peacefulpete:
What came first the chicken or the chicken egg?
The chicken egg.
i found out recently that michelangelo's painting of adam on the sistine chapel depicts him without a belly button.
i had never noticed this before and it makes sense that neither adam nor eve would have belly buttons, not having been born in the usual way.
then i realized all the first animals were created rather than born, according to the religious views of the origin of life.
peacefulpete:
What came first the chicken or the chicken egg?
The chicken egg.
sea breeze: @nicolau,i stated my case rather succiently, which you failed to address.
if you have a better solution to the problem of evil than what jesus offers, then why don't you present that in a new topic?.
pathetic diversion.
Halcon:
indeed... here's another fun Bible verse I cherry picked for you, Proverbs 27:15
đ
Youâre really not my type.
sea breeze: @nicolau,i stated my case rather succiently, which you failed to address.
if you have a better solution to the problem of evil than what jesus offers, then why don't you present that in a new topic?.
pathetic diversion.
Halcon:
imagine me accepting I've 'failed' because jeffro said so ...
Especially when you have the much easier option of cherry picking verses that make you feel better and pretending youâre pleasing an imaginary friend who will never tell you otherwise.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovahâs witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
What is there to know personally about Jehovah?Indeed. We have facilities for people who hear back from God (or Jesus).
Can a person legitimately say they know Jehovah if they have never communicated with Him?
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovahâs witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
Rattigan350:
Matt 28:19 says to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy spirit. But just 10 days later Peter was saying to baptize in the name of Jesus and he left off the Father and holy spirit. So I don't believe that Matt 28:19 says to baptize in the trinity.
The Bible is vague about what the Holy spirit is, but is clear that it isnât just âgodâs powerâ. Acts 19:2; 2 Corinthians 6:6-7.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovahâs witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
Rattigan350:
Genesis does not mention a snake. It was a serpent.
đ¤Śââď¸
Revelation ties them all together.
Revelation, written much later, reinterprets the story by applying Christian ideas to the original tropes in the story.
Also, it is well known and accepted that Jesus is that seed.
No, it is only accepted by Christians. Circular reasoning is circular. đ¤Śââď¸ It hasnât been demonstrated to be anything more than an element in a borrowed folktale.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovahâs witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
slimboyfat:
I canât understand the mentality of people who are not interested in a topic themselves so want to stop it.
I didnât try to stop anything. Youâre entirely welcome to provide evidence for angels whenever you like. And youâve continued to ignore my actual point that I elaborated on after that.
sea breeze: @nicolau,i stated my case rather succiently, which you failed to address.
if you have a better solution to the problem of evil than what jesus offers, then why don't you present that in a new topic?.
pathetic diversion.
Halcon:
Tsk tsk jeffro... how about this one... Matthew 7:6.
How very predictable. But in addition to failing your Christian obligation at 1 Peter 3:15, youâve also demonstrated that the Bible is used by âbelieversâ as a tedious âchoose-your-own-adventureâ of contradictory cherry picking. Well done. đ¤Śââď¸
sea breeze: @nicolau,i stated my case rather succiently, which you failed to address.
if you have a better solution to the problem of evil than what jesus offers, then why don't you present that in a new topic?.
pathetic diversion.
Halcon:
Hehe..cheer up buddy, turn that frown upside down : )
This is the kind of nonsense you can expect from âbelieversâ when they canât comply with 1 Peter 3:15.
sea breeze: @nicolau,i stated my case rather succiently, which you failed to address.
if you have a better solution to the problem of evil than what jesus offers, then why don't you present that in a new topic?.
pathetic diversion.
Halcon:
And the closest I can come to it is the fact that I simply don't comprehend enough.
Itâs pretty sad when someoneâs best âdefenceâ for the âproblem of evilâ is explicitly an appeal to ignorance.