1914

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

1 minute ago, Tom Henry said:

I understand those opposed want to make an argument on anything they can cling onto, but who were the last people to see Jesus in spirit form? If anyone here wants to make an intelligent proposition without outright speculation than even seasoned witnesses here have a problem with, then by all means, lets distinguish those biblical understandings.

I think there is a scripture that says Jesus was seen by up to 500 people. 

1 Corinthians 15 v 6. 

New International Version
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

New King James Version
After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.

We know that Jesus 'took on human form' when he was resurrected, so as to 'prove' his resurrection. We have the account of Thomas too. But we know that Jesus was resurrected as a spirit and merely 'used' human form to show himself to humans. 

[Guest Tom Henry]

2 hours ago, Kosonen said:

Acts 26:14 "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice say to me in the Hebrew language: ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? To keep kicking against the goads* makes it hard for you.’ 15  But I said: ‘Who are you, Lord?’

This was mentioned by a person calling him/her "witness". I hope you will understand the difference from your earlier post.

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Please do tell me what i want to continue in ignorance of ?  I'd love to here your opinion  

I think your own willingness to debate such a silly mistake that I have drawn from, and defend the indefensible should be proof enough.😏

This also shows how meaningless your down votes are. But, we can play the same game, good enough?😊

20 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

We know that Jesus 'took on human form' when he was resurrected, so as to 'prove' his resurrection. We have the account of Thomas too. But we know that Jesus was resurrected as a spirit and merely 'used' human form to show himself to humans. 

I believe the distinction was that Paul never meet Jesus. I have no idea why you wish to make that an argument, and why, a supposed witness like JWinsider would want to agree with an error in bible understanding. I, can only conclude like many others have concluded in the past. JWinsider is not a witness in good standing, and he proves it here every day by writing or approvals with emojis. That however is his problem with God.

22 hours ago, Kosonen said:

I understand this is an interesting question. But we should take apostle Paul's letters as God's word because he was an apostle appointed by Jesus directly

So you can better understand your own words, This would conclude Jesus met with Jesus. The inference of the word "directly" gives it that weight. It would not be proper for any Christian to think Paul had DIRECT contact with Christ. Jesus spoke to Saul of prosecution. Jesus was not making a distinction between himself and those Saul prosecuted himself as a pharisee. Therefore, God appointed Saul/Paul.

Jesus paved the way for Saul to see why he was in error for prosecuting Christians. This meant God opened Paul's eyes and anointed him with the Holy Spirit.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Tom Henry said:

I have no idea why you wish to make that an argument, and why, a supposed witness like JWinsider would want to agree with an error in bible understanding.

You might have no idea, but I do. All you have to do is ask. There should be no reason to merely throw around insults but then not be willing to answer questions. That's just an old "Allen Smith" tactic. If you had asked why I believed the Bible verses that @4Jah2me referenced, it was because you asked a simple question requoted here.

2 hours ago, Tom Henry said:

who were the last people to see Jesus in spirit form?

I think last person to see Jesus in spirit form might well have been Paul, but Paul implies that at least a portion of this encounter with Jesus in spirit form may have been in a vision, or he may have been temporarily blinded, or perhaps even in a subsequent vision, whether in the body or out of the body he wasn't sure. There were others with Paul on the road to Damascus for which it is also unclear just what was seen.

So I think it's reasonable to assume that persons who saw Jesus while he was in spirit form would have seen Jesus while he had materialized a body of flesh and bone. This included most of the apostles and several of the disciples and, according to Paul, upwards of 500 or more. (Assumed to be after his resurrection but prior to his ascension.)

So I up-voted the 1 Cor 15:6 reference. I up-voted it because it's the same scripture I would have responded with.

 

[Kosonen]

1 hour ago, Tom Henry said:

So you can better understand your own words, This would conclude Jesus met with Jesus. The inference of the word "directly" gives it that weight. It would not be proper for any Christian to think Paul had DIRECT contact with Christ. Jesus spoke to Saul of prosecution. 

We should not go beyond the scriptures. And if a scripture says in a certan way, have we not the right to express in the same way? I believe that Jesus speaks about appointments with his Father. I think they often sit together and speak with each other. Because after Jesus' resurrection he is described in the Bible as sitting just at God's right hand. So exactly who took the decision or did they take it together, or who first suggested to chose Paul to become apostle? Was it Jesus or Jehovah? I don't know the details behind the scene. But the Bible says that Jesus spoke to Paul. So can't we say the same thing?

Yet an other scripture about that:

1 Corinthians 9:1 "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2  Even if I am not an apostle to others, I most certainly am to you! For you are the seal confirming my apostleship in the Lord."

And may I ask you do you appreciate Jesus' high position to which God elevated him after his resurrection and what is he doing having that authority? 

John 5:22: "For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son," 

[JW Insider]

@Kosonen, @Arauna

If you don't mind, I'd like to move this part of the discussion about identifying "Babylon the Great" to a new topic. I will end up moving a couple of your comments from here to that topic, and it might make a better place for some participation by others. (Because the topic title will be "Revelation, Babylon the Great, etc." instead of 1914.)

If it doesn't work out, I can move your comments back here.

Note that I only moved comments that directly discussed the meaning of Babylon the Great. One of Kosonen's posts also mentioned Paul on the road to Damascus in answer to one of the side-topics here, but it was only over there now because it had already been merged into a post that was mostly about "Babylon the Great." I can't edit that out, so a piece of what originally belonged here under "1914" is now over there in the new topic.

Also, when posts are moved, I can't control who the new topic is credited to. Since Arauna was the first to bring up Babylon the Great, her post in the new place is the oldest, and it appears that she "created" the topic. This can be confusing. It just means that hers is the first post in that newly created topic.

 

[Guest Tom Henry]

17 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

You might have no idea, but I do. All you have to do is ask. There should be no reason to merely throw around insults but then not be willing to answer questions. That's just an old "Allen Smith" tactic. If you had asked why I believed the Bible verses that @4Jah2me referenced, it was because you asked a simple question requoted here.

This only shows how spiritually immature you really are. Whatever tactic you wish to compare only to find out that many shares the responsibility for the truth. When people don't correct others with small stuff, what makes people think they can argue big stuff. I don't believe my observation was insulting. I understand it to be your own ploy when you're getting ready to BAN someone. It's not a matter of the Bible reference, but that persons poor choice of words. I believe you can understand that without resorting to your common tactics, of misleading the subject.

20 minutes ago, Kosonen said:

We should not go beyond the scriptures. And if a scripture says in a certan way, have we not the right to express in the same way? I believe that Jesus speaks about appointments with his Father. I think they often sit together and speak with each other.

This is correct. Perhaps you should learn by your own words not to add to scripture by mistakenly suggesting something not found in scripture. You have many opposers that have no problem continuing a distorted view then turn around and blame the GB and the Watchtower, when it's the individuals that don't understand scripture and misapply it.

Thus far, too many errors have been made here. But since, everyone believes they are brilliant with bible understanding? it, should be up to them to defend their erred position without misinterpreting scripture and Watchtower literature.

[JW Insider]

31 minutes ago, Tom Henry said:

I don't believe my observation was insulting. I understand it to be your own ploy when you're getting ready to BAN someone.

Your observation was, and I quote:

5 hours ago, Tom Henry said:

It's unfortunate people like (4jah2me) want to continue in ignorance just because a true Christian makes that distinction when there are no true Christians here to take light of a minor mistake. That is expected when no one here actually knows or understands the bible.

If you can't see how you just insulted everyone here, then I don't think there would ever be enough evidence in the world to convince you. And, by the way, I have never banned anyone, nor have I asked for anyone to be banned. If you already know this, then you are being dishonest. If you don't already know this, then I don't think there would ever be enough evidence in the world to convince you of this either.

[TrueTomHarley]

41 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I have never banned anyone, nor have I asked for anyone to be banned. 

I have, though. After a series of breathtakingly nasty comments, I suggested that it was time for Matthew4-5784 to hit the road. Shortly afterwards he was gone and every one said, ‘Good riddance.”

 

[Guest Tom Henry]

52 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

If you can't see how you just insulted everyone here, then I don't think there would ever be enough evidence in the world to convince you. And, by the way, I have never banned anyone, nor have I asked for anyone to be banned. If you already know this, then you are being dishonest. If you don't already know this, then I don't think there would ever be enough evidence in the world to convince you of this either.

Let's not start using the word dishonest. You are giving yourself away. It will be our little secret. However, you are correct, if speaking with the truth troubles people here, then they will be insulted regularly. 😉

[JW Insider]

2 minutes ago, Tom Henry said:

Let's not start using the word dishonest. You are giving yourself away. It will be our little secret. However, you are correct, if speaking with the truth troubles people here, then they will be insulted regularly. 😉

I used the word dishonest only because this has been repeated to you so many times, by me and others, too. So it seems that you just don't want to know the truth, when it would be so easy just to ask the admins. I can't imagine that someone who is always insulting others for their poor research skills would not look into a matter himself before making false claims.

[Anna]

You do know, Allen Smith, that you are easily identifiable no matter what name you use. And you know why? Because you always use the same insulting tactics.

[JW Insider]

31 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I have, though. After a series of breathtakingly nasty comments, I suggested that it was time for Matthew4-5784 to hit the road. Shortly afterwards he was gone and every one said, ‘Good riddance.”

It was my opinion, too, that Matthew6699 (or something like that) did not try to add any value to any conversation. I thought he was here just to be as disagreeable as he wanted to be. The dozens of incarnations of Allen, on the other hand, have very often been useful and thoughtful and almost always provocative. There are times when I'd rather see a long response from those "Allen" accounts than, let's say, a Dilbert cartoon. And I really, really like Dilbert cartoons. 😎  (See, I can be provocative too!)