http://www.str.org/site/news2?page=newsarticle&id=5725.
i fought against this with all my wts-trained power, but truth prevailed.. any way you cut it, it comes out the same.. peace and strength in your search.. sylvia.
Yes, they don't include the first 'God' (because it's not in the original greek) they just say "The one" or "He".
The only place "God" actually appears in the greek in those verses is at the end, in the phrase "that God may be the all in all". Which is rather interesting in itself, don't you think?
http://www.str.org/site/news2?page=newsarticle&id=5725.
i fought against this with all my wts-trained power, but truth prevailed.. any way you cut it, it comes out the same.. peace and strength in your search.. sylvia.
So, Tec, that has to be understood in the context of all the other things Paul says about Jesus, rather than taken in isolation. I'm not aware of that passage causing any particular problems for trinitarians, because they have no problem with Christ being functionally submissive.
Also, the version you are using has 'God' twice, and it's this first 'God' you appear to be drawing attention to, highlighting it:
"it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. "
Then you say:
"Note that Paul does not say the Father (or God the Father), but rather God, himself"
But does Paul say this? The "God" you highlight does not appear in the greek interlinear.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1co15.pdf
most jw.s really believe that they ( as we once did ) are promoting gods will, but what if they really are ?
is it possible that god is supporting them even though they (governing body ) lie, because most jw,s are ignorant of the lies told on their behalf, ?.
when i was a jw i got attacked by the demons bigtime, but not now, and i can only assume that they (demons ) are happy that i am no longer a jw and are now leaving me alone, cant think of any other reason, has god ever supported a group who were similarly found wanting ?.
Yeah, mostlydead, and no matter what happens it's interpreted as "proof"
If you are a JW and things go badly it's "See, Satan makes us targets because we are God's people".
If you re a JW and things go well it's "See how we are blessed and protected by God!"
If you leave the JW's and things go badly it's "Well, that just shows what happens when you lose Jehovah's protection"
If you leave the JW's and things go well it's "Well Satan looks after his own. They are having their paradise now, but it will end soon enough".
It's ridiculous.
i have the service mtg part tonight..."the offer for july" which is the "was life created" brochure which has the flawed .
statement about a large sized spiderweb stopping a jumbo jet mid-flight.
the society has offered a retraction of the .
Lied2nomore, you sound like the Tyler Durden of your congregation. If you want to go out with a bang, why not?
most jw.s really believe that they ( as we once did ) are promoting gods will, but what if they really are ?
is it possible that god is supporting them even though they (governing body ) lie, because most jw,s are ignorant of the lies told on their behalf, ?.
when i was a jw i got attacked by the demons bigtime, but not now, and i can only assume that they (demons ) are happy that i am no longer a jw and are now leaving me alone, cant think of any other reason, has god ever supported a group who were similarly found wanting ?.
Entirely possible, you can have a drink with me, I was thinking exactly the same as you but you beat me to it, and so we're both depressed. We can drown our sorrows together
i am now sitting at home.
my wife left with my little child.
my fault (i dislike the word "fault", but don't have a better one right now).. it feels strange, relieved and free, at the same time it was all very strange.
And so real life begins. Congratulations.
It's traumatic and exhausting right now but you will look back on this moment as one of the most positive turning points in your life very soon.
LOL
If only you knew.
I have not the slightest problem with people who don't believe the Bible, or even with Christians who admit they don't follow the Bible. But I must admit that frauds who claim to believe in and follow a book and then show total disregard for what it explicitly states really wind me up. It makes a good 'biblical discussion' impossible, for one thing. I prefer the honesty of heathens rather than the excuse making of such 'Christians'.
"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves"
Yeah there are two types of Christians with Two "hopes", True Christians, anointed, who are in union with Christ and share the heavenly hope, and False Christians, who reject the sacrifice and refuse to partake, and who have "no life in [them]selves".
It's stunning how little regard you have for the book you claim to follow.
Wontleave, you said: " I don't see anywhere in Scripture where every Christian is supposed to partake of the emblems."
- Jesus told the Apostles to eat the bread and drink the wine and commanded them to do this in remembrance of him.
- Jesus told the Apostles to instruct the disciples - all of them - to "observe all the things I have commanded you". That would include eating the emblems.
- Paul showed that Lord's evening meal was taken by all Christians without distinction, just as Jesus had commanded. Paul obeyed Jesus command at Matthew 24, just as the other apostles did, and instructed all Christians to "observe all the things I have commanded you" - but Paul phrased it this way "For I received from the Lord that which I handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was going to be handed over took a loaf and after giving thanks, he broke it and said this means my body which is in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me."
To partake of the emblems is to accept that Jesus died on your behalf - "this means my body which is in your behalf". To not partake is to reject his sacrifice. This is also very explicitly stated in Scripture in John 6 where Jesus says "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of MAn and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I shall resurrect him in the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me and I in union with him. Just as the living Father sent me forth, and I live because of the Father, he also the feeds on me, even that one will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven....he that feeds on this bread will live forever."
It couldn't be more explicit.
No partaking. Not in union with Christ. Not a Christian. No life.
Wontleave, the "last supper" was prior to his death. It was an instruction for what they were to teach the disciples to do after he was gone, when the memorial and it's emblems would actually have significance. There is no indication whatsoever that the "meal" was only to be taken by some Christians, as you acknowledge, just as there is no indication whatsoever that there is any other hope for Christians but the heavenly one.
One faith, one hope, one baptism. The anointing was for all Christians. The heavenly hope was for all Christains. The partaking of the emblems was for all Christians. There is not the slightest scriptural indication otherwise. Any 'earthly hope', was for those prior to Christ's death. But to be a Christian is to share the heavenly hope. The Bible couldn't be more clear on that.
So you're either a Christian and going to heaven, or not - as in not a Christian at all. There isn't an option B "Oh, I'd like to have what was on the breakfast menu please, you know B.C."
Sorry, they're not serving the breakfast menu now.
