Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 68 of 385 (695896)
04-10-2013 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Pressie
04-10-2013 12:16 AM


Re: The Trinity is thoroughly Biblical
Perhaps you missed this message?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Pressie, posted 04-10-2013 12:16 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Pressie, posted 04-10-2013 5:28 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 70 of 385 (695898)
04-10-2013 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by GDR
04-10-2013 3:46 AM


Oddly the only thing I can find in your post at the moment to comment on is your idea that the "poor schmuck" didn't know it was against the law to pick up sticks on the Sabbath. He's an Israelite isn't he? Therefore he heard the law read. He knew the law of the Sabbath.
I guess I could also comment that stoning to death was the death penalty method of ancient Israel. It applied only to the Israelites and it was based on their having been given the Law under covenant, meaning they willingly accepted it and put themselves under it so that they were without excuse. It does not apply to us as it applied to them, but we are to learn from it how God regards various offenses. It ought to be instructive to understand that He treated the Sabbath so seriously, for instance, and we should learn from that, but your attitude instead is that God should not have taken it that seriously. Judging God again, making yourself morally superior to God.
Since most of your post is just your repeating your unbiblical theology to which I would only repeat my usual answers, I think we've come to the end of the discussion. Or maybe I'll have more to say later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by GDR, posted 04-10-2013 3:46 AM GDR has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 71 of 385 (695899)
04-10-2013 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Pressie
04-10-2013 5:28 AM


Re: The Trinity is thoroughly Biblical
Guess what. I don't care. You are beating that one verse to death as if it proved something. And your language is offensive. Get lost.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Pressie, posted 04-10-2013 5:28 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Pressie, posted 04-10-2013 5:46 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 74 of 385 (695974)
04-10-2013 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by GDR
04-10-2013 3:46 AM


We're off topic here GDR
This is another case where you have completely distorted Jesus’ message to fit your understanding that the Bible is God dictated.
In other words I've correctly represented the orthodox understanding.
Much of Jesus’ message was in reaction to the Roman domination of the Jewish homeland.
Hardly any of Jesus' message had to do with the Roman domination except in the sense that His message was about another Kingdom, a kingdom "not of this world." The Jews did expect a worldly Messiah who would lead them against Rome, and Jesus had to teach them that the Messiah was about eternal salvation and not about this world. You seem to be saying something somewhat similar but I think it ends up being more different than similar in the end.
His message to the revolutionaries was their militaristic intentions were not the way to defeat the Romans. His message that the way the Jewish nation was to defeat the Romans was through the changing of their hearts by their actions and their love.
Here's where you go off in a wrong direction with this. He wasn't talking about "defeating the Romans" at all. He wasn't interested in teaching how to change the hearts of the Romans, but how to change their OWN hearts, becoming conformed to the Kingdom of God. This didn't particularly focus on the Romans if at all
Thus they were told to love their enemy, to turn the other cheek and to go the extra mile in service to them.
These are principles of the godly life, which has nothing to do with the Roman occupation except as the immediate situation in which to learn the principles. Yes, dying to self, which is the summation of most of Jesus' teachings, can win people to salvation, and in fact the later calmness of Christians in the face of being eaten by lions and burned as torches to light Nero's gardens did bring many to Christ, so to that extent you are almost saying something I could agree with.
He told them that their failure to accept the message that He was bringing to them would result in the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple. He even went so far as to say that it would happen within the life time of many who were alive at the time. His message was certainly specific to the Jewish nation but it was also a general principle to all nations. If that isn’t the case then the Kingdom He established is only for the Jews and not for all nations.
I see no focus on nations at all. This was specifically a message to the Jewish nation because of their wrong ideas about the Messiah who was prophesied to come through them but which they misunderstood. The destruction of the temple was to demonstrate that the Messiah had come and fulfilled all the Old Testament practices, which had been intended to foreshadow Him, specifically fulfilling the functions of the temple: He is our sacrifice, fulfilling the function of the former animal sacrifices which could not save but could only foreshadow the true salvation through the sacrifice of the Son of God, and the temple is His body, in which all believers are included as separate stones.
I could go on with your post in this way, but I just realized something. This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread which is about the specific challenges of the Jehovah's Witness originator, such as the question about the biblical basis for the Trinity.
So I think I'll not continue with this post after all.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by GDR, posted 04-10-2013 3:46 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by GDR, posted 04-11-2013 8:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 76 of 385 (695999)
04-10-2013 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Alter2Ego
04-10-2013 11:35 PM


Re: Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?
What on earth is the matter with you? The verses are available to be read if you click on each reference, and they are self-explanatory under each heading. He explains at the top of each list what aspect of the Trinity it is intended to demonstrate. If you think a particular verse does not demonstrate the point he claims it makes, then you should explain why it doesn't.
Again, that is not a "blog," that is an official Bible website which is hosting that article because it is a faithful exposition of the Trinity.
Best you're going to get from me with your cantankerous, obfuscating and ignorant attitude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-10-2013 11:35 PM Alter2Ego has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 2:55 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 78 of 385 (696013)
04-11-2013 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Alter2Ego
04-11-2013 2:55 AM


Re: Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?
Dear Alter:
The reason so many separate scripture verses are needed is that there is NO single verse that fully expresses the Trinity, nor is the Trinity named anywhere in scripture. The concept is derived from many verses which depict God in ways that ADD UP to the Trinity formulation. You are not supposed "to see trinity" in any given verse and that ought to be clear from the presentation itself, but if not then at least consider how I'm explaining it here.
He begins with verses that express that God is One. That's clear isn't it? When you hover over a reference under that heading don't you get a verse that expresses in one way or another that God is One?
Then he gives verses that show that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are EACH separately described as having the attributes of God. When you hover over a reference under the heading saying that the Father is God you should see a verse that expresses the fact that the Father has the attributes of God.
Same under the heading saying that the Son is God: each verse expresses the fact that the Son has the attributes of God.
Same with the Holy Spirit, and then he goes on to show that each also acts independently from the others, demonstrating that they are each "persons" or individuals and not just manifestations of God.
That is how the Trinity was first derived from scripture and that's what it takes to demonstrate that it is based on scripture, a verse by verse demonstration of all the facts that led the Church to formulate the concept.
Look, this is pretty straightforward and obvious, and I HAVE explained it numerous times, that is why I keep putting it back in your court. If Dr. Adequate and Purpledawn could read the link and immediately get the point you ought to be able to as well.
I know it takes time to go through the evidence and that's also partly why I'm not doing it, though the main reason is your stubborn refusal to do so. It's obvious to me that you have no clue about the Trinity and that website defeats your opinion against it and that's why you're digging in your heels. But if you are genuinely having a problem understanding the evidence I WILL try to make the effort to walk you through it at some point.
However, I'm happy to move on myself, I don't feel any need to prove the obvious to you.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 2:55 AM Alter2Ego has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by purpledawn, posted 04-11-2013 5:31 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 80 of 385 (696060)
04-11-2013 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Phat
04-11-2013 10:44 AM


Re: The Arian Heresy
That's fascinating, Phat, thanks for posting it. I've only read up to page 41 but hope to read the rest later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Phat, posted 04-11-2013 10:44 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 84 of 385 (696092)
04-11-2013 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by NoNukes
04-11-2013 8:22 PM


Re: The Trinity is thoroughly Biblical
The question I would have is how should the discussion move from here? Someone, and I'm not saying it should be you or that it should be Alter2Ego, preferably someone who has a well defined take on Trinity or not Trinity probably should take a first step at providing an argument in their own words.
I thought I already did that a number of times. But probably you mean by citing particular verses that make the point? I can do that but I may not be able to get to it for a while.
Now I've got Purpledawn challenging a particular verse, and GDR continuing his line of thought, so I'm not sure where to go with this myself at this point. I may simply not be up to following out all these different lines.
I know that Alter2Ego is a hostile audience, but this seems like an open invitation to spread the good Word. Surely that's not something a Christian finds easy to resist.
Well, since you've thought about this some, what do you think of the directions either GDR or Purpledawn want to take it? Should I pursue their lead or focus on making my own case for the Trinity or what do you suggest?
but if it is then you ought to be able to find many verses that say something different than those say.
This part of your request seems unfair though. Alter2Ego is saying that the Bible does not support the Trinity doctrine. If that is right, then there may well not be any verses to cite.
The idea was that if I'm cherry-picking that means I'm selecting only those particular verses that make my point, meaning there must be others that contradict it, and I'd expect a Jehovah's Witness to be up on what those are if so. But that's probably an academic issue and I might as well drop it. Such a wealth of verses supporting the Trinity can't possibly be cherry-picking anyway.
I would like your opinion, but I think I'm going to try to answer Purpledawn next. Maybe not for a while.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 8:22 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 9:29 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 85 of 385 (696094)
04-11-2013 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by purpledawn
04-11-2013 5:31 PM


Re: Jesus Is YHWH?
Purpledawn,
Before I investigate that particular verse, would you let me know what your position on the Trinity is? Do you dispute the Deity of Christ? I would assume you do from your remarks on this verse but you may just be making an academic point about this particular verse. Which is it?
Also curious if you read what Phat posted about the heresy trial of a couple of Arians, which focuses on the question of Jesus as eternal, and what your position is. Do you agree with the Arians or the orthodox Church?
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by purpledawn, posted 04-11-2013 5:31 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by purpledawn, posted 04-12-2013 6:19 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 87 of 385 (696097)
04-11-2013 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by NoNukes
04-11-2013 9:29 PM


Re: The Trinity is thoroughly Biblical
Thanks for your thoughts.
The central reason the Trinity is important is the question whether Jesus is God or not. That's really crucial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 9:29 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 89 of 385 (696103)
04-11-2013 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by ViperAce
04-11-2013 9:56 PM


I've always been skeptical of the Trinity doctrine. I've felt like it was a doctrine that was created after the canonized Bible was already complete and was a "theory" about the relationship between God and Jesus.
Well, if you base your beliefs on what you've "felt like" you can come up with anything. Have you followed this discussion at all? Read any of the scripture verses at the link I posted in Message 20?
I tend to lean towards modalism, I think of God as a singular being who assumes "roles" as Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The Old Testament seems to be very clear in many places about God's "oneness" and never implies a trinitarian nature. Jesus' divinity is obviously important for a Christian to accept, but I don't think the "three in one" concept is the only possibility.
Try scripture instead of your feelings. The link I provided gives the whole picture starting with the oneness of God and building on that the Deity of Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit plus the individuality or personhood of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The early Church fathers based all their theology on the scripture, they didn't make stuff up as so many like to do these days.
It continues to amaze me that people who know NOTHING about the history of these things just casually make stuff up according to their own feelings. Oh well.
If you're counting all of God's appearances, why isn't the Angel of the LORD the fourth member, since He refers to God in the first person in His appearances?
If you knew any of the history involved or even a smidgen of orthodox theology, you would know that the appearances of the Angel of the LORD are regarded as Theophanies, or pre-incarnate appearances of Christ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by ViperAce, posted 04-11-2013 9:56 PM ViperAce has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 90 of 385 (696107)
04-12-2013 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by purpledawn
04-11-2013 5:31 PM


Re: Jesus Is YHWH?
I feel the conclusion concerning the use of "kurios" is flawed...
From what I can tell in the Greek we can't really just assume kurios means YHWH. Despotes was also used in the NT concerning God. I also found that YHWH was also rendered God in the OT.
I was going to try to address your points here but I may not after all. I'm no Greek scholar, and I'm sure you aren't either, so what you "feel" about the Greek term kurios means zip. To answer you could require that I take a course in Greek which I'm not up to for purposes of a forum debate, and I prefer to trust my betters on these points anyway.
So if the consensus of the orthodox scholars is that kurios refers to Jehovah in that verse, that's the end of it for me.
But here are a few comments.
Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (KJV)
In the Greek there isn't an article in front of Lord, but there is in front of God.
The sentence is speaking of two beings, not one.
God the Father and God the Son are two separate PERSONS, but together with the Holy Spirit ONE "being" or God. The verse is definitely speaking of two PERSONS, the Lord Jesus and God, which in such constructions is generally understood to be God the Father, the First Person of the Trinity. There are other verses where the Holy Spirit is said to have raised Christ (Romans 8:11), and where He Himself says He raised Himself (John 10:17-18). All three Persons raised Him. All three are God.
The comment in the outline is that the Lord mentioned in 10:13 is the same as the Lord in 10:9 and 12.
The point of Romans 10:9 is to acknowledge Jesus and believe that God raised him from the dead.
Verse 10 is the faith in YHWH that Paul consistently preaches.
Verse 11 the scripture referenced is from the OT, so the him is YHWH, not Jesus.
Verse 12 YHWH is the same for everyone.
Verse 13 is about calling on YHWH.
Well, if you don't think these verses identify Jesus as Jehovah then other verses do from which we can conclude that these have to as well.
As for your Talmudic reference, I don't take Talmudic references as definitive of anything. Sometimes in spite of themselves the rabbis do say things that confirm the orthodox Christian understanding of the gospel and that's a fascinating study in itself but otherwise they are enemies of the gospel and why pay any attention to them at all? If you like Jewish writings you might be interested in the book The Messianic Hope by Jewish Christian scholar Michael Rydelnik. Great study of all the Messianic passages in the Old Testament.
I don't see that calling Jesus Lord, means he is YHWH simply because the passages referenced from the OT say Lord.
Fine, but if that's the orthodox understanding of what it means who are you to disagree with them? I'm with them and not you.
I think Paul speaks of two divine beings, not one. I feel it was more of a title for Jesus, not a personal name.
How can there be TWO "divine beings" when God is the ONLY "divine being" according to scripture? Paul IS referring to TWO Persons, and if they are both divine they are both God and that supports the traditional understanding of the Trinity as One God in Three Persons.
You are of course free to disagree with the entirety of Christian history if you want, but what you "feel" about any of this is really inconsequential in that context.
Sorry, I guess I'm too impatient with such stuff.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : to add scripture references for who raised Jesus from the dead
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by purpledawn, posted 04-11-2013 5:31 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by purpledawn, posted 04-12-2013 10:29 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 94 of 385 (696124)
04-12-2013 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Alter2Ego
04-12-2013 10:52 AM


That is bogus history. The Roman Catholic Church did not begin until 606 AD with the declaring of the Bishop of Rome to be head of all the churches and it was downhill from there. Before that the Church was still the apostolic Church and the Councils represented apostolic thought. Constantine certainly represents a move in the wrong direction but the decisions of the Council were not the decisions of Constantine but of the assembled Christian leaders based on scripture.
Take a look at the discussion of the Arian heresy Phat linked. The argument is Bible-based. And so is the argument I provided in Message 20.
The Trinity is and always was based on the Bible. Your inability to follow the reasoning at the link provided just proves that you don't understand how it is derived from scripture. Or anything about Church history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-12-2013 10:52 AM Alter2Ego has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-12-2013 11:45 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 100 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-12-2013 11:58 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 98 of 385 (696130)
04-12-2013 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by purpledawn
04-12-2013 10:29 AM


Re: Jesus Is YHWH?
Romans 8:11 doesn't say that the Holy Spirit raised Christ.
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. --Romans 8:11
It says that God raised up Jesus.
In context, the parallel statement that he "shall also quicken your mortal bodies BY HIS SPIRIT," refers us back to its being the Spirit by whom Jesus was also raised from the dead. If God raised Him by His Spirit it was the Spirit doing the raising. This is the orthodox understanding.
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. --John 10:18
Looking at the various translations, "take it" is about receiving what is offered; not necessarily bringing about what is offered. The same word is used in the last sentence. He can lay down his life and he can accept it back. It isn't really saying he raised himself from the dead.
That's a lot of word manipulation PD. He speaks of having POWER to lay it down and to take it again, which isn't required for the mere act of receiving what is offered.
As for your Talmudic reference, I don't take Talmudic references as definitive of anything.
Paul and Jesus were Jewish.
And both condemned the Pharisees' "traditions of men" which is what the Talmud is.
I don't think scripture really says there is only one divine being. The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) says:
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Or YHWH our God is one YHWH. Not necessarily the only god or divine being.
I can hardly believe you said that. "Divine" refers to the uncreated God and God only, who said "I am God and there is no other" (Isaiah 45:22, 46:9). There are no other gods and the "gods" of the heathen are revealed to be demons (or devils in the KJV), (Leviticus 17:7, Deuteronomy 32:17, Psalm 106:37, 1 Corinthians 10:20, Revelation 8:20) nothing divine about them, merely creatures, created angels, fallen angels.
The major heresy of the Jehovah's Witnesses, which you are sounding like here, is that they try to make Jesus out to be one of the supposed lesser "gods," particularly in John 1:1 where they insist that "the Word was God" really means "was A god" a lesser god. The problem with that is that God said there ARE no other gods, that He is the only God, and "I will not give my glory to another" (Isaiah 42.8).
In John 17:5 Jesus prays
Jhn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
which is an outright claim to be God. Such a prayer to be glorified would be blasphemy if He were not God, since God would not give His glory to Jesus if he were a mere "god," that is to "another," a mere creature. This is another scriptural basis for Jesus having to be the true God.
Exodus 12:12 (YHWH spoke to Moses and Aaron)
For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD (YHWH).
Exodus 18:11 (Jethro speaking)
Now I know that the LORD (YHWH) is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them.
Psalms 86 (A prayer of David)
8 Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works
Psalms 95:3
For the LORD (YHWH) is a great God, and a great King above all gods.
I know, all those gods are false gods; but how meaningful is praising someone for being the greatest among the fakes? I don't think they considered the other gods to be fakes, just not as good as theirs.
You seem to completely miss the point of such scripture references. The true God had entered history through Abraham at a time when He had been largely forgotten and the world had become used to following the "fake" demon gods, Abraham's family having done so and even the wife of Jacob/Israel carrying around her family's little idol gods (not unlike the Pope's following around a statue of "Mary" just like any old heathen god, an idol carved of wood etc.)
The true God's teachings then included educating the people to the difference between Himself and all the lesser "gods" and weaning them to true worship of the true God instead. His having a people to Himself meant teaching them who the Creator God really is as opposed to all the false gods the world was following, and giving them laws to keep themselves separated from the influence of the demonic religions. He was educating a people who were of course fallen, who had lost the spiritual connection with Himself that Adam and Eve had had before the Fall. Only when Jesus came was the Holy Spirit poured out so that the Fall could begin to be reversed.
Yes, all the heathen nations of the world have their "gods" who aren't gods at all but demons ruled by Satan since the Fall, and the true God who is above all had to keep teaching His people the difference, which they kept forgetting such as when they set up the golden calf after the manner of the heathen religions, and later on when they kept falling into the practices of the surrounding nations, even sacrificing their children to the demon god Molech.
Another theme in scripture is that some of the heathen such as Rahab and Ruth recognized that Israel's God was THE God as opposed to the gods of the idolatrous nations.
You are missing the meaning of making such comparisons. God speaks according to what the people are able to understand.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : to add scripture refs for gods being demons
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : Bunch of little corrections, but also added the A in JWs calling Jesus "A god"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by purpledawn, posted 04-12-2013 10:29 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by purpledawn, posted 04-13-2013 10:09 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 102 of 385 (696139)
04-12-2013 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Alter2Ego
04-12-2013 11:58 AM


You accuse me of all kinds of things instead of dealing with the issues. All you have to do is pick out some of the scripture refs at the link that you think are particularly wrong and make your case against them. That's what purpledawn did.
But by now I've also discussed some of the scripture refs so you could even start there since you are so allergic to the link. If you need to know how I construe the verse before you are willing to answer, well, I've construed it. Have at it.
And it would be very hard to quote from the material Phat posted because of its format. I am in the same position with respect to that quote you are too.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-12-2013 11:58 AM Alter2Ego has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024