Posts by Shazard

10

how this would work on JW?

by Shazard in

if you would preach him simple and plain "your wt teaching is leading you to the hell where you will burn thernally even if you do not believe in hell?

you do not believe that you have salvation, you have no guaranty of that, so you are not saved and never be!

" this is simply with big dirty boots over their tomatos?

Shazard

Confession, this is not for "reaching them" but to plant the seed... seed which is truth and truth can set you free... only this truth shows God's anger

18

to most of the people on here, the term "born again" reminds them of fanatical christians who try to impose their beliefs on all other people, have an agenda (which is sometimes co-mixed with politics), and want to convert the rest of the world.

to me, born again is of a different nature.

it's different from my understanding of it as a jehovah's witness, and it's different from my understanding of it as a baptist.

Shazard

oldiesman, country girl... strange... never seen you and still you define and describe this "born again" exactly I understand it... I guess we have the same Spirit!

29

a look to Isaiah.

by mdb in

thus says the lord [yhwh], the king of israel,.

and his redeemer, the lord [yhwh] of hosts:.

besides me there is no god.. isaiah 44:6. how many persons are speaking in isaiah 44:6?

Shazard

Narkisoss
You wrote: What you obviously overlook is that most of these expressions, especially in GJohn, are equally applied to the believers
---
This is da same error JW use so much. Choose one and only one meaning of some word and then render context to mean things in sync with that chosen meaning. When Jesus told that he and father is one Jews was ready to stone him... if he that would be for just "unity of teaching ideas moral" then what... Jews was not in unity? They thought that they are, so no stoning for such claims. Stoning is for blaspemy. So Jesus "me and father are one" should be observed in context. And in John 17 it is obviously unity in worldview but in John 1:1, John 10 John 14 Christ is revealing his nature. Same word, different context.

Same goes with Holy Spirit. JW does big claims about words "spirit" meaning etc. and just ignores simplest rules of understanding. That it is context whic defines which meaning of the word is implied, not otherwise.

As I told... most of antitrinitrians just do not understand definition of trinity. You can't refute something you don't understand!

29

a look to Isaiah.

by mdb in

thus says the lord [yhwh], the king of israel,.

and his redeemer, the lord [yhwh] of hosts:.

besides me there is no god.. isaiah 44:6. how many persons are speaking in isaiah 44:6?

Shazard

>father and son and not even try to give a hint that they are not literally meant

Well actually gives! You just do not believe in such claims as "Who hates me hates my father" "who believes in me do not believes in me but in my father" "I and father we are one", "honor son as you honor father", "who has son has father", "father is in me and I am in father" etc. Noone can say this about his father. And antitrinitrians just plainly do not understand what YHWH means thus do not understand what even word "God" means. For them "YHWH" and "God" is like "John Smith" :) Also antitrinitrians can't understand simple hebrew idiom "Son of Men" and "Son of God" relationship. "Son of something" in hebrew means that this Son is of same nature of same "material" that this "something". Antitrinitrians has no problem to render "Son of men" to mean that Jesus is human, but at the same point they can't accept (coz just do not understand) "Son of God" similarity. And this similarity is told in John 5 and John 10, wheere it is very clearly shown that claim "Son of God" is equal to claim "Be Equal to God" :)

10

how this would work on JW?

by Shazard in

if you would preach him simple and plain "your wt teaching is leading you to the hell where you will burn thernally even if you do not believe in hell?

you do not believe that you have salvation, you have no guaranty of that, so you are not saved and never be!

" this is simply with big dirty boots over their tomatos?

Shazard

If you would preach him simple and plain "Your WT teaching is leading you to the hell where you will burn thernally even if you do not believe in hell? You do not believe that you have salvation, you have no guaranty of that, so you are not saved and never be!" This is simply with big dirty boots over their tomatos? How JW reacts to this? Telling them thet THEY will be the ones who will burn!

29

a look to Isaiah.

by mdb in

thus says the lord [yhwh], the king of israel,.

and his redeemer, the lord [yhwh] of hosts:.

besides me there is no god.. isaiah 44:6. how many persons are speaking in isaiah 44:6?

Shazard

One of the best pictures of Jesus AND Holy Spirit in OT is Isaiah 6:5-10 and compare it to John 12:39-41

20

Another statistics

by Shazard in

is here in this site or somewhere else shown some graphs how ex-jw divide into atheists (strange religion) and believers?

Shazard

seatle, question - what evidence you accept in general? what for you is "evidence"?

20

Another statistics

by Shazard in

is here in this site or somewhere else shown some graphs how ex-jw divide into atheists (strange religion) and believers?

Shazard

Siettleniceguy (sorry don't know yet how to quote - make those yellow boxes) you sayed "Not believing in gnomes is the default position..." So that is what I mean... taking some default position based upon what... why this this position is good or better then positive position? This position is based actually on your own limitations (of knowledge, experience, you name it) to get the evidence or to understand evidence. If you say that there is no x-rays coz you never observed them (and it would be very right claim say 2 centuries ago) does this makes your position clever. Actually if people would believe in x-rays and tried to find them then x-rays would be discovered much earlier. See default "I don't see so it does not exist" position actually is putting breaks into your wheels. And here comes difference between God and unicorns... no matter how desperatly people seeked unicorns I don't hear about entire nations believing in them. Opposite is with God. So... may be your default state is just reflection of your ability to see and hear rather then reflection of reality?

26

"Misquoting Jesus" - New Book by Ehrman

by sir82 in

this book was just published in the last month or so, i'm about 1/2 of the way through it.. the author describes the difficulty in discerning what exactly really were the original, right-from-the-pen words of the original writers of the new testament.

basically, the oldest surviving manuscripts were written decades, in some cases centuries, after the originals.

all copies were made by hand by untrained amateur copyists for the first 3 centuries after the books were written (until professional scribes started copying).. by comparing the thousands of ancient hand-copied manuscripts that still exist, there have been found anywhere from 200,000 to 400,000 distinct errors in the copying process.

Shazard

Simple argument - science & God. There is such science - history - part of it does just that - evaluating how precise is document. There are several factors - time gap between original and copy (less number, more believable is the copy), number of copies (more copies, more precise is copy) and so on - historicans can explain this. Also hermaneutics - science about getting meaning of texts which are writtne in other languages in other time in other cultural context. New Testament is most precise historical document of such age you can imagine. More then 5000 manuscipts, gap 25 years between original and copy... If you believe in science, you will admit that the new testament (original greek koine) is 99.99% original. And claims like "until 3rd century copies were done by unproffessional copists" ar just plain stupid... that seams more projection of your own attitude to New Testament then fact backed claim. And there is one small factor which is not present in any other historical text - God himself. Jesus promised that his Words will last forever. So if you believe in Jesus, you believe that he will look that nothing important is lost in his Word. If you don't believe in Jesus, then why do you care about New Testament anyway. BTW do you know that Book of Acts is one of the key books for 1st century Palestine historians even for those who are atheists?

29

a look to Isaiah.

by mdb in

thus says the lord [yhwh], the king of israel,.

and his redeemer, the lord [yhwh] of hosts:.

besides me there is no god.. isaiah 44:6. how many persons are speaking in isaiah 44:6?

Shazard

Better is Genesis 19:24, where in one verse 2 persons are called "YHWH", to prove it, check context