Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Councilor, ALMIGHTY GOD, the EVERLASTING FATHER and the Prince of peace is HE.
This is a very important statement for people to see corrected. It is an example of why you shouldn't try to memorize scripture. Many times if you set someone down and tell them to write a scripture they have memorized for years in support of their position and then tell them to read the verse in the Bible they don't match up.
All throughout the Bible there is only one called Mighty God. (Hebrew El Shaddai) Jehovah. (Genesis 17:1) Jesus, at Isaiah 9:6 is called Mighty God (Hebrew El Gibbohr)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow
Do you know what really bothers me about attempts to pervert the clear message of scripture.
It makes you look silly? Don't worry. It happens to all of us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow
There are hundreds of very clear scriptures that teach without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus Christ is LORD.
The difficulty here is that there is an understanding of titles like God and Lord. A god is anything or anyone who is considered mightier than the one attributing might or that is venerated. That is why there are so many gods in the Bible. The term Lord means someone who has authority, usually that is given. Jehovah is a god. Jesus is a god. Satan is a god. A Godparent is a God. Jehovah is a Lord. Jesus is a Lord. Satan is a Lord. A landlord is a Lord.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow
Twice Jesus calls Himself "I AM" which is God the Father's name alone. Just that fact either makes Jesus and God the Father one or it makes Jesus a liar.
Or it makes you wrong.
John 8:58 is used by Trinitarians as being the same as Exodus 3:14. At Exodus 3:14 Jehovah says to Moses: "I am that I am." (KJV)
The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, says of the phrase: "To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, 'Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.' Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] 'I will be what I will be.'"
John 8:58 is quite different than Exodus 3:14. Its talking about Jesus existence in Heaven before he came to Earth. Here are some notable translations:
1869: “From before Abraham was, I have been.” The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.
1935: “I existed before Abraham was born!” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1965: “Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am.” Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.
1981: “I was alive before Abraham was born!” The Simple English Bible.
1984: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
At Exodus 3:14 Jehovah says that I am what I will prove to be and at John 8:58 Jesus says before Abraham existed I was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow
Anyone who uses the bible to attempt to prove Jesus is not Devine is not a Christian and if they think they are they are sadly decieved.
You know, that statement would be a lot more convincing if you used Scripture to support your ideas and if you did a quick research on the historically documented Trinity.
The New Encyclopædia Britannica: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
The Encyclopedia Americana: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel: “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
The Dictionary of the Bible: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.
Last edited by The Theist; 11-29-2012 at 10:44 PM..
1 John 5:7 (King James Version)7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
God told us in his word to test the inspired word. Warned us that it is possible to be incorrect or fraudulent.
In 1 John 5:7 the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" as in the KJV and other early translations, were spurious. A footnote in The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation says: "not in any of the early Greek MSS, or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg[ate] itself." According to A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger - 1975, pp. 716-718, the spurious verse first appears in the treatise "Liber Apologeticus" of the fourth century, and an Old Latin and Vulgate manuscript of the Scriptures beginning in the 6th century. Modern translations recognize this and omit the verse.
Yes. Indeed it is. Trinitarian apologists no longer even bother to mention 1 John 5:7 since this verse has now been exposed as a complete fraud.
The Theist here’s an alternate translation of Jn. 1:1 to offer a clearer understanding of this passage. (Jonathan Mitchell's New Testament Translation)
Quote:
JMNT(i) 1 Jn 1:1-3 Within a beginning there was The Word (The Thought; The Collection of Thoughts; The Idea; The Reason; The Discourse; The Communication; The Verbal Expression). And the Word (the thought; the expression) was (and continued being) facing, directed and moving toward (or: with) God. And the Word (the thought; the idea; the reason; the expression) continued being God. [or: Originally the Word was existing and continued to be, and the Word was being projected toward God. And the Word, It was existing being God (idiomatically: And the Word was just what God was; And the Expression was an extension of Deity).] This was continuing in existence, within a beginning, facing (directed and moving) toward (or: with) God. All things come to be (are birthed; occur; or: came to be; were birthed; occurred) through It (or: Him), and apart from It (or: Him) not even one thing comes into being (occurs; was birthed; came into being) which has come into being (which has occurred).
Those words of "God" prophesied about Jesus; God's plan about him existed before creation. 'God' had a plan from the beginning to make known the mystery of "his" will (See Rom. 8:28-30; Eph. 1:3-10; Gal. 4:4-7; 2 Tim. 1:9-10).
Last edited by kids in america_; 11-30-2012 at 01:01 AM..
This is a very important statement for people to see corrected. It is an example of why you shouldn't try to memorize scripture. Many times if you set someone down and tell them to write a scripture they have memorized for years in support of their position and then tell them to read the verse in the Bible they don't match up.
Now you're trying to tell people not to memorize Scripture.
Quote:
All throughout the Bible there is only one called Mighty God. (Hebrew El Shaddai) Jehovah. (Genesis 17:1) Jesus, at Isaiah 9:6 is called Mighty God (Hebrew El Gibbohr)
Deut 10:17 "For the LORD (Yahweh) your God (Elohim) is the God (Elohim) of gods (Elohim) and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty(gibbor), and the awesome God (El) who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.
The Scriptures refer to both God the Father and Jesus Christ as the mighty God. Deut 10:17 is referring to the Father who is called 'the Lord of lords' which is also a title given to Jesus Christ. Therefore to claim that the title 'mighty God' refers only to Jesus Christ is invalid.
Quote:
The difficulty here is that there is an understanding of titles like God and Lord. A god is anything or anyone who is considered mightier than the one attributing might or that is venerated. That is why there are so many gods in the Bible. The term Lord means someone who has authority, usually that is given. Jehovah is a god. Jesus is a god. Satan is a god. A Godparent is a God. Jehovah is a Lord. Jesus is a Lord. Satan is a Lord. A landlord is a Lord.
Jesus Christ is not a god. Yahweh is not a god. Yahweh is God. Jesus Christ is God. Jesus Christ is Yahweh just as the Father is Yahweh. Zechariah 14:3-4 refers to Jesus Christ and calls Him Yahweh.
Quote:
Or it makes you wrong.
John 8:58 is used by Trinitarians as being the same as Exodus 3:14. At Exodus 3:14 Jehovah says to Moses: "I am that I am." (KJV)
The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, says of the phrase: "To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, 'Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.' Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] 'I will be what I will be.'"
John 8:58 is quite different than Exodus 3:14. Its talking about Jesus existence in Heaven before he came to Earth. Here are some notable translations:
1869: “From before Abraham was, I have been.” The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.
1935: “I existed before Abraham was born!” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1965: “Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am.” Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.
1981: “I was alive before Abraham was born!” The Simple English Bible.
1984: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
At Exodus 3:14 Jehovah says that I am what I will prove to be and at John 8:58 Jesus says before Abraham existed I was.
The subtlety of the lie. Jesus did not say before Abraham was, I was. He said, 'Before Abraham was, I am. The meaning is the same as in Exodus 3:14.
It is a self designation for deity and refers to His eternality. The Jews understood it that way and attempted to stone Jesus for making the claim.
Quote:
Isaiah 44:6, Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and His Redeemer, the LORD of hosts, I am the First and I am the Last, besides me there is no God.
Rev. 1:17-18, "Fear not, I am the First and the Last and the Living One. I died and behold I am alive for evermore.
You know, that statement would be a lot more convincing if you used Scripture to support your ideas and if you did a quick research on the historically documented Trinity.
The New Encyclopædia Britannica: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.
The argument that because a term is not found in the Bible it means that the doctrine to which the term applies is not found in the Bible is an empty argument. While the term 'trinity' is not found in the Bible, the doctrine to which it refers most certainly is found.
Quote:
The New Catholic Encyclopedia: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
The Encyclopedia Americana: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel: “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
The Dictionary of the Bible: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.
As the early Church struggled with defining the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, heresies sprang up. This finally resulted in formal creeds being made which defined the relationship. Eventually technical vocabulary terms such as 'Trinity' and 'the hypostatic union' were coined which allowed for a better understanding of God.
The claim that the term 'nature' with regard to God doesn't appear in the Bible is not true either. Hebrews 1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature (hupostasis), and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Hupostasis which means 'that which underlies the apparent; that which is the basis of something', is translated substance, or nature, or essence. And Jesus Christ is the exact representation of God the Father because He Himself is God (the Son). The Son is of the same nature as the Father.
1 John 5:7 (King James Version)7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
God told us in his word to test the inspired word. Warned us that it is possible to be incorrect or fraudulent.
In 1 John 5:7 the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" as in the KJV and other early translations, were spurious. A footnote in The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation says: "not in any of the early Greek MSS, or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg[ate] itself." According to A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger - 1975, pp. 716-718, the spurious verse first appears in the treatise "Liber Apologeticus" of the fourth century, and an Old Latin and Vulgate manuscript of the Scriptures beginning in the 6th century. Modern translations recognize this and omit the verse.
John 1:1 (King James Version)1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
1864: "and a god was the Word." The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
1935: "the Logos was divine." A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt, New York.
1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany.
1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.
1979: "and a god was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jurgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.
John 1:1 - In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God (Literally "was toward the God." Greek en pros ton The·on′; Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by Franz Delitzsch, London, 1981 ed., Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by Isaac Salkinson and C. D. Ginsburg, London. the Hebrew, ha·yah′ 'eth ha·'Elo·him′), and the Word was a god (Greek, the·os′, in contrast with ton The·on′, "the God," in the same sentence; Hebrew, we'·lo·him′, "and god."
The Greek word θεός (the·os′) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·os′. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ὁ θεός, that is, the·os′ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·os′. The articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. John was saying that the Word or Logos was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" rather than that he was the God with whom he was.
There are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mark 6:49; 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. Where "a" or "an" is inserted "an appatition" or "a spirit" or "a liar" or "a prophet" or "a god."
In the article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner said about John 1:1: "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite." On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."
Lets take this discussion in small steps, with only 2 or 3 Bible verses at a time.
You can't say He was a god, for that would put other gods before HaShem...I would say that John 1:1 is related to Genesis 1:1-3:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;
Gen 1:2 and the earth being without form and empty, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moving gently on the face of the waters,
Gen 1:3 then God said, Let light be! And there was light.
Note: And God said Let there be light?...Where were the sun, moon and stars?...
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [pertainig to] God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He [it. the same] was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him [it], and without Him [it] not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
Joh 1:4 In Him [it] was life, and the life was the light of men;
Note: Verse 2 the first word also means 'the same'...could this all be metaphorical?...Is this why there are so many disputes over it?...Because everyone is looking at it from there own personal view?...
G4314
πρός
pros
pros
A strengthened form of G4253; a preposition of direction; forward to, that is, toward (with the genitive case the side of, that is, pertaining to; with the dative case by the side of, that is, near to; usually with the accusative case the place, time, occasion, or respect, which is the destination of the relation, that is, whither or for which it is predicated): - about, according to, against, among, at, because of, before, between, ([where-]) by, for, X at thy house, in, for intent, nigh unto, of, which pertain to, that, to (the end that), + together, to ([you]) -ward, unto, with (-in). In compounds it denotes essentially the same applications, namely, motion towards, accession to, or nearness at.
The above finds a counterpart in the Irish language with the word 'LE' which means 'with' in it's basic form, however it has many uses and shades of meaning depending on how it is used in a sentence...ex. Táim ag teacht LEat. (lit. I am coming with you.) means 'I agree with you'...Tá an leabhar so LE Máitín. (lit. This book is with Martin.) means 'This book is by Martin...Tá sé Liom. (lit. It is with me.) means 'It is mine, It belongs to me, I own it'...Also there is the preposition 'AG' which mean 'at', The Irish have no word for 'to have', so things are at you, on you, to you, towards you, with you, etc....Irish is one of the oldest surviving languages in Europe, descended from celtic and a good study of the Irish grammar could aide in understanding the Greek grammar and how words are used with various shades of meanings...Since the celtic languages were around before the birth of Christ and at the time of the Greeks in close proximity, it may very well be that their grammars were similar in construction...One sees many elements in the construction of Irish similar to Hebrew and Arabic also...And not to mention that the Galatians were a tribe of Celts called the Galatii from Europe, even St. Jerome at the time of his visit there stated that they still spoke a celtic language even then...
Since you accuse the Watchtower I will give you their response to John 2:19-22:
"By what he here said, did Jesus mean that he would resurrect himself from the dead? Does that mean that Jesus is God, because Acts 2:32 says, “This Jesus God raised up”? Not at all. Such a view would conflict with Galatians 1:1, which ascribes the resurrection of Jesus to the Father, not to the Son. Using a similar mode of expression, at Luke 8:48 Jesus is quoted as saying to a woman: “Your faith has made you well.” Did she heal herself? No; it was power from God through Christ that healed her because she had faith. (Luke 8:46; Acts 10:38) Likewise, by his perfect obedience as a human, Jesus provided the moral basis for the Father to raise him from the dead, thus acknowledging Jesus as God’s Son. Because of Jesus’ faithful course of life, it could properly be said that Jesus himself was responsible for his resurrection.
Says A. T. Robertson in Word Pictures in the New Testament: “Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: ‘And in three days I will raise it up.’ He did not mean that he will raise himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11).”—(New York, 1932), Vol. V, p. 183." Reasoning From The Scriptures, pp. 423-423.
Don't you believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures? Why are you falling on man's reasoning of a confirmed corrupt manuscript when you can just believe the Word of God.
The Word is clear that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ALL raised Jesus from the dead.
The infinite godhead is not something we can understand with our finite minds. We can only believe it.. Christianity is worshiping the "Sun" in some ancient Babylonian pagan cult as is accused by the various JWs. Pagan symbolism in marrying the "world" was introduced at Constantine and continues this day with the Vatican and sadly many denominations of Protestantism, but Biblical Christianity is 100 percent anti-Pagan.
Jesus said he raised his temple/body from the grave. The disciples confirmed it in correlating it directly with the resurrection, and I think it's wise to simply believe them not going door to door spreading false doctrine misleading the simple.
Step out of darkness with the JWs and into the marvelous Liberty of living in newness of Spirit in Jesus Christ. Bondage is darkness. You deserve to live in the liberty Christ purchased for you to rest in HIS works and serve in love.
Well....if Jesus wasn't God, maybe He should have been.
Judging from all this talk about an "angry" God, and a "mighty" God and a "powerful" God, I'm wondering if thats the same Fella I talk to. The Guy I know hasn't ever seemed to have any power-and-control issues and rather much seems to be invested in seeing me succeed rather than banging on me for screwing-up. Is there some reason that your god is always in a bad mood? Maybe He takes exception to hearing Himself defined nine-ways-from-sunday. I know if I had to listen to so much "probosculating" about what I was about, I'd probably be pretty cranky myself. Thoughts?
Well....if Jesus wasn't God, maybe He should have been.
Judging from all this talk about an "angry" God, and a "mighty" God and a "powerful" God, I'm wondering if thats the same Fella I talk to. The Guy I know hasn't ever seemed to have any power-and-control issues and rather much seems to be invested in seeing me succeed rather than banging on me for screwing-up. Is there some reason that your god is always in a bad mood? Maybe He takes exception to hearing Himself defined nine-ways-from-sunday. I know if I had to listen to so much "probosculating" about what I was about, I'd probably be pretty cranky myself. Thoughts?
FWIW.
Well, I certainly get the gist of your sentiment. People tend to think of God as the angry OT God replaced by the Peaceful NT God, without realizing that the so called NT God has some stuff planned that makes Sodom and Gomorrah look like a weekend picnic.
I don't know what God you pray to, but he is most likely a product of your own devise.
The apostles argued over details, they got it wrong more often than not. Didn't have a clue. The Bible warns against even the inspired scripture being false, and holds in high esteem those who searched the Scriptures daily to see if what they were being told was true.
Don't you believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures? Why are you falling on man's reasoning of a confirmed corrupt manuscript when you can just believe the Word of God.
The second scripture I gave in this thread was spurious. The translation of God's infallible word isn't itself inspired or infallible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikelee81
The Word is clear that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ALL raised Jesus from the dead.
No it isn't. Far from it, and the historical documentation of the apostate Christian adoption of the pagan Greek philosophy inspired by Plato and Socrates is enough for you to question your heretical teachings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikelee81
The infinite godhead is not something we can understand with our finite minds.
Yeah it is. Read Plato and Socrates and then you will understand it a great deal better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikelee81
We can only believe it.. Christianity is worshiping the "Sun" in some ancient Babylonian pagan cult as is accused by the various JWs. Pagan symbolism in marrying the "world" was introduced at Constantine and continues this day with the Vatican and sadly many denominations of Protestantism, but Biblical Christianity is 100 percent anti-Pagan.
Do you ever actually listen to yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikelee81
Jesus said he raised his temple/body from the grave. The disciples confirmed it in correlating it directly with the resurrection, and I think it's wise to simply believe them not going door to door spreading false doctrine misleading the simple.
Step out of darkness with the JWs and into the marvelous Liberty of living in newness of Spirit in Jesus Christ. Bondage is darkness. You deserve to live in the liberty Christ purchased for you to rest in HIS works and serve in love.
Like I said. Research the Christian adoption of hell from Dante and Milton, the Immortal Soul from Socrates, the Trinity from Plato and the Easter celebrations from Astarte.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
