Jump to content
The World News Media

Cos

Member
  • Content Count

    275
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cos

  1. Ms DeeDee, One thing needs to be understood, the devil counterfeits the truth. In many pagan religions there is the story of a dying and raising saviour, many also have a creation story, etc, etc; are you to nullify the Bible teaching on these because the devil tries to confuse the truth? I should hope not because that's what he wants you to do! In my younger days as part of my curriculum I had studied mythology, to which “pagan gods and goddesses” are you referring to that were “in a triple form”? <><
  2. Folks, the early church writers discussed and rebuked many false teaching, but nowhere do they even mention anything that resembles the JW form of religion or even the Unitarian form of religion until the Arians of fourth century. Surely if a group resembling the JW/Unitarian religion were present before the fourth century then the early church writers would have said something about them, but nothing. Instead here is some of what they did say; Irenaeus (120-202) "For I have shown from the scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely,
  3. Space merchant, A good study on the meaning of Matthew 28:19 is to see how the early Christian (say before the fourth century) understood the passage. Anyway, looking at this verse grammatically in Greek, Bible scholar Robert Reymond explains, “Jesus does not say, (1) ‘into the names [plural] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,’ or what is its virtual equivalent, (2) ‘into the name of the Father, and into the name of the Son, and into the name of the Holy Spirit,’ as if to deal with three separate beings. Nor does He say, (3) ‘into the name of the Fat
  4. Space merchant, Although you seem to deny Unitarianism and Arianism similarity, there is no doubt you both share the same concepts. Anyway, I suggest you read the writings of Christians before the fourth century, which show historically that the Arian concept (shared by Unitarians) was not even heard of. <><
  5. Newton also got things wrong like universal gravitation, and the claim that time was absolute when its not and Unitarianism...just to name a few!
  6. If Newton were Unitarian so what? Even some of the brightest minds get things wrong! <><
  7. Space merchant, Thank you for explaining a little be more, I apologize for assuming you are a JW. I have! I showed you that the correct way to use the Coptic translation is to do so in the way the translator intended not as some have done and misapply the translation to suit a false rendering. I’d be more than happy to discuss this with you further if you like? Let me ask you; you do know that from the writings of the early church that the Arianism/Unitarianism idea did not appear historically until the fourth century, you do kno
  8. Space merchant, Every time a JW wants to argue for their rendering of John 1:1 you cite a list of Bible version which you think support the JW rendering, as if that settles the matter. If citing Bible versions were justifiable then many more translation CAN be cited that have “and the Word was God” many, many more! In fact you JWs will cite anything that you think gives support to your wording from a false altered text to an Occultist rendering of John 1:1. For example you guys quote for support the Sahidic Coptic translation, the problem is y
  9. Arians/Unitarians such as JWs claim that Jesus is the first (in chronological sequence) to be born? And they site for support Colossians 1:15, claiming that the Son is a member of creation. The Watchtower also add the word “other” to the passage in their bible version to give that impression. Guys, if the reference to "firstborn" in Scripture primarily means being the first to have been given life, then that title could never be lost because it would refer to a factual event, the first birth. Further, the title could never be applied to someone that was not truly the
  10. Ms DeeDee, What has to be understood is that even thought Jesus by nature is God, He, however, is not the Father. <><
  11. Ms DeeDee, Let me first of all say that the expression “image of” entails identity of nature and essence. The Greek word eilon (“image”) according to Vines Expository Dictionary, “involves the two ideas of representation and manifestation” (see also Vincent, Word Studies in the N.T). “Image” does not suggest a mere likeness to God or a paradigm of His person, but a real manifestation of true Deity in body form. I’d like to show you, from the scriptures, how this word eikon can be used to convey the reality; turn to Hebrews 10:1, here we see the “shadow”
  12. Ms DeeDee (I presume you are Ms) Even though Jesus is not the Father, nonetheless, He is God, just as the Father is God. <><
  13. Folks Isaiah 9:6 is a prophetic description of Christ. The phrase “his name” in Isaiah 9:6 is a Hebrew idiom, and mean much more than a name that the child actually bears, it signifies that they are appellatives or descriptive designations of His person and work. Wonderful Counsellor. Mighty God. Eternal Father. Prince of Peace. Allow me to make one point; Isaiah 9:6 is not saying that Jesus is the Father. The designation “Eternal Father”” (“Everlasting Father” in some Bible versions) means “Father of eternity”. The word ‘Father’
  14. Mr. Sostar, I can see from what you say that you have some strong convictions, thank you for sharing them. You say that some “Catholic, Protestants, Muslim etc embraced JW teachings”, please give examples. I know Muslim’s agree with some of the JW beliefs, but that is only because it follows their own preconceived view. I’m not a Roman Catholic so I don’t know to which “explanation” you refer, but from the many discussions I have had with JWs, I know that a lot of the JW “logic” is not biblical. I read this and then felt sorry for y
  15. Gone fishing, In your examples, when put into context they are apparent that a person or persons are intended, even Otto’s questionable input on the non biblical “earthly visible organization” comprise persons. But when it comes to Jesus’ discourse with the Pharisees in Matt. 12, Mark 3 the idea that to sin against the Holy Spirit means someone other than the subject mentioned is an idea that must be read into the passage. Remember Mark tells us why Jesus charged those scribes with blaspheming against the Holy Spirit: it was because “they had said, ‘He has
  16. Hello Mr. Sostar, The “opposite ideas” is, in most cases, the result of when a person approaches the Bible verses with some pre-conceived thought. I need to ask, what made you leave the Watchtower? <><
  17. Hi Gone fishing, I hope this post finds you well. That would be only for someone who does not recognize the fact that the Holy Spirit is a Person. Let me briefly explain. In Jesus’ dialogue with the Pharisees in Matt. 12, Mark 3, we note that the Spirit is expressly distinguished here from the Son, as one person from another. They are both spoken of with respect to the same things in the same manner; and the things mentioned are spoken concerning them in the same sense. But this is not all. You see when the Pharisees blasphemed by saying that
  18. In a systematic biblical examination on the Deity of the Lord Jesus students of the Bible look at three major contributing factors; 1. Jesus’ names and titles which establish that He is God. 2. Jesus’ attributes (the things that only God can do) validate He is God. 3. Jesus’ abilities (the things that Jesus has done) confirm He is God. Concerning the Deity of Jesus Christ, we have in the Bible's direct statements that he is God. This is what JWs twist and say is not found in the Bible. Jesus’ names and titles. This is an important and inte
  19. If the Holy Spirit were only a power/force or attribute as is claimed, then sin against God would automatically be sin against the Holy Spirit also...but... the Spirit can be sinned against separate from the Father, that is, apart from the Father! The Holy Spirit may be distinctly blasphemed, or be the immediate object of that sin, which is inexpiable. Sorry to say that without any Biblical evidence, to suppose, that this Holy Spirit is not a Person is for men to dream while they seem to be awake. <><
  20. Mr Sostar, And it can easily be shown that the NWT is the incorrect rendering. <><
  21. Ms Fofana, Sorry for the lateness of this response, so many things occupy my attention of late. Nana: It is very deceptive, imo, to refer to "quoting articles out of context", as if the customary and accepted practice is not to quote anything unless 'context' -maybe the whole article?, or maybe the whole book?, or maybe everything the author ever wrote, along with his life history, including the context of the times in which he operated?- is included, and then to portray a false innuendo by calling them "misquotes." Of course it depends on which
  22. Mr Harley, Even that guess on your part would constitute as a poor assumption. <><
  23. Ms Fofana, Sadly your idea of Jesus is not only wrong it is also a fourth century invention. <><
  24. Hi Shiwiii, Yes I believe so. The booklet became an embarrassment to the JWs because of all the false and misleading quotes. <><
  25. Ms Fofana, Once again thank you for your response and for sharing a little of your background. I know what you mean about TV evangelists sometimes the way they speak can seem a little off-putting, but in general that does not mean that what they say is wrong, for its not. Can I just say that Jesus, the Son, is not the Father! I looked up the beliefs of the United Church of Christ head office at
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.