₦airaland Forum

deebrain:
Are you just trying to be funny?


"This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased", " I regret I had created man", "You are (to king Abimelech) as good as a dead man for the woman with you is another man's wife, etc IS NOT THE SAME THING AS "LET THERE BE LIGHT!"

God as a spirit, even with His Holy spirit and His word, EXPRESSED HIMSELF WITH WORDS individually!


And Jesus Christ is called THE WORD OF GOD. Not WORDS of God.

The bold is nonsense, you yourself said whenever God spoke, what he spoke is his active word


" . THE WORD OF GOD is not just His mere talk. IT'S HIS ACTIVE WORD--- WHEN EVER HE SPOKE . "

Whenever he spoke , can you see ?

So even what he spoke during Jesus baptism is Jesus as well.

going by your Silly logic.

Wake up from your error man

Emusan:
Admit what Isn't what I wrote in the OP very correct?

You misinterpreted the article , LIFE as used in that brochure refers to Jesus existence as a Creature

Yet you misinterpreted it to mean the force of life AND not life itself

If yes, then why did you people say Jesus doesn't have two nature?

Does His person or existence of living disappear and another one started on earth or the person or existence of living in heaven continues why on earth?

Continues in a form that could be born by a woman



Mary gave birth to an human NOT God

.

At least first admit, you wrote nonsense @ Op

Emusan:
Now, if life is an existence of a living soul or person.

Is it the same person of Jesus who was in heaven that was transferred into the womb of Mary?

Yes , in a Servant form that could be born of a woman.

When the time came to completion, God sent his Son, born of a woman Galatians 4:4

deebrain:
Good evening..

Stupid remark.


And next time, back up why you called my reasoning "folly" with SCRIPTURES like you guys are fond of doing...


You are young. Your brain is still sharp. READ YOUR BIBLES FOR YOURSELF.

You ain't making any sense
Here is your initial comment

" . THE WORD OF GOD is not just His mere talk. IT'S HIS ACTIVE WORD--- WHEN EVER HE SPOKE AND IT BECAME. "

The nonsense you wrote above means that since he spoke during Jesus baptism, it means what he uttered is Jesus .

Yet another Jesus is getting baptized right?

You need to humble and examine yourself

Emusan:
Is the highlight not what you and your organization teach?

Pure nonsense is what you uttered in your opening statements

What is life to you?

Existence as a living Soul or person ( See Matthew 13:37,38 its why Peter could say he will surrender his LIFE < Existence as a living creature> on behalf of Jesus

What did Jehovah send down to earth according to your organization ?

Jehovah send his son by transfering his Life (Existence as a living Person) to the earth.

deebrain:
Oga. literal word....This is my beloved son in whom I am pleased with.

literal word....Genesis 18 vs17, should I not tell Abraham what I intend to do knowing he will instruct his etc etc etc..

etc etc etc...



Active word --LET THERE BE LIGHT! and THERE WAS LIGHT!


It is because you are the unfortunate ones that don't know between mere expression of words and active or living words.

Even though you are still mistaken, at least you are getting to realize your folly

Emusan:
>God and the spirits being have a body
>Spirit is nothing but a mere life force not a personality on its own
>Death is nothing but cessation of all functions of life.
>The man Jesus has only one nature which is just MAN no divine.
These are widely believes of all Jehovah Witnesses.

With this in mind, let's look at the logical reason behind how JWs explained the way the Son of God (Jesus Christ) was sent to earth.

“Unlike any human, Jesus lived in heaven as a spirit person before HE WAS BORN ON EARTH (John 8:23)” (Good news from God, pg. 8.) This means a BEING(non-human) with a body and spirit lives in heaven before came to earth.

This statement seems to agree with other Bible believing Christians about Jesus Christ that The man Jesus is both Divine and Man as having two natures i.e the Divine person dwells in the human body God produced in the ovum of Mary. Heb 10:5

JWs disagree with this by saying Jesus only had one nature which is MAN only.

KEY NOTE: If God said He sent His Son into the world and JWs confirmed that this Son lives in heaven before He was born on earth but later said Jesus had only one nature; I ask what did God actually send?

JWs seem to have answer to this question by saying:
“God sent his Son to earth BY TRANSFERRING HIS LIFE from heaven to the womb of a virgin Jewess named Mary…” (Good news from God, pg.

KEY NOTE: Notice that it was the LIFE of the Son that was sent and this is the people who believe that the spirits being have a BODY. So, where is the body that this LIFE was removed? No JWs can provide a reasonable answer to this and in other word it means Jehovah killed His Son not that He sent Him since JWs believed that Death is nothing but cessation of all functions of life.

Moreover, saying "God sent his Son to earth BY TRANSFERRING HIS LIFE..." we can then ask JWs what do they believe about LIFE itself?
These are the people who believe that LIFE/SPIRIT in every being is nothing but LIFE FORCE, that's why Holy Spirit was believed to be an ACTIVE FORCE of God and human's spirit to be a mere force that energises the body. So, life/spirit in general doesn't have any personal trait in it.

Then, we can as well ask JWs that doesn't this mean that Jehovah actually killed His Son and eventually sent nothing to earth? Though, they will never say YES to this question but in critical view of their claim it boils down to this.

In Summary for better understanding
>God sent His Son (a being with body and spirit/life) to earth
>But it was only His LIFE that God transferred
>Which means the body of the Son is lifeless in heaven
>And life to an average JWs is nothing but a mere life force that energises the body
>It simply means that God killed His Son and end up sent nothing to earth.

I come to conclude that JW's Jesus is totally different from the TRUE Biblical Jesus which other Bible believing Christians know because God can not lie for He said, He sent His Son and His Son also said in many places that His Father sent Him even makes reference to His existence before He came to earth.

Jesus once asked people "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?"
It is not meaningless life/life force that lives in heaven before but the real Son of God and it was this same Son of God that is going back to heaven.

The highlighted is where your problem began

You expect an answer, when your own thinking is mistaken ? Funny

deebrain:
What did God say when Jesus died and went to the grave? What did God say when Jesus was hanging on the cross?

NOTHING!! TOTAL SILENCE!!

2corinthians 5 vs 19. God was in Christ, RECONCILING THE WORLD TO HIMSELF!!

God said a lot of literal utterances. He regretted. He reasoned. He said even funny expressions. All contained in your Bibles. THE WORD OF GOD is not just His mere talk. IT'S HIS ACTIVE WORD---WHEN EVER HE SPOKE AND IT BECAME.

I was actually trying to see if you know what you are saying, Now I know you don't


When Jesus was baptized, how was God still able to speak if Jesus is the literal word?

deebrain:
There was never a creation OF the word. The word WAS WITH GOD!

Get your facts right, Jesus was Created (Rev 3:14) he is the beginning OF CREATION by God



Jesus is the word doesn't mean he is the literal utterance coming out of God, unless you want to tell us God could not speak again when Jesus died for three days , Do you believe that ?

chinazaJoshua:
You cannot I accept Jesus Christ into your life and not be Born Again,and you cannot be Born Again without accepting Jesus Christ.(John 1:12).
Though some Christian pays lip service,that is, their confession does not conform to what they profess.There are some people,especially,the ones who are privileged to be born into a Christian family who have not really made that personal decision to accept Christ into their life as Lord and Saviour,these ones (I call them Christians by believe system or religion and not by conviction)
Christians by conviction are the ones who consciously accepted Jesus Christ into their life ----this ones are born again(Romans 10:9-10)

Its actually possible to accept Christ as Lord and Savior without necessarily being born again .

John the Baptist belived in Jesus Christ, yet he wasn't born again ... Cos the records said he won't be in the kingdom of heavens ( Mat 11:11)

- Also one of the thief's on Jesus side also accept him as Lord and Saviour , putting faith in him, Yet he wasn't born again because Jesus did not promise him heaven , Instead he promise him paradise ( which every Jew reading the Septuagint knew refers to the Garden of Eden , thus a reference to the New Earth ).

kingcomet:
Good morning and happy Sunday nairalanders.
This question has been bothering me for a while now. if God is all good and powerful as we are told, why is there hardship, evil and suffering everywhere? Let us use Nigeria as a case study. Nigeria is one of the most religious countries in the world yet the level of suffering in this country is on a high.
Boko Haram and the Fulani Herdsmen are still going round doing evil. Many lives have been lost yet there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

My question now is, why can't God stop all the evil and suffering going on if he is truly all powerful and good?

1 John 5:19 the whole world lies in the power of Satan .

Mankind since rebelling against God , has accepted Satan as their leader and ruler . Even Jesus called Satan the ruler of the world (John 14:30) due to that, No wonder wicked things abound since the ruler of the world is wicked as well .

That is why We need to pray for Gods kingdom to come ... Jesus said we should pray ' Father, let your kingdom come ' Matt 6:10 .

Under that kingdom, suffering will be a thing of the past ( Rev 21:4)

For more information see the book What does the Bible really teach , chapter 3 : What is Gods purpose for humans ?


I will drop the link here

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102015143

Deadlytruth:
Hmmm. Very disingenuous of you as per the bolded. Do you think there was any specific formal ceremony instituted to mark when a Jew or gentile practising Judaism accepted the message about Jesus messiahship?
John the Baptist baptized people into Christ before Christ ever revealed Himself as the promised Messiah by way of commencing his ministry in full public glare. So you believe those Jews and unbelievers baptized by John the Baptist were still unbelievers after the baptism just because they had not physically met Jesus and any of his disciples for any teaching as at that moment?


The Bible says it clearly that the Ethiopian Eunuch went to Jerusalem to worship.
Is it really possible for a person to go and worship a God he had not yet believed in? Was it an Idol he went to worship there?
How come he went there to worship a different god and yet the God of Jesus Christ sent Philip to him to explain a message about Jesus to him? Does that make sense?

Worshipping God is same as accepting Christ as Messiah? Gosh lol

Every Jew claims to worship Jehovah God in Jerusalem Yet many of them reject Jesus as Messiah till today !!! Learn and reason .

A Jew belives Messiah is coming BUT its a different ball game to accept that Jesus the son of Mary is that Messiah . ( identity )

You yourself quoted this :


Acts chapter 1;

5 There were Jews living in Jerusalem, religious people who had come from every country in the world. 6 When they heard this noise, a large crowd gathered. They were all excited, because all of them [ Religious people and Jews who has come to Jerusalem ] heard the believers talking in their own languages. "
( Bracket Mine )

Why are those religious people in Jerusalem Clearly Separated from believers in this verse ?

Deadlytruth:


Before Jesus was born at all a lot of people both in Israel and outside Israel (including the Eunuch) had, through reading the books of the prophets, known he was going to come some day, and had therefore believed in him in advance and were eagerly waiting for him to be born.

Even Mary herself knew from the scriptures that a Messiah was going to come hence she was very happy to discover that she was the one chosen by God as His earthly mother. So the customs you talk about here were a foreshadowing of the fact that the most Jews were already aware of the coming of Jesus only that they had a mistaken idea of what He would look like.
In fact the Eunuch's visit to Jerusalem was not in fulfilment of any Jewish custom since he was not a Jew. It was rather strictly for worship of the God of Israel whom he had come to believe in despite being a gentile. Look at the verse again and face reality:

"So Philip got ready and went. Now an "Ethiopian eunuch, who was an important official in charge of the treasury of the queen of Ethiopia, was on his way home. He had been to Jerusalem to worship God and was going back home in his carriage."
I hope you accept the truth now.

Here is the account of what happened on the day of Pentecost as reported in Acts chapter 1;

5 There were Jews living in Jerusalem, religious people who had come from every country in the world. 6 When they heard this noise, a large crowd gathered. They were all excited, because all of them heard the believers talking in their own languages.  7 In amazement and wonder they exclaimed, “These people who are talking like this are Galileans!8 How is it, then, that all of us hear them speaking in our own native languages? 9 We are from Parthia, Media, and Elam; from Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia; from Pontus and Asia, 10 from Phrygia and Pamphylia, from Egypt and the regions of Libya near Cyrene. Some of us are from Rome, 11 both Jews and Gentiles converted to Judaism, and some of us are from Crete and Arabia—yet all of us hear them speaking in our own languages about the great things that God has done! But some doubted......"

These people were obviously not Jews but were gentile believers who were either living in Jerusalem or had travelled there to worship.
Likewise, they had unbelievers among them who formed the remaining part that the next chapter reported as full of doubt and therefore accused the disciples of drunkeness. So the crowd there was a mixture of believers and unbelievers.

Eunuch already knew about and believed in the God of Israel and the promise of the Messiah hence his owning a copy of the scriptures and the studying of it together with his visit to Jerusalem to worship as a gentile. He did not need to have seen Jesus face to face before believing in him. Did you yourself see Jesus face to face before believing in him? Was it not from the Bible you read about him just as the Eunuch?

Oh, since every Jew expects the Messiah and worship God as well , I guess every Jew is a believer ? U can imagine .

Your desperation will move you to accept anything , despite the fact that the underlined separated those people from believers .


Fact remains the Ethiopia Eunuch going to Jerusalem doesn't make him a believer , Hence needed the message preached/ Evangelized in Acts 5;42 , the message of Jesus is Christ . strictly a message for unbelievers .

A believer already accept Christ as Messiah hence doesn't need such basic concept , proving the audience of Act 5:42 are unbelievers .

Deadlytruth:
You are beginning to manifest an inclination towards use of for abusive language and blackmail. such attitude tells me you know deep within you that you are not really making sense. Why accuse me of holding up irrelevant arguments rather than just make your point? Only bigoted opinions are defended with abusive language.
The Eunuch was an Ethiopian and not a Jew hence his going to Jerusalem to worship had nothing to do with the instructions for the Jews to meet together. Like Cornelius, there were non-Jews who believed in Jesus even before Jesus was crucified.The centurion is another example.
What happened between Philip and the Eunuch was not preaching but an explanation which took the form of teaching. An unbeliever could not have gone to Jerusalem out of his own volition to worship and then on his way home be studying the scriptures as well. Why not look at these thing logically at least for once?

Smiles, you are the one who need to see things logically.

Remember Pentecost 33CE, and the various people that congregated together then. People going to Jerusalem has nothing to do with believing in Jesus .

As at when Jesus was 12 years old, when he wasn't even known yet ... Many already make the journey there .

So you can see its not a matter of been believers, All those who came to Pentecost in Jerusalem are not believers either .

Luke 2:41,42

41 Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover. 42 When he was twelve years old, they went up to the festival, according to the custom.

That nullifies the thought that the Eunuch was a beliver , How could he even belived in someone he doesn't know ?

He told Philip : who is it the prophet is talking about ?
The message is preached to those who are not yet believers , that is the point am trying to make here cos its d same message preached in Act 5:42 !

Meanwhile you have been trying to change the topic from the rightness vs wrongness of house to house preaching by jumping around different verses which are not related to it.

You have refused to answer my question that "Could those who were preached to in the Temple as recorded in Acts 5:42 be unbelievers?"

They are unbelievers as specified by the message Jesus is Christ . to preach means to EVANGELIZE .

Deadlytruth:
Still taking verses in isolation thus out of context. In verse 27 of that Acts chapter 8, the Eunuch is reported to be on his journey back home after having gone for worship in Jerusalem. How could an unbeliever have gone to worship in Jerusalem?

Lolzzz, Oga People have been going to Jerusalem to worship before Jesus come . it has nothing to do with Jesus , its a required thing for Jews to meet together .

Remember Joseph and Mary travelled also to Jerusalem when Jesus was still young . ?

The guy is not yet a disciple , the message Philip preached to him was the same as that preached in Act 5;42 , the Gospel of Jesus Christ

The main point here is that message is preached to those who are not yet disciples .

And does Acts 11:20 record that they went from house to house among those Greek unbelievers?
Recall that the contention is about the rightness or wrongness of going from house to house among unbelievers.

You like holding up irrelevant things , I can see @ captivator gave that verse To let you see the kind of audience to whom that message is been evangelized . the gospel of Jesus Christ been preached to the Greeks . the Greeks are not disciples

So you can better understand the audience of Act 5;42 who is been preached to with the message of the Goodnews of Christ . it becomes clear they are evangelizing to it to people who are yet to know Christ .

CAPTIVATOR:
Its a very simple thing, the Message been evangelized exposed the flaws in your argument, Its to convince the people to accept Jesus as Messiah, Not believers who already did .

I could see you have edited your message, the transfiguration was to fulfil the prophecy that they will see the son of man in Glory before they died .

Jozzy4 gave a good example of preaching the goodnews of Jesus been done to unbelievers In Act 8 : 35 . that explains it

Exactly .

Deadlytruth:
[/b]

The Eunuch was of similar spiritual standing as Cornelius and he was studying the scriptures with a receptive heart thus he had already believed but only wanted to understand. Remember the kingdom is by first believing so that you may understand unlike science and human disciplines for which you must first understand before believing.

Was the Eunuch a Disciple ? That's the question.

[s]
The use of "people" connotes nothing other than generalization. "The people" mean both believers and unbelievers. However, when you factor in the preceding verses and treat the passage as a whole, you can't deny the nuances.

You lie about Acts 20:2
It did not say anything at all about house to house preaching.
Here is what it says starting from verse 1, " When the uproar had ended, Paul sent for the disciples and after encouraging them, said good-bye and set out for Macedonia. 2. He travelled through that area speaking many words of encouragement to the people and finally arrived in Greece."
Now apart from the fact that it wasn't recorded here that he went from house to house while traveling through those places mentioned, it is inconceivable that a man who was hurrying away from a city where there was an uproar against him would decide to start wasting time visiting houses in just the neighboring territories. [/s]

So funny, that was a Typo.. Should be Act 20:20,21 , the 0,21 went missing .

As per the bolded, the verse spoke of teaching and announcing the good news but in analysing it you removed the word "teaching" in pursuit of the predetermined doctrine you are trying to establish.

Put the "teaching" back and ask yourself who needs teaching between unbelievers and already existing believers?
Don't you as an already existing believer receive teaching in your Kingdom Halls? Does that make you an unbeliever? How does a believer grow if not by teaching?
Teaching is exclusively meant for believers. Unbelievers have no business with it.

You don't teach unbelievers. You first convince them by announcing the good news and healing them of their diseases since, as unbelievers, they require signs and not teaching.

In fact trying to teach an unbeliever is usually counterproductive because he too already has a belief structure which he rigidly believes in. When you speak he can counter you with superior arguments. When you challenge a Moslem's faith by trying to teach him the Bible you are very likely to fail because most of them study the Bible more than Christians and you inclusive. Same with Bhuddists and even Atheists. But by demonstrating the power and love of God through miracles you melt their hearts. That is why Paul says in 1 Cor 4:20 that the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.

The verse said Teaching and preaching ( Evangelize ) , the word rendered preaching means To evangelize ... This is done to those who haven't received Christ .

Besides, Jesus in his instruction also said go, and make disciples from people of all nations, Teach them ... Teaching and preaching go hand in hand .

Again, to preach is to Evangelize

Deadlytruth:
As per your first paragraph, what you see in that verse is a generalization which does not alter the specific nuances in the details. I have repeated this enough.

Its a wrong generalization, they were teaching people NOT believers in the verse . this is why I asked you to Read Act 8:35 and see who are been preached the good news of Christ to .

Acts 8:35 has nothing about house to house preaching. It is rather an encounter between Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch who was on a journey and was reading Isiah without understanding. This means the Eunuch was not really an unbeliever. And even at that the angel directed Philip to catch up with the him on his way home and not in his home on arrival. So your argument fails again.

#shakes head# seriously ?

U miss the point, I cite the verse to let you notice this fact ; The Goodnews of Christ mentioned in Act 5:42 is been preached to people who are not yet believers .

At Act 8:35, Philip preached this same goodnews of Christ to the Ethiopian eunuch , NOT a fellow believer .

What are they preaching In Act 5:42 ?

They preached the goodnews of Jesus Christ ... Clearly, they are teaching people with this message NOT to fellow believers.

@ Act 20:2 Paul also preached house to house , preaching repentance towards God and Faith in Lord Jesus .

Not a theme for a believer who has already have faith in Christ .

Let me now go a bit more detailed about this Acts 5:42 you've been holding onto as your remaining lifeline. What we have there is that they were teaching and proclaiming the good news from house to house. Now, aside the fact that there was no single person in Jerusalem to whom the gospel was altogether strange at that material time, you need to go back to Acts 5:12 - 16 where the whole show began. It records that the Apostles and believers performed healing miracles on the people who gathered around them either in the streets or at Solomon's Colonnade of the Temple and because of this more men and women were added to their numbers. This means they won new converts in the Temple and in the streets but never inside people's houses. It was on this note that the high priests and Sadducees got to know and out of envy got the Apostles punished. Had they won the converts inside people's houses privately it would not have been a public issue and the Chief priests and Sadducees would not have heard about it let alone getting them punished.
Again, if you read Acts 4:32-37 you would see that the believers lived communal lives relative to one another. This means they shared all they had among themselves even though they were living separately in the physical sense. for people residing in different houses to live communally, they must visit one another's houses to share those belongings and strengthen one another's faith by teaching and proclaiming the message which constrained them to live such pattern of life in the first instance. This is what house to house manner refers to in the verse you cited above, and not the evangelism targeted at unbelievers.

Till now you have not been able to cite outside Acts any passage or verse which clearly approves house to house preaching in unambiguous language.
I have successfully cited some outside Acts.
Whatever position we want to defend, we must be able to draw clear evidences from as many books as possible as long as we believe that these books are not cross-contradictory.

Assumption @ underlined ... Unfounded one .

They are preaching the goodnews of Christ , to whom is such message share if NOT unbelievers as seen in Act 8:35 ?

So they gonna be preaching the goodnews of Christ to someone who has already accept Christ as Lord ? Doesn't make sense, its a sentimental opinion .

Deadlytruth:
As per the first and second bolded, I had explained in previous pages here that permission to enter a house on first arrival was not for preaching but to seek a potential believer ready to assist them with lodging and accommodation throughout their stay in that town. Please read further to verse 11-13 of that Mathew Chapter 10 which says, "Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave....". This can't be about the manner of preaching but of looking for where to lodge first before the commencement of business.
The same is repeated in Luke 10: 5-7.


For the third bolded; the events happened in Jerusalem among whom there were already believers converted by Jesus Himself, thus it was a visit of fellow believers to one another's houses for fellowshiping.

Acts 20:20 can't be divorced from Acts 19:1-7 as long as full understanding is the goal.

Is the underlined what the verse said ?

Oh, they are preaching the GOOD NEWS of JESUS CHRIST to fellow believers ? then why are they believers if they don't know Jesus Christ . lame excuse Bro

Read Act 8:35 , They preach the goodnews of Christ to those who are not yet believers . what is happening in Act 5:42 is a powerful declaration about Jesus Christ to people of all sort coming into the Temple and meeting such ones in house to house ministry .

OnyeOGA:

what sort of bible misinterpretation is this

You would have done well to pick out the misinterpretation, if any ..

Deadlytruth:
In commissioning the 72 disciples in Luke 10:7 Jesus was silent on the question of whether they could go to gentile lands or not. But let us even assume that He didn't want them to visit gentile lands on that very outing judging from the constraining circumstances you claim were in existence at that moment, then it would mean that he forbade house to house preaching among the Jews. And those 72 actually went out and returned without actually visiting gentile lands. So how come it appears to you that they disobeyed Christ by entering into gentile territories thereby setting a precedent for future disobedience to Jesus' instruction against house to house preaching?

Even when Jesus later expanded the reach of His gospel to gentiles he only asked them to go out into the whole world and spread the good news without making any alterations to the manner he had already spelt out in previous instances. If He had found a change necessary about the manner of approach do you think he would not have made it known when he was expanding the outlook to cover all nations? And do you think it was a coincidence that Paul and Peter always first went to the synagogues in whichever gentile cities they set their feet on for the first time ever?

Now, let me tell you the actual reason behind Jesus disapproval of house to house manner:
Luke 10: 2 he said to the 72 appointees, "The harvest is ripe but labourers are few....". This therefore means the method that must be adopted for maximum harvest is mass approach. And that would normally involve speaking from the synagogues or other public places. the other hand going from house to house would not yield a bountiful harvest within the timeframe they had to evangelize.
On return, their testimonies actually showed they made a mountainous harvest of souls that same day.
Small as Israel was in population, house to house approach was seen by Jesus as unproductive. Then how could He have ever intended it to be used for the far more populous gentile land where bigger harvests were ripe?
And have labourers outnumbered ripe harvest today to warrant a change of approach as you would have us believe?
Are other world's religions not being reported as growing faster than Christianity today through biological means?

@ bolded, Same way he prohibit them from preaching outside Israel or going to people of the nations . ( Matthew 10:5,6


It all boils down to prevailing circumstances.

Neither did he ever prohibit them from entering a House , for he told them to go to the homes of people . this ones can either accept them or reject ( Luke 10:5,6 ) .


On a large scale as Christianity continue to spread, House to house became a practical method of reaching people .

Act 5:42 even reports :

" and every day in the temple and FROM HOUSE to HOUSE they continued without let up teaching and declaring the good news about the Christ, Jesus "


They not only focus on the Temple to reach people and declare the good news, House to House was very much practical too. No wonder Paul made mention of it in Act 20:20

Deadlytruth:

First show the proof that it is wrong.
However, I can't even continue with any of you because for three days now I have taken the pain to address and comment on all the verses you raised in defense of your beliefs in house to house preaching while you people on the other hand have refused to directly or indirectly address the Luke 10:7 I cited for my conviction against house to house preaching.
It has been a one sided game all along and it must stop being so. If you want me to continue then first tell me why the disciples later 'disobeyed' Jesus clear instruction in Luke 10:7 by going from house to house immediately on arrival in previously unevangelized towns as it appears to you.

Any further response short of this will not get my attention. Thanks.

The bolded is extremely funny Bro . I already did . Again, I will so everyone reading the thread can see for themselves.



Check the below Translations ( coded as reference *2A)

An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed), renders it: “God is your throne....”


And The Bible in Living English (Byington) reads: “God is your throne....”

The Message reads: “Your throne is God’s throne….”

NSB - God is your throne

Mace - "God is thy throne….”

Twentieth Century Translation - ‘God is thy throne….’


Will you now make a PUBLIC APOLOGY for misleading the public and misrepresenting the witnesses with your bolded words below?

"

Deadlytruth

However, only in your NWT is Heb. 1:8 deliberately distorted to suit a preconceived doctrine.
All other translations have it as ..... your kingdom, O God......."

Is it true all other translation have it as you stated ? ( reference 2A)

Is it only the NWT that said God is your throne ? ( reference 2A)

Deadlytruth:
You have refused to address Luke 10:7 in which Jesus clearly forbade house to house preaching for fresh evangelism.
If you keep twisting the other verses to make it appear that JWs are right to go from house to house then where do you place this clear instruction from Jesus himself? Aren't Bible verses supposed to harmoniously agree? Your twisting of the other verses make them look contradictory to Luke 10:7. And you are okay with that just so that JWs ego must be massaged?

Even Jesus instruct his apostles to only go to the house of isreal and should not enter into the nations to preach , didn't he ?

Did they disobey?

This is why I asked earlier on if the apostles are disobeying Jesus Christ, a because clearly as seen in Act 20:20 and Act 5:42 , they presched from house to house .

Infact Jesus also said they must not greet anyone on their way to preach ...


Circumstances of the time make Jesus give this guidelines, after his resurrection he instruct them to.go into the whole world , House to house preaching becomes one of their preaching methods ( Act 5:42, 20:20)

Deadlytruth:
You are not making any sense with this.
What is all this demand for apology about when you are not God? Why do you JWs so much love playing God?
Does the NWT indicate any footnote that there are two possible renderings to that verse?
Are the LXX Septuagint, RSV and NIV you referenced for evidence the same as the NWT you could not reference for same. Why did NWT translators avoid presenting both renderings but chose just the one which favoured their predetermined doctrine? That is the distortion. Distortion could take the form of addition or deliberate ommission which is the case here.

Bro, the below statement is FALSE . admit that and present your apology , then we can proceed .

However, only in your NWT is Heb. 1:8 deliberately distorted to suit a preconceived doctrine.
All other translations have it as "...... your kingdom, O God......."

Deadlytruth:


Yes he spoke of teaching people about repentance when he first entered Asia Minor. But the preceding Bible verses make it clear that Ephesus was not the first city he visited in Asia Minor and that there were already believers in Ephesus before he ever set foot there.

This he said was done by teaching publicly and from house to house .

Deadlytruth:
You are still treating verses in isolation of the entire Bible. What you referenced above was Peter's speech to Jewish unbelievers who were yet to accept Jesus. When trying to convert an unbeliever you don't start with the deepest and most complex parts of the message but with the simplest and less controversial ones. It is after you have won him over and he his faith is firmly rooted that you go deep.
You go from the known to the unknown.
When Paul arrived Athens and introduced the unknown god inscribed on the wall of the temple as the Almighty God, does it mean that those Athenians actually perceived that unknown god as the god of heaven? No. To them it meant just another one of their usual gods whose existence they believed they might not be aware of.
Also, Jesus was of dual nature, namely; as an earthly being in the flesh and as a spirit being in heaven. In Hebrews 1:8-9, the scene happened in heaven and He was therefore spoken of as a Spirit/God and not as a fleshy being.
But in the Acts 3:13 you have just cited, Peter was referring to him concerning his activities on earth as a man in the flesh, hence he referred to him as a servant which is an earthly thing.

Firstly Apologize for your earlier FALSE statement.

Deadlytruth:
So Ephesus alone was equivalent to the whole of Asia province?
Entering Ephesus can't mean exactly the same as entering Asia Minor.
When a generalization is made there are exceptions.
Chapter 19 vs 1-8 show clearly that he did not do house to house preaching immediately on arrival in Ephesus.
It is like a tourist visiting Nigeria for the first time Lands in Lagos as his first point of entry and immediately on arrival starts visiting museums first, then he proceeds to Benin and visited Museums first again, and same thing with PH, Kano and Abuja before proceeding to Kaduna where he however visited Unibuja first on arrival. Then when telling of his experience he says, "When I first got to Nigeria I visited Museums first". He is correct here because he is apparently referring to Lagos. By this statement he couldn't have been referring to Abuja because in Abuja he didn't visit a museum first. This is simple logic.

Moreover, the first city Paul visited in Asia Minor was not Ephesus.

Speaking regarding his ministry in the Asian province . he talked about how he preached repentance to God and Faith in Jesus Christ .

This is not something to be taught a believer, because he already has faith in Jesus Christ . clearly he was referring to the time they were unbelievers and he did the preaching by teaching publicly and from HOUSE to HOUSE .

Deadlytruth:
But in the preceding verses Christ made it clear that He and the Father were one before creation of the world. But did not however say that he and the disciples were one before creation. See where the difference lies?

Just AS ,

Meditate on that, be one JUST AS .

Whatever u infer as what oneness means between Jesus and his Father MUST clearly apply to the disciples

Deadlytruth:
You sound confused about these things.

If some translations have it as "Your throne O God" and others have it as "God is your throne", and both renderings are contained in the LXX Septuagint, then how does one rendering invalidate the other?

Jesus called Himself both the Son of God and the Son of Man under different circumstances. How does His being the Son of Man invalidate His being the Son of God?
Had it been the LXX Septuagint does not at all contain the "Your throne, O God" rendering, then you would have had a point.

It simply means don't accuse NWT of deception when you don't have the facts .

Another of your FALSE assertion which stem out of your hatred was ONLY NWT contained the God is your throne rendering ., which as stated was found to be an outright LIE .

I Demand an apology for your making such deceptive Assertion to mislead the Public !!!

Until you do, I won't proceed with you because doing so will mean you can continue to slander without remorse .

Verse 9 says, ".... Therefore God, your God has set you above.......". If the Bible itself calls Jesus God and according to your understanding that doesn't make Jesus supreme, then why do JWs fret and fume when other Christians call him God despite knowing fully well that they actually saw it in the Bible?
Jesus said, "Listen O Israel, the Lord your God is one God......" Now God says, "God, your God has set you above....". Harmonizing these two we can see that Jesus and God are actually one and the same.

If God Himself is someone's throne, then who else could that person be except God?
Jesus and God are one and the same. They share the exalted name "God" which no one else is permitted to share.
According to the logic you apply to explain verse 9; Jesus and God are both Gods but with God being supreme over Jesus - meaning there are two Gods between whom one is supreme and the other is subordinate.
However, you are wrong because if God and Jesus are both Gods and there are NOT two Gods in existence according to the same Bible, then that logically means Jesus and God are one and the same. That explains why it is called a mystery. Put in another way, Jesus and God are integral fractions of a whole but single entity called God. Without Jesus God is incomplete.
The bottom line which other Christians establish is that God Himself calls Jesus God hence they too are free to call Jesus God. Hence when they say Jesus is God, they are just echoing Heb 1:8-9 for whatever it means. Unfortunately this is what JWs miss.

Can you be the same with YOUR GOD ?

Where is your reasoning ability given to you by God Sir ., no insult intended just baffling how a clear statement can be misrepresented

Verse 9 says he has a GOD .

Anyone who is Your God has authority over you. No wonder Jesus is said to be under the authority of his God . ( 1 Cor 11:3)

Also, even going by the other rendering, The Father also called human Gods as well ... Yet doesn't mean they are Almighty .

Christ is not the Almighty, he is subjected to the authority of someone Greater than him . HIS GOD!!!

Jesus deliberately used "I am" against a grammatical context for which such usage was contrary. He used present tense instead of past tense or past perfect. He deliberately disobeyed the rule concordance of tenses because he wanted to prove a point.
But in the case of Manor, the angel used "I am" in contextual concordance with the mood of the conversation.
Had the angel to disobeyed the rule of concordance of tenses in his reply, then you would have had a basis for comparison.
Look at it:

Manor: Are you the one who came yesterday?
Angel: Yes I am. (harmony of tenses)

Jews: How old are you to have seen Abraham?
Jesus: Before Abraham was born, I am (instead of I was or I had been) - deliberately chosen disharmony of tenses to prove a point.
The angel was not trying to prove any extraordinary point, so he answered "I am" i.e. "I am the one" or as everyone would ordinarily do if asked "Who are you?" or "Are you the one who I was told came yesterday?" The angel's response simply means "Yes it is me" in the context of the conversation.
But Jesus' use of "I am" in response to inquiry by the Jews doesn't not mean "It is me" in the context of their conversation.
Let's put "it is me" in place of "I am" and see whether it makes sense at all:

Jews: How old are you to have seen Abraham?

Jesus: Before Abraham was born It is me.

Does this make any sense at all and does it answer the question asked?
The issue between Manor and the angel is totally unrelated to the one between Jesus and the Jews here. So there is no basis for comparison.
Jesus could have gone further into telling them he was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob but because their hearts were hardened already, he refrained.
Just for the mere use of "I am" they picked up stones. How could he have gone further.
Even if Jesus had made mention of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; you would have, in your doubt, demanded further confirmatory utterances.

Remember Jesus was not particularly out to convince His doubters but to ground the faith of those who accept Him even without having fully understood Him yet.

Scripture said it clearly that Jesus is NOT the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob . that simply dismiss your write up as lacking credentials .

Act 3:13 Jesus is a servant of God of Abraham , Isaacb and Jacob

OnyeOGA:

bible reader i see you!
John 10:30-"I and my Father are one."

Beautiful, He never said I and my Father are one God .

John 17:21 he prayed his disciples be ONE just as he and his father are one .

" Just as " ... Can u see that ?

Now if you take it to mean being one as God , then his disciples are also Gods as well, because they will be one JUST AS.

Deadlytruth:
But chapter 19 vs 1-8 tell us clearly that it wasn't Paul that converted all of them. Paul was talking about how he preached to them and not how he converted them. An already existing convert could still be preached to for the purpose of strengthening his faith. Paul was lettered enough to know the exact differences between merely preaching to people and converting them. Where he did the conversion he did not hesitate to say it in other books.

I hope you remember he said " from the very first day I stepped into the province of Asia ( not just Ephesus ) ... I did not hold from telling you any of the things that were profitable nor from teaching you publicly and from house to house . But I thoroughly bore witness both to Jews and to Greeks about repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus "

He preached to them as unbelievers using those method's ( house to house and public teaching ) , if they are ; repentance toward God and faith in Lord Jesus won't be mentioned.

A believer already has faith in Lord Jesus , But here they are been preached to , to have faith in Lord Jesus showing they ain't yet believers at the time .