Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me" .

Thus Jesus could pray thus to Jehovah, at John 17:25,26 - "O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me; and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.""

Clearly, witnessing (proclaiming the truth) about Jesus Christ is actually witnessing about Jehovah, the one who sent Jesus and is the head of the Christ (1 Cor. 11:3).