JAH REASONS WITH DICTATORS OF SODOM

by You Know 51 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  simwitness

  You Know...

  But, the truth is that Christendom has no basis for claiming any sort of relationship with God, but we do

  Here we go again, please state the "basis" for that claim. And you cannot use suppositions or simple "Faith that it is so" as evidence of the claim. (Since they could be used by any member of "christendom" to support their claim as well).

  One amusing observation: The hypocrisy of my apostate opponents is evident in that apostates claim to be the only ones to be able to think for themselves, and that all of Jehovah's Witnesses have been brainwashed by the Watchtower Society. And, yet, when presented with a well-thought out scriptural explanation that deals with their accusation against us, and yet is not what the Watchtower teaches, the retort is--- 'The Watchtower doesn't say that.YK is an apostate.' LOL

  Ironically, when we use the same arguments that you do against the WTBS, you call us apostates.

  LOL.
• 

  You Know

  SIMIWITNESS says

  Here we go again, please state the "basis" for that claim.

  The basis for having a relationship with God is very simple, a person has to know something about God. That rules out any and all religions that claim that Christ is God, or other such Trinitarian nonsensical double-talk, which is pretty much all of Christendom. Also, primarily, the basis for a relationship is the fact that anointed Christians are in a covenant with Jehovah. That is why God had dealings with the Jews in the first place because they were in a covenant relationship. Anointed Christians are likewise ina covenant relationship with God, they are aware of their obligations toward God by virtue of being in that relationship. One should reasonably expect that those in a covenant with God would be aware of their relationship to him. Christendom though is basically cluless about the new covenant and what it entails, which betrays them as having no basis for their claims. / You Know
• 

  Masterji

  You Know says:

  "Admittedly, my interpretation is rather revolutionary from the standpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses..."

  Most but no all.

  M
• 

  simwitness

  You Know...

  Thanks for the response, however, your logic is a bit flawed here, on at least 2 levels.

  1. You presume that you are correct as it applies to the nature of God (Trinity vs. Non-Trinity). While I do not profess to understand or know the absolute answer to that question, I can say that I have heard BIBLICAL arguments on both sides that were very convincing. The same applies to the covenent you speak of.

  2. You paint with a very broad brush.

  That rules out any and all religions that claim that Christ is God, or other such Trinitarian nonsensical double-talk, which is pretty much all of Christendom.

  and

  Christendom though is basically cluless about the new covenant and what it entails, which betrays them as having no basis for their claims

  For 2 reasons:

  One, I am reasonably sure you have not studied every aspect of "christendom" in order to know wether or not your claims are valid, you simply assume that they are. Secondly, you state that it is "pretty much all of christendom", what about the "others" ??

  So, the "basis" for your statement:

  But, the truth is that Christendom has no basis for claiming any sort of relationship with God, but we do

  Is based on assumptions that you cannot prove, and an assumption about what others do/do not understand or believe. Beyond that, you are presuming to dictate to God who he will or will not have a relationship with based on YOUR understanding of things.

  I would never presume to state who can and cannot have a "relationship" with God.

  I would further that your first statment, however, is essentially correct:

  The basis for having a relationship with God is very simple, a person has to know something about God

  And would only change it to this:

  The basis for having a relationship with God is very simple, a person has to have a desire to know something about God.

  And this, pretty much includes EVERYONE.
• 

  You Know

  SIMIWITNESS

  You presume that you are correct as it applies to the nature of God (Trinity vs. Non-Trinity). While I do not profess to understand or know the absolute answer to that question, I can say that I have heard BIBLICAL arguments on both sides that were very convincing. The same applies to the covenent you speak of.

  That is no presumption. The Bible doesn't teach that God is at one and the same time a trinity and also not a trinity. Just because some clever men are able to twist the scriptures so as to decieve people as to God's identity is only proof of the Devil's existence. The trinity is a fraud and any competent and honest Bible teacher can easily debunk it. / You Know
• 

  simwitness

  So, even if that presumption is correct, your logic is still faulty based on my other statements.

  Secondly, IMO, the trinity does not speak to God's identity, but more so to his nature... which again are two different things.

  And, I am not debating the validity/non validity of the Trinity doctrine, nor am I stating which view I hold, just your use of it as your "basis" for the statement that only JWs can have a relationship with God.
• 

  You Know

  So, even if that presumption is correct, your logic is still faulty based on my other statements.

  LOL 'So there.'

  Secondly, IMO, the trinity does not speak to God's identity, but more so to his nature... which again are two different things.

  The trinity teaches that Jesus is God. If that is not a case of mistaken identity than nothing is.

  And, I am not debating the validity/non validity of the Trinity doctrine, nor am I stating which view I hold, just your use of it as your "basis" for the statement that only JWs can have a relationship with God.

  So, in other words, you don't know, you just know that you know doesn't know. LOL / You Know
• 

  simwitness

  You know,

  Your response is about the closest thing to a non-response I have ever seen you post.

  Have a nice day!
• 

  You Know

  Your response is about the closest thing to a non-response I have ever seen you post.

  Just bringing it to the top basically. / You Know
• 

  Crazy151drinker

  To my Favorite APOSTATE YOU KNOW

  So Let Y= You Know T=Thinking on your own or disagreeing with the WT A= Apostate D= Disfellowshiped

  For Y=T as YOU KNOW disagrees with the WT

  For D=A as YOU KNOW has stated that if you are DF'd then you are an Apostate

  For T=D as Disagreeing with the WT will get you Disfellowshiped

  So as we can see that Y=T=D=A so in conclusion, Y=A, so YOU KNOW is an APOSTATE.

  Your response to this please? I can support each of these variables (Y,T,D,A) with your own statements. So by your own word you are an Apostate. Thank you for comming out of the darkness and into the light :)