They never walk you through the verse .

[John1.12]

Notice a jehovah witness , a Catholic, a Mormon, SDA ect ,will never walk you through the context of the verse they bring up . They will never tell you what the Author is trying to say ,or what the central idea of the text is about . All that matters is ' proof texting ' . This is eiesegesis. Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsɪˈdʒiːsɪs/) is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] It is often done to "prove" a pre-held point of concern, and to provide confirmation bias corresponding with the pre-held interpretation and any agendas supported by it.

Notice every one mentioned above has a favourite verse they will labour on repeatedly. The Jws will want to take you to Colossians 1.15 . But notice they will never offer a walk through of the verse in context. For Catholics its " On this rock I.ll build my church " . Mormons ,its James " if any one seeks wisdom, ask of God ". SDA it will be any verse that is about the law . Notice its just isolated verses with no clue as to what the overall context is . Let's see if this plays out . Notice the verse each time . Notice its always the same ones .
Thought s ?

 

[Psalm23]

Notice a jehovah witness , a Catholic, a Mormon, SDA ect ,will never walk you through the context of the verse they bring up . They will never tell you what the Author is trying to say ,or what the central idea of the text is about . All that matters is ' proof texting ' . This is eiesegesis. Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsɪˈdʒiːsɪs/) is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] It is often done to "prove" a pre-held point of concern, and to provide confirmation bias corresponding with the pre-held interpretation and any agendas supported by it.

Notice every one mentioned above has a favourite verse they will labour on repeatedly. The Jws will want to take you to Colossians 1.15 . But notice they will never offer a walk through of the verse in context. For Catholics its " On this rock I.ll build my church " . Mormons ,its James " if any one seeks wisdom, ask of God ". SDA it will be any verse that is about the law . Notice its just isolated verses with no clue as to what the overall context is . Let's see if this plays out . Notice the verse each time . Notice its always the same ones .
Thought s ?

What is your perspective on the verses you have mentioned?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

which verse do you want to understand?

you forgot to specify.

or is it all of them?

or is it only certain people you want to answer specific ones?

I don’t get it, sorry

must be the dementia

 

[Jane.Doe]

Notice a jehovah witness , a Catholic, a Mormon, SDA ect ,will never walk you through the context of the verse they bring up . They will never tell you what the Author is trying to say ,or what the central idea of the text is about . All that matters is ' proof texting ' . This is eiesegesis. Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsɪˈdʒiːsɪs/) is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] It is often done to "prove" a pre-held point of concern, and to provide confirmation bias corresponding with the pre-held interpretation and any agendas supported by it.

Notice every one mentioned above has a favourite verse they will labour on repeatedly. The Jws will want to take you to Colossians 1.15 . But notice they will never offer a walk through of the verse in context. For Catholics its " On this rock I.ll build my church " . Mormons ,its James " if any one seeks wisdom, ask of God ". SDA it will be any verse that is about the law . Notice its just isolated verses with no clue as to what the overall context is . Let's see if this plays out . Notice the verse each time . Notice its always the same ones .
Thought s ?

If you would like to discuss context, then ask for such. And be willing to take the time to respectfully listen & understand, even if you disagree.

 

[InChrist]

Notice a jehovah witness , a Catholic, a Mormon, SDA ect ,will never walk you through the context of the verse they bring up . They will never tell you what the Author is trying to say ,or what the central idea of the text is about . All that matters is ' proof texting ' . This is eiesegesis. Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsɪˈdʒiːsɪs/) is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] It is often done to "prove" a pre-held point of concern, and to provide confirmation bias corresponding with the pre-held interpretation and any agendas supported by it.

Notice every one mentioned above has a favourite verse they will labour on repeatedly. The Jws will want to take you to Colossians 1.15 . But notice they will never offer a walk through of the verse in context. For Catholics its " On this rock I.ll build my church " . Mormons ,its James " if any one seeks wisdom, ask of God ". SDA it will be any verse that is about the law . Notice its just isolated verses with no clue as to what the overall context is . Let's see if this plays out . Notice the verse each time . Notice its always the same ones .
Thought s ?

I have noticed this with pseudo-Christian groups and even with some Christians who get off on unbiblical tangents.

 

[John1.12]

If you would like to discuss context, then ask for such. And be willing to take the time to respectfully listen & understand, even if you disagree.

The burden is on those who willfully assert the same verses over and over ,but yet never walk through the context.

 

[Jane.Doe]

The burden is on those who willfully assert the same verses over and over ,but yet never walk through the context.

You want to be talked to a certain way, then you should ask for it and listen to the response. Not blame the other person.

 

[John1.12]

You want to be talked to a certain way, then you should ask for it and listen to the response. Not blame the other person.

I'm listening for context .

 

[Jane.Doe]

I'm listening for context .

And did you ask for it?
If not, then you’re complaining you didn’t receive something you didn’t ask for, and blaming the other person for it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thought s ?

Sophomoric pedanticism is tiresome.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Notice every one mentioned above has a favourite verse they will labour on repeatedly.

And this by someone who calls himself John1.12. I'm sure that we're all so glad that you do not stoop to having a favorite verse.

 

[John1.12]

And this by someone who calls himself John1.12. I'm sure that we're all so glad that you do not stoop to having a favorite verse.

could you show where I've laboured on John 1.12 over and over and over and over? I Just chose That verse as others were taken . No big deal .

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

could you show where I've laboured on John 1.12 over and over and over and over?

Oh, my - four (count em, four) "overs" ...

I Just chose That verse as others were taken .

... not to mention a capital "That."

No big deal .

Clearly.

 

[Psalm23]

Notice a jehovah witness , a Catholic, a Mormon, SDA ect ,will never walk you through the context of the verse they bring up . They will never tell you what the Author is trying to say ,or what the central idea of the text is about . All that matters is ' proof texting ' . This is eiesegesis. Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsɪˈdʒiːsɪs/) is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] It is often done to "prove" a pre-held point of concern, and to provide confirmation bias corresponding with the pre-held interpretation and any agendas supported by it.

Notice every one mentioned above has a favourite verse they will labour on repeatedly. The Jws will want to take you to Colossians 1.15 . But notice they will never offer a walk through of the verse in context. For Catholics its " On this rock I.ll build my church " . Mormons ,its James " if any one seeks wisdom, ask of God ". SDA it will be any verse that is about the law . Notice its just isolated verses with no clue as to what the overall context is . Let's see if this plays out . Notice the verse each time . Notice its always the same ones .
Thought s ?

I think it is useful to state what your position is on these verses and state how the opposing view is inaccurate according to the context. Walk through how the context proves your position and disproves the other positions. Allow the opposing views to do the same and debate with kindness.

 

[John1.12]

I think it is useful to state what your position is on these verses and state how the opposing view is inaccurate according to the context. Walk through how the context proves your position and disproves the other positions. Allow the opposing views to do the same and debate with kindness.

Yes this is the point. If a person is quoting verses claiming they are saying what they are implying , then ask them for their understanding giving the context also . Not Just quoting a single verse . Many people never think to ask for the explanation with the surrounding passages ( context) . Rarely do you see any context given by the above groups . This is a red flag .

 

[Psalm23]

Yes this is the point. If a person is quoting verses claiming they are saying what they are implying , then ask them for their understanding giving the context also . Not Just quoting a single verse . Many people never think to ask for the explanation with the surrounding passages ( context) . Rarely do you see any context given by the above groups . This is a red flag .

If someone is unwilling to go through context about a verse when asked, I may see that as a red flag. Only stating someone is not using context without providing the context oneself is not a strong argument.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Notice a jehovah witness , a Catholic, a Mormon, SDA ect ,will never walk you through the context of the verse they bring up . They will never tell you what the Author is trying to say ,or what the central idea of the text is about . All that matters is ' proof texting ' . This is eiesegesis. Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsɪˈdʒiːsɪs/) is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] It is often done to "prove" a pre-held point of concern, and to provide confirmation bias corresponding with the pre-held interpretation and any agendas supported by it.

Notice every one mentioned above has a favourite verse they will labour on repeatedly. The Jws will want to take you to Colossians 1.15 . But notice they will never offer a walk through of the verse in context. For Catholics its " On this rock I.ll build my church " . Mormons ,its James " if any one seeks wisdom, ask of God ". SDA it will be any verse that is about the law . Notice its just isolated verses with no clue as to what the overall context is . Let's see if this plays out . Notice the verse each time . Notice its always the same ones .
Thought s ?

This is not my experience with JW, most often when i meet them they speak about the meaning behind the verse we discuss.
They discuss every verse that speak of the topic we discuss.

People from JW are lovely people

 

[Jane.Doe]

If someone is unwilling to go through context about a verse when asked, I may see that as a red flag. Only stating someone is not using context without providing the context oneself is not a strong argument.

"When asked" is an important word here.

It's important to be able to discuss things fully and from different angles. For me, seeing such different angles is actually one of the best parts of apologetics. But I also acknowledge that not everyone is going to provide responses in the way I want right away. Communication is a two way street and we should also be able/willing ourselves to ask for things from those different angles.

And of course, realize that not everyone is an apologetics person, and that's ok too

 

[Mister Emu]

Thought s ?

It's entirely pathetic to center your argument on the idea that people who disagree with you are bad faith actors instead of persons who genuinely came to a different conclusion.

 

[Deeje]

OK @John1.12....I’ll respond.

Colossians 1:15 was mentioned, so what’s the beef? That Jesus is a creation of his God and Father?

Who is the writer, and to whom is this letter addressed?
“1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through God’s will, and Timothy our brother, 2 to the holy ones and faithful brothers in union with Christ at Co·losʹsae:

May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father.”

He goes on to say.....”3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 4 since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and the love you have for all the holy ones 5 because of the hope that is being reserved for you in the heavens. You previously heard about this hope through the message of truth of the good news 6 that has come to you. Just as the good news is bearing fruit and increasing in all the world, so it is also doing among you from the day you heard and accurately knew the undeserved kindness of God in truth.”

“....we have never stopped praying for you and asking that you may be filled with the accurate knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual comprehension, 10 so as to walk worthily of Jehovah in order to please him fully as you go on bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the accurate knowledge of God; 11 and may you be strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may endure fully with patience and joy, 12 as you thank the Father, who made you qualify to share in the inheritance of the holy ones in the light.

13 He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins.”

So what follows is in the above context......

“15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all things, and by means of him all things were made to exist, 18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might become the one who is first in all things; 19 because God was pleased to have all fullness to dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all other things by making peace through the blood he shed on the torture stake, whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens.”

So please give us some way to determine what it is that you take issue with?

That Jesus is a creation of his Father is confirmed in Proverbs 8:22....
“Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way,
The earliest of his achievements of long ago.”

As “wisdom personified”, he was spoken about as being at his Father’s side in creation....God’s “Master Worker. (Proverbs 8:30-31)

The pre-human Jesus, is mentioned at Revelation 3:14....
“These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God”.

This is just after verse 12 where the resurrected Jesus calls his Father “my God” four times in one verse.

Is that context enough?