My faves have always been the funny ones like Grandma got run over by a reindeer, and Jef Foxworthys redneck twelve days.oh and Garth Brooks Daddy Looked alot Like Santa
Edited by - meadow77 on 28 November 2002 4:46:4
meadow77
JoinedPosts by meadow77
-
28
Favourite Christmas Songs
by Fe2O3Girl inthere is christmas music blaring out in every shopping centre now, it started in mid-november.
it works a treat, reminds everyone to get spending.
most of it is rubbish, i feel so sorry for shopworkers having to listen to that for 7 weeks.
-
-
-
4
Grandmas letter
by meadow77 int he other day i went up to a local christian bookstore and saw a honk if you love jesus bumper sticker.. .
i was feeling particularly sassy that day because i had just come from a thrilling choir performance, followed by a thunderous prayer meeting, so i bought the sticker and put in on my bumper.. .
i was stopped at a red light at a busy intersection, just lost in thought about the lord and how good he is and i didn't notice that the light had changed.. .
-
-
meadow77
I'm glad someone is enjoying this. I seem to have caused so much controversy on my other thread, I wanted to make people laugh. But if your'e still out there, I am new to computer speak. What do those initials mean?
-
740
The Trinity
by meadow77 intop reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.
their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.
the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.
-
-
meadow77
one more question if you don't mind
Why was Jesus crucified?
What were the Jews laws for putting someone to death according to your studies?
O.k. I lied, two questons
-
740
The Trinity
by meadow77 intop reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.
their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.
the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.
-
-
meadow77
Again you didn't really deal with what I was saying about a man and his wife becoming one. Many people who claim the trinity does not exist, say that there is no way that both Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit could be one because
who did Jesus pray to?
Who ran heaven while Jesus was being crucified
and questions of the like. What I was attempting to show is that clearly God knows that seperate entities can be of one soul.Just as a man and a women, when they become one are still seperate people, however spiritually they are one. What I was trying to show is that in the same way God can be three seperate entities and still be one spiritually. and why do you not remember God referring to himself as I Am to Moses. Please tell me if you still do not think this ever took place and I will locate the passage for you
-
740
The Trinity
by meadow77 intop reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.
their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.
the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.
-
-
meadow77
Herk- you seem to be under the false impression that I don't read my bible and recieve instruction from the holy spirit. Second I am a big girl and wrote this whole thread on my own, except for the Explanation of the greek-which I explained I was copying. I understand it must be strange for some to understand and accept the trinity. You seem to think that it is impossible that one God could have three parts, because it's among other things you claim, not scientific? As christians we believe far stranger things than three persons in one God. Jesus walked on water, raised the dead, and turned water into wine. Many of these things would be considered "unscientific"
I guess there really can be no end to this debate, we could certainly go on if you wish, but It seems neverending. I guess to me the scriptures are clear. I believe the scriptures support trinitarianism. If you don't that is certainly your right. You seem to be passing all my arguments off without even truly addressing them. I don't mean to get into an argument, but what is your comment about when you ask me if I even understand what he is saying by being the first and the last? Of course I know what he's saying. The Alpha and the Omega is the first and the last. That is what God (Jehovah)says he is and then that is what Jesus says he is.Instead of trying to tell me I don't know what I'mtalking about, I think we should address directly what is being discussed.How can there be 2 Alphas and Omegas? I feel you have responded this way to many of my arguments. Maybe there can be conclusion to this argument.
-
4
Grandmas letter
by meadow77 int he other day i went up to a local christian bookstore and saw a honk if you love jesus bumper sticker.. .
i was feeling particularly sassy that day because i had just come from a thrilling choir performance, followed by a thunderous prayer meeting, so i bought the sticker and put in on my bumper.. .
i was stopped at a red light at a busy intersection, just lost in thought about the lord and how good he is and i didn't notice that the light had changed.. .
-
-
meadow77
T he other day I went up to a local Christian bookstore and saw a honk if you love Jesus bumper sticker.
I was feeling particularly sassy that day because I had just come from a thrilling choir performance, followed by a thunderous prayer meeting, so I bought the sticker and put in on my bumper.
I was stopped at a red light at a busy intersection, just lost in thought about the Lord and how good He is and I didn't notice that the light had changed.
I t is a good thing someone else loves Jesus because if he hadn't honked, I'd never have noticed.
I found that LOTS of people love Jesus. Why, while I was sitting there, the guy behind started honking like crazy, and when he leaned out of his window and screamed, "for the love of God, GO! GO!" What an exuberant cheerleader he was for Jesus.
E veryone started honking! I just leaned out of my window and started waving and smiling at all these loving people.
I even honked my horn a few times to share in the love. There must have been a man from Florida back there because I heard him yelling something about a sunny beach... I saw another guy waving in a funny way with only his middle finger stuck up in the air. When I asked my teenage grandson in the back seat what that meant, he said that it was probably a Hawaiian good luck sign or something.
W ell, I've never met anyone from Hawaii, so I leaned out the window and gave him the good luck sign back.
M y grandson burst out laughing, why even he was enjoying this religious experience.
A couple of the people were so caught up in the joy of the moment that they got out of their cars and started walking towards me.
I bet they wanted to pray or ask what church I attended, but this is when I noticed the light had changed.
S o, I waved to all my sisters and brothers grinning, and drove on through the intersection.
I noticed I was the only car that got through the intersection before the light changed again and I felt kind of sad that I had to leave them after all the love we had shared, so I slowed the car down, leaned out of
the window and gave them all the Hawaiian good luck sign one last time as I drove away.
P raise the Lord for such wonderful folks!
Edited by - meadow77 on 28 November 2002 2:55:20
-
19
How DO you do it?
by alfie inthis is not a question to get too personal, but how do so many of you find the time to post so much?
i have trouble finding time to read a few posts, let alone respond to or begin as many as so many of you folks do.
alfie
-
-
-
740
The Trinity
by meadow77 intop reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.
their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.
the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.
-
-
meadow77
Hello again. It seems this thread has taken on a life of its own since Ive been gone. I know I promised a response yesterday, but as the holidays are fast aproaching I have been unable to respond. I hate to rehash a million things which have already been debated, so I will respond the best I can to what Herk and I were discussing earlier. I would like to say first that my intention here is not to offend or alienate. I think its possible for us to discuss our disagreements and not end up as foes. At least I hope this is possible. So herk here goes nothing.
The first thing I want to say is to fully understand what I believe about the trinity, a person must understand that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are believed to be three separate entities. They are three persons in one God. Therefor there is no confusion when we see them in different roles, this does not negate diety. As an example the bible tells us that a man shall leave his family and become one with his wife. We dont understand this to mean that a man and woman can no longer exist independent of one another, but they are of one spirit.
Also one of the problems I find with the beliefs of the JWs concerning Jesus, is that he is Micheal the archangel. However there are no scriptures that support this statement. The NWT mentions Micheal the archangel several places, but never as Jesus. Micheal the archangel is described as one of the foremost princes, however Jesus Christ is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. And unlike "Micheal who did not dare condemn the devil with insulting words, but said, The Lord rebuke you!"(Jude 9) Jesus Christ displayed his authority over the devil when he commanded "Go away Satan!"(Mathew 4:10) The verse in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is often given as an argument for Jesus being Micheal the Archangel. However in this passage the expression "with an archangels voice" simply means that the archangel, like the Gods trumpet will herald the coming of the Lord. Scripture points to Jesus being superior to angels, not to him being an angel. Angels in the bible refuse worship, but Gods command regarding Jesus is "Let all Gods angels worship him." So if He is not an angel than who is He?
The main point I was tying to make about John 1:1 is that if we accept the translation of "a god" than we agree to the creation of a second lesser god. When I said that JWs can quote scripure about there being only one true God from sun up until sun down, I wasnt trying to be disrespectful. I apologize if that was offensive. The only point I was trying to make was that the JWs as well as other christians recognize that there is only one true God. So there can be no lesser secondary god, as there would have to be if we accept this rendition of John 1:1. Also we are told when Jesus is born that he will be among other things, known as a Mighty God. Again, if we do not acknowledge Christs diety, than we have to admit to a second lesser god. One of Jesuss names was Emmanuel, literally God is with us.
You make a correct assumption when you state that I am not an expert in Greek. However there are aexperts on the subject who do not agree that John 1:1 cannot be adequatly translated. I have quotes one such source below to illustrate the point I was trying to make about John 1:1.
2. John 1:1. "In the beginning [or "origin," Greek, ] was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . "
Contrary to the translations of The Emphatic Diaglott and the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, the Greek grammatical construction leaves no doubt whatsoever that this is the only possible rendering of the text. The subject of the sentence is Word , the verb was. There can be no direct object following "was" since according to grammatical usage intransitive verbs take no objects but take instead predicate nominatives, which refer back to the subjectin this case, Word . In fact, the late New Testament Greek scholar Dr. E. C. Colwell formulated a rule that clearly states that a definite predicate nominative (in this case, God) never takes an article when it precedes the verb (was), as we find in John 1:1. It is therefore easy to see that no article is needed for (God), and to translate it "a god" is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek since is the predicate nominative of was in the third sentence-clause of the verse and must refer back to the subject, Word . Christ, if He is the Word "made flesh" (John 1:14), can be no one else except God unless the Greek text and consequently Gods Word be denied.
Jehovahs Witnesses, in an appendix in their New World Translation (pp. 773777), attempt to discredit the proper translation on this point, for they realize that if Jesus and Jehovah are "One" in nature, their theology cannot stand since they deny that unity of nature. The refutation of their arguments on this point is conclusive.
The claim is that since the definite article is used with in John 1:1b and not with in John 1:1c, therefore the omission is designed to show a difference; the alleged difference being that in the first case the one true God (Jehovah) is meant, while in the second "a god," other than and inferior to the first, is meant, this latter "god" being Jesus Christ.
On page 776 the claim is made that the rendering "a god" is correct because "all the doctrine of sacred Scriptures bears out the correctness of this rendering." This remark focuses attention on the fact that the whole problem involved goes far beyond this text. Scripture does in fact teach the full and equal deity of Christ. Why then is so much made of this one verse? It is probably because of the surprise effect derived from the show of pseudo-scholarship in the use of a familiar text. Omission of the definite article with does not mean that "a god" other than the one true God is meant. Let one examine these passages where the definite article is not used with and see if the rendering "a god" makes sense: Matthew 3:9; 6:24; Luke 1:35, 78; 2:40; John 1:6, 1213, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Romans 1:7, 1718; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 15:10; Philippians 2:1113; Titus 1:1, and many, many more. The "a god" contention proves too weak and is inconsistent. To be consistent in this rendering of "a god," Jehovahs Witnesses would have to translate every instance where the article is absent as "a god" (nominative), "of a god" (genitive), "to" or "for a god" (dative), etc. This they do not do in Matthew 3:9; 6:24; Luke 1:35, 78; John 1:6, 1213, 18; Romans 1:7, 17, etc.
You cannot honestly render "a god" in John 1:1, and then render "of God" (Jehovah) in Matthew 3:9, Luke 1:35, 78; John 1:6, etc., when is the genitive case of the same noun (second declension), without an article and must be rendered (following Jehovahs Witnesses argument) "of a god" not "of God" as both The Emphatic Diaglott and New World Translation put it. We could list at great length, but suggest consultation of the Greek New Testament by either D. Erwin Nestle or Westcott and Hort, in conjunction with The Elements of Greek by Francis Kingsley Ball on noun endings, etc. Then if Jehovahs Witnesses must persist in this fallacious "a god" rendition, they can at least be consistent, which they are not, and render every instance where the article is absent in the same manner. The truth of the matter is that Jehovahs Witnesses use and remove the articular emphasis whenever and wherever it suits their fancy, regardless of grammatical laws to the contrary. In a translation as important as Gods Word, every law must be observed. Jehovahs Witnesses have not been consistent in their observances of those laws.I can understand how you could feel that my argument concerning the holy spirit was weak, but I was simply trying to point out that the holy spirit is never described as an inactive force. The Holy Spirit is given characteristics, and a specific outlined task. The Holy Spirit is supposed to teach. The Holy Spirit has to be an entity in order to do such a thing.
You say that Rev. makes no reference to Jesus being the Alpha and Omega, but my bible which is not a red letter bible states "Don not be afraid.I am the first and the last. I am the one who lives;I was dead,but look, I am alive forever and ever."Rev. 1:17-18
The passage you mentioned in Rev. does not say that the Jews will worship members of the church, it says he will make them bow before you. There is a difference. This simply states that the Jews will be forced into a submissive position to others because they denied christ, not that they will worship anyone else. I would still like to hear your thoughts on why Jesus would accept worship, despite verses which warn us that are God is a jealous God, and alone should be worshiped.
You say it is only my imagination that Christ was killed for blasphemy. You must be aware that God announced himself to Moses in the old testement as "I AM" This was Known to the Jews as the true name of God. As precious to them as the Jehovah of the Witnesses. So when Jesus said before Abraham, I Am, the Jews understood him to be calling himself God. Not only this but we know the Jews were legalists. They had specific laws that had to be abided by. They believed their eternal salvation rested on following these laws remember. The only things given as offenses for which a person could be put to death were 1.Familiar Spirits.2. Blasphemy 3.False prophets who lead to idolatry 4.stubborn and rebellious son 5.adultery and rape. Christ was clearly not guilty of any of these, however the only ones the jews could have possibly accused him of was blasphemy.
-
740
The Trinity
by meadow77 intop reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.
their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.
the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.
-
-
meadow77
Herk, Thank you for your thoughtful refutation. I did enjoy reading it, as it arose many worthy and interesting points regarding the trinity. I have no more time tonight to respond, but if you are still around later, I will be posting a response tomorrow. Hope to hear from you again.
CORDIALLY,
meadow
-
740
The Trinity
by meadow77 intop reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.
their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.
the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.
-
-
meadow77
Barry-where do you get your info about the nicean creed?