₦airaland Forum

Kay17:
But there are instructions by God to his people -- the Israelites, to destroy, rape and maim other races.

Please kindly show me where you see RAPE in those verses that OP raised?
Which other races do they maim, if you don't know there is a reason why those commandments were given?

These instructions count as prescriptive elements. In our times, these qualify as war crimes.

Lol..."""It counts as prescriptive elements""" so how many Christians quote verses in the Bible to justify their evil act?

I know you just say that out of nothing to say.

CAPTIVATOR:
^ ^
Examination of Joel 2:32
PURE FABRICATION

"everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved" ! - Joel 2:32 ( God name replaced )

HEBREW MANUSCRIPT
" And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved" - Joel 2:32
{ God name retained}

Roman 10:13 is a direct quotation of the hebrew scriptures Joel 2:32 where the name of Jehovah clearly appeared in the Hebrew manuscript NOT the fabricated Lord!

further analysis:
Jehovah is called Lord , Jesus is also called Lord ....... Does that mean they are same person or equal? NO, Jehovah God is Lord over all, OR are u not aware that it was Jehovah God who "made Jesus Lord and Christ" out of loving kindness ( Act 2:32, phil 2:9 ) ?

Your case is pathetic, who says Rom 10:13 is not the direct quotation of Joel 2:32?

Mind you the importance of this is that Jehovah's witness say "There are verses in the [size=14pt]Hebrew Scriptures about Jehovah that are quoted in the "New Testament" in a context speaking about the Son.[/size] (Isa. 40:3--Matt. 3:3--John 1:23; [size=14pt]Joel 2:32--Rom. 10:13[/size]; Ps. 45:6, 7--Heb. 1:8, 9) This is understandable, for Jesus was the Father's foremost representative." The Watchtower, May 1, 1978, p. 12

So if Rom 10:13 is a quotation from Joel 2:32 and speaks about the Son that means Rom 10:13 is talking about Jesus Christ [b]but NEWT rendered it as "And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved"

So what Jehovah's witness trying to say here is that Jesus is Jehovah.

johnw74:
God's name was first with Hebrew speaking people.
In Hebrew God's name is:

Yhovah

Pronounced:

yeh-ho-vaw

For much of the rest of the world God's name has been translated from YHOVAH to:

JEHOVAH, if my memory is correct by the Germans.

If YHWH is correct it would seem to be more accurately translated as:

YAHWEH

But YHOVAH is from YHVH.

I wonder why jw nwt changed even the Hebrew theonym (4 letters)?

We are not disputing about this but the Hebrew scholars say Yahweh is MORE CORRECT in pronunciation than Jehovah which Jehovah's Witness know about and agree with.

The question now is why will Jehovah's witness chose Jehovah rather than Yahweh?
Of which the origin of Jehovah is from a Catholic monk.

CAPTIVATOR:
^^Hebrew "Yeshua" , Greek I-e-sous' , English Jesus , why do we call "Yeshua" with the name JESUS , the acceptable english spelling ?

Don't attack strawman here Mr man. You just prove what the OP was saying ""While inclining to view the pronunciation [size=14pt]"Yah.weh" as the more correct way,[/size] we have retained the form "Jehovah" because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century."

So JWs agree that Yahweh is THE MORE CORRECT pronunciation but they decided to CHOSE the one FORMULATED after 12th century than the more corrected one, how absurd is that?

sobmos:
so in other words,Jesus is God.

Exactly, but not the Father.

sobmos:
you're confusing me further. By you're statement,you simply mean God and Jesus are one. Adam/ eve = man. The word(Jesus)/God = God. Is that what you're saying?

My point is centered on the word "MAN" just as the word "GOD" can be used for two different people.

2. Salvation is Found in Only One Name!

Should a person call on Jehovah for salvation, which no one ever heard of until the 1270, or should he call on a different name? Let's allow the Apostle Paul to answer this for us, as he too refers to Joel 2:32. Paul wrote:

"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile ­ the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, [size=14pt]"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved"[/size] (Rom. 10:9-13)

In Rom. 10:9-13, Paul explicitly stated: (1) that Jesus is Lord; (2) Jesus richly blesses all who call on him; and (3) that these truths refer back to Joel 2:32 in that same passage where YHWH is found in the Hebrew, but here applies them to Jesus! Either the Apostle Paul is wrong or the Watchtower Society is wrong! They can't both be right, since Paul taught we are to call on JESUS for salvation and the Watchtower, in contradistinction, is teaching we are to call on a hybrid name for God which didn't even exist for 13 centuries - Jehovah! By the way, the NWT is not consistent at Rom. 10:9 with the Greek word by rendering it Jesus, unlike they did at Rev. 4:11, where it is also used and translated Jehovah. If they had been consistent at Rom. 10:9, their NWT would read Jesus is Jehovah, which they would never allow.

Shockingly, the Watchtower Society contradicts their own teaching about Joel 2:32 and Rom. 10:13 and their own NWT in the latter reference where they elsewhere write about the Son:

"There are verses in the Hebrew Scriptures [size=14pt]about Jehovah that are quoted in the "New Testament" in a context speaking about the Son.[/size] (Isa. 40:3--Matt. 3:3--John 1:23; [size=14pt]Joel 2:32--Rom. 10:13;[/size] Ps. 45:6, 7--Heb. 1:8, 9) This is understandable, for Jesus was the Father's foremost representative." The Watchtower, May 1, 1978, p. 12

Ironically, the NWT rendered Rom 10:13 as "Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved"

Now to JWs which NAME shall we call on if TRULY Romans 10:13 is about Jesus Christ?



http://www.ovrlnd.com/Cults/NWT.html

I'm going to raise two crucial points on this thread.

NWT---New World Translation is the Jehovah's witness version of the Holy Bible.

1. The Usage of Jehovah in the NWT

In the NWT, the Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses, we read the following:

"Therefore, the foremost feature of this translation is the RESTORATION of the DIVINE NAME to its rightful place in the English text. It has been done, using the commonly ACCEPTED English form "Jehovah" 6,973 times in the Hebrews Scriptures and 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures." NWT p. 6 (color, underline, capital & bold-mine)

Why isn't the NWT consistent to use Jehovah every time Lord is found? Their reasonings are as follows:

"By determining where the inspired Christian writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. [size=14pt]Then he must refer back to the original to locate whether the divine name appears there.[/size] This way he can determine the identity to give to ky'ri.os and the.os' and he can then clothe them with personality. Realizing that this is the time and place for it, we have followed this course in rendering our version of the Christian Greek Scriptures." KIT, pp. 18,19 (color, bold & italic mine--for anywhere they appear)

Jehovah is Not the More Correct Way!

Since one of the outstanding features of the NWT is their abundant usage of the word Jehovah, how can they elsewhere admit that YAHWEH is the more correct way to render God's name?

"While inclining to view the pronunciation [size=14pt]"Yah.weh" as the more correct way,[/size] we have retained the form [size=14pt]"Jehovah" because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century." Ibid., p. 23

Why then did the NWT forfeit accuracy to use the word Jehovah, which began to be used in the 14th century? [size=14pt]Their answer is because of "...people's familiarity with it..."[/size] That is another way of saying that they have upheld the traditions of man's inventions since the 14th century at the expense of truth and accuracy, which they knew about.

Notice again how many times this was done in the NWT:
"It has been done, using the commonly accepted English form "Jehovah" 6,973 times in the Hebrews Scriptures and 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures." NWT p. 6

How can the NWT claim that Jehovah is the restoration of the divine name to its rightful place in the English text, since they openly admit Yahweh is more correct? Shouldn't they rather have stated that knowingly they have omitted the more correct name for God, that is Yahweh, and substituted a different name which began to be used in the 14th century -- Jehovah. Furthermore, how can they claim that God's name Jehovah should be vindicated?

"For many centuries, particularly after the days of Jesus and his apostles, the meaning of the name Jehovah has been lost to sight, and even the very name has been pushed into the background. Only in very recent years has God caused his name to be brought forth again to the light and its meaning to be made known to his faithful servants, [size=14pt]because it is the due time and the vindication of his name Jehovah draws near.[/size] Let none now ignore that name!" The Truth Shall Make You Free, 1943, p. 34

[b]The Usage of Jehovah Came From Catholicism

Yet a different piece of Watchtower literature states the same embarrassing information about the word Jehovah, but elaborates as to its Catholic origin in 1270:

"By combining the vowel signs of 'Adho.nay and 'Elo.him' with the four consonants of the Tetragrammaton the pronunciations Yeho.wah' and Yehowih' were formed. The first of these provided the basis for the Latinized form "Jehova(h)." [size=14pt]The first recorded use of this form dates from the thirteenth century C.E. Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican Order, used it in his book Pugeo Fidei of the year 1270. Hebrew scholars generally favor "Yahweh" as the most likely pronunciation."[/size] Aid to Bible Understanding, Watchtower Bible And Tract Society, 1971, pp. 884, 885

Please note: Hebrew scholars generally favor "Yahweh" as the most likely pronunciation.

Bruce Metzger, who criticizes the KJV's misusage of Jehovah, gives additional information: (The KJV makes the mistake of using Jehovah at Ex. 6:3; Psa. 83:18; Isa. 12:2 and 26:4)

"The form "Jehovah" is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word .... (1) The word "Jehovah" does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew. (2) The use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom the true God had to be distinguished, began to be discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church." The New Revised Standard Version Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989, To The Reader

Remarkably, the Watchtower has exalted in their own literature the usage of the inaccurate name for God, Jehovah, to a salvation issue:

"Have you been taught to use God's name, Jehovah? If not, your salvation is in jeopardy, for "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved"! -- Acts 2:21; compare Joel 2:32. The Watchtower, August 15, 1997, p. 6

So if one takes in accurate knowledge about God's name and uses that accurate knowledge, as opposed to using the name Jehovah, then he will risk his own salvation, that is, if one accepts what the Watchtower Society declares about this.

Maamin:
@Op, there is no ambiguity on this very topic..the bible is very explicit on who Yahweh is and who Yahshua is as well.

Yet you couldn't tell us who Yahshua is according to the OP

1 Cor.15:27-28 "27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

How does this solve the problem the OP raised?

John 1:1 is very clear as well.
"In the beginning was the word(Yahshua) and the word(Yahshua) was with God(Yahweh) and the word(Yahshua) was God.

Emphasis on the word "with"

As you emphasized on the word WITH do you also emphasis on what the verse says the word (Yahshua) is? "...and the word (Yahshua) was God"

Remember there's no god either in heaven or on earth beside Yahweh.

sobmos:
the part where it says the word(Jesus) was with God,and the Word(Jesus) was God. And it became flesh and dwells among us.

Since this is the part you have problem with, then let's look at it this way from the creation of MAN

The first couple lived alone in the garden. The two are to be viewed as one.
a. Genesis 2:24 - In the garden, two persons, the man and the woman, “became one flesh.”

b. Genesis 5:1,2 :
• “God created man” (singular)
• “He made him” (singular)
• “named them Man” (singular)

Yet it also says:
• “He created them male and female” (plural)
• “He blessed them” (plural)
• “and named them” (plural)
• “they were created” (plural)

NOTE: that the first couple was collectively named “Man.” This was their original name for the woman was not given her individual name “Eve” until after her sin (in Genesis 3:20; see Genesis 2:23). The reference to “man” was interchangeable with “them” and included both the male and the female.

c. Genesis 1:26,27 -
• “Let Us make man” (=“adam”, singular)”
• “God created man” (singular)
• “He created him” (singular)

In contrast the same text also says:
• “. . . let them rule” (plural)
• “male and female he created them” (plural)

Again, the reference to “man” was interchangeable with “them” and included both the male and the female. “Man” meant “mankind.”

d. Mark 10:6-8 - Jesus refers to the first couple and after stating they were one flesh adds
“they are no longer two.”

e. Romans 5:12-19 - In saying that sin entered humanity through “one man” it potentially suggests that the “one man” could also include the first woman.

These verses imply that in the creation account singular references to “man” include the two persons in the garden. This is unusual with the more common meaning of the term “man” referring to the primary person in the couple, the male (Genesis 2:21). Likewise, although the
term “God” can on occasion mean “Us” and “Our” (“Let Us make . . . Our image . . . Our likeness . . .” - Genesis 1:26) likely the more common meaning is the “Father,” the primary person in the ‘Godkind.’

How do you understand this statement?
“In the garden was the woman, the woman was with the man and the woman was man.”

Would it be correct to say “the woman was a man” or “the woman was the man?” No

JMAN05:
No sir. respond to all my posts. "no comment" is not acceptable. and give reply to others you gave a sketchy response to.

waiting. . .

See excuses, didn't I reply your post?

About the NO COMMENT then do the necessary thing by removing all those childish and illogical statement.

NOTE: Don't forget to reply the false accusation you put on me.

JMAN05:
The purpose if the thread is achieved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shalom!

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

Shalom!

JMAN05:
I dont agree with that since even the cross references shows what the drink and food referred to, indicating that Paul was highlighting what happened in the past. However since what happened in the OT is a picture of what fulfilled in Christ, Paul was drawing a type from that.

Matthew Henry states "Their drink was a stream fetched from a rock which followed them in all their journeyings in the wilderness; and this rock was Christ, that is, in type and figure. He is the rock on which the Christian church is built; and of the streams that issue from him do all believers drink, and are refreshed. Now all the Jews did eat of this meat, and drink of this rock, called here a spiritual rock, because it typified spiritual things."
That man is not a JW and I guess he believes the trinity.

Now you can't agree with it just because it against your own perverted reasoning.

I think what you miss here is you thinking that CHRIST HIMSELF was present at that time but what this verse is saying is that CHRIST ACTIVITIES was there in the OT even though it's not yet known as HUMAN CHRIST which is what even the commentary you quoted trying to explain as the bolded says "...because it typified spiritual things" notice the word SPIRITUAL.

That's why when JWs says Michael is now Christ then we can infer that Christ was active in OT though He wasn't known as CHRIST then.

Can you get it now?

No sir, you said:

You're a bloody liar

See what I said "...it only says [size=14pt]the message they were receiving is not meant for them but we."[/size]
See what you said [size=14pt]"They had no clear understanding of the message,[/size] so how will they know that Michael will later become the Christ, not to talk of "having" his spirit.

So can you see yourself, in fact it's just a wasting of time with you. If I continue with you I may utter what I shouldn't have uttered.

So take care brother.

JMAN05:
In the name of God who made us, Emusan, are you saying that you didnt say that Jesus is "THAT LITERAL WORD OF GOD THAT COMES OUT FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD"?

What is all this? When did I say I deny this?
If you don't provide where I deny what you ascertain here forget my next reply.

You said Jesus is the LITERAL word. and also said that he is the FLESH, not that WORD. OK, it is a contradiction.

The color is your problem and your misunderstanding. Now let me come down to your level.

-The Word of God is the Word of God
-The Word of God took on Flesh but still remains The word of God.
-The Word of God and the Flesh (his humanity) together are called Jesus Christ though each name can be used separately.

Anything about God himself is God. ok, but Jesus is not God, he is on;y the flesh which covers God (The word).

And you can still say He is not God.

2. If we are to agree with your position, it means that the right hand of God is God, the sense of God's sight, His eye is God; his anger is God, his justice is God, his patience is God, his love is God. [size=14pt]How many Gods do you have?[/size]

In fact the bolded made me loose interest in replying you because it's irritating seeing a comment like this from someone who professes himself to be educated

My dear, I asked you that question to know if you ve changed your position. This is certainly not a means to achieve the answer to that question. But it seems you didnt change. Am I right?

Is part of God, God? That's the answer

You didnt reply to this, and I think the question is logical. I said:

The scriptures say "THE WORD became flesh", not that the flesh is Jesus and the content is THE WORD. John 1:14. We know that the "FLESH" there is Jesus. And the scripture says the word became flesh, not that he dwells in the flesh called Jesus. Dont you think this makes sense? Dont you agree that the one called "the word" changed and became flesh?

The Word didn't change to FLESH read your Bible very well I don't need to teach you this.

2. God spoke from heaven, and the voice was heard by Jesus. John the baptist was there, but my emphasis on Jesus is for a reason. The main point is: [size=14pt]God transmitted God to the hearing of fleshly covered God,[/size] thereby producing another God. At a whole we observe more than three gods - Fleshly covered god, God in heaven, holy spirit, the word coming out of God's mouth.

Now let me use the bolded part on Holy spirit so that you can see how absurdity your post is;
-Holy spirit can dwell in more than five people and can also speak through only one person among the rest of people He already dwelled
-By your analogy now since Holy spirit is active force (to JWs) which means it's God who spoke through His active force then we can then say God is talking to Himself which dwells in other people.

3. Your position imply that at every occasion that God spoke, [size=14pt]God was producing gods.[/size] How is that?

Not comment.

You said anything about God is God. You never added "as far as they can function alone through God's power". So, the "God" which Jesus (THE FLESH) have on him functions by "God's" power? Doesn't this make him inferior to the source of his power?

I don't even know your problem honestly.
Anything OUTSIDE of you is can be inferior or superior to you but anything ABOUT YOU are you, OK!

But may I ask: Does God need God's power to function? If these gods cannot function on there own without God's power, how can they be equated with the almighty who functions without any other person's power? Or are they half-gods or inferior gods to the Almighty God?

Then what will happen if all these things were removed from God?

Again, if I cut off your hand and have it with me, is that your hand you? Is the hand as complete as what make you Emusan?

Stop calling my name with your awkward reasoning.
While must it be my hand and not your hand?

I understood your point. I was only showing you that they were non-analogous. The holy spirit is an active force, it is not a person, while you posit that God, Jesus and THE WORD are all persons. It is just like you cant say "powers" but "power" (electric).

You don't, if not you wouldn't have made that illogical analogy.

You do not scatter persons as if they were impersonal force.

So where was Holy spirit ever scattered?

[size=14ptThat was the understanding of your fellow johnw74. That's where I got it.[/size] Stop derailing. Search on jw.org and get our view.

You're a disappointment.
And you can't make it clear that you're referring to someone's statement
please stop referring me to jw.org, OK! bring all your claim here.

Wait Sir, you are confusing yourself. Thats for sure because you want to twist it right. You said that Jesus is that word that comes out of God's mouth. Secondly, you also said that [color]he[/color] is the FLESH which contains THE WORD (God).

Can't you see how absurd your reasoning is, as it spells out TWO JESUS?
So take this advise, go back to my previous posts and begin to read bit by bit for clear understanding.

I dont see any separation here sir. You said Jesus are:

- The LITERAL word of God that comes out of God's mouth (this makes Jesus an utterance)

- the FLESH that the WORD dwells in. (This makes Jesus a flesh, carnal)

You also posit that the WORD did not CHANGE to flesh, but that the WORD dwells in Jesus(the flesh). John 1:14 shows that the word became flesh, not that it dwells in the flesh called Jesus.

Read above.

When God speaks, [size=14pt]the utterance is Jesus.[/size] In short, God's sense of sight, smell, right hand, his love, kindness etc [size=14pt]are all Jesuses,[/size] creating more than one Jesus.

No comment.

Even when God said that Jesus should sit at His right hand, the right hand is Jesus. [size=14pt]Jesus was just sitting on Jesus.[/size]

No comment.

Eg, Nation will rise against nation and that God's kingdom will come are not mere promises from God's word, it always come to pass.

You always prove smartness. The possessive pronoun shows that the promises you made mention of belong to THE WORD I can see your twisting tongues dives into another thing now.

Is it the word who made the promise or God?

Now, how can this uncreated God be produced by someone else, yet he is uncreated? Did God almighty emerge through a spoken word, or is He a spoken word in form of a person?

Is the Word of God created? Is there a time God exist without His Word?

Portraying what? Name it?

Read again.

After God's test to Abraham, he said:
Then he said: “Do not harm the boy, and do not do anything at all to him, for now I do know that you are God-fearing because you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me.”

When did God know that He was Godfearing?

Gen 18:21

I will go down to see whether they are acting according to the outcry that has reached me. And if not, I can get to know it

If God uses His power to foreknow always, why does he engage in this fact finding mission?

Simple question, is God all knowing I mean Omniscient?

If your answer is yes, then why will God acquire knowledge again?
If your answer is no, then why are you talking about God's Omniscient?

Can you please go to wikipedia and check the two meanings of omniscience? University graduate.

Two meaning of Omniscient again
What we're insinuating here is "God's Omniscient" so what do you understand by it?

When did I agree? Is the proof not forthcoming?

Who said the bold face words?

Didn't you say you're not disputing that Jesus wasn't called God's knowledge or knowledge of God or His knowledge (as many way we can put it) in the Bible?

So where did you get the idea from?
After all I have provided you the evidence just that you don't have open mind to receive it.

JMAN05:
What you said is not the belief of JWs, do you take the correction?

Point of correction you're not correcting me, you should correct those JWs who made the claim.

oga, you said Jesus is "THAT LITERAL WORD OF GOD THAT COMES OUT FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD". If you have changed this position, let me know, if not, there is no way I wont refer to it.

In fact I'm tired of your reasoning, if you didn't get it this time around I'm sorry I can't help you any more.

THE WORD OF GOD remains THE WORD OF GOD while the WORD taken on Human flesh THE WORD STILL REMAINS THE WORD but the appearing of the WORD in FLESH is called JESUS CHRIST.

Now to your second position:
If Jesus is the word of God, how then do you take him as God, is God composed only of a literal word? You by that position imply that when God speaks, his utterance is God himself. How then can the word produced be the same or equal to the producer?

Nothing like second position and I only have one position.

Anything about God Himself is God, the WORD of GOD can function on His own so The Word is God.

My dear, your previous position is that Jesus is that LITERAL word that comes out of God's mouth. Remember. So have you changed?

And you believe that the LITERAL WORD OF GOD IS PART OF GOD, so can the word of God be created?

The scriptures say "THE WORD became flesh", not that the flesh is Jesus and the content is THE WORD.

2. We can still put it this way: God transmitted his word to the fleshly covered word during Jesus baptism. So, whenever God makes statement, he blots out "Gods". Doesnt that make your "God" inanimate?

Let me laugh at you small, so you mean when God spoke at Jesus' Baptism He was actually talking to Jesus...please read your Bible very well.

I actually want to say something but just have to conceive it so that I won't appear rude because your statement here lacks knowledge which I'm tired for correcting you for.

Your hand is not you, neither is your nose you, are they?

But if they can function alone through my power then they are.

You see your problem? So your god now is a thing.

Or your problem as you think you know God FULLY.

I take this to mean that you stand on that point, as such, my earlier posers stand.

What are these posers of yours?

Oh, Jesus is an active force. Why haven't you said that since? If your Jesus is an active force he can do so. Is he?

Sorry, their are many Gods according to you. Any utterance God makes is God. God was thus transmitting God to the God covered with flesh.

Please stop this your childish statement it's getting out of hand.
Did I say Jesus is active force? I only contrasted your understanding of Holy spirit with what you failed to know about the Word of God.
This is point I'm trying to make here, if Holy spirit can dwell in more than five people YET YOU CAN STILL REFER TO IT (since you believe is a force) as HOLY SPIRIT (Singular) not Holy spirits (Plural) then when God spoke even why the Word of God was on earth in person of Jesus Christ doesn't mean the words are many.

Another implication:

Jesus is not God, but is the flesh God dwells in. [size=14pt]Any believer who God dwells in is thus God.[/size] Impeccable.

Another implication to you!
I need to bookmark that bolded part especially the underlined because it's an evidence of the lies JWs are preaching, how?

You believe that PERSON CAN'T DWELL in another PERSON which are the strong reason of JWs rejecting the personhood of The Holy spirit but here you confirmed that GOD WHO IS A PERSON can actually DWELL in believer as scripture truly said.

My question now is, where did you get the idea of GOD DWELLING in any believer from?

You have two positions I am trying to reason with you here. Your new being that Jesus is the "container" containing THE WORD.

You posit also that Jesus is the LITERAL word that comes out of God's mouth. Which now implies that when God spoke to Jesus(who contains the Word) he transmitted Jesus to flesh-covered Jesus.

You're the one separating my point I only have one point which is Jesus is THE WORD OF GOD either from God's mouth or any sense but to further your delusion in viewing the Word of God as being many (i.e many Gods) or God can't speak again since His Word is now on EARTH which if it's true then there are many Gods so I have to explain to you that THE WORD ONLY DWELL in the flesh not that THE WORD CHANGE-CHANGE-CHANGE to flesh.

God's word is alive to [size=14pt]its promises.[/size] Not that it is a person.

the possessive pronouns ITS means the promises are for the WORD
So please how can inanimate object have PROMISES?
You have shot yourself again.

I dont get you. clearly answer the question, is God the word he himself produces?

Unitarian's view is one God who came to earth n human flesh.
The believe about God is something that is Eternal & Uncreated, so if the WORD of GOD is conscious of HIS OWN existence, not created and eternal then His God.

I am trying to portray what?

If you know what knowledge really means, you relate it to God's. Essentially, knowledge means familiarity with facts acquired by personal experience, observation, or study.

You're portraying it as if God's knowledge is different from God's Omni-scent

Thank God you can provide this definition, now let's look into your definition of knowledge:

Knowledge is something that ACQUIRED BY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, OBSERVATION, OR STUDY
Please do you think God acquire knowledge from anything, experience anything before having knowledge, observe and study before possessing knowledge?

Please do more research on what God's knowledge means.
God have said to be the ONLY BEING who possesses LIMITED KNOWLEDGE which is sometimes refers to as God's Omniscient.
So my brother there's no difference between God's knowledge and God's omniscient.

I have given you the difference already. dont skip that.

That's what a primary school student can't even utter.

oga provide the evidence.

At least you said you didn't say Jesus Christ was not called God's knowledge so ask yourself where you see that before you agree.

But it's unfortunate that you don't know that God's knowledge is nowhere difference from knowledge of God which you tried to prove that they are different.

JMAN05:
And the verse is not saying that Christ followed them nor that he was active. He was just drawing a type from that incident.

I don't need to argue with you much on this because anything that doesn't favour JWs is figurative but see what this scholar says:

"The spiritual rock that followed them There is some difficulty in this verse. How could the rock follow them? It does not appear that the rock ever moved from the place where Moses struck it. But to solve this difficulty, it is said that rock here is put, by metonymy, for the water of the rock; and that this water did follow them through the wilderness. This is more likely; but we have not direct proof of it. The ancient Jews, however, were of this opinion, and state that the streams followed them in all their journeyings, up the mountains, down the valleys, &c., &c.; and that when they came to encamp, the waters formed themselves into cisterns and pools; and that the rulers of the people guided them, by their staves, in rivulets to the different tribes and families. And this is the sense they give to Nu 21:17: Spring up, O well, &c. See the places in Schoettgen.

Others contend, that by the rock following them we are to understand their having carried of its waters with them on their journeyings. This we know is a common custom in these deserts to the present day; and that the Greek verb akolouyew, to follow, has this sense, Bishop Pearce has amply proved in his note on this place. The Jews suppose that the rock itself went with the Israelites, and was present with them in their thirty-eight stations, for only so many are mentioned. See Alschech in legem. fol. 236. And see Schoettgen.

Now, though of all the senses already given that of Bishop Pearce is the best, [size=14pt]yet it does appear that the apostle does not speak about the rock itself, but of Him whom it represented; namely, Christ: this was the Rock that followed them, and ministered to them;[/size] and this view of the subject is rendered more probable by what is said 1Co 10:9, that they tempted Christ, and were destroyed by serpents. Adam's Clarke's commentary

Hope you can understand what Apostle Paul was saying.

We can.

That referring to past activity carried out by Michael in the OT with the new name Jesus Christ as JWs said, right?

They had no clear understanding of the message, so how will they know that Michael will later become the Christ, not to talk of "having" his spirit.

See another misunderstanding of the scripture, who told you they didn't UNDERSTAND THE MESSAGE? Notice you said message but what the verse says is SEARCHING THE TIME and there's evidence in the NT that Christ was active in the OT.

The issue is about rearrangement. The rearrangement is not grammatically wrong nor is it scripturally wrong. And you are?

I won't allow you to dodge this my point here again

"This is not about learning in fact we will continue to learn till Jesus comes.
But the point is centred on what we learn from, the New World Translation you claimed to be learning from was translated by none scholarly people who doesn't possess any knowledge about the Original languages in which Bible was written.

Remember what leads to this is the rendering of 1 Peter 1:11 which you claimed you will take the word of these Bible students OVER that of Greek scholars."

How can you take the word of none scholar over scholars?
And I have shown you how rearrangement can change the meaning of a sentence. So the onus is on you to decide.

I'm a good Bible student and I'm still learning from scholars who know more than me.

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

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

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

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

2. to your last comment.

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

And I asked:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I ve given you a link that handle it.

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

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

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

Kay17:
BUT God ordered it. does the unchangeable God have a change of heart?!

I believe you're more intelligent and you're able to differentiate between "PRESCRIPTIVE" and "DESCRIPTIVE" the Old Testament events are descriptive and NOT prescriptive.

Beside if you read the content of those verses with an open heart you can get the message the writers are passing across.

Trustworthiness:
Please i need christians who are well knowledgeable about the teachings of Jesus Christ to help in answering the following questions.

Are you knowledgeable enough to accept the truth?

1. What is the Concept of God in Christianity?

God is the creator of heavens and earth, who has no beginning and end, and who has shown His love as a Father to us by sending His ONLY Son to die for our death.

2. Who is Jesus? God, Son of God, Son of Man?

Both and not only these because Jesus has many names & titles and they all signify to something.

3. If the word Christian derived from christ, which means follower christ. Then what are we going to call Jesus christ himself?

The Master who gave His life as a ransom to many.

4. Following the question 3 above, what is the religion of christ.

Judaism.

5. Why do we have gospel "ACCORDING TO" Mark, Matthew, Luke, John etc and not Gospel "BY" JESUS or "ACCORDING TO" JESUS? Not even gospel BY Mark, Matthew, Luke, John etc?

Gospel simply means "Good News" so if you complete it, it will read "The GOOD NEWS ACCORDING TO Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
Jesus didn't write any book but don't confuse the meaning of GOSPEL with BOOK, the life of Jesus is the GOSPEL itself.

Allah said he gave Jesus The Gospel have you ever asked yourself what is the GOOD NEWS given to Jesus is all about?

Please, make reference to Jesus statements from the Bible to prove your point. And let be mature in the answering of the Question.

No need for this now.

LucemFerre:
Mmm... "False dilemma..." Actually there are 3...
3. Life has always existed...
And now that you have introduced an "intelligent source (God)" to the first possibility even make the possibilities 4.

I just want to get it right, life has always existed ON EARTH or where?

Actually, this thread have been created since 2013 when I'm still used to debate with Atheist but unlike now that I don't do such anymore. So I only want to say this to clarify the reason why I respond to you people's post.

EvilBrain1:
Again, the theory of evolution doesnt address where life came from,

Whereas the OP isn't about evolution which means you're just shouting upon your own reason not to address the OP.

Obviously youre not addressing the theory of evolution because you clearly lack even a basic, child-like understsnding of it.

The OP is addressing EARLY LIFE and not evolution, so I don't see the reason why you would make this statement.

And what the hell is an "evolutionist"? That is a word that Ive only ever heard anti-science crackpots use. Maybe its crackpotese for "biologist". Please confirm or deny.

Please sir check your dictionary unless you want to tell me that this word doesn't exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So JWs misinterpreted that verse to suit their own purpose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JMAN05:
I was responding to your cancellation here:
"Will we" are the intended words.

Ok

Look at this words from Barne's Note 'cos I see you find it hard to understand the scriptures, maybe your fellow trinitarian can open your head:

1 Corinthians 10:4
This cannot be intended to be understood literally, for it was not literally true. The rock from which the water flowed was evidently an ordinary rock, a part of Mount Horeb; and all that this can mean is, that that rock, with the stream of water thus gushing from it, was a representation of the Messiah. The word was is thus often used to denote similarity or representation, and is not to be taken literally.

If this trinitarian cant convince you, I wonder who will. But try and improve your bible study, we all learn.

The problem you have is inability to comprehend simple statement.
In my post I didn't say Jesus is a literally ROCK had it been you pay close attention to my previous post you will discover that I BOLDEN and UNDERLINDED this sentence "...For they used to drink from the spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock meant* the Christ" and I went further to say "It's called SPIRITUAL ROCK and this SPIRITUAL ROCK used to FOLLOW them."

So which means Paul was telling us that Christ was active in OT. SMH

Another out of context quotation. Please read the whole sentence meditatively so as to understand. This time, have the context in mind.

In a discussion about the title "Christ", see what that Insight book says on it:

"The coming of the Christ, the one whom Jehovah would anoint with his spirit to be the Messianic King, had been foretold centuries before Jesus’ birth. (Da 9:25, 26) However, at his birth, Jesus was not yet the Anointed One or Christ. In foretelling his birth, the angel instructed Joseph: “You must call his name Jesus.” (Mt 1:21) But when the shepherds near Bethlehem were given the angelic announcement, in anticipation of Jesus’ future role they were told: “There was born to you today a Savior, who is Christ the Lord,” that is, “who is to be Christ the Lord.”—Lu 2:11, ftn."

Of course the discussion is about the Christ as you claimed but the question is, WHO became that Christ? Archangel Michael! Does Michael active in the OT? Yes! when Michael was active does it mean when he became Christ we can't used the new name 'CHRIST' to refer to his early activities? I believe you can't deny this which is the point here.

1 Pet 1:12 showed that this secret was not revealed to them.

But that doesn't mean this new name can be used to refer to his early active since it's still the same Michael that was VISIBLE to us and bear a name CHRIST beside the point here is different from what you took it to mean it only says the message they were receiving is not meant for them but we.

Do you believe that ^^

When you don't even know the meaning of the verse.

We humbly believe that we keep learning from Jehovah. The so called scholars keep learning too, but they dont want to admit that. Mind you, this does not mean that Jehovah's witnesses do not have those with secular bible scholarship. We do have those who pass through our bible schools. But you must admit that you dont know it all since even Jesus do not claim to know it all nor the apostles. [This is by the way].

This is not about learning in fact we will continue to learn till Jesus comes.
But the point is centred on what we learn from, the New World Translation you claimed to be learning from was translated by none scholarly people who doesn't possess any knowledge about the Original languages in which Bible was written.

Remember what leads to this is the rendering of 1 Peter 1:11 which you claimed you will take the word of these Bible students OVER that of Greek scholars.

You miss the point again. The issue here is the title "Christ". That title was not borne by Jesus prior to his coming to the earth. This does not mean that Jesus never existed in heaven as Michael, Nope! He did, but he was not the Christ in heaven before coming to the earth. He only acquired that title after his anointing on earth during his baptism. Consider again what I said above:

If Jesus exists in heaven as Michael, does he not active in the OT? Michael was active!
Now that his life was transferred to earth and (his spiritual body in heaven is lifeless as illogical reason of Michael being Jesus) and was given a new name on earth as CHRIST does it mean we can use his new name to refer to his early active? We can!

Today Christian including you we say Paul persecuted the early Church YET we know it's SAUL who actually persecuted them but why are will still using PAUL?

In fact this is enough for you to see that you're not a good Bible student.

JMAN05:
It may not be your fault entirely, but you never gave the belief of JWs as you claim. But it's ok, just take the correction.

And it will never be, I repeat for me to provide a link where a JWs support my idea means there might be some JWs who hold to that teaching but the reason you asked for prove is to think that I was the one who just read into what JWs never believe.

You are just saying the same thing, but you seem to misunderstand my own point.

Rather you didn't understand yourself.

Jesus is that LITERAL word of God that COMES out of God's mouth.

For the last time, THE WORD OF GOD dwell in the FLESH which was given the name JESUS Christ THE WORD didn't CHANGE TO JESUS get it clear because I won't repeat it again.

If the Jesus that came on earth is the word which a flesh covers, did God stop speaking when Jesus came on earth? Nope.

Did the WORD CHANGE to Jesus? Until you're able to the difference between CHANGE TO and DWELL IN.

If God still speaks, what issues forth from his mouth at that time is Jesus because, according to you, Jesus is the literal word of God.

Did the WORD CHANGE to Jesus? Until you're able to the difference between CHANGE TO and DWELL IN.

So when God spoke to the fleshly-covered Jesus, [size=14pt]he was transmitting the uncovered Jesus[/size] to the fleshly-covered Jesus. This is quite simple!

In fact how can an intelligent being made that @bolded statement? When JESUS is the name given to His FLESH why the WORD still remains THE WORD.

2. If you posit that Jesus is God's word incarnate. And you go on to say that there is still the divine word of God in heaven. This is the implication:

- It means that Jesus is not God, because God is not an incarnate of His word, rather, [size=14pt]His word is a part of Him.[/size]

Don't tell you hold to Unitarian view of Jesus being God with this your statement.

I love that bolded part, then it also means that Jesus is not created and fully divine, and you say His word is a part of Him then Jesus is God since anything as part of God is God.

However, you hold to the belief that Jesus is that literal word that comes out of God's mouth. Do you want to change that position?

You hold to believe that Jesus is created and not God, do you want to change that position?

It is left for you to prove how the bible imply what you are saying about the expression "word". Your position is against your trinitarian teaching, and its creating more jesuses.

Stop making fool of yourself by saying Jesuses, you believe Holy spirit to be an active force of God yet He can rest on more than five people at a time. Does that mean we have many Holy spirits?

I dont understand the point you made there.

I mean you fully understood my point that THE WORD DWELLS in FLESH not that the WORD CHANGE to HUMAN yet could make those statement again.

Tell us how. Remember your position:

Jesus is that LITERAL word that COMES out of God's mouth.

Jesus took on flesh, but some literal words still came out of God's mouth. Wont this stand mean that those literal words that came out of God's mouth while Jesus was on earth were Jesus?

What made that point and the ones below illogical?

Tired of repetition read above again.

Thats not what we are discussing for now. I said:

It's part of it.

Is God the word he himself produces?

Unitarian view.

How?
I dont see how that relates to the points I made to which you are replying.

It relates sir because you're trying to portrait it as if God's knowledge is different from God's omniscient.

Just accept my position, and reply me accordingly.

I should just accept

On omniscience, I said his ability to know all. Knowledge on the other hand is not an ability. They are related, but has a slight difference in meaning.

What does God knowledge mean? Simple!

You ve not provided that evidence.

What will you say before?

Stop shifting the discussion. You still have not provided the evidence. The proverb is just describing God's abstract qualities, which understanding is inclusive. These things are not persons.

I didn't shift anything.

Funny it's now that proverb is describing the abstract qualities of God but you people can claim that Proverb 8 is about Jesus even though is talking about WISDOM.

dolphinheart:
What scripture passages back up ur belief in these creed?

Your own is to look at the creed and point out anywhere that is not scriptural.

dolphinheart:
Looking at the scriptures u quoted, Unless we agree that the holy spirit is also the father. [size=14pt]It is not possible to assume that the holy spirit is a person like God.[/size]
If the father is also the holy spirit . Then they are not two persons but rather one person exhibiting two personalities which goes contrary to the trinity doctrine which emphasises co equality of 3 persons . If the father is not the holy spirit , then how do we explain that the spirit is jehovah.

The problem you're having is to think the Father alone is YAHWEH in the Godhead.

The bolded part is wrong WE ARE NOT ASSUMED but how the Bible describes Holy spirit as a person, this verse is one of them.

Bwon:
Bro you think the Goodnews hasn't reached the world yet Even where legs can can't go devices have gone there.

You said DEVICES as if 100% of the world are now internet literate.
Beside just do research you can know better.

chigoizie7:
Thanks so much, but please give me references to all that u ve answered. I really do appreciate ur candid response.

Please permit me to ask, reference to what?

lahchi:
you just right words without checking the facts of what I wrote... tithe is given to levites who r d priest.. Christians are of d priesthood of God and so Christians are not to pay tithe but if u do it simply implies that u are an Israelites. remember tithe is a law and d law has been abolished thats why we are under the grace that Christ brought... its better u accept the truth and live in the truth... ignorance is nor an excuse for u knw nw... and also I dont knw kun... so don't have d preconceived notion that he taught me anything.

I have to recheck my previous post to be sure I quoted the right person and I found out that I actually quoted the right person.

Please check the person this post meant for.

EvilBrain1:
Because Darwins evolution explains everything that happened after the first life showed up.

When you don't even know how the first life showed up

All of Darwins predictions have turned out to be true, the theory agrees with discoveries Darwin wasnt aware of (eg Mendelian inheritance) and oerfectly explains new discoveries that Darwin never even dreamed of and is supported by a mountain of observatuonal and experimental evidence, more than any other theory in all of science. Of course, nobody is claiming that evolution is the be all, end all;

Yet you still called it THEORY.

but its vastly superior to any other explanation for life on earth including the God did it with magic theory that religious people prefer.

I can't just stop laughing...WHEN THIS THEORY DOESN'T explain how life showed up in the first place you still find it superior to God who created the FIRST life.

And by the way, evolution doesnt deal with how life first appeared, that field is called Abiogenesis. You should look it up, there have been a lot of very interesting discoveries in recent years.

You and your brother/sister still hold the same view about my post.

Like I replied to his/her post, I didn't address the THEORY of evolution BUT what EVOLUTIONIST says about origin of life.

Hope you can get the gist now?

Yet we have not seen transition of one animal to another animal.

Bwon:
Moments when i wonder when christ would come. The bible says like a thief in the night right ? isn't it night already.... All the signs have virtually happened in our eyes and yet the end is not here yet? Sin is a normal thing people don't get criticized for sin anymore Sin are now been based on human rights i.e You can do whatever you like because it your right to do so.... Won''t Majority of the world wax cold with every passing time. Brethren lets encourage one another For the End would surely come But when? no1 knows but we know its like a thief in the night be prepared.

That means you never read your Bible very well.

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations; and then shall the end come." Matt 24:14 ASV

Ask yourself has the Gospel been preached in the WHOLE WORLD?

If your answer is Yes! Then your thread is meaningful and a serious problem to Christendom but if it is NO! then your thread is meaningless.