What a joke! Brown has to nerve to bring up the ridiculous example if a 15 year old and a 14 year old got together, then it would be unreasonable to withhold privileges in later life, as if this is what the BOE letter had in mind.
stocwach
JoinedPosts by stocwach
-
10
EXCELLENT INTERVIEWS on mp3
by Dogpatch inyou're going to love these interviews in mp3 format that are now up at:.
http://www.randytv.com.
"carl and barbara pandelo: a conspiracy of silence".
-
-
-
78
BILL BOWEN ACTION FIGURE
by You Know indear mister bill, august 20, 2001 .
in your silent lambs inc. recruiting letter yesterday, you posted several job positions that i may be interested in; namely, under the department responsible for .
develop and design merchandise to be offered through silentlambs.responsible to coordinate sales and shipping for merchandise.negotiate competitive pricing for such materials.responsible for approval of posters and banners used to represent silentlambs.responsible to train assistants how to do your job.. i have some ideas that i would like to bounce off of you.
-
-
stocwach
You Know and Yadirf,
Why do you dodge the obvious question that makes you both look ridiculous?
You by your own presence here are apostates, according to the Society. How do you justify this?
The answer is you can't, because any type of justification on your part will be hypocritical. Sorry but you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not the wise.
-
103
IS the NWT really the WT Bible?
by Bleep injust wondered how many people this this is all true.
feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.
-
-
stocwach
Earnest,
I guess that's the best you can do, and if that's how you reconcile it, so be it, yet again the entire Bible TAKEN IN CONTEXT does not substantiate your beliefs.
-
103
IS the NWT really the WT Bible?
by Bleep injust wondered how many people this this is all true.
feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.
-
-
stocwach
Earnest,
I see you have made another feeble attempt to somehow explain the creation dilemma with your own theology,although you have disguised it conveniently as a portrayal to help larc get some questions answered. You still have failed in reconciling how the scriptures I quoted you can possibly fit in with the rest of your theology. I will repaste my point I made to you long a few days ago tha you STILL HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO OBJECTIVELY EXPLAIN:
You said "it would seem that by "context" you mean your understanding of scripture. But if you believe that "firstborn of all creation" means "the one who is born first (of all creation)" then the context certainly implies "other" when it refers to the rest of creation."
I believe based on what the Bible says as a whole, in other words, the Bible must in general itself be taken in context. You have said in a previous post that what you are defending you believe to be true, rather than defending the organization itself. Consider this: John 1:3 KJV says speaking of Jesus: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." But if we read Isaiah 44:24 KJV: "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;" So the Bible is in absolute contradiction here if Jesus was created by God and is the firstborn of creation in the literal sense as you believe, because if this was the actual intentional meaning of the author in Colossians, then Jesus would have been with God as a separate being when everything else was created! The bottom line is the only way anyone objectively can truly reconcile harmony in these Scriptures regardless of what one believes is by acknowledging that Jesus has deity.
Earnest, perhaps you were passing on this comment in your last post for me:" but, hey, what do I know" ? Please only respond if you can OBJECTIVELY explain how the creation dilemma does not contradict one other aspect of the rest of your theology, and not some other long winded irrelevant post like your last one to me that failed to answer my question.
-
103
IS the NWT really the WT Bible?
by Bleep injust wondered how many people this this is all true.
feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.
-
-
stocwach
Earnest,
I see you still cannot reconcile the creation dilemma, other than making assumptions to fit your theology. Your other clearly biased points are not worth commenting on, because until you can OBJECTIVELY rationalize the creation issue, the rest is moot.
-
103
IS the NWT really the WT Bible?
by Bleep injust wondered how many people this this is all true.
feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.
-
-
stocwach
Earnest,
And yet another bullet point for you to consider: Matthew 1:23 says the virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name Immanuel, which means when translated, With us is God. If we look at the Greek section in the Interlinear we see that the word Immanuel means, With us the God. Again, in Greek, With us ho theos.
So here we have again another instance where Jesus is referred to with the title of "ho theos"! Earnest, I can only assume that since you haven't replied, you admit you are wrong.
-
103
IS the NWT really the WT Bible?
by Bleep injust wondered how many people this this is all true.
feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.
-
-
stocwach
Bleep,
And your point is?
-
103
IS the NWT really the WT Bible?
by Bleep injust wondered how many people this this is all true.
feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.
-
-
stocwach
Earnest,
OK, thanks for bringing up "ho theos", because I did some research on it, and learned a lot, and one of the things that I learned is you couldn't be more wrong in using this as an argument in your behalf.
"Ho theos" is a title for the one True God, and is used in the NT 39 times as a title for the one True God, NOT one of the 3 distinct persons of God--"Father"--as you put it! The True God of the Bible is made up of 3 distinct persons: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. You have misled the readers of this forum, and it would be noteworthy of you to retract your explanation of this title, as you clearly have been deceptive in this area.
So in answer to your question, now that I understand the facts of "ho theos", I have absolutely no problem with what Thomas said, and obviously Jesus didn't either.
-
103
IS the NWT really the WT Bible?
by Bleep injust wondered how many people this this is all true.
feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.
-
-
stocwach
Earnest,
I forgot to mention Hebrews 1:10, which again is along the creation issue that you have an insurmountable problem with:
And, 'You, Lord, have laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the works of Your hands."
Here clearly the Son is proclaimed as the Creator.
-
103
IS the NWT really the WT Bible?
by Bleep injust wondered how many people this this is all true.
feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.
-
-
stocwach
Earnest,
I believe the NWT is invalid because it describes Jesus as "a god", which is polytheism and something the Bible does not teach. Another way to put this is that it doesn't convey the full Deity of Jesus. Again, the only other possibility then is that Jesus is a "false god", and therefore not worthy of credence. There is no in between. John here does not use the Greek adjective "theios" to describe a mere divine or god like quality, therefore there is no difference between saying "the Word was a god" or the Word was divine". They are both incorrect. John was a monotheistic Jew, who would simply not call a creature "theos". John 1:3 again is crucial, because it makes a very specific claim. If anything had any type of beginning at all, it was begun by Jesus. You cannot even infer the word "other" in the text because the last part of the verse says "apart from Him nothing has come into being that has come into being." In other words, John states there are two groups of things: all those things that have a beginning and all those things that are eternal, and Jesus is not one of those that have a beginning. This is a major problem for you Earnest that you simply cannot reconcile. We also know Jesus is not simply a godlike creature, like an angel, thanks to Hebrews 1:6 KJV: "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." (of course again, the biased NWT translates this as "obeisance", because again, to not do so would contradict JW theology). What's even more revealing though is what is found in vs. 8: "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." So here we have the Father declaring the son to be God, again affirming full Deity and everlastingness.
I will address your question relating to John 20:28 shortly.