Apostasy by definition simply means
Specifically, the renunciation of one's religion or faith.

This obviously points to the fact that apostasy is normal. In fact Jesus Christ and his disciples spurned an apostasy where people renounced their Jewish and other religions from their beliefs to follow Christianity.

This is important because when a Muslim leaves Islam for Christianity, Christians don't call it apostasy but salvation.
Where as to the Muslims it is the worst form of apostasy.
Unfortunately, Muslims reward apostasy usually by killing the apostate.

The point of this all is to state that while Christians preach how bad apostasy is, even the apostles were apostates before they became Christians.

In fact all the apostles were Jews before they were converted into Christianity.

The truth is apostasy has always been important in any conversion from one religion to another.
In fact as far as Nigeria and other colonised nations are concerned our ancestors were all apostates of their religions before they converted to Christianity.

So next time you read this scripture you have to ask, is there any greater apostasy than the one achieved by colonialists yet the Day has not yet come.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-12
Now, brethren, (A)concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (B)and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 (C)not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of [a]Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come (D)unless the falling away comes first, and (E)the man of [b]sin is revealed, (F)the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and (G)exalts himself (H)above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits [c]as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For (I)the [d]mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only [e]He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, (J)whom the Lord will consume (K)with the breath of His mouth and destroy (L)with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is (M)according to the working of Satan, with all power, (N)signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among (O)those who perish, because they did not receive (P)the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And (Q)for this reason God will send them strong delusion, (R)that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but (S)had pleasure in unrighteousness

There are two group tags found in the Bible: Disciples and Apostles
Centuries before Jesus people have been called "disciples" for holding onto some forms of beliefs.
According to the Bible Jesus is the first person to select a few out of his numerous disciples and labelled them "Apostles"
Apostles were the first set of Jesus' disciples to start speaking against their former religious leaders in Judaism. So while Jesus had many disciples who only believe in his teachings but won't stand publicly to declare it in the midst of Judaists. The Apostles will go right into the Temple where Judaism is the order and start preaching Christianity which their former religious leaders can't refute so their former religious leaders resort to violence!

The word Apostates almost had the same meaning but the difference is while Apostles had substantial amount of evidence to speak against Judaism and uphold Christianity everywhere they go, Apostates only abandoned their former religious beliefs and pitch their tent to speak against their teachers, there is no substance in their criticism.
They can never MAKE or PRESENT any better performing group!

Myer:
Apostasy by definitions simply means
Specifically, the renunciation of one's religion or faith.

This obviously points to the act that apostasy is normal. In fact Jesus Christ and his disciples spurned an apostasy where people were renounced their Jewish and other religions from their false beliefs to follow Christianity.

This is important because when a Muslim leave Islam for Christianity, Christians don't call it apostasy but salvation
Where as to the Muslims it is the worst form of apostasy.
Unfortunately, Muslims reward apostasy usually by killing the apostate.

The point of this all is to state that while Christians are which to preach how bad apostasy is, even the apostoes were apostates before they became Christians.

In fact all the apostles were Jews before they were converted into Christianity.

One of the most quotes scriptures concerning apostasy.
The truth is apostasy has always been important in any conversion from one religion to another.
In fact as far as Nigeria and other colonised nations are concerned our ancestors were all apostates of their religions before they converted to Christianity.

So next time you read this scripture you have to ask, is there any greater apostasy than the one achieved by colonialists yet the Day has not yet come.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-12
Now, brethren, (A)concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (B)and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 (C)not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of [a]Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come (D)unless the falling away comes first, and (E)the man of [b]sin is revealed, (F)the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and (G)exalts himself (H)above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits [c]as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For (I)the [d]mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only [e]He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, (J)whom the Lord will consume (K)with the breath of His mouth and destroy (L)with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is (M)according to the working of Satan, with all power, (N)signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among (O)those who perish, because they did not receive (P)the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And (Q)for this reason God will send them strong delusion, (R)that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but (S)had pleasure in unrighteousness

Hello.

Please don't consider my response an invitation to a debate. I would be happy to discuss with you if I find good reason to, but I'm answering this mainly because it is a sensitive issue put out in public.

First, I certainly agree that apostasy applies in a general sense to all religions. What I don't see is why the Bible has to hold brief for any religion. If the Bible speaks of apostasy, why does it have to account for the Islamic point of view on apostasy, for example? If Islam wishes to define apostasy some way and allocate some reward or consequence to it, what does that have to do with the Bible? The Bible is a closed system.

Second, I don't know why anyone would argue that the apostles apostatized from any religion to follow Christianity. This kind of comment betrays a gross miseducation in the Bible and a wild ignorance of the Scriptures.

What is called Judaism today is not what the Bible recognizes as the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was not a separate religion from Christianity. What it was is a demonstration of Christ. That is to say that there was no true adherent to the Law who was not a believer in Christ.

The Law promised the Messiah. All the sacrifices in the Law were illustrations of the Cross of Jesus Christ. All the commands demonstrated the perfection that we are called to and can never attain. Because no one can keep the whole Law, the Law demonstrates the true desperate situation of man and the terrible need we have for the perfect Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, beginning with Adam and Eve in the Garden and going on through Abel and later Seth all the way through the Law and Prophets, blood sacrifice according to the pattern that God Himself prescribed was a demonstration of faith in His Promise to send a Savior who would take our place in judgment. So, all those who followed Moses would necessarily also follow Christ since Moses is all about what Christ would be when He came.

There is then no apostasy when anyone listens to Jesus Christ after listening to Moses. If Moses was telling them that Jesus Christ would be the fulfillment of all the shadows that he was casting and that they should therefore listen to Him when He came (Deuteronomy 18:15), then doing so is not apostatizing from Moses.

The Law was what Christ fully embodied and perfected. All those who follow Christ satisfy the demands and teachings of the Law. Those who don't follow Him do not.

Ihedinobi3:


Hello.

Please don't consider my response an invitation to a debate. I would be happy to discuss with you if I find good reason to, but I'm answering this mainly because it is a sensitive issue put out in public.

First, I certainly agree that apostasy applies in a general sense to all religions. What I don't see is why the Bible has to hold brief for any religion. If the Bible speaks of apostasy, why does it have to account for the Islamic point of view on apostasy, for example? If Islam wishes to define apostasy some way and allocate some reward or consequence to it, what does that have to do with the Bible? The Bible is a closed system.

Second, I don't know why anyone would argue that the apostles apostatized from any religion to follow Christianity. This kind of comment betrays a gross miseducation in the Bible and a wild ignorance of the Scriptures.

What is called Judaism today is not what the Bible recognizes as the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was not a separate religion from Christianity. What it was is a demonstration of Christ. That is to say that there was no true adherent to the Law who was not a believer in Christ.

The Law promised the Messiah. All the sacrifices in the Law were illustrations of the Cross of Jesus Christ. All the commands demonstrated the perfection that we are called to and can never attain. Because no one can keep the whole Law, the Law demonstrates the true desperate situation of man and the terrible need we have for the perfect Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, beginning with Adam and Eve in the Garden and going on through Abel and later Seth all the way through the Law and Prophets, blood sacrifice according to the pattern that God Himself prescribed was a demonstration of faith in His Promise to send a Savior who would take our place in judgment. So, all those who followed Moses would necessarily also follow Christ since Moses is all about what Christ would be when He came.

There is then no apostasy when anyone listens to Jesus Christ after listening to Moses. If Moses was telling them that Jesus Christ would be the fulfillment of all the shadows that he was casting and that they should therefore listen to Him when He came (Deuteronomy 18:15), then doing so is not apostatizing from Moses.

The Law was what Christ fully embodied and perfected. All those who follow Christ satisfy the demands and teachings of the Law. Those who don't follow Him do not.

You do realise you sound religious right?
Religion confines you to a myopic thinking.
Youre only judging issues strictly on what was written in the Bible, without personal experiences.
Even John confirms the importance of experience.

1 John 1:1-3
That (B)which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have (C)seen with our eyes, (D)which we have looked upon, and (E)our hands have handled, concerning the (F)Word of life— 2 (G)the life (H)was manifested, and we have seen, (I)and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was (J)with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is (K)with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.


Concerning your point that the conversion of Jews to Christianity cannot be considered to be apostasy, hope this will help you reconsider;

Paul was sent by Jewish leaders to persecute and even kill them if necessary right?
So he was a Jew until he converted to Christianity.

The reason most Jews could not accept Christianity by the way is because they're obeying the same God's words as documented in their Laws in the old testament.

Interestingly Christ himself proved God's words cannot save. While trying to sell himself to the Jews.lol

You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.
But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

MaxInDHouse:
There are two group tags found in the Bible: Disciples and Apostles
Centuries before Jesus people have been called "disciples" for holding onto some forms of beliefs.
According to the Bible Jesus is the first person to select a few out of his numerous disciples and labelled them "Apostles"
Apostles were the first set of Jesus' disciples to start speaking against their former religious leaders in Judaism. So while Jesus had many disciples who only believe in his teachings but won't stand publicly to declare it in the midst of Judaists. The Apostles will go right into the Temple where Judaism is the order and start preaching Christianity which their former religious leaders can't refute so their former religious leaders resort to violence!

The word Apostates almost had the same meaning but the difference is while Apostles had substantial amount of evidence to speak against Judaism and uphold Christianity everywhere they go, Apostates only abandoned their former religious beliefs and pitch their tent to speak against their teachers, there is no substance in their criticism.
They can never MAKE or PRESENT any better performing group!

Jesus did not label anyone apostle sir.

As far as the Bible is concerned, the word apostle wasn't mentioned until after the death and resurrection of Christ.

Apostasy has nothing to do with what you profess. It is simply you renouncing one religion for another.

Myer:
Apostasy by definition simply means
Specifically, the renunciation of one's religion or faith.
This obviously points to the act that apostasy is normal. In fact Jesus Christ and his disciples spurned an apostasy where people renounced their Jewish and other religions from their beliefs to follow Christianity.
This is important because when a Muslim leaves Islam for Christianity, Christians don't call it apostasy but salvation.
Where as to the Muslims it is the worst form of apostasy.
Unfortunately, Muslims reward apostasy usually by killing the apostate.
The point of this all is to state that while Christians preach how bad apostasy is, even the apostles were apostates before they became Christians.
In fact all the apostles were Jews before they were converted into Christianity.

I am afraid Jesus Christ and His disciples did not forsake the Old Covenant in other to follow the New Covenant. It is key to understand what Jesus Christ in His teaching as far as the Old Covenant is concerned. Jesus Christ did not "renounce" the Old Covenant, and He certainly did not call His Jewish followers to do any such. Instead, He did something better.

Matthew 5 vs 17(ESV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant requirement on behalf of those of the Old who would make the choice to follow Him in the New Covenant.
This is important to understand because every Jew who follows Jesus Christ still qualifies in the end for their share of the Old Covenant promise which was made by God to Abraham - Yes, His Jewish followers will not only get a share in the Kingdom of Heaven but also in the Kingdom of Israel when Jesus Christ comes back.

The highlighted!
Please stop arguing when chatting with us (JWs), the Bible is our book! Luke 6:13

Myer:

Jesus did not label anyone apostle sir.

As far as the Bible is concerned, the word apostle wasn't mentioned until after the death and resurrection of Christ.

Apostasy has nothing to do with what you profess. It is simply you renouncing one religion for another.

MaxInDHouse:
The highlighted!
Please stop arguing when chatting with us (JWs), the Bible is our book! Luke 6:13

Lol just cos you found where the word apostle was used in the Gospels you are bragging about JW already?

Can you have a decent conversion without bringing JW into it? Why not focus on Jesus instead?

Without digressing, atleast we can both agree now that apostasy is simply renouncing a religion for another.

Myer:


You do realise you sound religious right?
Religion confines you to a myopic thinking.
Youre only judging issues strictly on what was written in the Bible, without personal experiences.
Even John confirms the importance of experience.

1 John 1:1-3
That (B)which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have (C)seen with our eyes, (D)which we have looked upon, and (E)our hands have handled, concerning the (F)Word of life— 2 (G)the life (H)was manifested, and we have seen, (I)and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was (J)with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is (K)with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.


Concerning your point that the conversion of Jews to Christianity cannot be considered to be apostasy, hope this will help you reconsider;

Paul was sent by Jewish leaders to persecute and even kill them if necessary right?
So he was a Jew until he converted to Christianity.

The reason most Jews could not accept Christianity by the way is because they're obeying the same God's words as documented in their Laws in the old testament.

Interestingly Christ himself proved God's words cannot save. While trying to sell himself to the Jews.lol

You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.
But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

Well, if that is your response, there is not much hope for this conversation. But then I didn't hold out any to begin with.

First, it really means nothing to me what you think I sound like. As I already told you elsewhere, I am a pastor-teacher. My job is to teach the Bible to anyone who is willing to learn it. Not my problem if you disapprove.

As for 1 John 1:1-3, as with many things in the Bible that you are incredibly quick to opine about, you are quite wrong. John concluded the statement you quoted with:

4 And these things we write to you that your joy may be full.
1 John 1:4 (NKJV)

If he was extolling experience as you claim that he was, he would not be making an issue of writing to anyone so that those people would have "full joy." He would rather be encouraging them to seek their own experience. Interestingly, the same John recorded the prayer of Jesus in John 17 lending credence to verse 4 above:

20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word...
John 17:20 (NKJV)

So, there is nothing at all to your claim that John made that much of experience. He was only fulfilling his job of being a witness. Witnesses report what they saw or experienced. That does not mean that everyone has to be a witness in order to judge issues correctly. If that were true, we might as well dispense with all the legal systems in the world.

For what it is worth, I would advise that you not bother to debate with me on things that the Bible teaches. I don't mean that you either can never be right or that you have no right to do so just because you don't believe the Bible. I only mean that you will be quite disappointed in your expectations of such discussions and in order to avoid quarrels and similar waste of time, I may not respond. I'm saying this in response to your comment about my reconsidering anything that I have written. You don't even begin to have the qualifications necessary to recommend such a thing to me.

As for Paul, I'm not sure why his Jewishness means anything. I don't see how your argument responds to my own.

As for John 5:39, this is a more correct translation:

39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
John 5:39 (KJV)

Ihedinobi3:


Well, if that is your response, there is not much hope for this conversation. But then I didn't hold out any to begin with.

First, it really means nothing to me what you think I sound like. As I already told you elsewhere, I am a pastor-teacher. My job is to teach the Bible to anyone who is willing to learn it. Not my problem if you disapprove.

As for 1 John 1:1-3, as with many things in the Bible that you are incredibly quick to opine about, you are quite wrong. John concluded the statement you quoted with:

4 And these things we write to you that your joy may be full.
1 John 1:4 (NKJV)

If he was extolling experience as you claim that he was, he would not be making an issue of writing to anyone so that those people would have "full joy." He would rather be encouraging them to seek their own experience. Interestingly, the same John recorded the prayer of Jesus in John 17 lending credence to verse 4 above:

20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word...
John 17:20 (NKJV)

So, there is nothing at all to your claim that John made that much of experience. He was only fulfilling his job of being a witness. Witnesses report what they saw or experienced. That does not mean that everyone has to be a witness in order to judge issues correctly. If that were true, we might as well dispense with all the legal systems in the world.

For what it is worth, I would advise that you not bother to debate with me on things that the Bible teaches. I don't mean that you either can never be right or that you have no right to do so just because you don't believe the Bible. I only mean that you will be quite disappointed in your expectations of such discussions and in order to avoid quarrels and similar waste of time, I may not respond. I'm saying this in response to your comment about my reconsidering anything that I have written. You don't even begin to have the qualifications necessary to recommend such a thing to me.

As for Paul, I'm not sure why his Jewishness means anything. I don't see how your argument responds to my own.

As for John 5:39, this is a more correct translation:

39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
John 5:39 (KJV)

You said John was fulfilling his job of being a witness.
What of you?
Doesn't every Christian have the job of being a witness?

Acts 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

So it is your experience that makes you a witness not just your faith.

No where in the Bible has faith converted anyone. It is the works that accompany the faith that inspires others.

Every other religion has it's faithfuls, it is the results that religion produces that converts.

Moses could not lead the Israelites out of Egypt except by the signs and wonders he performed.
Jesus could not even call his disciples except by his signs and wonders.
The Apostles could not spread the Gospels except by their signs and wonders.

So negating the place of experience is simply saying you can believe in any religion regardless of your experience.

Whether or not I'm qualified to debate/discuss the Bible with you? Sounds like spiritual pride to me.

Anyway, I believe the Bible just as much as you believe the Quran.
After all both are books of man-made religions claiming to be inspired by God yet in disagreement with each other.
Had you been born in an Islamic nation, you would have been anti-Christian and heralded he Quran with the same passion you're showing towards the Bible.

Myer:

Lol just cos you found where the word apostle was used in the Gospels you are bragging about JW already?

I didn't found it my people wrote it so it's our heritage {Isaiah 54:17} from Genesis to Revelation was written by JWs so each JW must study it from cover to cover therefore when we talk please please please don't try to argue, because we are not talking about Maths, English, Commerce or Chemistry but our book (Bible)

Can you have a decent conversion without bringing JW into it? Why not focus on Jesus instead?

I wouldn't have if you didn't argue the facts so i reminded you that you're chatting with a JW on what is WRITTEN in our book!

Without digressing, atleast we can both agree now that apostasy is simply renouncing a religion for another.

That is partially right but not accurate because Jesus' followers renounced Judaism for Christianity yet we can't call them Apostates!

Myer:


You said John was fulfilling his job of being a witness.
What of you?
Doesn't every Christian have the job of being a witness?

Acts 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

So it is your experience that makes you a witness not just your faith.

No where in the Bible has faith converted anyone. It is the works that accompany the faith that inspires others.

Every other religion has it's faithfuls, it is the results that religion produces that converts.

Moses could not lead the Israelites out of Egypt except by the signs and wonders he performed.
Jesus could not even call his disciples except by his signs and wonders.
The Apostles could not spread the Gospels except by their signs and wonders.

So negating the place of experience is simply saying you can believe in any religion regardless of your experience.

Whether or not I'm qualified to debate/discuss the Bible with you? Sounds like spiritual pride to me.

Anyway, I believe the Bible just as much as you believe the Quran.
After all both are books of man-made religions claiming to be inspired by God yet in disagreement with each other.
Had you been born in an Islamic nation, you would have been anti-Christian and heralded he Quran with the same passion you're showing towards the Bible.

It would appear that you are not following this conversation very closely.

In case you forgot, your argument was that John extolled experience and that is what we should aspire to. I have just explained to you that you were wrong about that. Failing to own that error means that it was probably deliberate. That only means that you are a dishonest person. The business of every Christian needing to be a witness too is neither here nor there. That we are supposed to be witnesses too (not that this is necessarily true) does not mean that John was demonstrating the importance of experience in the passage you quoted.

Regarding that specific matter, Acts 1:8 was addressing the apostles primarily. They were the ones who were witnesses of Christ Himself. The rest of us who believe do so on the strength of their testimony. Although many people claim to have had visions of Jesus Christ, no one who believes the Gospel today has done so without some help from the testimony that these men and their cohorts left behind in the Bible. We today are not witnesses in that sense. We are only witnesses in the sense that we have seen what God can do when we believe the testimonies of those who wrote the Bible.

Again, you are not qualified to teach anyone the Bible.

I don't believe that there is anything in the Bible that says anything about anyone being converted by any works. People choose to believe or they choose not to believe. Sometimes they do so because of the behaviors of others that they witness. Sometimes they do so for other reasons. Either way, it is their choice.

Neither the Bible nor I care about religions of any hue or shade.

Don't care what I sound like to you.

Your opinion is both wrong and yours to bother with. I couldn't care less if you believe that the moon is made of cheese.

Ihedinobi3:


It would appear that you are not following this conversation very closely.

In case you forgot, your argument was that John extolled experience and that is what we should aspire to. I have just explained to you that you were wrong about that. Failing to own that error means that it was probably deliberate. That only means that you are a dishonest person. The business of every Christian needing to be a witness too is neither here nor there. That we are supposed to be witnesses too (not that this is necessarily true) does not mean that John was demonstrating the importance of experience in the passage you quoted.

Regarding that specific matter, Acts 1:8 was addressing the apostles primarily. They were the ones who were witnesses of Christ Himself. The rest of us who believe do so on the strength of their testimony. Although many people claim to have had visions of Jesus Christ, no one who believes the Gospel today has done so without some help from the testimony that these men and their cohorts left behind in the Bible. We today are not witnesses in that sense. We are only witnesses in the sense that we have seen what God can do when we believe the testimonies of those who wrote the Bible.

Again, you are not qualified to teach anyone the Bible.

I don't believe that there is anything in the Bible that says anything about anyone being converted by any works. People choose to believe or they choose not to believe. Sometimes they do so because of the behaviors of others that they witness. Sometimes they do so for other reasons. Either way, it is their choice.

Neither the Bible nor I care about religions of any hue or shade.

Don't care what I sound like to you.

Your opinion is both wrong and yours to bother with. I couldn't care less if you believe that the moon is made of cheese.

Matthew 5:16
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

I keep pointing you to scriptures that confirm the role of experience in conversion, yet you have not beem able to show me one.

Anyway, that is simply one of the major causes of apostasy. Lack of experience.

It's sad that when someone asks for signs, a Christian is easily offended. Where as, in the bible, it was seen as an opportunity to prove the validity of faith and also evangelise.

MaxInDHouse:

I didn't found it my people wrote it so it's our heritage {Isaiah 54:17} from Genesis to Revelation was written by JWs so each JW must study it from cover to cover therefore when we talk please please please don't try to argue, because we are not talking about Maths, English, Commerce or Chemistry but our book (Bible)


I wouldn't have if you didn't argue the facts so i reminded you that you're chatting with a JW on what is WRITTEN in our book!


That is partially right but not accurate because Jesus' followers renounced Judaism for Christianity yet we can't call them Apostates!

You have successfully preached JW, now let's focus on the thread and Jesus. Thanks.

Myer:


Matthew 5:16
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

I keep pointing you to scriptures that confirm the role of experience in conversion, yet you have not beem able to show me one.

Anyway, that is simply one of the major causes of apostasy. Lack of experience.

It's sad that when someone asks for signs, a Christian is easily offended. Where as, in the bible, it was seen as an opportunity to prove the validity of faith and also evangelise.

What part of Matthew 5:16 says anything about conversion?

I don't know, but it may be that you are distracted (or maybe drunk?), so you are failing to track this conversation. Not only have you not successfully produced any Scripture that talks about the role of experience in conversion, but I certainly have not offered one. So I don't see why you should expect to have seen anything of the sort from me.

I don't know what this bit about the major causes of apostasy is about. I don't recall discussing that at any point. I just responded to your thread to point out that the Bible is not obliged to agree with any religion about what apostasy means and that your notion that there was any converting going on with the apostles was wrong.

I also don't know what you are talking about signs. What signs? Where did you or I say anything about signs before now? Nonetheless, as I said, you have no competence in the Bible, so your presumption that you know what it says with regard to signs is ludicrous to say the least.

Ihedinobi3:


What part of Matthew 5:16 says anything about conversion?

I don't know, but it may be that you are distracted (or maybe drunk?), so you are failing to track this conversation. Not only have you not successfully produced any Scripture that talks about the role of experience in conversion, but I certainly have not offered one. So I don't see why you should expect to have seen anything of the sort from me.

I don't know what this bit about the major causes of apostasy is about. I don't recall discussing that at any point. I just responded to your thread to point out that the Bible is not obliged to agree with any religion about what apostasy means and that your notion that there was any converting going on with the apostles was wrong.

I also don't know what you are talking about signs. What signs? Where did you or I say anything about signs before now? Nonetheless, as I said, you have no competence in the Bible, so your presumption that you know what it says with regard to signs is ludicrous to say the least.

I didn't realise your great grand fathers wrote the Bible so you certainly must have all the sole competence in the Bible.

You're beginning to sound like a good friend of mine here.
Denying the obvious by evading the focal issue.

When Christ in Matthew 5:16 that through your good works men may glorify the father, what is your interpretation of that?

Was it not by the good works of Christ that his fame rose and he attracted and converted many followers?

Even Peter giving testimony to his works and not just his faith?

Acts 10:38-39
how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.
And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree.

You're welcome!

Myer:

You have successfully preached JW, now let's focus on the thread and Jesus. Thanks.

Myer:


I didn't realise your great grand fathers wrote the Bible so you certainly must have all the sole competence in the Bible.

You're beginning to sound like a good friend of mine here.
Denying the obvious by evading the focal issue.

When Christ in Matthew 5:16 that through your good works men may glorify the father, what is your interpretation of that?

Was it not by the good works of Christ that his fame rose and he attracted and converted many followers?

Even Peter giving testimony to his works and not just his faith?

Acts 10:38-39
how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.
And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree.

I think that this response demonstrates beyond any doubt that you have no desire to be honest or reasonable. As I suspected and hinted at in an earlier conversation, your goal with all these debates you keep trying to start has nothing to do with learning anything. You are seeking entertainment but at the expense of the peace of Christians.

That you have no competence in the Bible does not have anything to do with my own claim to competence in it. So your quip about my own competence is meaningless.

Nonetheless, since you raised the issue, I am a Christian. I have read, reread, and still read the Bible. I have been taught what it says by a gifted and highly trained pastor-teacher. I also have a pastor-teaching gift that I have been honing and developing for a very long time but particularly more so over the past 3+ years.

These are qualifications that the Bible itself demands of those who claim the right to teach it. The least that anyone must have to even attempt to talk about anything in the Bible is that they should believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Without this faith, no one can have the Holy Spirit who gives the ability for anyone to understand things that the Bible teaches.

By your own admission, you don't believe the Bible. So you cannot have the Holy Spirit. If you don't, how then do you understand what you read in the Bible?

The argument that anyone can understand the Bible as long as they are literate in the language it is written is wildly foolish. No one in their right senses would make similar statements about any other body of knowledge. Not even novels are that easy to understand. A novel written about Nigerian experiences and realities would require some understanding of those experiences and realities to make sense of. The same is true of one written of any obscure culture that the reader does not know about.

The only way to make sense of a body of knowledge that one cannot access by oneself is to trust the authority providing access to it. If this were not so, education systems around the world would not exist.

Why does anyone trust the Bible rather than, say, the Qur'an? Because the world around us and our own consciences provide enough information and insight into what must be true of existence. If the world around us points to the existence of a Creator whose nature and character can be discerned in the way it all works and in the universal pull of the human conscience, then we have enough information to know whether the Bible or the Qur'an or any other book out there is the authority to listen to about that Creator.

To an atheist, that argument is meaningless because the atheist rejects conscience and reality. This is why it is meaningless to argue with one. There is nothing to appeal to in order to reason with the atheist. It is impossible to persuade one who has dispensed with any ability to be persuaded. But the fact that the atheist cannot be persuaded or reasoned with does not even begin to mean that he or she is right.

The argument is nevertheless true. The Bible can be believed about what it says because everything that we see in our daily experiences points to it as a trustworthy witness or authority on the subject of life, existence, God.

That is why we Christians believe it and have the Holy Spirit as a result to teach us what it means.

As for denying the obvious, you have already demonstrated yourself to be a liar. I, on the other hand, have yet to prove to be one. So your accusation is an empty one.

As for Matthew 5:16, what is there to interpret? Do you not see the words on the page? But then, such questions do you little good. You couldn't see the words if they stomped on you. The question I asked you was what part of the verse said anything about conversion. You were the one who raised it to make the argument. How does it help your position? Do you even know?

Certainly the Lord Jesus performed miracles. But who said that it was the miracles that converted anybody? Those who believed did so because of the words He spoke (John 6:67-68). Those who didn't would not no matter how great or how many His miracles were (John 6:60-66; 12:37).

I'm not sure whose faith you are referring to here. Acts 10:38-39 was part of Peter's argument that Jesus Christ is God's Savior and believing in Him is what saves anyone. He made that argument to Cornelius's household. When they believed it, they too became Christians just like him.

How was anyone to know that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, the One who was to come? How were they to believe His words when He was saying so many things that no prophet before had ever said? The miracles that He did were how. They were proof that God endorsed His message. That was why Peter and the others were given to see His Authority endorsed so many times through those miracles. They gave them the confidence to argue that He was truly the Christ. And when He was resurrected too, that completely sealed the deal for them.

Ihedinobi3:


I think that this response demonstrates beyond any doubt that you have no desire to be honest or reasonable. As I suspected and hinted at in an earlier conversation, your goal with all these debates you keep trying to start has nothing to do with learning anything. You are seeking entertainment but at the expense of the peace of Christians.

That you have no competence in the Bible does not have anything to do with my own claim to competence in it. So your quip about my own competence is meaningless.

Nonetheless, since you raised the issue, I am a Christian. I have read, reread, and still read the Bible. I have been taught what it says by a gifted and highly trained pastor-teacher. I also have a pastor-teaching gift that I have been honing and developing for a very long time but particularly more so over the past 3+ years.

These are qualifications that the Bible itself demands of those who claim the right to teach it. The least that anyone must have to even attempt to talk about anything in the Bible is that they should believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Without this faith, no one can have the Holy Spirit who gives the ability for anyone to understand things that the Bible teaches.

By your own admission, you don't believe the Bible. So you cannot have the Holy Spirit. If you don't, how then do you understand what you read in the Bible?

The argument that anyone can understand the Bible as long as they are literate in the language it is written is wildly foolish. No one in their right senses would make similar statements about any other body of knowledge. Not even novels are that easy to understand. A novel written about Nigerian experiences and realities would require some understanding of those experiences and realities to make sense of. The same is true of one written of any obscure culture that the reader does not know about.

The only way to make sense of a body of knowledge that one cannot access by oneself is to trust the authority providing access to it. If this were not so, education systems around the world would not exist.

Why does anyone trust the Bible rather than, say, the Qur'an? Because the world around us and our own consciences provide enough information and insight into what must be true of existence. If the world around us points to the existence of a Creator whose nature and character can be discerned in the way it all works and in the universal pull of the human conscience, then we have enough information to know whether the Bible or the Qur'an or any other book out there is the authority to listen to about that Creator.

To an atheist, that argument is meaningless because the atheist rejects conscience and reality. This is why it is meaningless to argue with one. There is nothing to appeal to in order to reason with the atheist. It is impossible to persuade one who has dispensed with any ability to be persuaded. But the fact that the atheist cannot be persuaded or reasoned with does not even begin to mean that he or she is right.

The argument is nevertheless true. The Bible can be believed about what it says because everything that we see in our daily experiences points to it as a trustworthy witness or authority on the subject of life, existence, God.

That is why we Christians believe it and have the Holy Spirit as a result to teach us what it means.

As for denying the obvious, you have already demonstrated yourself to be a liar. I, on the other hand, have yet to prove to be one. So your accusation is an empty one.

As for Matthew 5:16, what is there to interpret? Do you not see the words on the page? But then, such questions do you little good. You couldn't see the words if they stomped on you. The question I asked you was what part of the verse said anything about conversion. You were the one who raised it to make the argument. How does it help your position? Do you even know?

Certainly the Lord Jesus performed miracles. But who said that it was the miracles that converted anybody? Those who believed did so because of the words He spoke (John 6:67-68). Those who didn't would not no matter how great or how many His miracles were (John 6:60-66; 12:37).

I'm not sure whose faith you are referring to here. Acts 10:38-39 was part of Peter's argument that Jesus Christ is God's Savior and believing in Him is what saves anyone. He made that argument to Cornelius's household. When they believed it, they too became Christians just like him.

How was anyone to know that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, the One who was to come? How were they to believe His words when He was saying so many things that no prophet before had ever said? The miracles that He did were how. They were proof that God endorsed His message. That was why Peter and the others were given to see His Authority endorsed so many times through those miracles. They gave them the confidence to argue that He was truly the Christ. An
d when He was resurrected too, that completely sealed the deal for them.

It's interesting how your comment is full of false accusations and misinformation yet I'm the liar.

Quick education for you. Just cos someone doesn't agree with the Bible doesn't make them an atheist by the way.
Otherwise a Muslim should as well call you an atheist for not believing the Quran.
Not everyone who disagrees with you on NL is an atheist sir.

Here's another misinformation I better address.
Yes, the Holyspirit gives understanding of deep scriptural mysteries.
But without the Holyspirit any one can simply read and understand what the Bible says sir.

When the Bible says You shall not kill, do you need the Holyspirit to understand that?

Quick scriptural example.
And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”

He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”

So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and your neighbor as yourself.’ ”

And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”


Jesus did not say to him he does not have the Holyspirit. He agreed that the lawyer rightly interpreted the scripture. He was able to understand the greatest commandment of Loving God, and loving your neighbor as yourself.

Honestly, you will do yourself a lot of good to be less religious. Cos you're sounding just like the Pharisees and Saduccess who walked around like the sole custodians of the scriptures.

Myer:


It's interesting how your comment is full of false accusations and misinformation yet I'm the liar.

Quick education for you. Just cos someone doesn't agree with the Bible doesn't make them an atheist by the way.
Otherwise a Muslim should as well call you an atheist for not believing the Quran.
Not everyone who disagrees with you on NL is an atheist sir.

Here's another misinformation I better address.
Yes, the Holyspirit gives understanding of deep scriptural mysteries.
But without the Holyspirit any one can simply read and understand what the Bible says sir.

When the Bible says You shall not kill, do you need the Holyspirit to understand that?

Quick scriptural example.
And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”

He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”

So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and your neighbor as yourself.’ ”

And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”


Jesus did not say to him he does not have the Holyspirit. He agreed that the lawyer rightly interpreted the scripture. He was able to understand the greatest commandment of Loving God, and loving your neighbor as yourself.

Honestly, you will do yourself a lot of good to be less religious. Cos you're sounding just like the Pharisees and Saduccess who walked around like the sole custodians of the scriptures.

Not sure what you're on about. I don't believe that I said anywhere that anyone who disagrees with me is an atheist. Do you have a quote?

Next, I'm not sure why you think I should care about your opinions on biblical theology. I see no reason at all to believe that there are truths in the Bible that are open to anyone who is not a believer. This is what I read in the Bible:

11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:11 — 1Co 2:14 (NKJV)

10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”
11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
Mat 13:10 — Mat 13:13 (NKJV)

14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.
2 Corinthians 3:14 (NKJV)

3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.
2Co 4:3 — 2Co 4:4 (NKJV)

These are things that the Bible itself says. That is the authority on which I make my claims. On what authority do you make yours? If you deign to correct the Bible, how do I or anyone else know that you are right in your correction?

Apparently you do need the Holy Spirit to understand that. Or have you never heard the debate about whether the sixth commandment means that soldiers are sinning when they kill enemies in battle? Even if anyone gets it right, our consciences - as imperfect as they are - are still pretty good indicators for right and wrong. That does not even remotely mean that the simplest thing in the Bible is open to anyone without the Holy Spirit.

This is a fuller context of that passage that you quoted:

25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”
27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and your neighbor as yourself.’ ”
28 And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”
29 But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
Luk 10:25 — Luk 10:29 (NKJV)

Why does he ask "who is my neighbor?" The Bible says that he was seeking to justify himself. Why did he need to do so if he already understood the Scriptures?

Of course, the Lord Jesus did not tell him that he needed the Holy Spirit. He told him to do what the law said and he would be alright. The Law is clear that no one can be perfect. If the lawyer tried with all his might, he would still fail to love God and his neighbor as the law teaches that we should. If he was an honest man who really wanted to have eternal life, his failure and desperation would drive him back to the Lord Jesus to find salvation. Finding salvation has meant receiving the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9) since the beginning of the Church Age after the Lord Jesus was glorified. The Lord Jesus did not need to spell all that out if the man really wanted the truth.

Since we both are broken records now, I'll repeat myself yet again: You are not qualified to make recommendations to me in these matters, and I couldn't care less what you think I sound like.

Ihedinobi3:


Not sure what you're on about. I don't believe that I said anywhere that anyone who disagrees with me is an atheist. Do you have a quote?

Next, I'm not sure why you think I should care about your opinions on biblical theology. I see no reason at all to believe that there are truths in the Bible that are open to anyone who is not a believer. This is what I read in the Bible:

11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:11 — 1Co 2:14 (NKJV)

10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”
11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
Mat 13:10 — Mat 13:13 (NKJV)

14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.
2 Corinthians 3:14 (NKJV)

3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.
2Co 4:3 — 2Co 4:4 (NKJV)

These are things that the Bible itself says. That is the authority on which I make my claims. On what authority do you make yours? If you deign to correct the Bible, how do I or anyone else know that you are right in your correction?

Apparently you do need the Holy Spirit to understand that. Or have you never heard the debate about whether the sixth commandment means that soldiers are sinning when they kill enemies in battle? Even if anyone gets it right, our consciences - as imperfect as they are - are still pretty good indicators for right and wrong. That does not even remotely mean that the simplest thing in the Bible is open to anyone without the Holy Spirit.

This is a fuller context of that passage that you quoted:

25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”
27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and your neighbor as yourself.’ ”
28 And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”
29 But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
Luk 10:25 — Luk 10:29 (NKJV)

Why does he ask "who is my neighbor?" The Bible says that he was seeking to justify himself. Why did he need to do so if he already understood the Scriptures?

Of course, the Lord Jesus did not tell him that he needed the Holy Spirit. He told him to do what the law said and he would be alright. The Law is clear that no one can be perfect. If the lawyer tried with all his might, he would still fail to love God and his neighbor as the law teaches that we should. If he was an honest man who really wanted to have eternal life, his failure and desperation would drive him back to the Lord Jesus to find salvation. Finding salvation has meant receiving the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9) since the beginning of the Church Age after the Lord Jesus was glorified. The Lord Jesus did not need to spell all that out if the man really wanted the truth.

Since we both are broken records now, I'll repeat myself yet again: You are not qualified to make recommendations to me in these matters, and I couldn't care less what you think I sound like.

You jumped into conclusion as usual by calling me an atheist, didn't you? Guess the Holyspirit didn't reveal that to you.lol
I do believe in God, I just do not share the bible's idea and ideals of God. As it is not validated by experience.

Even Christians have differing theologies of God, is that not the reason for the numerous denominations?
Did the Holyspirit reveal these differing and even occasionally contradictory theologies? Selah.

I did agree with you that there are mysteries the Holyspirrit reveals.
My disagreement with you is your claim that no one without Holyspirit can understand what is written in the Bible simply by reading it.
You even went further to back your claim by quoting the verse where Jesus had to explain to the lawyer who his neighbour is. Why else would you do that?

Anyone who is interested can read and understand the Bible. The veil is simply not believing it and not being able to live according to it because like the Bible also says,

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with (W)fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.


Your claim that you have the Holyspirit is interesting. I'm curious, how do you know you have the Holyspirit?
What differentiates you from say someone without the Holyspirit?

Myer:


You jumped into conclusion as usual by calling me an atheist, didn't you? Guess the Holyspirit didn't reveal that to you.lol
I do believe in God, I just do not share the bible's idea and ideals of God. As it is not validated by experience.

Even Christians have differing theologies of God, is that not the reason for the numerous denominations?
Did the Holyspirit reveal these differing and even occasionally contradictory theologies? Selah.

I did agree with you that there are mysteries the Holyspirrit reveals.
My disagreement with you is your claim that no one without Holyspirit can understand what is written in the Bible simply by reading it.
You even went further to back your claim by quoting the verse where Jesus had to explain to the lawyer who his neighbour is. Why else would you do that?

Anyone who is interested can read and understand the Bible. The veil is simply not believing it and not being able to live according to it because like the Bible also says,

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with (W)fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.


Your claim that you have the Holyspirit is interesting. I'm curious, how do you know you have the Holyspirit?
What differentiates you from say someone without the Holyspirit?

I was not enthusiastic about this conversation, to begin with. I doubt that I will continue with it beyond a certain point.

It is one thing to be mistaken and then be corrected and still ignore the correction. It is quite another to tell a bald-faced lie in the face of an accusation of dishonesty. It only means that you really don't care to behave in a manner that makes dealing with you a decent thing for anybody. That is, you don't care about your character. Discussing with such people at the very least exposes others to abuse and at the worst might force them to return abuse for abuse. That is why I might stop responding any time now.

Even if I had not previously accused you of dishonesty and made a case for it too, I certainly asked you to produce a quote where I said that anyone who disagrees with me is an atheist. Not only have you not done that, but you have also gone on now to make a bold claim that I called you an atheist. So, you've gone from suggesting that I believe that everyone who disagrees with me is an atheist to lying now that I called you an atheist. This is a very easy thing to prove. You only have to pull up a quote in any one of my multiple posts here that shows that I either think that anyone who disagrees with me on this forum is an atheist or called you an atheist.

If you are going to be a bold liar who is not afraid to lie when it is obvious that you are lying, then I will not respond anymore to you.

I never asked what your theology is. I don't care what it is. I really am not interested in what you believe. That was why I warned you that I wasn't looking for a debate. I am not interested in dissecting your beliefs or interrogating them. I believe that everyone is free to believe whatever they want without answering to me for it. I am happy to discuss what I believe with anyone who is interested in listening, but I'm also fine if any given person is just not interested. I only answered your thread because you attacked the Bible in public space in a way that mattered to me.

The only thing that interests me in your theology is that it is not a biblical one. Because it isn't, I really hate your pretension to expertise in the Bible. I would rather you just minded your own beliefs and left Christians alone, but then you would probably have nothing left to entertain you if you did.

I think that we're too far down the rabbit hole at this point for me to want to go any further with you. You obviously have no reasonable argument for your claims both that the Bible needs to account for how religions define apostasy and that the apostles apostatized from Moses to follow Christ. That is what this whole discussion was about although you have basically found it hard to walk a straight line in the conversation.

In the end, I reject any right you claim either to understanding the Bible or to interpreting it for anybody. You are a fraud in that regard and anyone who chooses to accept your claim to authority in the teachings of the Bible has himself or herself to blame for all that befalls them as a result. As for you, I do hope that you repent and believe the Gospel so that you will not suffer the judgment that God promised to all those who remain rebellious against HIm, but I don't presume to make any choices for you.

In the meantime, I consider you a bitter enemy of Christians. People who deliberately take on a role to make the Christian walk hard for Christians deserve all the judgment coming to them. I'll grant that there are many believers in Christ out there who are barely decent people, and I'll grant that there are many believers who are a nuisance to others with their claim to be bold Christians, but there are also many who are minding their business and living decent lives in accordance with what their Master teaches in the Bible. Harassing any Christian at all attracts the ire of their Master, but it is way worse when you harass those who are minding their godly business.

I really hope that you will, at least, leave Christians alone for your own peace, but if you won't, you deserve everything that's coming to you.

Ihedinobi3:


I was not enthusiastic about this conversation, to begin with. I doubt that I will continue with it beyond a certain point.

It is one thing to be mistaken and then be corrected and still ignore the correction. It is quite another to tell a bald-faced lie in the face of an accusation of dishonesty. It only means that you really don't care to behave in a manner that makes dealing with you a decent thing for anybody. That is, you don't care about your character. Discussing with such people at the very least exposes others to abuse and at the worst might force them to return abuse for abuse. That is why I might stop responding any time now.

Even if I had not previously accused you of dishonesty and made a case for it too, I certainly asked you to produce a quote where I said that anyone who disagrees with me is an atheist. Not only have you not done that, but you have also gone on now to make a bold claim that I called you an atheist. So, you've gone from suggesting that I believe that everyone who disagrees with me is an atheist to lying now that I called you an atheist. This is a very easy thing to prove. You only have to pull up a quote in any one of my multiple posts here that shows that I either think that anyone who disagrees with me on this forum is an atheist or called you an atheist.

If you are going to be a bold liar who is not afraid to lie when it is obvious that you are lying, then I will not respond anymore to you.

I never asked what your theology is. I don't care what it is. I really am not interested in what you believe. That was why I warned you that I wasn't looking for a debate. I am not interested in dissecting your beliefs or interrogating them. I believe that everyone is free to believe whatever they want without answering to me for it. I am happy to discuss what I believe with anyone who is interested in listening, but I'm also fine if any given person is just not interested. I only answered your thread because you attacked the Bible in public space in a way that mattered to me.

The only thing that interests me in your theology is that it is not a biblical one. Because it isn't, I really hate your pretension to expertise in the Bible. I would rather you just minded your own beliefs and left Christians alone, but then you would probably have nothing left to entertain you if you did.

I think that we're too far down the rabbit hole at this point for me to want to go any further with you. You obviously have no reasonable argument for your claims both that the Bible needs to account for how religions define apostasy and that the apostles apostatized from Moses to follow Christ. That is what this whole discussion was about although you have basically found it hard to walk a straight line in the conversation.

In the end, I reject any right you claim either to understanding the Bible or to interpreting it for anybody. You are a fraud in that regard and anyone who chooses to accept your claim to authority in the teachings of the Bible has himself or herself to blame for all that befalls them as a result. As for you, I do hope that you repent and believe the Gospel so that you will not suffer the judgment that God promised to all those who remain rebellious against HIm, but I don't presume to make any choices for you.

In the meantime, I consider you a bitter enemy of Christians. People who deliberately take on a role to make the Christian walk hard for Christians deserve all the judgment coming to them. I'll grant that there are many believers in Christ out there who are barely decent people, and I'll grant that there are many believers who are a nuisance to others with their claim to be bold Christians, but there are also many who are minding their business and living decent lives in accordance with what their Master teaches in the Bible. Harassing any Christian at all attracts the ire of their Master, but it is way worse when you harass those who are minding their godly business.

I really hope that you will, at least, leave Christians alone for your own peace, but if you won't, you deserve everything that's coming to you.

To an atheist, that argument is meaningless because the atheist rejects conscience and reality. This is why it is meaningless to argue with one. There is nothing to appeal to in order to reason with the atheist. It is impossible to persuade one who has dispensed with any ability to be persuaded. But the fact that the atheist cannot be persuaded or reasoned with does not even begin to mean that he or she is right.


Who were you referring to here?

And now you have called me a bitter enemy of Christians I emboldened it since your selective amnesia is becoming quite incurable.
How does questioning the validity of the bible make me a "bitter enemy of Christians?"

Are you bitter enemy of Muslims and other religions? lol

Myer:


To an atheist, that argument is meaningless because the atheist rejects conscience and reality. This is why it is meaningless to argue with one. There is nothing to appeal to in order to reason with the atheist. It is impossible to persuade one who has dispensed with any ability to be persuaded. But the fact that the atheist cannot be persuaded or reasoned with does not even begin to mean that he or she is right.


Who were you referring to here?

And now you have called me a bitter enemy of Christians I emboldened it since your selective amnesia is becoming quite incurable.
How does questioning the validity of the bible make me a "bitter enemy of Christians?"

Are you bitter enemy of Muslims and other religions? lol

I'm not sure why I should have been referring to anybody in that quote. Is there a reason why I should have?

For what it is worth -- that is, to give you the benefit of the doubt even though you don't deserve it -- I was discussing a point. That point was that Christians believe the Bible because their own conscience and the world around them affirm the authority of the Bible. It was made as part of a more comprehensive argument for the exclusivity of the understanding of the Bible to Christians. I explained that this is a position that atheists normally reject because this is a platform where any regulars would easily run into atheistic arguments challenging that point of view. In other words, I was anticipating an atheistic challenge in my deposition for the sake of the reader.

Now, whether you believe that this is what I meant or had in mind or not, the really important thing is that you made an interpretation of my own words independent of me. I obviously made no reference at all to you in that quote. Nor did I make any reference to your position or arguments. It was just a comment that you interpreted as you pleased. Interestingly, this very thing is what I have kept saying that you keep doing with the Bible. Perhaps then, it is a problem with you in general: interpreting things with no respect to their source.

If you had actually listened to anything I said earlier, you may never have come to the point of making yourself look like a liar.

I'm ignoring your next comment here.

I explained myself well, I believe. If you didn't understand what you read, you could always be more specific in your questions. I did explain about making the Christian walk hard for Christians, didn't I?

When you attempt to compare me to you, do you see me on the Islam section challenging the validity of the Qur'an? Why then do you think that we are the same just because there are things that we each don't believe in? I just told you that my policy (derived from the Bible) is that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want without reference to me. I don't challenge people's beliefs, as a rule. I make a point of not commenting on people's philosophy. That is just meddling for no good reason. How then are you and I the same?

You have been the one making recommendations to me up and down this thread. The only one that I have made to you is to leave Christians alone. I have previously engaged you on your challenges to the Bible. I have warned you of the dangers of opposing the Bible, as is my job to do since you decided to engage Christianity, but otherwise I have tried to give you no offense, to not interfere with your choices. You are free to believe whatever you want. Why are Christians not equally free to do so in your book?

Bluntly, challenging the validity of the Bible is threatening the eternal life of Christians. This is because eternal life can only be had by believing the Gospel and the source of the Gospel is the Bible. Therefore, anyone who challenges the validity of the Bible to "get Christians to stop being religious" is their bitter enemy aiming to cost them the most valuable thing that they could have.

So, yes, you are a bitter enemy of Christians.

Ihedinobi3:


I'm not sure why I should have been referring to anybody in that quote. Is there a reason why I should have?

For what it is worth -- that is, to give you the benefit of the doubt even though you don't deserve it -- I was discussing a point. That point was that Christians believe the Bible because their own conscience and the world around them affirm the authority of the Bible. It was made as part of a more comprehensive argument for the exclusivity of the understanding of the Bible to Christians. I explained that this is a position that atheists normally reject because this is a platform where any regulars would easily run into atheistic arguments challenging that point of view. In other words, I was anticipating an atheistic challenge in my deposition for the sake of the reader.

Now, whether you believe that this is what I meant or had in mind or not, the really important thing is that you made an interpretation of my own words independent of me. I obviously made no reference at all to you in that quote. Nor did I make any reference to your position or arguments. It was just a comment that you interpreted as you pleased. Interestingly, this very thing is what I have kept saying that you keep doing with the Bible. Perhaps then, it is a problem with you in general: interpreting things with no respect to their source.

If you had actually listened to anything I said earlier, you may never have come to the point of making yourself look like a liar.

I'm ignoring your next comment here.

I explained myself well, I believe. If you didn't understand what you read, you could always be more specific in your questions. I did explain about making the Christian walk hard for Christians, didn't I?

When you attempt to compare me to you, do you see me on the Islam section challenging the validity of the Qur'an? Why then do you think that we are the same just because there are things that we each don't believe in? I just told you that my policy (derived from the Bible) is that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want without reference to me. I don't challenge people's beliefs, as a rule. I make a point of not commenting on people's philosophy. That is just meddling for no good reason. How then are you and I the same?

You have been the one making recommendations to me up and down this thread. The only one that I have made to you is to leave Christians alone. I have previously engaged you on your challenges to the Bible. I have warned you of the dangers of opposing the Bible, as is my job to do since you decided to engage Christianity, but otherwise I have tried to give you no offense, to not interfere with your choices. You are free to believe whatever you want. Why are Christians not equally free to do so in your book?

Bluntly, challenging the validity of the Bible is threatening the eternal life of Christians. This is because eternal life can only be had by believing the Gospel and the source of the Gospel is the Bible. Therefore, anyone who challenges the validity of the Bible to "get Christians to stop being religious" is their bitter enemy aiming to cost them the most valuable thing that they could have.

So, yes, you are a bitter enemy of Christians.

And this is why I continue to call you religious.
You can't even validate that which you claim.
Continue to ignore questions that expose you.
How do you know you have the Holyspirit and what differentiates you from those who don't other than your claim that it helps you understand the Bible.
Well, you can as well choose to continue to ignore it.

Why I reference Islam is simple. As a Nigerian living in Nigeria those are the 2 major dominant religions.

Whether or not you challenge Muslims on Islamic threads on NL does not negate your religious judgment of them.

I mentioned earlier that the very fact that you're a religious Christian makes you judgmental.

My emphasis here is simply that religion is divisive.
Likewise anyone who practises it.

The Quran preaches against anyone who doesn't accept Islam in strong words and punishments even to the point of murder.
The Bible preaches against anyone who doesn't accept Jesus Christ in strong words and judgments too.
The Bible clearly refers to atheists as fools and every unbeliever as evil.
Christianity is even worse cos denominations even preach against and condemn each other.

Judaism likewise preaches strongly against its unbelievers too. Just as other religions do.

No matter how good a person is by human standard, as long as the Bible i concerned they are evil for not believing in Jesus Christ. Right or wrong?

If I'm a bitter enemy of Christians, then you are a bitter enemy of every non-Christian.

QED.

Myer:


And this is why I continue to call you religious.
You can't even validate that which you claim.
Continue to ignore questions that expose you.
How do you know you have the Holyspirit and what differentiates you from those who don't other than your claim that it helps you understand the Bible.
Well, you can as well choose to continue to ignore it.

Why I reference Islam is simple. As a Nigerian living in Nigeria those are the 2 major dominant religions.

Whether or not you challenge Muslims on Islamic threads on NL does not negate your religious judgment of them.

I mentioned earlier that the very fact that you're a religious Christian makes you judgmental.

My emphasis here is simply that religion is divisive.
Likewise anyone who practises it.

The Quran preaches against anyone who doesn't accept Islam in strong words and punishments even to the point of murder.
The Bible preaches against anyone who doesn't accept Jesus Christ in strong words and judgments too.
The Bible clearly refers to atheists as fools and every unbeliever as evil.
Christianity is even worse cos denominations even preach against and condemn each other.

Judaism likewise preaches strongly against its unbelievers too. Just as other religions do.

No matter how good a person is by human standard, as long as the Bible i concerned they are evil for not believing in Jesus Christ. Right or wrong?

If I'm a bitter enemy of Christians, then you and every Christian are bitter enemies of every non-Christian.

QED.

The Bible does not preach against anyone who doesn't accept Jesus Christ at all. Like Jesus Christ Himself said, He has not come to condemn but to save.

God,from the very garden of Eden, already all unbelievers to death(return to dust from which they were made). Jesus Christ came to save those who will believe in Him from that Death( and not from sin).

The apostles in their letters, addressed to believers mind you, are not meant to condemn unbelievers but instead condemn the actions of those believers who refuse to accept(trust) and obey the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Myer:


And this is why I continue to call you religious.
You can't even validate that which you claim.
Continue to ignore questions that expose you.
How do you know you have the Holyspirit and what differentiates you from those who don't other than your claim that it helps you understand the Bible.
Well, you can as well choose to continue to ignore it.

Why I reference Islam is simple. As a Nigerian living in Nigeria those are the 2 major dominant religions.

Whether or not you challenge Muslims on Islamic threads on NL does not negate your religious judgment of them.

I mentioned earlier that the very fact that you're a religious Christian makes you judgmental.

My emphasis here is simply that religion is divisive.
Likewise anyone who practises it.

The Quran preaches against anyone who doesn't accept Islam in strong words and punishments even to the point of murder.
The Bible preaches against anyone who doesn't accept Jesus Christ in strong words and judgments too.
The Bible clearly refers to atheists as fools and every unbeliever as evil.
Christianity is even worse cos denominations even preach against and condemn each other.

Judaism likewise preaches strongly against its unbelievers too. Just as other religions do.

No matter how good a person is by human standard, as long as the Bible i concerned they are evil for not believing in Jesus Christ. Right or wrong?

If I'm a bitter enemy of Christians, then you are a bitter enemy of every non-Christian.

QED.

You can certainly call me whatever you want. It's not my problem, only yours. Who can help the man who sees a knife and calls it a chair?

But I have called you a liar, and with each new post, you prove the appellate correctly applied to you.

Whether or not you believe it, I have accommodated you beyond reasonable limits here. Your thread had a topic. I addressed it, and rather engage my response in any manner of productive way, you have spent your time lying, dodging my challenges, and essentially wasting our time.

Consider, for example, your question about the Holy Spirit. What does it have to do with your claim that the Bible fails to account for your definition of apostasy?

I'll grant that exploring it will still eventually prove my point that you don't have any competence in the Bible. But the question of your competence arose only because you kept pretending to the ability to make recommendations to me with respect to my faith in Jesus Christ. It was a tangent to your thread, essentially a distraction from the matter that you raised.

As I said, such things filled your responses. I did wonder at a point if you were drunk. It was as if you could never remember what we were discussing.

That is why I have refused to engage any more of your tangents. You have not owned any demonstrated errors in your propositions for the thread. You have not reasonably examined my own counters. You have just kept throwing up tangents and ignoring your own increasing errors and falsehoods even when your attention has been called to them. How long can one tolerate such obtuseness and lack of reasonableness in a discussion?

I have reached my limit in patience and even time to tolerate it myself. I am satisfied that you have no intention to be honest or reasonable, so I will no longer give you the benefit of the doubt.

I couldn't care less why you referenced Islam. The point is that you cannot equate me to you in the matter under discussion. You are actively harassing Christians for believing the Bible. I am not harassing Muslims (or anybody else, for that matter) for believing (or not believing) what they do (or don't). Therefore, we are not the same. Simple logic.

As I said, you are not tracking this conversation at all. It was not in this discussion nor with me that you said anything about being judgmental because one is a religious Christian. Nonetheless, I don't think I could make it clearer than I have that your theological opinion means exactly nothing to me. Pontificate as much as you want, it's not my problem.

I couldn't care less about your opinions on religion. They're your problem, not mine. I can certainly say that although Christianity is no religion, being discriminating in bearing is certainly part of its DNA. Those who believe in Jesus Christ are not the same as those who do not. One belongs in one camp or the other. Simple.

Now, if the issue is that it means that those who are Christians treat those who aren't as subhumans, then that is a non-issue since it is not the Christian way. The Christian way holds that human beings are infinitely valuable. Although some of these human beings are avowed enemies of God, they are still among those for whom Jesus Christ died on the Cross. For that reason, a Christian who is living life the Christian way will be loving toward everyone even while also not being naive about the wickedness of the human heart.

I don't know if that is what you mean with your statement, but that is what Christianity is. What you think of it is your problem.

Your next argument is a very unwise one. Suffice to say that you may not redefine my arguments for me. You are a bitter enemy of Christians because you are actively trying to subvert the Christian faith. I am no enemy to non-Christians because I don't try to subvert their philosophies.

When you argue that the Bible preaches against anyone, you betray yet again a profound ignorance of the Bible. The Bible preaches the salvation of every human being. It says that although human beings rebelled and continue to rebel against their God (that is, that every last one of them is evil), He has fixed the rift between them and made reconciliation possible for them. That is, the Bible is on the side of human beings. It doesn't preach against human beings, rather it preaches good news to them. You may say that it preaches "for" them although that is not particularly good grammar.

Thus, again, your case is a vast lot of lies.

Q. E. D.

Kobojunkie:
The Bible does not preach against anyone who doesn't accept Jesus Christ at all. Like Jesus Christ Himself said, He has not come to condemn but to save.

God,from the very garden of Eden, already all unbelievers to death(return to dust from which they were made). Jesus Christ came to save those who will believe in Him from that Death( and not from sin).

The apostles in their letters, addressed to believers mind you, are not meant to condemn unbelievers but instead condemn the actions of those believers who refuse to accept(trust) and obey the teachings of Jesus Christ.

According to the Bible every human being is damaged goods just because Adam and Eve's sin right?
So if you do not believe in Jesus as the Son of God you're condemned already. John 3:18-19

That is what the Bible teaches right or wrong?

Ihedinobi3:


You can certainly call me whatever you want. It's not my problem, only yours. Who can help the man who sees a knife and calls it a chair?

But I have called you a liar, and with each new post, you prove the appellate correctly applied to you.

Whether or not you believe it, I have accommodated you beyond reasonable limits here. Your thread had a topic. I addressed it, and rather engage my response in any manner of productive way, you have spent your time lying, dodging my challenges, and essentially wasting our time.

Consider, for example, your question about the Holy Spirit. What does it have to do with your claim that the Bible fails to account for your definition of apostasy?

I'll grant that exploring it will still eventually prove my point that you don't have any competence in the Bible. But the question of your competence arose only because you kept pretending to the ability to make recommendations to me with respect to my faith in Jesus Christ. It was a tangent to your thread, essentially a distraction from the matter that you raised.

As I said, such things filled your responses. I did wonder at a point if you were drunk. It was as if you could never remember what we were discussing.

That is why I have refused to engage any more of your tangents. You have not owned any demonstrated errors in your propositions for the thread. You have not reasonably examined my own counters. You have just kept throwing up tangents and ignoring your own increasing errors and falsehoods even when your attention has been called to them. How long can one tolerate such obtuseness and lack of reasonableness in a discussion?

I have reached my limit in patience and even time to tolerate it myself. I am satisfied that you have no intention to be honest or reasonable, so I will no longer give you the benefit of the doubt.

I couldn't care less why you referenced Islam. The point is that you cannot equate me to you in the matter under discussion. You are actively harassing Christians for believing the Bible. I am not harassing Muslims (or anybody else, for that matter) for believing (or not believing) what they do (or don't). Therefore, we are not the same. Simple logic.

As I said, you are not tracking this conversation at all. It was not in this discussion nor with me that you said anything about being judgmental because one is a religious Christian. Nonetheless, I don't think I could make it clearer than I have that your theological opinion means exactly nothing to me. Pontificate as much as you want, it's not my problem.

I couldn't care less about your opinions on religion. They're your problem, not mine. I can certainly say that although Christianity is no religion, being discriminating in bearing is certainly part of its DNA. Those who believe in Jesus Christ are not the same as those who do not. One belongs in one camp or the other. Simple.

Now, if the issue is that it means that those who are Christians treat those who aren't as subhumans, then that is a non-issue since it is not the Christian way. The Christian way holds that human beings are infinitely valuable. Although some of these human beings are avowed enemies of God, they are still among those for whom Jesus Christ died on the Cross. For that reason, a Christian who is living life the Christian way will be loving toward everyone even while also not being naive about the wickedness of the human heart.

I don't know if that is what you mean with your statement, but that is what Christianity is. What you think of it is your problem.

Your next argument is a very unwise one. Suffice to say that you may not redefine my arguments for me. You are a bitter enemy of Christians because you are actively trying to subvert the Christian faith. I am no enemy to non-Christians because I don't try to subvert their philosophies.

When you argue that the Bible preaches against anyone, you betray yet again a profound ignorance of the Bible. The Bible preaches the salvation of every human being. It says that although human beings rebelled and continue to rebel against their God (that is, that every last one of them is evil), He has fixed the rift between them and made reconciliation possible for them. That is, the Bible is on the side of human beings. It doesn't preach against human beings, rather it preaches good news to them. You may say that it preaches "for" them although that is not particularly good grammar.

Thus, again, your case is a vast lot of lies.

Q. E. D.

How badly did you fail at comprehension in your English classes in secondary school?

This thread clearly is about Apostasy, our discussions have been about the causes of apostasy.

The crux of course being how apostasy is not a new thing. Every religion experiences apostasy.

A traditionaliism adherent who converts to any other religion has become an apostate of traditional religion.

An Islam adherent who converts to any other religion is considered an apostate, albeit the quran actually condemn such to be killed. Why is why Islamic terrorists continue to justify their terrorism attacks.

In fact Judaism which God handed down through Abraham and Moses suffered Apostasy, thanks to Christianity.

A Christianity adherent who converts to any other religion is in the same vein considered an apostate.

Interestingly it is simply a matter of perspective because to the receiving religion when you convert, you're not considered an apostate but special and saved.

When you understand this is simply how religion works, you'll pray never to be a victim of religion.

Unfortunately by your words, actions and lack of evidence of the Holyspirt, you have proven to be another religious soul.
Evidences being both spiritual gifts and fruit of the spirit, according to the Bible of course.
Both of which you've proven to lack.

Myer:
According to the Bible every human being is damaged goods just because Adam and Eve's sin right?

Really? But the same Adam and Eve had Seth and he was called one of God's own, was he not?
God did condemn Man to die, should Man choose himself over Him, God.

Genesis 2 vs 15-17 (ERV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Then the Lord God took [d]the man and put him in the garden of Eden to [e]tend and keep it.
16. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;
17. but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you[f] shall surely die.”

God warned Adam that on the day Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, Adam would surely die, and it was so...

Genesis 3 vs 17-19 (ERV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life.
18. Both thorns and thistles it shall [f]bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field.
19. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.”

So, yes, God condemned man to die should he, man, choose his unbelief over God, and that remains the story to this day.

Myer:
So if you do not believe in Jesus as the Son of God you're condemned already. John 3:18-19
That is what the Bible teaches right or wrong?

God already condemned them to die long before Jesus Christ, the person, showed up on the scene. So, it is wonky to claim now that they are condemned because of the person of Jesus Christ or Christianity for that matter.

The same Word of God that created all we know of today is the same Word of God that is Jesus Christ. So, they are condemned not because of Jesus Christ because of their not believing in God Himself, and as we know, the Word of God is Jesus Christ and so on.

Kobojunkie:
Really? But the same Adam and Eve had Seth and he was called one of God's own, was he not?
God did condemn Man to die, should Man choose himself over Him, God.

God warned Adam that on the day Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, Adam would surely die, and it was so...

So, yes, God condemned man to die should he, man, choose his unbelief over God, and that remains the story to this day.
God already condemned them to die long before Jesus Christ, the person, showed up on the scene. So, it is wonky to claim now that they are condemned because of the person of Jesus Christ or Christianity for that matter.

The same Word of God that created all we know of today is the same Word of God that is Jesus Christ. So, they are condemned not because of Jesus Christ because of their not believing in God Himself, and as we know, the Word of God is Jesus Christ and so on.

Did the Spirit of God tell you that or you read it in a book called the bible?

Exactly. You only believe this because you read it in the Bible. Thaf is what Christianity taught you.

That you are damaged and condemned unless you believe in Jesus Christ. Point made.

Interestingly when you believe in Jesus, there really isn't much difference, you still have the same struggles of life like everyone else. The only difference is that you believe you will not be sent to hellfire.lol Interesting religious concept isn't it.

Myer:


How badly did you fail at comprehension in your English classes in secondary school?

This thread clearly is about Apostasy, our discussions have been about the causes of apostasy.

The crux of course being how apostasy is not a new thing. Every religion experiences apostasy.

A traditionaliism adherent who converts to any other religion has become an apostate of traditional religion.

An Islam adherent who converts to any other religion is considered an apostate, albeit the quran actually condemn such to be killed. Why is why Islamic terrorists continue to justify their terrorism attacks.

In fact Judaism which God handed down through Abraham and Moses suffered Apostasy, thanks to Christianity.

A Christianity adherent who converts to any other religion is in the same vein considered an apostate.

Interestingly it is simply a matter of perspective because to the receiving religion when you convert, you're not considered an apostate but special and saved.

When you understand this is simply how religion works, you'll pray never to be a victim of religion.

Unfortunately by your words, actions and lack of evidence of the Holyspirt, you have proven to be another religious soul.
Evidences being both spiritual gifts and fruit of the spirit, according to the Bible of course.
Both of which you've proven to lack.

So now you won't limit yourself to lying and harassing, you will also insult me. More proof of the folly of bothering with you in conversation.

I'm actually pretty good at English comprehension and use. If this were a formal debate, you would probably not qualify to face me in the first place.

I have not been discussing any causes of apostasy with you. You have been arguing haphazardly about Christian theology and I've been indulging you while holding to the main point of discussion.

That you opine that every religion experiences apostasy is not mine nor the Bible's concern. Isn't that what my very first response to you was? Have you answered that argument at any point until now?

Your renewed claim that Christianity caused an apostasy from Moses was answered in my first response too. Have you countered it successfully until now? Of course not. You've just been wasting your time and mine with meaningless segues, and now you wish to insist that your position is correct?

As I said before, I couldn't be less bothered about your recommendations. It means nothing to me if you think that I should pray to not be a victim of religion. And I obviously don't care what you think of me either. You are entitled to your opinions, but they are your business, not mine.

With that, I must bid you cheers. I won't be responding to you again.