₦airaland Forum

MaxInDHouse:
You are wrong because no JW will tell you that God predestined anyone to be destroyed Jesus knew one of his closest confidants will betray him that's what the scriptures say. John wrote what you are quoting 66 years after Jesus and JWs said Jesus could read hearts so by the time Judas has fully developed that bad trait Jesus has seen it not that he knew before choosing him.

Yes, the JW did not say God predestined anyone to be destroyed but they teach clearly that in John 6.70, Jesus Christ was referring to Judas.
You on the other hand do not agree with the mainstream JW belief so I guess you are in the other faction

MaxInDHouse:
If you are not a JW you can't know what we believe regarding deep spiritual things that's what is paining exjws they are no longer part of the organization yet they want to know what happens in the organization.😂

You are right, I don't know your deep things but I know contrary beliefs and from what I see, you and your organisation have very contrary beliefs on the matter. Is that now accepted?

MaxInDHouse:
Funny atheist!🙂

Or are there now 2 JW factions?
I used to know that JW kicks out members who disagree with it's teachings.
But the group is changing so fast these days, it's hard to tell what they believe anymore

MaxInDHouse:
YES!
Maintained!🙂

So commenting on John 6.70, the JW people say that as of the time Christ made that statement, He knew Judas will betray Him.
So, I guess you no longer represent JW.
That's ok by me, You don't need to represent an organisation to express your beliefs

MaxInDHouse:
Maintained!🙂

So you maintain that Jesus Christ was not speaking specifically about Judas in John 6.70?

MaxInDHouse:
Now you know you are wrong!🙂

Wrong about what my boy.
I ask again, do you still insist that Jesus Christ was not referring to Judas in John 6.79 or do you now agree with the JW group?

tctrills:
Stop confusing yourself.
I presented you with the JW doctrine, you lost your temper and started throwing tantrums.
You clearly do not know or agree with your church's doctrine.
According to your organisation,
In the theology of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the account of Jesus identifying Judas as a "slanderer" (or "devil" in John 6:70-71 is used to explain the timing and nature of Judas's spiritual fall.

The passage reads: “Jesus answered them: ‘I chose you twelve, did I not? Yet one of you is a slanderer.’ He was, in fact, speaking of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for this one was going to betray him, although he was one of the Twelve.”
Discerning the Process: Witnesses believe Jesus used his God-given ability to "read hearts" to notice when Judas’s motivations shifted from devotion to greed.

So you lied when you said Jesus Christ did not know it was Judas in John 6.70-71

It seems you are not really qualified to market JW on nairaland.
I see your willingness to teach but it is advisable that you study first before going out to teach.

This was me yesterday still consistent with my points today on John 6.70

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus never mentioned any name he is speaking with a view to what prophecies regarding his betrayal said that one of his closest confidants will betray him!

This was your response to John 6.70

9

MaxInDHouse:
You are changing the subject!😂

OP asked a question regarding whether Judas was specifically chosen to betray Jesus not that along with way he developed a bad trait!🙂

That's what i told the OP before you jumped in to say:



So you are the one who supposed to tender an apology for cutting in without knowing exactly what happened.

Judas developed that trait along the way not before he was chosen and for your information Satan actually wanted to use all the Apostles as his tool not only Judas if Jesus had not stepped in:

“Simon, Simon, look! Satan has demanded to have all of you to sift you as wheat. But I have made supplication for you that your faith may not give out; and you, once you have returned, strengthen your brothers.” Luke 22:31-32

Lol,
I have been asking the very same consistent question.
You claim in John 6.70 Jesus Christ did not know Judas with betray Him.
Since yesterday, I have been asking you if you have changed your mind about that. You said no.
I can quote myself and your response if you don't mind, let's see who is changing the topic.

MaxInDHouse:
Can you see the reason why you need to humbly learn from Jehovah's Witnesses instead of misquoting our publications?

Deteriorating and Developing is enough to tell you that Judas Iscariot wasn't a devil before Jesus chose him rather he was one of the fittest for the work of undershepherds! 🙂

Oga the question remains, according to JW, did Jesus Christ know Judas was the one to betray Him in John 6. 70 to 71?

Your answer is No but JW says yes.
Do you now agree with the JW group that Jesus Christ knew in John 6.70 that Judas will betray Him?

If you now agree, please apologise for lying against your church.

MaxInDHouse:
Here is what JWs said on the matter:

Judas is introduced into the Gospel accounts in the listing of the apostles sometime after Passover 31 C.E. and about a year and a half after Jesus began his ministry. (Mr 3:19; Lu 6:16) It is logical to conclude that Judas had been a disciple for a time before Jesus made him an apostle. Many writers paint an entirely black picture of Judas, but evidently for a while he had been a disciple who found favor with God and with Jesus; his very selection as an apostle indicates that.

We never said Jesus chose a devil to be one of his Apostles!😂

Here you go. Please call me out if the below is not the JW opinion.

JW Understanding of John 6:70–71

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus was speaking prophetically about Judas Iscariot, who would later betray him.

JWs believe Jesus could discern Judas’ future betrayal because of his deep insight into people.

From the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures study note on John 6:64 at JW.org
:

“Jesus knew from the beginning … who was the one who would betray him.”

The note explains that Jesus:

“could discern Judas’ deteriorating attitude and traits.”

Another JW reference appears in The Watchtower:

“Jesus could read hearts and knew that Judas was developing wrong tendencies.”

— Jehovah's Witnesses, The Watchtower, discussing Judas Iscariot and John 6:64–71. Available through Watchtower Online Library

Please do you apologise for your dishonesty?

MaxInDHouse:
Here is what JWs said on the matter:

Judas is introduced into the Gospel accounts in the listing of the apostles sometime after Passover 31 C.E. and about a year and a half after Jesus began his ministry. (Mr 3:19; Lu 6:16) It is logical to conclude that Judas had been a disciple for a time before Jesus made him an apostle. Many writers paint an entirely black picture of Judas, but evidently for a while he had been a disciple who found favor with God and with Jesus; his very selection as an apostle indicates that.

We never said Jesus chose a devil to be one of his Apostles!😂

I ask again my guy, how about I provide the JW explanation of John 6.70 to 71 to see if Jesus Christ was not taking about Judas or if He didn't know by that time that Judas will betray Him?

If we find that you are lying, will you repent and apologise?

MaxInDHouse:
Now you've started lying again!😂

Ọmọ apostle John wrote that some 66 years later after Jesus' ministry, death, resurrected and ascended to heaven not any church!😂

So, how about I quote directly from JW sources.
If we find out you are lying, would you agree to apologise?

Explore2xmore:
The four independent eyewitnesses claim is still overstated. Matthew and Luke show clear literary dependence on Mark, and Luke explicitly says he used earlier written sources. Most critical scholars also have the view of a shared sayings source behind Matthew and Luke, commonly called Q, further reducing their independence.
The Matthew authorship tradition is early, but the Gospel itself is anonymous, and its heavy reliance on Mark complicates straightforward eyewitness authorship. If Matthew were directly recording personal memory, close dependence on a source not traditionally viewed as an eyewitness complicates the tradition rather than confirming it.
The forensic argument cuts both ways. Divergence only strengthens credibility once genuine independence is established. Shared wording, structure, and sequencing across the Synoptics point toward literary relationship rather than separate observation. Independent divergence can strengthen credibility; divergence among dependent texts is simply expected.
External references from Tacitus and Josephus do limited historical work they support that Jesus existed and was executed under Pilate, not that the Gospels are independent eyewitness accounts. Document proliferation likewise reflects the rapid growth of early Christian conviction, not automatically the independence or reliability of every account. Apollonius of Tyana, a near-contemporary of Jesus also credited with miracles, generated extensive literature without that literature being treated as independent corroboration.
John is more independent, but diverges sharply enough in chronology, style, and theology that most scholars treat it as a distinct tradition stream rather than straightforward corroboration of the same narrative.
So the Gospels are best understood as overlapping, literarily connected traditions important ancient sources, but not four fully independent eyewitness accounts in the strict historical sense.
Mind that the question isn't about the existence of Jesus but the books created in and about his name thereafter.

While you are wrong about Matthew and Mark, we are beginning to go around in circles so let me ask you a direct question.
Do you agree that the Gospels meet or even exceed the standards set by academic historians of acceptable history?
If your answer is no, Then show where is falls short based on the standards not on your own standards but by academic standards.
Let's move the discussion to the next level

allthingsgood:
Emancipate yourself from mental slavery

So I emancipate myself when I support Arab terrorist right? I get you

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus believe the scriptures not what you are thinking so one of his closest confidants will betray him and that means one of the twelve.
That's what Jesus was talking about not specifically Judas Iscariot!🙂

But your church says he was speaking specifically of Judas in John 6.70-71. Do we believe you or your organisation. Choose one.
This is why I said JW is fighting Jw.
Again, Jesus Christ had many other friends outside the 12. So using your logic, there was nothing to show for certain that it would be one of the 12. He only know this because it had always been Judas, the devil 👿 He chose 12 but one was a devil even before the betrayal

MaxInDHouse:
I'm not faithless like you nah!😂

Oya quote where any of our publication says Jesus already knew Judas was an evil person yet chose him to be one of his undershepherds!😂

Here is what our book insight says on the matter.

Judas is introduced into the Gospel accounts in the listing of the apostles sometime after Passover 31 C.E. and about a year and a half after Jesus began his ministry. (Mr 3:19; Lu 6:16) It is logical to conclude that Judas had been a disciple for a time before Jesus made him an apostle. Many writers paint an entirely black picture of Judas, but evidently for a while he had been a disciple who found favor with God and with Jesus; his very selection as an apostle indicates that.

When I presented John 6.70, did you or did you not claim that Jesus Christ was not speaking specifically to Judas and at that time, He did not know Judas will betray Him?
I have the receipts if you deny.

Do you still claim that in John 6.70 Jesus Christ wasn't speaking specifically to Judas?

JW fighting Jw

Explore2xmore:
Ancient claims are accepted provisionally, not with certainty. Menes is treated cautiously precisely because Manetho wrote millennia later from limited tradition, and applying the same caution to the Gospels is standard historical method, not bias.
The four independent witnesses claim is overstated. Matthew and Luke rely heavily on Mark and shared traditions, while John diverges sharply in chronology, theology, and style, functioning more as a distinct theological tradition than simple independent corroboration.
The Claudius analogy also fails on stakes. A claim about an emperor’s last meal carries no binding authority; divine revelation does. Stronger claims reasonably require stronger evidence. And the authority argument is circular: the canon validates the authority while the authority validates the canon, even though the canon itself emerged through centuries of dispute.
Consistent standards are not a double standard they are how historical credibility is established.

I have already answered you above but this video helps to simplify the argument.
The video actually oversimplifies it but I think it is still useful.

https://youtube.com/shorts/5Xq-E7DdaVc?si=NfBo7JGq0SMeFS97

allthingsgood:
Israel are just terrorists

Ok, we hear you, it's your opinion but it is wrong.

Explore2xmore:
Ancient claims are accepted provisionally, not with certainty. Menes is treated cautiously precisely because Manetho wrote millennia later from limited tradition, and applying the same caution to the Gospels is standard historical method, not bias.
The four independent witnesses claim is overstated. Matthew and Luke rely heavily on Mark and shared traditions, while John diverges sharply in chronology, theology, and style, functioning more as a distinct theological tradition than simple independent corroboration.
The Claudius analogy also fails on stakes. A claim about an emperor’s last meal carries no binding authority; divine revelation does. Stronger claims reasonably require stronger evidence. And the authority argument is circular: the canon validates the authority while the authority validates the canon, even though the canon itself emerged through centuries of dispute.
Consistent standards are not a double standard they are how historical credibility is established.

So again you are wrong.
Matthew was an apostle, a first hand witness of Christ he did not copy Mark.

Mark is believed to be a companion of Peter, that makes he very equipped for the job of a historian.

Luke is the only one that may not have had first hand experience with the events he wrote about. Still, he being an early Christian makes him more qualified than 90% of ancient historians.

You then claim that John diverges sharply from the rest. But when we put the gospels to the same test we use for contemporary history, John record even adds more evidence to the ministry of Jesus Christ.

This is how professional historians see divergence in the record of witnesses.

In historical and legal analysis, divergence is often more convincing than total agreement. If four witnesses tell a story using the exact same words, a detective assumes they "synced their stories" or copied each other. If they differ on details but agree on the core, it suggests they are genuine, independent accounts.

Historians look for the same event to be reported by different sources who aren't just copying one another.

The Difference: Mark might focus on Jesus' actions, while John focuses on his long speeches.

Modern forensic psychology shows that two people watching the same car accident will remember different details—one might notice the color of the car, the other might notice the speed.

Application: Matthew (the tax collector) is obsessed with money, records, and Jewish law. Luke (the physician) is obsessed with healings and social outcasts.

Divergence allows for a more complete, "three-dimensional" view of a person.

The Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke): Provide the "What" and "Where"—the external facts and public parables.

John: Provides the "Who" and "Why"—the internal meaning and private conversations.

Now to your last point. You claim that divine authority requires stronger evidence before it can be believed and I completely agree with you.
It requires divine confirmation divine revelation and divine conversion. I would agree with you that you should put all claims of divine scripture to much more rigorous test. You only believe after you have a divine revelation.

I advise you do what Jesus Christ suggested, You seek, knock and ask.

Because, when we use the same standards historians use to judge other works, the bible qualifies. In fact, it exceeds most works of history.

But that alone should not be enough grounds to believe. You have to ask God because He alone can give you an answer.

But if you choose to depend on using academic standards, you will be inconsistent not to believe the gospels because the pass in flying colours because by the standards historians use for other ancient texts, the four Gospels (the books of Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, and Gospel of John) are generally considered serious ancient historical sources.

.

MaxInDHouse:
Ọmọ you don't believe in any doctrine so arguing with you is pointless!😂

And for the benefit of interested ones following the thread Peter became a tool of Satan when he decided to discourage Jesus from accepting the will of God for him to die and save mankind {Matthew 16:21-23} and Judas became the devil when Satan entered into him not before he was chosen as an apostle. Luke 22:3; John 13:27🙂

Even you don't know what to believe anymore.
You made the claim that in John 6.70 when Jesus Christ said one of the apostles was a devil, He didn't know it was Judas but your church says you are wrong.

In John 6.70 long before Judas betrayed Christ, he was already a devil. Judas did not become a devil for betraying Christ, he was a devil even before the betrayal.

God1000:
These settlers are worst than terrorists, they kill innocent Palestinians, destroy their property and encroach on their lands with the support of IDF.

You mean people settling in their land are worse than terrorists.
Anyway, how has the EU helped in this conflict since 1948?

MaxInDHouse:
So because i asked you to mention the name of your own church that means i disagree with my own beliefs shey?
Well i'm not here for you because i've known you for long that you are faithless!😂

Stop confusing yourself.
I presented you with the JW doctrine, you lost your temper and started throwing tantrums.
You clearly do not know or agree with your church's doctrine.
According to your organisation,
In the theology of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the account of Jesus identifying Judas as a "slanderer" (or "devil" in John 6:70-71 is used to explain the timing and nature of Judas's spiritual fall.

The passage reads: “Jesus answered them: ‘I chose you twelve, did I not? Yet one of you is a slanderer.’ He was, in fact, speaking of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for this one was going to betray him, although he was one of the Twelve.”
Discerning the Process: Witnesses believe Jesus used his God-given ability to "read hearts" to notice when Judas’s motivations shifted from devotion to greed.

So you lied when you said Jesus Christ did not know it was Judas in John 6.70-71

It seems you are not really qualified to market JW on nairaland.
I see your willingness to teach but it is advisable that you study first before going out to teach.

MaxInDHouse:
Good to admit that you have no beliefs!😂

Lol
A person who argues and disagrees with his own beliefs has no beliefs.
When a JW is made uncomfortable by JW doctrine, what is he.
Apostate?

MaxInDHouse:
What is the name of your own church?

If you refer me to my church when you want to answer my question then you must mention yours otherwise there is no need to engage you further!🙂

The worst trap is when you are trapped by your beliefs.
JW just trapped JW.
Alright, it was lovely doing this with you.

[quote author=Explore2xmore post=139378523]The Alexander/pharaoh comparison misses the point. History like Alexander is built from multiple independent sources and evidence, so conclusions are probabilistic, not based on trusting any single author like Arrian or Plutarch.
The gospels are built from 4 independent sources. In fact, the gospels have far more witnesses than the writings on any pharaoh or Alexander the great.
And for much of ancient history, we don't have multiple witnesses.
Let's take the pharaoh Menes, believe to have lived around 3100 BC. Manetho was the first historian to write about him lived about 2800 years after him but because it is contemporary history we should not doubt it. No single witness and a history that came 2800 years later

History doesn’t require divine authority claims, but revelation does.
This is so true. But you don't seem to understand divine authority. The new testament records that Jesus Christ called 12 men and gave them authority. It also records that these men have authority to other men.
So the new testament shows a chain of divine authority. These men had the authority to represent Jesus Christ. There is no better way to give divine authority.

And without a non-circular way to verify revelation, you end up with circular reasoning. It’s true because it’s inspired, and inspired because it says so?
This is exactly how you verify most of ancient history.
Emperor Claudius last meal was a plate of wild mushrooms. You believe it because 2 guys Tacitus and Suetonius said so. You believe their authority and competency as ancient historians.
It seems like a double standard.

MaxInDHouse:
This is the stupidity behind what people do, you kept mentioning "JW" to make the OP feel irritated that he has been commending a JW while you can't relate with any known church for what you are saying yet you can't adequately answer his questions!😂

Guy leave "JW" out of this matter and go straight to what you want to teach if you can't answer my question then stop quoting me.

Jesus called Peter "Satan" so when did Peter become Satan?

That's the question!🙂

I used your religion to answer your question and you are getting angry.Your question is,
Jesus called Peter "Satan" so when did Peter become Satan?
My answer Peter became Satan (A Resister) the moment he resisted the blessing of Christ.
The above is the JW answer.
Now can you provide an answer to my question?
Since Jesus Christ called Judas a devil years before he betrayed Jesus, when did he become a devil.
I have been fair in providing an answer to your question even using the doctrine you believe in to clear all doubts.
Now try answering mine. No more beating about the bush

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus called Peter "Satan" o! Matthew 16:23

According to JW, satan means Resister. So He was correct to call Peter a Resister for resisting Him.
Are you saying it is the same as calling Judas a devil years before the betrayal?

MaxInDHouse:
You can continue with your arguments i didn't come here to address you.

When did Peter become Satan? Matthew 16:23

I already told you Judas Iscariot was a good man who allowed Satan to use him but regarding what Jesus said about a devil among his disciples that is what the scriptures foretold which Jesus knew must come to pass!

To answer your question, Peter never became satan.
In fact, this is the JW explanation.
Jehovah’s Witnesses emphasize the literal meaning of the Hebrew and Greek word Satan, which simply means "Resister" or "Adversary."
So according to your religion, Jesus meant resister.
And according to your religion, there is a difference between Satan and devil.
Judas was called a devil not Satan.
Now you claim Judas was a good man when Jesus called him a Devil. You are calling Jesus Christ a liar. Is that your final stand?

And I came here to correct you.

Explore2xmore:
Yes, that works within a faith-based framework, much like arguments made about Moses and the Torah even if many points ascertain there were books before the Torah. But it still doesn't fully resolve the historical question of authorization, transmission, or canon formation, since Jesus did not leave behind a finalized New Testament canon or explicit written instructions for compiling one.

But it's the very same for most figures in ancient history.
We can start with the pharaohs of Egypt. Many recognised ancient historians wrote about the events centuries after yet, it is accepted by the academic community, why should it be a different standard for religion?
Why will you accept Arrian (writing on Alexander the Great) or Plutarch (writing on the Roman Republic) as authentic history?
Is our believe of Alexander the great faith based?

Charlie Kirk was just spécial
https://youtube.com/shorts/w93ByFvBeb4?si=q1w8qunWXPg4b9iM