1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ideas concerning the cross. || JESUS ADHERENTS ONLY.

Discussion in 'Same Faith Debates' started by Desert Snake, Jun 30, 2017.

  1. Shiranui117

    Shiranui117 Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    5,076
    Ratings:
    +2,266
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christian
    Do you know the meaning of the light rays coming from the Saints and Christ? Have you not read John 8:12, Malachi 4:2, Matthew 5:14, John 9:12 or Philippians 2:15? The sun rays and the halos are simply pictorial and artistic representations of these Scriptural truths.

    They're not based on the speculations of me, this view of Genesis is based on a simple reading of the Scriptures. It's you who speculate about the existence of the sun prior to God having created it on the fourth day.

    And yet there are two orders of creation--in one case, man is created before all life (Genesis 2:18-19), and in another case, man is created last (as in Genesis 1). This is to signify that Genesis is not concerned with teaching us the natural history of how everything was created, but is concerned rather with teaching us about God's power and our complete dependence on Him, rather than anything that has been created.

    Philip B. Harner (who I have already cited in this discussion), Siegfried Schulz and St. John Chrysostom (a native Greek-speaker) all see the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c to be signifying qualities of the Word; the Word is God, or has the nature of God. Siegfried Schulz (whose translation of John 1:1 is cited by the Jehovah's Witnesses as evidence for their position) says in particular that John 1:1 attributes to Jesus eternal existence (as in John 1:1a), and John 1:1c attributes to Him the same nature as God the Father, and the anarthrous theos in 1:1c calls Jesus "God" in the same way that the Father is God. That the Word is not called "the theos" in 1:1c shows us that the Word is not identical to the Father, but shares in the same essence. Schulz states explicitly that a proper reading of John 1:1c renders the Word consubstantial (i.e. having the same Divine Nature and Essence) as the Father. St. John Chrysostom states much the same thing.

    Someone should probably tell the Watchtower to remove Schulz from the list of translations that they count in their favor.

    Jesus could have very easily corrected the Jews and denied His claim to divinity which they accused Him of. But instead He lets their complaint against Him stand.

    The interpretation of John 1:1c isn't mere "disputing about words". This is about a pivotal verse which you use to deny the divinity of Christ. It's about the very heart of Who Jesus Christ is.

    Jesus died in the flesh, and rose from the dead, because death cannot possibly contain God. By trampling down death by His death, He freed us from the bonds of sin and death (Romans 6 and 8). This is why His Resurrection is so powerful, and is what our faith stands or falls on (1 Corinthians 15).

    God died in the flesh. God is immortal, but the flesh is mortal.

    He bridged the gulf between us and Him by taking on all that we are and sharing in our life, so that we could share in His life.

    God the Father, the first Person of the Trinity. The Trinity is not one God wearing three different masks.



    He also called Himself the Way, the Truth and the Life, the Light of the World and the Good Shepherd. His Apostles call him Christ, Logos and Lord.

    Jesus laid aside much of His divine power and glory. As a child, he had to keep increasing in wisdom and power (Luke 2:40). Let us suppose for just a moment that Jesus is truly (as the Jehovah's Witnesses say) the Archangel Michael. Are we to think that a small child living in a rural village in 1st-century Palestine knew more than the Archangel Michael?

    Of course not. We see that Jesus laid aside His glory, which He had with the Father before the world was (John 17:5). Also note that in this verse, Jesus stated that He possessed the same glory as God Himself. No angel shares the same glory as God; even the Seraphim must shield their faces with their wings because they cannot bear His glory (Isaiah 6:2).

    The point being, Jesus laid aside His glory, knowledge and power to become one of us. When Jesus said that He didn't know when the day or the hour was, it was because He had set aside that knowledge to truly be human.

    Jesus died in the flesh, and He was raised up by the Father.

    Yes. Jesus is, after all, fully human, and is our High Priest.

    Additionally, Jesus is the firstfruits of the dead. He is not the first person to rise from the dead; we know that the dead had been raised several times in the Old Testaments. So then, what does it mean that He is the firstfruits?

    And the head of every woman is the man. Does this mean that women are of an inferior nature, or are less than human? Of course not. Men and women are both of the same nature. But the Son is obedient to the Father and does the will of the Father. They share one and the same divine Will.
     
  2. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,649
    Ratings:
    +8,308
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    It wasn't a false prophesy. Not in my lifetime have there been "false prophesies" delivered by my brothers on the governing body. We were told that 1975 was 6,000 years since the creation of Adam. Nowhere did they say "this is the year that Armageddon will come". They said it could be the year that something significant might happen, but not one person was told to sell their homes or to do anything so drastic. If people "suffered" it was because of what they chose to do themselves, not what our brothers told them to do. Those who reacted in that way were taking it upon themselves to read more into a 'perhaps' than our brothers ever said. Our attitude has always been to "live as though the end could come tomorrow, but plan as if it is still sometime in the near future". We are always ready as Jesus said to be.

    When 1975 came and went, those who had been serving for purely selfish reasons, were weeded out. Many are still out there gnashing their teeth, blaming the governing body for their own choices. But the truth is, their service to God had limits placed on it by themselves.
    Sorry, but I was a Witness back in those days and I do not recall ever being told that 1975 was anything but a maybe. The watchman was doing his job, but the call was a false alarm and everyone went back to business as usual....I was one of them, so lets not get carried away by the sob stories. [​IMG]

    Sorry, but you are speaking about a few who took things into their own hands and got stung. Stupid them! They were never told to do anything but to be alert to the signs of the times as Jesus recommended. The faithful are all still here....and we have been preaching the whole time. Or haven't you noticed? If people want excuses to leave Jehovah, he will not prevent them from finding as many as they want.

    [​IMG] No one who serves the true God ends up with nothing. We are assured of that. (Matthew 6:33) No one told them to do that. What was their motive? Was it like Ananias and Sapphira? (Acts 5:1-11) God knows.

    If we make a mistake, we can't blame someone else for a lapse in our own personal judgment. If we have given up anything for God, we will never feel ripped off unless our expectations were not coming from a pure motive to begin with.

    Mark 10:29-30:
    "Jesus said: “Truly I say to you, no one has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for my sake and for the sake of the good news 30 who will not get 100 times more now in this period of time—houses, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and fields, with persecutions—and in the coming system of things, everlasting life."

    If we gave away all our possessions just so we could feel pious about it.?....seriously, that situation got rid of the ones who were serving God with a date in mind. If we are not in it forever, then we have no business being in it at all. Those who make sacrifices for God are never worse off unless the sacrifice wasn't genuine in the first place. Even "with persecutions" we endure without complaint because we know where the cramped and narrow road leads. You are free to choose any other road.
     
  3. Shiranui117

    Shiranui117 Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    5,076
    Ratings:
    +2,266
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christian
    Nowhere do any of these verses say that the whole Church would apostasize. They simply say that many would fall away. But we also have Jesus' promise of help, and the help and intercession of the Holy Spirit (John 14). The Church is always the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), and the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12). How, then, can it be that Christ's own body is utterly destroyed by heresy for 1800 years before it is recreated?

    Yes, many. But we also see that all of these groups eventually split off from the Church in Scripture (1 John 2:19). There have always been false teachers--Nicolaitans, Docetists, Sabellians, Ebionites, Valentinians, Donatists, Nestorians, Monophysites, Arians, Semi-Arians, Pelagians, Monergists, Monothelites, Apollinarians and others. And they did lead many astray. But contrary to the Jehovah's Witnesses' claims, we see the Church always emerging victorious, with the faith of the Apostles preserved.

    Yup, and we have records of it, too. Every single bishop in the world today, Catholic and Orthodox, can be traced back to the Apostles.

    Many Church Fathers state that the Church was built upon Peter's faith. It is also built upon all those who profess this Faith.
    Except the Trinity was not proclaimed as dogma by a Pope. It was proclaimed as dogma by the entirety of the Church in not one, but two Ecumenical Councils.

    If I'm making brownies, and you insist that I'm making double-chocolate cookies, and I show you the recipe I'm using for my brownies, would you say "Lies, you're making double-chocolate cookies, this is a double-chocolate cookie recipe"? And if you still didn't believe that I was making brownies, and then I bake the brownies, take them out of the oven and show the freshly-baked delicious brownies to you, would you retort "Pssh, those are just double-chocolate cookies disguised as brownies", or would you say "Oh, I guess I was mistaken, I suppose you were making brownies after all"?

    This is honestly what it feels like when you accuse the Catholic Church of idolatry, goddess worship and sun worship.

    Yes, if what you claim about history is true, Jesus lied. He did nothing, absolutely nothing, to protect His Church. He did not send the Holy Spirit to lead her into all truth. He let the gates of Hades prevail against His Church. He abandoned the Church for 1800 years. Since there is not a single shred of evidence that a single person shared the beliefs that you do prior to the 1800's, we are either forced to conclude that the Jehovah's Witnesses of the early centuries AD either kept silent, never wrote anything, worshiped in secret and never attempted to spread their faith, or that there were no Witnesses before the Watchtower was created.

    And monotheism comes from ancient Egypt, with Atenism. Your point?

    Now see, knowing how poorly your organization tends to parse sources (I have pointed out several factual inaccuracies in this very thread, such as with your allegations concerning Wycliffe), I'm more interested in what you didn't quote from that article.

    So you claim, and so I am disproving piece by piece.

    To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (Revelation 1:5-6)

    Now, if we are all kings and priests, and joint heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17), how then can it be said that Mary is not a Queen as well?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Shiranui117

    Shiranui117 Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    5,076
    Ratings:
    +2,266
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christian
    You're assuming that the point of Scripture is to be a science textbook. It isn't. It's a book of spiritual wisdom, not worldly wisdom.

    Have you not read John 8:12, Malachi 4:2, Matthew 5:14, John 9:12 or Philippians 2:15? The sun rays and the halos are simply pictorial and artistic representations of these Scriptural truths.

    They're not based on the speculations of me, this view of Genesis is based on a simple reading of the Scriptures. It's you who speculate about the existence of the sun prior to God having created it on the fourth day.

    And yet there are two orders of creation--in one case, man is created before all life (Genesis 2:18-19), and in another case, man is created last (as in Genesis 1). This is to signify that Genesis is not concerned with teaching us the natural history of how everything was created, but is concerned rather with teaching us about God's power and our complete dependence on Him, rather than anything that has been created.

    Philip B. Harner (who I have already cited in this discussion), Siegfried Schulz and St. John Chrysostom (a native Greek-speaker) all see the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c to be signifying qualities of the Word; the Word is God, or has the nature of God. Siegfried Schulz (whose translation of John 1:1 is cited by the Jehovah's Witnesses as evidence for their position) says in particular that John 1:1 attributes to Jesus eternal existence (as in John 1:1a), and John 1:1c attributes to Him the same nature as God the Father, and the anarthrous theos in 1:1c calls Jesus "God" in the same way that the Father is God. That the Word is not called "the theos" in 1:1c shows us that the Word is not identical to the Father, but shares in the same essence. Schulz states explicitly that a proper reading of John 1:1c renders the Word consubstantial (i.e. having the same Divine Nature and Essence) as the Father. St. John Chrysostom states much the same thing.

    [/QUOTE]Jesus could have very easily corrected the Jews and denied His claim to divinity which they accused Him of. But instead He lets their complaint against Him stand.

    The interpretation of John 1:1c isn't mere "disputing about words". This is about a pivotal verse which you use to deny the divinity of Christ. It's about the very heart of Who Jesus Christ is.

    Jesus died in the flesh, and rose from the dead, because death cannot possibly contain God. By trampling down death by His death, He freed us from the bonds of sin and death (Romans 6 and 8). This is why His Resurrection is so powerful, and is what our faith stands or falls on (1 Corinthians 15).

    God died in the flesh. God is immortal, but the flesh is mortal.

    He bridged the gulf between us and Him by taking on all that we are and sharing in our life, so that we could share in His life.

    God the Father, the first Person of the Trinity. The Trinity is not one God wearing three different masks.

    He also called Himself the Way, the Truth and the Life, the Light of the World and the Good Shepherd. His Apostles call him Christ, Logos and Lord.

    Jesus laid aside much of His divine power and glory. As a child, he had to keep increasing in wisdom and power (Luke 2:40). Let us suppose for just a moment that Jesus is truly (as the Jehovah's Witnesses say) the Archangel Michael. Are we to think that a small child living in a rural village in 1st-century Palestine knew more than the Archangel Michael? What could have Michael possibly learned as a little Jewish boy that he didn't already know from spending eons in Heaven?

    Of course not. We see that Jesus laid aside His glory, which He had with the Father before the world was (John 17:5). Also note that in this verse, Jesus stated that He possessed the same glory as God Himself. No angel shares the same glory as God; even the Seraphim must shield their faces with their wings because they cannot bear His glory (Isaiah 6:2).

    Jesus died in the flesh, and He was raised up by the Father.

    Yes. Jesus is, after all, fully human, and is our High Priest.

    Additionally, Jesus is the firstfruits of the dead. He is not the first person to rise from the dead; we know that the dead had been raised several times in the Old Testaments. So then, what does it mean that He is the firstfruits?

    And the head of every woman is the man (1 Corinthians 11:3). Does this mean that women are of an inferior nature, or are less than human? Of course not. Men and women are both of the same nature. But the Son is obedient to the Father and does the will of the Father. They share one and the same divine Will.
     
    #104 Shiranui117, Aug 28, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2017
  5. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,649
    Ratings:
    +8,308
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Nice try.....if you are seriously going to use these scriptures to justify the halos in your images, then according to those scriptures we should all be walking around with them too.
    [​IMG]

    Funny how halos seem to be part of ancient pagan art but missing altogether from Christianity until the CC introduced the trinity. Funny how we would not be having this conversation if the church had simply obeyed God's command not to make images in the first place....something you continue to ignore. [​IMG]

    When I read Genesis 1 with trust that what God told Moses to record, (from a purely earthly standpoint,) was accurate, and that what he wrote was in line with scientific reality.....

    Genesis 1:1-19....

    "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

    I see this as God creating the entire universe including the earth, sun, moon and stars in one mighty act of creation. If the earth is created along with the rest of the heavens, then why would the sun be missing?

    "2 Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters."

    A 'formless and desolate' planet was selected to prepare it for habitation. God's spirit was the force accomplishing the 'renovation'. No one flips a planet like God does!

    "3 And God said: “Let there be light.” Then there was light. 4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God began to divide the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day."

    The very first thing that God put into place was "light". Nothing could be accomplished without it. What do we know is the only source of light on this planet? Dividing the light from the darkness to distinguish day from night is accomplished by what means? The sun and earth's rotation.....correct? Does God tell us fairy stories?

    "6 Then God said: “Let there be an expanse between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.” 7 Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day."

    Now we have a planet covered by water so God makes "a division between the waters and the waters". There is water above the earth and below, on its surface. Between these waters is earth's atmosphere, often called the "heavens" where birds and other flying creatures carry on their business. (Not to be confused with "heaven" where God dwells)

    "9 Then God said: “Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, but the collecting of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good."

    Now we have dry land appearing out of the waters, making a division between the land and the oceans.

    11 Then God said: “Let the earth cause grass to sprout, seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the earth.” And it was so. 12 And the earth began to produce grass, seed-bearing plants and trees yielding fruit along with seed, according to their kinds. Then God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day."

    Day three and we have the first biological organisms being created. Grass, vegetation, fruit trees, all with seeds to ensure that they would reproduce according to their kind. None of these can grow without sunlight. Photosynthesis cannot take place unless the sun is shining.

    "14 Then God said: “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years. 15 They will serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God went on to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth 18 and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day."

    Logically, these luminaries were already in existence because they are part of the heavens that were brought into existence along with the earth "in the beginning". It doesn't say God created them, but that he said "let there be luminaries". If there was some sort of cloud layer preventing these luminaries from being clearly seen from the earth, then removing that barrier would 'let the luminaries shine on the earth'. The moon only reflects light from the sun, so its the perfect 'nightlight'.

    What you describe makes no sense to me. Everything in Genesis is logically and scientifically correct. There is no need to embellish the story with fantasy IMO.
     
    #105 Deeje, Aug 28, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2017
  6. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,649
    Ratings:
    +8,308
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    He did correct the Jews. He said they accused him of claiming to be God......he said he wasn't...only that he was "God's son" and so, not guilty of blasphemy at all. No grounds for stoning him. How can you not see that?

    It's about the very nature of God the Father, not just the son. The one God of the Jews became three gods in Catholicism, whom they claimed exists in one 'head'. We are not to practice polytheism, so either Jesus is not God or you trinitarians are worshipping more than one God, breaking the first Commandment.

    No, he rose from the dead because his Father resurrected him as he promised. Jesus died and was buried in a tomb for three days and nights, just as he said he would. He paid for what Adam did to us. He gave a perfect sinless life, for the perfect sinless life Adam took from his children. Part of God did not die....no part of God could. The Word could only become flesh because he was mortal to begin with. All spirit creatures, even God's firstborn were created mortal....i.e. they can die. Immortality is indestructible life. Everlasting life is not immortality...they are very different.

    God never died. It is impossible for an immortal to die. Jesus was mortal, just like us. Born into the human race like any other mortal child....the only difference is he did not carry the sin of Adam, because he was not produced by imperfect sinful parents.....he did not carry the defect of sin. Both Mary and Joseph were as sinful as anyone else. They took the prescribed sin offering to the temple after Jesus was born. Mary was not sinless....not immaculately conceived.

    Only the anointed, who are taken into the new covenant will enjoy sharing in heavenly life with Jesus. God designed humans to live on earth and this will always be our permanent home. (Isaiah 55:11) He chose from among mankind, those who will rule mankind. (Revelation 21:2-4)

    No, he is three different people who can all exist in three different places at once.....but there is only one God....right? :confused:

    We can assume from scripture that Jesus grew up in the same way as any other Jewish child raised in a devout Jewish family would do. The scriptures indicate that he was one of at least 7 children. His mother was not a perpetual virgin, but blessed with other children in a normal Jewish marriage.

    It was not until his baptism that "the heavens were opened up" revealing Jesus' former life in heaven with his Father. That precipitated 40 days alone in the wilderness communing with his Father about the course his life was to take in the short three and a half years of his earthly ministry, ending with his sacrificial death.

    Since we believe that Jesus is NOT God, then he could well be the Archangel Michael. Only two are said to command angels in the Bible.....Jesus and Michael. We have no trouble seeing them as one person. But since there is no direct statement in scripture to confirm it, we simply hold it as a belief, not doctrine.

    The glory he had alongside the Father was as his trusted firstborn son. He was looking forward to regaining that glorious life as the life he led on earth must have seemed primitive by comparison.

    So one part of God keeps things from the other part of himself? [​IMG]

    Tell me where in all of scripture that the holy spirit is ever called "God"?

    The part of God that was alive, raised the part of himself that was dead......:facepalm:

    Are you saying that Jesus is still fully human? :shrug:

    He is the very first human to be raised to spirit life in heaven. He is followed by the chosen ones who will rule with him in his kingdom. It requires a resurrection which was not to take place until his return. (Revelation 20:6; 2 Thessalonians 4:15-17)

    You cannot have one God who is head of an equal part of himself. If the son is subservient to the Father, then he is not God. I don't understand why he has to be? Who said he had to be God to pay the ransom? That would be like a kidnapper demanding a million dollar ransom and you handing over $50 trillion. It's nonsense to me.
     
    #106 Deeje, Aug 29, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2017
  7. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,649
    Ratings:
    +8,308
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    You are assuming that Catholicism is "the church"....I make no such assumption because the ones rejected by Jesus were never part of his church in the first place. He says to them "I NEVER knew you, depart from me you workers of lawlessness". Last time I looked, "never" means not ever. Breaking God's laws is easy for Catholics apparently as they seem to have a loophole for everything. I am sorry, but I cannot see a way to call Catholicism "Christianity"......it was never Christian from the beginning...it was an ungodly mix of church and state....something Jesus said his disciples were not to be a part of.

    Who said Christ's own body was utterly destroyed? I don't believe that Christ's own body ever was the Catholic Church. The wheat existed within it but were never really part of it.....just like the prophets of old existed in Judaism, but were not party to the corruption going on in it. Even John the Baptist didn't have a good word to say about them....

    Matthew 3:7-10
    "When he caught sight of many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to the baptism, he said to them: “You offspring of vipers, who has warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Therefore, produce fruit that befits repentance. 9 Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones. 10 The ax is already lying at the root of the trees. Every tree, then, that does not produce fine fruit is to be cut down and thrown into the fire."

    I see the RCC presuming to have an imagined apostolic connection in their "Holy Father", and trying to break every rule in the book.....but I don't believe it will do them any good either.

    That is what you see? Sorry, I see the opposite. I see a mirror image of Judaism. There is nothing about Catholicism that is even remotely Christian from my point of view.

    Don't the Jews still think that they are untouchable as God's people? Jesus told them the real story but they didn't want to hear it.....They did to him what they did to all the other prophets who tried to correct them. (Matthew 23:37-39)

    You don't seem to see any variance between what the church "says" and what it actually "does".....religious images are in every Catholic church and every home....despite the fact that God told his people NOT to MAKE images of ANYTHING at all.......adoration of Madonna and child are not from the Bible, but from Babylonian mother goddess worship that spread to other cultures.....there is a Babylonian sun wheel with an Egyptian obelisk right in the middle of St Peter's Square.....sun worship is everywhere in Catholicism, whether you want to see it or not. "Babylon the great" is so named because all of her beliefs and practices originated there....we are told to "get out of her" if we don't want to share in the punishment God metes out to her. (Revelation 18:4-5)

    I have repeated this so many times already...Daniel foretold the cleansing of God's people at the time of the end. (Daniel 12:9-10) This is the time of the end. We are just rehashing now. [​IMG]

    Excuse me, but monotheism goes back to the garden of Eden....unless you feel that Adam and Eve were created by some other God?

    I don't see you disproving anything....sorry. I see you vainly trying to justify a whole bunch of things though. [​IMG]

    I honestly think you have to be raised Catholic to swallow this stuff. I heard it was said by a Catholic priest..."give me a child till he's seven years old and he will be a Catholic for the rest of his life".

    I don't believe that we are all going to be "kings and priests" as "joint heirs with Christ". Kings have to have subjects and priests have to have sinners for whom to perform their priestly duties.....

    I know who we believe they are........but who are these ones in Catholic belief Shiranui? Who do you kings rule?

    And just to point out......seeing as how there is no gender in heaven, the kings seen in the Revelation are all males, and so are the priests....there are no queens. Spirit beings are A-sexual because they do not reproduce.....but all responsibility for teaching in the congregation was assigned to males, so it was an all male show that all of God's prophets saw. There are only "sons of God" seen in heaven.

    As Paul said.....(Galatians 3:26-28)
    "You are all, in fact, sons of God through your faith in Christ Jesus.27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in union with Christ Jesus."



     
  8. djhwoodwerks

    djhwoodwerks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    3,058
    Ratings:
    +776
    Religion:
    Christian
    Typical brainwashed witness. Just as your "brothers" did. After 1975 came and gone, they blamed the people for "reading more" into what they were "prophesying" than what was meant. But prior to their "error", they praised the people for selling their belongings.

    *** km 5/74 p. 3 How Are You Using Your Life? ***
    By carefully and prayerfully examining our own circumstances, we also may find that we can spend more time and energy in preaching during this final period before the present system ends. Many of our brothers and sisters are doing just that. This is evident from the rapidly increasing number of pioneers.
    Yes, since the summer of 1973 there have been new peaks in pioneers every month. Now there are 20,394 regular and special pioneers in the United States, an all-time peak. That is 5,190 more than there were in February 1973! A 34-percent increase! Does that not warm our hearts? Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end.—1 John 2:17.

    While your "brothers" were still 'not claiming' that 1975 was going to be the end, people selling their belongings was a "fine way" to spend the "short time" they had left. 1975 FAILED and then it was the peoples fault for being over zealous!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    40,071
    Ratings:
    +20,535
    Religion:
    disciple of Gandhi, Jesus, & the Dalai Lama
    You again misrepresent the point that, even though there are predictions of apostasy, you simply cannot and have not documented when it supposedly happened and exactly by whom did it happen, which is what I asked you for. All you have done is to do what you do a lot, namely to move the goalposts. Part of the reason is simply that you have cited non-Biblical sources as being unreliable. Basically, you logically have undercut your own beliefs here by trying to have it both ways.

    Again, you undercut your own beliefs because what you have shown is that this apostasy started in the apostolic church, therefore, using your own "logic", your own scriptures are unreliable.

    The issue of "apostolic succession" deals with the appointment of leaders to expand the church and to replace those that are dying, thus it deals with far more than just the Pope. Again, we see this in Acts and some of the epistles, but for some reason you're blind to what actually is found in your Bible on this in plain old black & white.

    And this is why you keep posting lies and distortions, because we have been talking about what Catholic teachings are. If you don't check the source, how could you possibly eliminate your ignorance on this? If your child comes home with what you believe is a story that might be untrue, aren't you going to at least try and check to see if (s)he's telling the truth? Wouldn't you at least try and go back to the source, or are you going to believe every word that the child says without even a question?

    Your approach has been to swallow without questioning the JW propaganda, and you've made that abundantly clear, Deeje. You could go to a mass or two to see for yourself, but you won't because your leadership tells you not to do that. You could read Catholic publications on-line, but your JW leadership doesn't want you to do that.

    What your JW leadership is doing is to keep you ignorant on what the CC actually teaches, much like the Soviets banned the non-Marxist media. What are they afraid of, Deeje? Ever ask yourself that? Well, I think it's obvious that they don't want their congregants to think for themselves-- just swallow the JW lies and distortions without question.

    Why would God have used the CC if it had fallen into "apostasy"? And since it took the church of apostasy over 1/2 a century to do this, why would you believe in such a "apostasy" church's selection as there were other churches with other texts that they were using? Did you ever stop and think about why God would go through such a conduit? Where's the logic here?

    Again, you have twisted things to suit your own disingenuousness. I clearly was talking about your claims that the church fell into "apostasy", which would be defying Jesus' statements about guiding the church until the end of times.

    Again, your twisting of what was actually being discussed is just so pathetically dishonest of you. Have you no shame, Deeje? This is why it is so frustrating trying to have a serious discussion with you.

    What do you think I've been doing, Deeje? :shrug:

    I've made it quite clear in previous posts why I'm doing this, and that is that I believe it is wrong to demean an entire religion or denomination, although it is quite acceptable to disagree with specific concepts/doctrines. I have done this also to defend other religious groups from bigoted positions by some others, such as Muslims, Jews, and even your JW's, Deeje. The latter I have defended when some other Christians here have labeled JW's as not being "true Christians". IOW, one can stand up for truth and morality without being self-serving, Deeje.

    Notice that you did not produce one single thing that relates this to Babylonian teachings. Plus the source for the trinitarian concept had literally nothing to do with Babylon but was formulated out of trying to explain the interrelationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, neither of which shows up in early Babylonian polytheism.
     
    #109 metis, Aug 29, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2017
  10. djhwoodwerks

    djhwoodwerks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    3,058
    Ratings:
    +776
    Religion:
    Christian
    Unless of course, it's your "true teachers" doing the quoting to support your beliefs, right? Are these "quotes meaningless" to you?

    *** w14 6/1 p. 10 What Hope for My Ancestors? ***
    The New Catholic Encyclopedia
    states: “Baptism is necessary for salvation. As Christ himself said, unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, one cannot enter the Kingdom of God (Jn 3.5).” Because of this, some believe that those who died unbaptized are thrown into hellfire or suffer in some other way after death.

    *** w13 6/1 p. 12 Should We Pray to Saints? ***
    The practice of praying to saints is based on the doctrine of intercession by saints, taught by the Catholic Church. The basic idea is “pleading by one who in God’s sight has a right to do so in order to obtain mercy for one in need,” according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia. Thus, one praying to saints does so with the hope that special favor may be obtained through them because of their blessed position before God.

    *** w12 3/1 p. 4 “Remain in My Word” ***
    Regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses, the New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “They regard the Bible as their only source of belief and rule of conduct.” Recently, a man in Canada interrupted one of Jehovah’s Witnesses as she was introducing herself. “I know who you are,” he said, pointing at her Bible, “by your signature.”

    *** w11 3/1 p. 12 Does the Bible Condemn Gambling? ***
    In fact, the New Catholic Encyclopedia says that gambling “is not considered sinful except when the indulgence in it is inconsistent with duty.

    I could go on, and on, and on, and on!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    40,071
    Ratings:
    +20,535
    Religion:
    disciple of Gandhi, Jesus, & the Dalai Lama
    And you can't even see the utter bigotry with the above. All you afre sho.wing us here, Deeje, that not "bearing false witness" is something that supposedly doesn't apply to you. So utterly pathetic in your stereotyping and condemning of another denomination.

    I do believe you're likely confusing the above with Goebbel's statement about making a "good" NAZI.

    Even if not, you are again insulting the faith of others, and the is simply morally repugnant. You are insinuating the lack of intelligence of Catholics, and that also is morally repugnant.

    And yet you actually appear to believe that you are representing the JW's in an honorable manner, but I would propose that you are doing exactly the opposite. At the least, Catholics and those involved in Judaism no longer do that to other religious faiths. They've learned-- you haven't.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. djhwoodwerks

    djhwoodwerks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    3,058
    Ratings:
    +776
    Religion:
    Christian
    *** g70 4/22 p. 8 Changes That Disturb People ***
    THE churches are in rapid decline. Even in the United States, where religion still enjoys perhaps the greatest popularity, nearly three out of four persons polled said that it is losing influence. Why is there this decline in religion?
    One of the reasons is that people are disturbed by what is happening in their churches. Yes, millions of persons have been shocked to learn that things they were taught as being vital for salvation are now considered by their church to be wrong. Have you, too, felt discouragement, or even despair, because of what is happening in your church? A businessman in Medellín, Colombia, expressed the effect the changes have had on many.
    “Tell me,” he asked, “how can I have confidence in anything? How can I believe in the Bible, in God, or have faith? Just ten years ago we Catholics had the absolute truth, we put all our faith in this. Now the pope and our priests are telling us this is not the way to believe any more, but we are to believe ‘new things.’ How do I know the ‘new things’ will be the truth in five years?”

    Deeje, your "teachers" print things like this in their "teachings" about other religions. Can you tell us how your religion is any different? Your "teachers" are always getting "new light" and you're supposed to believe the "new light" and forget the old light. Your religion does the exact same thing as others, but for you it's the work of God, but the others it's the work of satan.

    Ask yourself the questions this man 'supposedly' asked,

    1. How can you have confidence in anything?
    2. How can you believe in the Bible, in God, or have faith?
    3. How do you know the "new light" will be the truth in five years?

    Your "teachers" try to portray other religions changes in teachings as wrong, but when they do it, it's a good thing.
     
  13. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,649
    Ratings:
    +8,308
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    The predictions of the apostasy were very clear as to their timing metis, as you have already been shown from scripture. It was to occur after the wheat had already sprouted, but not grown to maturity. The Christian congregation was established and the teachings of the apostles were fully accepted as coming from Christ in the first century, but as time went on, men began to want to add their own ideas and the apostles sounded the warning about them and their activities. In the early growing season, or apostolic period, the weeds, (thought to be bearded darnel, which was a blight to farmers back then. It grows plentifully in Syria and Palestine.) were already being sown. In the early stages it is hard to tell them apart. Only at the harvest time was the clear difference visible. A fitting illustration by Jesus.

    [​IMG] The ears of wheat in the ripened grain (on the right) are very different.

    I have undercut nothing. I have shown you the ones responsible for the apostasy and where it took them. History tells the story, not me. Since the only Biblical sources are all written before it happened, what Biblical sources can I use except to provide evidence of the foretold aftermath of that falling away from the truth. There is no other church for 1500 years. Her activities and teachings were not "Christian" by any stretch of anyone's imagination. They show themselves to be the "weeds".

    The scriptures and recorded history testify to the truth. You cannot deny what the scriptures foretold and how it played out. There was no other "Christianity" to blame.

    Since the reference to Peter is a misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18. It was not Peter who was the "rock" but Christ himself upon which his "church" was biult. There were no such things as Popes in early Christianity. Peter's natural talents were utilized by Jesus in furtherance of the gospel, but none of the 12 were more or less important that the others. The gates of heaven are founded on the 12 apostles, not Peter. (Revelation 21:10, 14)

    Tell me what you think "the gates of hell" actually are?

    It is your opinion that what I post is lies and distortions. I believe they are all true. The sources I have relied on the most are Catholic people themselves.....should they not know what they are taught to believe? Some of these people have been devout Catholics for 50 or more years. Are they wrong metis? Did they lie to me? Or is the church lying to to the people who believe in them? That is for people to decide for themselves.

    The RCC is pretty good at propaganda too, in case you hadn't noticed...and it seems to work really well. I have read many Catholic publications on-line.....I find them nauseating actually. What gives you the idea that we can't do our own research?
    Your misconceptions are at work there. Since Catholic publications are often quoted in our literature, I think you have been misled.

    Oh, please. :facepalm: What is this? If anyone is able to accuse a person of swallowing the lies and distortions, it is Catholic people themselves. Raised to believe what is not true and never encouraged to look into things for themselves. The spoon feeding is not on our part, metis and most non-Catholic people are aware of it. Turning up for a mindless ritual week after week and coming out with a sense of completing a duty, but no wiser for the experience is what most Catholic people tell me. They walk into church 'empty' and walk out the same way. I used to feel like that in my own church, but never knew there was any other way to worship God, but what I was taught. How wrong I was! The truth 'sets you free'!

    He didn't have an option. It was the only "Christianity in existence for 1500 years! Why did God leave Judaism in apostasy for centuries? He didn't have any other people who were his. But he kept them in existence until it was time for his son to make his first appearance. He waited again until it was time for his second. You don't seek history repeating? I do.

    As stated above. God can use whomever he pleases to accomplish his will. You will remember that he used ancient Babylon to conquer his own nation at one time in punishment for their appalling deviations into false worship. But later that very same nation was later destroyed by him. History repeating again.

    He has but its not the RCC.
     
  14. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,649
    Ratings:
    +8,308
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    What is with the repeated appeal to emotion. [​IMG] The 'frustration' comes from having no defense for this church's teachings, history or conduct. As I have already explained, the RCC never was "the church", so there is your answer. When Jesus says "I never knew you, get away from me your workers of lawlessness"....he is talking to "Christians" who think their worship is acceptable.....it clearly isn't acceptable to Jesus. (Matthew 7:21-23)

    LOL...you tell me. It isn't very convincing so far.

    So, Jesus exposed religious error because he just wanted to be mean and nasty to the Pharisees.....? Is that it? [​IMG]

    'Don't say anything nasty because you might hurt someone's feelings'? Seriously? Read Christ's denunciation of the Pharisees and tell me where he pulled any punches.....(Matthew 23:13-33)

    He said in verse 13..."Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut up the Kingdom of the heavens before men; for you yourselves do not go in, neither do you permit those on their way in to go in."

    This is what I believe is true of Roman Catholicism and in fact Christendom in general. Will God prevent people from believing lies? No he will not. (2 Thessalonians 2:8-12) There is a reason why Jesus said "few" would be saved. (Matthew 7:13-14)

    Metis I am not here to play games or to tip-toe around the truth. If I step on people's toes, it is because I want to wake them up. Pain is the first indicator that something is wrong. The truth harms no one but liars....and if the cap fits....someone has to wear it.

    Perhaps some research on Nimrod and his mother Semiramis might help. There is a lot of myth surrounding these characters, but an element of truth is at the bottom of most of them. Humans have a habit of embellishing stories. Nimrod was named in the Bible as a real person, the great grandson of Noah, builder of the original city of Babylon, who was the first human rebel after the flood. So much of Northern Hemisphere religious beliefs are centered around Nimrod and his relationship with his mother. When he died, he was the first human to be placed among the gods by his mother....which of course made her "the mother of god". Mother goddess worship spread from there.

    Worship of Nimrod is the basis for a lot of Easter traditions, with his death in Winter and resurrection in Spring. The goddess Ishtar is also associated with Easter, having a festival in her name. Her symbols were rabbits and eggs. And I haven't even touched Christmas! Should I go on? Who introduced these pagan ideas into Christianity metis? None other than the RRC.

    It isn't bigotry to expose a lie. It is only pathetic to try and justify the unjustifiable. I am not condemning another denomination....I am showing you why she stands condemned by God. People are facing the greatest crisis the world has ever experienced....its decision time. People cannot make decisions unless they have both sides of the story. You and Shiranui have provided one side and I have provided another. The people reading this thread can make up their own minds based on what they can see for themselves.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    If this looks like Christianity to you, then I want to know what it looks like to Jesus Christ.

    When did Jesus ever present himself like this....

    [​IMG] or this [​IMG]

    What do you see? I know what I see....Pharisees....history repeating....and why does it repeat? We all know why.

    Lack of intelligence to me, is indicated by blind faith. Catholic people are taught to have blind faith in their infallible leadership but in fact the leadership lives in a gold inlaid palace with servants, whist the majority of his flock live in poverty. Is that what Christianity means to you?

    Why is the Vatican a separate country? Ever wondered?

    I am not representing anyone but myself on this thread. It is about Catholicism and I gave my honest opinion about the Catholic use of the cross, the trinity, its adoration of Mary, its use of images, and many of its beliefs and practices, which I believe are completely unscriptural. It was addressed to "Jesus adherents" of which I am one. I have stated all my reasons for why I believe as I do...provided visual images to demonstrate my points and scripture to back up everything I have said.

    I am here to show people that the majority of "Christians" today are being led down the wrong path. You may disagree, but I don't see a lot of defense for the RCC.....just a lot of justification. What they say and what they do are diametrically opposed.

    We will all answer to the same Judge metis......his judgments are forever, so our choices determine our future....and whether or not we even have one. This is no time to mince words. I'm sorry I don't tip toe very well. [​IMG]
     
    #114 Deeje, Aug 29, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2017
  15. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,649
    Ratings:
    +8,308
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    In saying that Catholic writings are meaningless to me....I mean 'meaningless' in teaching me doctrine or scripture. I kinda thought that was obvious......[​IMG]

    I already said that my brothers quote Catholic publications all the time, in answer to an accusation that we don't read other religious literature. I assure you, we do....so what is your point. Are you not doing the same thing? :shrug:

    And you usually do.....[​IMG] I think its a bit of a sad obsession personally.

    If Jesus 'knows those who belong to him', and 'no one can snatch them out of his hand', what do you imagine that you are accomplishing? Are you going to defend the Catholic Church on this thread? Or even your own? Have you ever stated what your own religious persuasion is? Tell us so that we can put your church under the same scrutiny that you put mine.....now there's a challenge for you.....lets see who your teachers are......or you can run away now. :rolleyes:
     
  16. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,649
    Ratings:
    +8,308
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Don't confuse "new light" with "new doctrine". We are learning all the time, as new light is shed on existing beliefs. It is not a change of doctrine but expanded belief about an existing one. "The way of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, which shines ever brighter until the full light of day." Proverbs 4:18. If there was no new light, then we are on the wrong path.

    It is a conviction of heart. Jehovah lets us know that he is leading his people, who have the light getting brighter by the day.

    No doubt you feel confident as new light is shed on your own beliefs djh? [​IMG] Who sheds that light for you? Who is the "faithful slave" for your church? Please tell us who your leaders are.....?
     
  17. djhwoodwerks

    djhwoodwerks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    3,058
    Ratings:
    +776
    Religion:
    Christian
    Don't you believe one can lose their salvation?

    It's right there where it says "Religion", all you have to do is look!

    Only cowards run, or hit the ignore button. I'm here to stay!

    No where in the Bible does it say we have to belong to a million+ member church. All it says it to gather with like minded believers! Jesus said, "where TWO or THREE are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst"!

    Dr. Tony Evans is my main source of Bible study, and I meet with people who listen to him and are like minded in beliefs.

    When they change, "He appointed us" to, "He didn't appoint us yet, but will in the future", that IS NOT "expanding" and existing belief, it's reversing it or changing it. And yes, that is the DOCTRINE your org is founded on, that the "slave" has been appointed by God and Jesus.
     
  18. djhwoodwerks

    djhwoodwerks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    3,058
    Ratings:
    +776
    Religion:
    Christian
    How do you get, "new light" out of, "the light shines brighter"?

    Ever read this before?

    "With God there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning, and so it is with truth; any knowledge or light coming from God must be like it’s author. A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. “New light” never extinguishes “older light” but adds to it. …So it is with the light of truth; the true increase is by adding to, not by substituting one for another." C.T. Russell
     
  19. Shiranui117

    Shiranui117 Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    5,076
    Ratings:
    +2,266
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christian
    Alright, then show me the recorded history of this apostasy, and show me the unbroken line of people who kept what you consider to be the true faith, from the first century up to today. You always claim that there were at least a few people who believed as you do throughout history, so you should have no problem giving me names, dates, biographies and writings of at least three such individuals.

    A lot of Catholics are poorly educated. Case in point, a third of American Catholics either don't believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, or don't know that this is what the Church has taught since the time of the Apostles. That's not the Catholics you've met lying to you or the Church lying to them, that's just very bad follow-up on making sure the kids learned their faith and stayed informed.

    They're parsed and trimmed to say what you want them to say, not to say what they actually say. That's the reason you always give the print reference for the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. If you guys supplied the links to the online version, anyone would be able to see that you very badly lift certain phrases and string them together to make them say what you want them to say. This is the same reason I always give links to any sources that I cite, so people can go and verify for themselves that I in no way misrepresent what the author was saying.

    Someone doesn't know Christian history. I suppose you never heard of the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox or the Eastern Orthodox, not to mention the dozens of heretical groups? If what you say is true, then why didn't God have the Arians compile the Bible? At least their beliefs were somewhat similar to yours, and they were the group in power within the Roman Empire for several decades. Even after that, the Arians enjoyed the favor of the Visigoths. Why do we see the Bible being compiled by the Catholics/Orthodox/Assyrians (they were all still one at this point in history) and not by the Arians?

    Who says the Jews were in apostasy for centuries before Christ came? Whenever the people of Israel went astray, there were always prophets who arose. Sure, there was corruption in the religious hierarchy, but the people of Israel still kept the faith.

    So which individuals, which groups throughout history prior to the 1800's did He guide?
     
  20. Shiranui117

    Shiranui117 Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    5,076
    Ratings:
    +2,266
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christian
    Icons point to spiritual truths, not material ones. That's why our icons deliberately aren't anything like Classical art, which tries to accurately capture the physical.

    The Church has believed in the Trinity since the get-go. It just didn't get a neat, concise definition until the Council of Nicaea. I could give you dozens upon dozens of citations from the Fathers ranging from St. Ignatius of Antioch (writing in 105 AD) and St. Clement of Rome (writing around 80 AD) right up until the eve of the Council of Nicaea to prove it, too.

    The First/Second Commandment (depending on how you number them) states that we are not to make images and serve (Greek: latreia) them. The word "idolatry" comes from "eidololatreia", or "the rendering of sacred service to images". Latreia is used exclusively for religious worship. Nowhere does a Christian ever render latreia to an icon. THAT is, quite literally, idolatry, for then the icon becomes an idol, and that is unacceptable in Christian worship.

    Why does it have to be?

    Genesis 1:1-19....

    "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

    I see this as God creating the entire universe including the earth, sun, moon and stars in one mighty act of creation. If the earth is created along with the rest of the heavens, then why would the sun be missing?

    "3 And God said: “Let there be light.” Then there was light. 4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God began to divide the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day."

    "6 Then God said: “Let there be an expanse between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.” 7 Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day."[/quote]Tell me, is there a layer of water above a dome called the firmament into which the stars are set?

    So when God said "let there be light", was there already light? Or was the world, as Genesis 1:2 says, in darkness?

    God also says that He put the sun and the moon and all the stars in the firmament (Genesis 1:15-17). Were the sun, moon and stars not in their proper locations before God moved them there? Where were the sun, moon and stars beforehand?

    There's no embellishment, just an exegesis. You, however, are doing some heavy eisegesis, stating things which are actively contradicted by Genesis 1.

    Actually, they accused Him of claiming to be divine. There is no definite article before the "theos" in question, though it's nice that you admit the consensus in how to render John 10:33.

    Actually, even then He's still not off the hook, because He just said that He and the Father are one--i.e. they share the same nature. And rather than rebuffing the Jews' accusation of claiming to have the same nature as God, He instead turns it back on them and begins quoting the Psalms.

    In addition, when Satan tempts Jesus to worship (proskyneo) him, Jesus says that worship (proskyneo) is for God alone. When Cornelius worships (proskyneo) Peter, Peter immediately stops him and says "I, too, am a man." When John flips out and worships (proskyneo) an angel out of fear, the angel stops him immediately. Yet when the Apostles worship (proskyneo) Jesus just prior to His ascension in Luke 24, He doesn't stop them, despite having once told Satan that worship (proskyneo) is for God alone.

    In every single other instance in the New Testament where the verb proskyneo is used, it's used for God or Jesus. The Wise Men from the East (most likely Persian) worshiped (proskyneo) Jesus as a king, reflecting ancient Near Eastern/Greco-Roman practice of worshiping your king/emperor as a living god.

    We worship one God with one Divine Essence, Who exists without separation in three distinct Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

    Exactly. God cannot die, but the flesh can. So Jesus died in the flesh, and "led captivity captive" as it says in Ephesians 4:8-9 and Psalms 68:18. Also note how St. Paul attributes to Christ a verse from the Psalms originally attributed to God--or, as you know him, Jehovah.

    The sin offering was for Mary's ritual purification after having given birth. Unless you consider menstruation and afterbirth sins?

    Yes. God isn't just a physical being bound to one geographical location, after all.

    So did the Archangel Michael grow in wisdom and power during his earthly life over and above what he had before being born as a human baby? Or is it the case that Jesus laid aside His glory, His power and much of His knowledge prior to becoming incarnate?
    In Revelation 19:12, it is said that Jesus has a name written on His forehead, which no one knows but Himself. By your logic, wouldn't this mean that Jesus knows things that the Father does not?

    2 Corinthians 3:17 is a good start to this conversation.

    Of course.

    By that logic, why would God pay a ransom to a kidnapper in the first place? Surely He isn't beholden to anything else in the universe?

    My answer: We were purchased with God's own blood (Acts 20:28), but not that God paid a ransom to death with His blood, but such that by His death on the cross in the flesh, He led captivity captive.
     
    #120 Shiranui117, Aug 30, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2017
Loading...