Christmas & Santa are agents of evil sent by Satan the Devil

The Voice of Reason · Jan 7, 2005

T3gah - Each of the following is taken from the site BibleGateway.com:

(King James Version) 1 Timothy 2:8 8I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
(New International Version) 8I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.
(New American Standard) 8Therefore (A)I want the men (B)in every place to pray, (C)lifting up (D)holy hands, without wrath and dissension.
(Amplified Bible) 8I desire therefore that in every place men should pray, without anger or quarreling or resentment or doubt [in their minds], lifting up holy hands.
(The Message) 8Since prayer is at the bottom of all this, what I want mostly is for men to pray--not shaking angry fists at enemies but raising holy hands to God.

There you go T3gah - five different versions - no two that read the same - and none of which is what your New World Translation has. How many Bibles do I have to thumb through to get the version that I want to use - and more importantly, how do I know which version is the inspired word of God?

Obviously, your Bible is the ONE that God inspired - and everyone else is wrong!! No?
Just curious - who is speaking in 1 Timothy? Are these the words of Jesus Christ or of Timothy? If it is Timothy, who is this guy, and why should I think that he knows what he is talking about? If he does know what he's talking about, which version of his words am I to take to heart?

Thanks,
TVOR

The Voice of Reason · Jan 7, 2005

LOL - Linwood just sent me a message asking "Did I just see you quoting scripture?"

In all honesty, I'm starting to get the hang of this cut and paste - I couldn't quote more than three or four verses of scripture if I had to - and I'd want to look them up first, just to be safe.

TVOR

t3gah · Jan 7, 2005

I got another uncommented negative frubal and this time it was for this thread. Apparently people are mad about something but not grown up enough to put their username on the frubal. Pity.

As for bibles having different words for the same passages I agree that it's difficult to pinpoint exactly what is meant. But then you must use a dictionary along with each verse to see if the words have similar meanings or synonyms (hope I have the right word here).

If you scroll back a few posts you'll see what bibles I have here for myself.

As for the question of authorship, that's not really important since those who penned the scriptures were all disciples of God, or prophets of God, or apostles of God, etc. If it has to be Jesus only then we might as well throw out everything in the scriptures except what Jesus is quoted as saying himself.

The Voice of Reason · Jan 7, 2005

t3gah said:
If it has to be Jesus only then we might as well throw out everything in the scriptures except what Jesus is quoted as saying himself.

I don't know what that would leave us with, but it would appear to me that that version would have more credibility than the current mess.

Thanks,
TVOR

t3gah · Jan 7, 2005

The Voice of Reason said:
Obviously, your Bible is the ONE that God inspired - and everyone else is wrong!! No?

The link for the NWT for 1 Timothy was the only online link I could think of offhand. If I could have remembered the link for ebible.org or bible.org I would have put that up but I didn't.

I'm not a big fan of the NWT's. I have a few of them and I have studied with them to the point of knowing the exact wording almost by heart. I have other bibles and have studied them as well. I like the Tyndale bible. I read one that used all of the old English terms throughout the bible which is a departure I think to some of those KJV's that have some pages with 'modern' words in them. Just my opinion though.

So the NWT isn't my bible as I'm not a Jehovah's Witness anymore. The NWT's in my possession are yet just another translation of the holy scriptures to use for reference.

linwood · Jan 7, 2005

The Voice of Reason said:
I don't know what that would leave us with, but it would appear to me that that version would have more credibility than the current mess.

Thanks,
TVOR

That would leave us with The Jefferson Bible.

Thomas Jefferson took the time to edit out most of everything but the words of Jesus.

linwood · Jan 7, 2005

t3gah said:
1 Timothy 2:8 Click Me (new world translation @ watchtower.org)

Hey cool, an NWT online.

Thanks t3gah

Scott1 · Jan 7, 2005

The Voice of Reason said:
I don't know what that would leave us with, but it would appear to me that that version would have more credibility than the current mess.

When all else fails..... go with the oldest.

Our new slogan:

"The Catholic Church, trying to get it right since 0"

t3gah · Jan 7, 2005

linwood said:
Hey cool, an NWT online.

Thanks t3gah

That's for 1 Timothy 2:8. I looked at the html code for the page frames and then created a link to the exact page/verse.

If you want to check out the nwt bible you have to go to:

http://www.watchtower.org/bible/

there are no cross-references which is a shame imho.

The Voice of Reason · Jan 7, 2005

SOGFPP said:
Our new slogan: "The Catholic Church, trying to get it right since 0"

ROTFLMAO - That is great, Scott - I really liked that.

TVOR

t3gah · Jan 7, 2005

SOGFPP said:
When all else fails..... go with the oldest. Our new slogan:

"The Catholic Church, trying to get it right since 0"

Some folks might not understand that the calendar had no zero year. I applaud though you anyway even though you gave me a negative frubal.

linwood · Jan 7, 2005

t3gah said:
That's for 1 Timothy 2:8. I looked at the html code for the page frames and then created a link to the exact page/verse.

If you want to check out the nwt bible you have to go to:

http://www.watchtower.org/bible/

there are no cross-references which is a shame imho.

I found found it by backtracking the URL.

Thanks again.

The cross refs in the printed versions are pretty helpful but I`m just happy to have found one online.

t3gah · Jan 7, 2005

pensive said:
Once again, I'd argue that you're freebasing Scriptures. (I love that term, and should really frubal NetDoc for introducing me to it.) The next several verses in Leviticus 18 goes into great length describing the kinds of practices and statutes that God is talking about in verse three. You have taken an introductory statement into a series of instructions and applied it to whatever you want it to mean.

And if those pagan nations came up with new practices that weren't on the list of "no no's" wouldn't they still be pagan and disapproved by God? Yes they would.

What was supplied was what was known at the time. Since I wasn't there I can't say for a certainty that they did or did not come up with more nasty practices that God didn't approve of. God detailed what he didn't like about those pagan practices and the key word here is 'pagan' nations.

So the relevance of whether I'm taking the first verse only is not relevant because the key point is that they are pagan. God doesn't like pagan observances period. Pagan as opposed to chosen people. They versus we. The verse is what it means, them that are they and not them that are us. Egypt, not Israel. Canaan, not Israel. Pagan, not chosen.

t3gah · Jan 7, 2005

Faust said:
Nicholas was the Bishop of Myra around 310 A.D.

He used his own money to buy many people out of slavery, I believe the emphasis was on children. He was elevated to sainthood after death and the roman catholic church made Dec. 6, Saint Nicholas day, when children were given gifts to remember his efforts on their behalf.

After the protestant movement, even though protestants did not believe in saints, they continued to honor Nicholas and created new characters based on him, Father Christmas, Pere Noel, etc...

American Dutch settlers through bad pronunciation of Saint Nicholas perverted it to Sinta Claes, which in turn became Santa Claus. There is no connection between santa and satan.

If you step back and take a look at what the legend of Santa Claus has evolved into and consider that children can't grasp complex ideas the way that most adults can you might consider the story as something of a primer for Christian belief related on a level that children can more easily grasp.
The concept of Omnipresence, He can travel the world in a single night.

The concept of omniscience, He sees you when your sleeping, He knows when your awake, He knows when you've been bad or good.

The concept of omnipotence, (and this may be a stretch but consider it on the level of a childs understanding) He delivers rewards to "good children".

Add to this Washington Irving's satire about Santas flying wagon used to distribute presents, Clement Moore's poem The Night before Christmas, and the artistic representation of the jolly elf from mister Moore's poem by Thomas Nast (complete with a map to the fabled workshop at the north pole-an inaccessible location for the normal human which I submit may be compared to heaven, at least in our present form) and you have a pretty good foundation to build upon.

Induction.

Faust.

[size=-1]Genesis 3:15
and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

God's seed is described here as "her seed". The adversary (satans/devils/beelzebub) is depicted with the "thy seed" part.

Ok, so it's us against them. Us being God's chosen people and then them being all pagan's. Since there can be only one chosen people the rest are the enemy. Christmas/Christ Mass no matter how loving it may get, etc., it's still pagan and from satan's side of the world.

There are many that will frown or say it, the observances have what Jesus described and that it nice intentions, love, caring, giving, etc., but it's still pagan.

I beg someone find me the scriptures that show the details of when anyone in bible times celebrated Christ Mass or Christmas.

[/size]

Scott1 · Jan 7, 2005

t3gah said:
I beg someone find me the scriptures that show the details of when anyone in bible times celebrated Christ Mass or Christmas

You mean except for this:
Luke 2:
13Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
14Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.
20The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

Sounds like a pretty big deal to me.....

Matthew 2
11On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh.

They gave him gifts?????

And without "Satan Claus" to deliver them??? :biglaugh:

My goodness..... I can't imagine why anyone would want to shout "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests".... and then give each other gifts to symbolize not only the gifts from the magi/wise men but to symbolize the glorious gift of Jesus Christ.

It all sounds sooooo horrible.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You crack me up t3, thanks for being here.

Scott

The Voice of Reason · Jan 7, 2005

t3gah said:
God doesn't like pagan observances period.

Okay, t3gah - let's cut to the chase. Just exactly what is it that makes you believe that your version of God is any more correct than say, SOG's, Linwood's, Painted Wolf's, or Rearing Arabian's version?
Try desperately to give me a straight answer, without quoting scripture - I'm sure each of them can also quote scripture that shows them to be correct (well, maybe not Linwood, but the others can).

TVOR

linwood · Jan 7, 2005

SOGFPP said:
They gave him gifts????? And without "Satan Claus" to deliver them??? :biglaugh:

Dammit Scott stop it!!

It won`t let me frubal you anymore in this thread.

:biglaugh:

Jayhawker Soule · Jan 7, 2005

SOGFPP said:
Sounds like a pretty big deal to me.....
They gave him gifts????? And without "Satan Claus" to deliver them??? :biglaugh:

Seems like a bit of a stretch to me, SOGFPP.

A Christmas epistle would have been more probative. Of course, best we can tell Paul didn't find the virgin birth narrative anything close to "a pretty big deal".

Scott1 · Jan 7, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
Seems like a bit of a stretch to me, SOGFPP.

A Christmas epistle would have been more probative.

I can never tell when you are kidding.....

Of course, best we can tell Paul didn't find the virgin birth narrative anything close to "a pretty big deal"

Huh?

Hope · Jan 7, 2005

I notice my questions have been avoided, t3gah.

Christmas & Santa are agents of evil sent by Satan the Devil

Do you believe it is wrong to celebrate Christmas or Christ Mass?

Yes. It is ok to celebrate Christmas or Christ Mass

No. It is NOT ok to celebrate Christmas or Christ Mass

I'm not sure

Who cares?!

Doctor of Thinkology

Doctor of Thinkology

Well-Known Member

Doctor of Thinkology

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Doctor of Thinkology

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Doctor of Thinkology

Well-Known Member

-- untitled --

Well-Known Member

Princesinha