christian longo, the disfellowshipped jw, who is accused of killing his wife and three children, is testifying now (9:50am pst) on court tv.
he is explaining the teachings of jw's.
the commentators jump in occasionally.
If their job happens to be in a company of JW's, they lose their job and thus their means of making a living.
how is that legal?
I had no idea that guy was a JW. This is the first I heard of it. So much for 'the media reports every little bit of dirt about the WTS to bring reproach on Jehovah's name.'
this is paul foo-king.
this is the foo-king family.
and this is the foo-king cat.
the foo-king dog looks more like a foo-king demon. I wouldnt want to run into that foo-king thing in a dark alley
i think the real question is:
is there freewill in hell?
after reading so many experiences about how being a jw affected a person's life, i wonder how your life has turned out because you were at one time a witness.
im fine.
the only thing i can complain about is the total lack of direction i had in school and in finding a career because i was led to believe the world wouldn't be here when i grew up. also i dont think i would have ever done drugs if i wasnt raised a jw but the only way it would effect me is for security clearences.
no big deal, im over everything else by now i think
i just obtained a copy of one of the new releases from the summer jw district conventions, learn from the great teacher.
this book is oriented towards children, and frankly, is a stereotypical piece of propaganda from the "faithful and discreet slave".
in some ways the book is incredibly revealing, since it has to break down a number of ridiculous jw teachings into a form that even jw children can swallow, and when those teachings are put into simplest form their ridiculousness is evident to everyone but small children and stereotypically braindead jws.
One who engaged in simple premarital sex faced property sanctions, as we have discussed.
Only if it was a violation of property as was the case with any other property
He also faced practical sanctions, in that he was denied the right of divorce, to which he would ordinarily have been entitled.
only in that specific instance (and the one or two others) with the specific conditions that were given. There were plenty of examples where that was not the case.
The fact that it was not punished by death doesn't mean that it wasn't sinful.
Of course I know that. What would make it sinful is the simple statement, "do not have sex with a woman you are not married to, it is a sin."
If premarital sex were not sinful at all, why should any sanction be attached to it?
why would differring sanctions be attached if it is one sin (premarital sex)?
Why? If there is no sin attached to premarital sex, what guilt has she incurred by not being a virgin?
Apparently whatever it was, it was serious enough to warrant the death sentence. Are you now saying that premarital sex alone warranted the death sentence? There is just no consistency in what you say. Is premarital sex alone punishable by death or not? You seem to have said, no. If not, she was not put to death for premarital sex alone .
It is important to read the Bible without preconceived notions.
That is true. One preconcieved notion would be to say premarital sex is a or must be a sin. Having a lack of that notion is not a preconcieved notion.
We are told that God's intention in the beginning was that man should cleave to his wife, and the two would become one flesh. No allowance was ever made for becoming "one flesh" other than in a marriage union.
If your logic is true that there is no need to say premarital sex is a sin to prove beyond all doubt, on these grounds, then it would also be true that we don't need a law saying a man should not lie with a man as he does with a woman. No allowance was ever made for that or a number of other things that were prohibited. You are having the preconcieved notion. The precedent for prohibitions is explicit commands.
In that context, the premium placed upon virginity until marriage under the Law becomes understandable.
A virgin was worth more to her father then a nonvirgin. It was easier to marry off a virgin and the father got more money for them. The men wanted virgins and there was a market for them.
If God intends and expects us to do A, and we do B, are we not sinning?
If God commands us not to do B, yes we are sinning.
Do you really mean to imply that a wife or a daughter is simply property in the same sense that an ox or a plow is?
No. Im sorry if that is what it sounded like. A wife or daughter has human rights and in that sense they differ from other property. Let me say this. Property values were property values. A wife or daughter does not own her property value.
Some will say that "sexual immorality" is a better translation, and I'm inclined to agree, since it encompasses the entire range of conduct implied by porneia.
I have never heard of a Greek scholar or Bible translator stating that "fornication" is a bad translation of porneia,
You are telling me that porneia "encompasses the entire range of conduct implied by porneia." You are saying porneia simply refers to sexual misconduct. How on earth does sexaul misconduct explicitly mean premarital sex? One means that if something is a sexual sin it is a sexual sin the other refers to one thing only. You must have an existing notion to think that premarital sex is reffered to under the term sexual immorality. Maybe some notions were mixed into the translation. It has happened before.
but there clearly is a correspondence between the two.
this is how you are proving that correspondence?
it would be very odd that so many translators have chosen the word "fornication" to translate porneia, don't you think?
you must have known I would just use your quote, "Numbers really mean very little; the proper way to interpret the scriptures is not by popular vote." I think it is odd to use the word fornication when popularly it is not saying the same thing as sexual immorality which you also agree is a better translation. So now your argument mainly hinges on an English word that isn't even the best translation, or perhaps not even a valid one.
I'm not saying that at all. Paul said that it was "better" not to marry.
here is what you said:
I suspect that you are looking at a text where he is trying to tell us not to marry at all, if we can avoid it,
Doesn't matter.
Now you’re telling me that I was deprived of all that pleasure because of a mistranslation? “Grave disservice” is putting it mildly.
Well, if that is how you feel, I'm sorry. Not all things permissable are profitable. Maybe you have profited despite what you see as "disservice." How willing are you to continue to believe the same way now that you can't "take advantage" of it. You probably have an interest in preserving that idea for few reasons. You have already implied it in claim of injury. One, your adherence to it in the past would now seem to you in vain, and do you no added credit. "suffer for nothing." Similar to reasons JWs dont want "the easy route to God."
That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe that it is regarded as a sin in the OT.
Just to cover your bases you said that the law was expanded in the NT. You were playing the Simpson defense. You may believe that it was a sin in the OT but you made the contradicting defense. It is okay. All you have to do is show in the OT that premarital sex itself is a sin and bam, premarital sex is covered under porneia.
I think that the fact that sex and marriage are inextricably associated since Creation is in itself evidence that any use of sex that does not involve marriage is contrary to what God intended.
I am saying sex and marriage are not necessarily inextricable. I don't think you know the full definition of inextricable. Divorce in the OT was allowed. Divorce is still allowed. God gave us feet not wings. Was airtravel what God intended? God put us on Earth not the moon. Was the moonwalk a sin? That is why I use the law in determining law. That is why God gave the law, so we would know the law.
The fact that sanctions were imposed under the Law and that a high value was placed upon virginity until marriage only serves to strengthen my view.
You may think it does. Virginity had a cash value. And if im not mistaken that value was determined by the free-market.
The problem, at least as I see it, is that you are coming to the issue with the preconceived idea that premarital sex is not a sin,
That is a lack of notion, not a preconceived one. Having an idea that premarital sex is a sin is a preconceived notion.
and challenging others to prove you wrong.
Prove me wrong. you can pull proof-texts for almost anything. Certainly for sexual sins. I can prove the most esoteric sexual sin with a direct proof-text.
Then you are dancing around all the scriptures that refute your position
they don't refute my poistion. That is just it.
even assigning a meaning to the word porneia that no knowledgeable scholar would support.
What the hell are you talking about? The meaning I assigned, you agreed was better than the more common translation. You yourself said many scholars translate it that way.
If you really came to the subject with an open mind, I believe that you would acknowledge the connection between sex and marriage established at Creation as being the Godly way
The law explicitly states what sin is. I have seen scriptures, which I am trying once again to find, which will give you more insight into the law. Keep in mind, the Godly way is to give up all your posessions to help the needy. Is divorce the Godly way? Forgiveness is the Godly way yet you can divorce rather than forgive?
I have come to the subject with an open mind. I am looking for law. Law is the topic and law is what I am looking for.
anything foreign to that (the Godly way) is sinful.
You may want to rethink that.
(Note – I’m assuming that you mis-typed and that the first “OT” in the above quotation should really say “NT.” If I’m wrong about that, please explain what you meant, since that’s the only way the statement makes sense to me.)
No, it was written correctly.
No, they are not, because all of these requirements were “nailed to the Cross” and a new arrangement was instituted.
Well that is something JWs say. I don't know if it meant all requirements were nailed to the cross or just the mosaic law. I don't know why the mosaic law would be nailed to the cross if Jesus died for all sins. Tha is a whole other discussion though.
Christians are not under the Mosaic Law. Christians are under the New Covenant, which replaced the Mosaic Law rather than expanded upon it.
Okay. Just so we are clear, are the ten commandments still binding?
Under that arrangement, porneia is forbidden.
When was porneia not forbidden? Im the one that is saying porneia was always forbidden. Now you are saying it wasn't?
You wish to assert that we do so by examining the features of the Law Covenant, but there is no scriptural basis for that assertion,
Then we are free to marry our brothers and sisters.
since the Law Covenant does not apply to NT Christians.
I know I can find something that isnt covered in NT law that you arent supposed to do that is covered in the OT. come on. You are going out on a limb there. And once again you are playing the simpson defense.
We must understand porneia to mean what a Greek-speaking person in the first century would have understood it to mean,
Exactly. Sexual immorality.
And as I have stated above, I know of no reputable Greek scholar or Bible translator (with the possible exception of your one Rabbi) who would accept the concept that premarital sex is not included in the meaning of porneia.
Sexual immorality is going to mean different things to different people. The greeks practiced temple orgies. Would the greek speaking temple priests say that was sexual immorality? Wouldn't you get the definition from precedent in the bible in determining how you apply it?
If you have the names of some accepted scholars who share your views on the matter, I’d be interested in hearing their names and reading what they have written on the subject.Maybe in ten years I will submit my name to you and you will listen to what I am saying. Probably not though. You would feel injured if you realized I'm right.
A couple might separate and file a legal divorce, but still be married in the eyes of God. For them to re-marry would be sinful.
That is a whole other issue altogther but I will state most of that is speculation.
A person whose mate has not committed porneia might seek a legal divorce from the state for other reasons,
This goes to something you said earlier. What if the mate had committed porneia. Isn't forgiveness the Godly way? You said anything other than that was sinful.
To wrap it up. You seem to be trying to get away from specific laws particularly in the OT. By going that route you will be allowing things which are sin and clearly wrong to preserve your senses concerning premarital sex which you cannot prove with specific laws.
If i failed to address something feel free to bring it up again.
when you encounter a jw who doesnt know you, do you tell them you are an ex?
or pretend otherwise?.
last night we were understaffed at work so had to call in an agency worker, i had to leave her in charge of 4 adults with autism while i did the rounds on call, every so often i called back to make sure she was coping ok. we got on well, chatted away and then at about 5am she starts witnessing to me...i end up coming home with 5 magazines..lol, she "placed" them with me.. i didnt want to tell her i was an exjw as it would have ruined the working relationship and made her feel uncomfortable.
That's weird, but pity is what I have for people like you that have been manipulated and blinded by Satan.
You mean Satan manipulated us into discovering the History of the WTS and blinded us into thing the WTS's history matters?
Are you insane?
hello :) i suppose this is my introduction to the forum, though i am not sure if i will actually post and read much here.
i did go through several posts, and didn't find anything helpful, though i did find many posts interesting... anyway, i am not a jehovahs witness.
i hope this doesn't immediatly diqualify me from posting this question here... but basically, i was wondering just what is jw?
I can't believe that I used the words of Job's accusers to make my point.
Ultimately, I figured you didn't realize who the speaker was.
I am very relieved, however, to see that you are checking the scriptures behind me and keeping me straight,
Oh, you can rest assured that I'm going to do that, heh
and I sure wasn't straight that last post. I was in a hurry, and didn't think through what i was saying, I just posted without really proofing
I thought it was pretty good post overall. Ive been in hurry also in some posts so I know what you mean. I could tell towards the end you were rushing, as you admitted in the post.
even and the quote by Lindsey just happened to be something I received via email, and thought a good point,
pretty much what I guessed.
I still do.
Well, we can discuss it.
I want to clarify a couple issues you have brought up, and i want to try and clarify my own position, in regards to God, but I need to take the time so that I don't end up becoming even more muddled then I allready am ;)
I have understood your position and arguments very well for the most part, IMO. You have been very articulate and clear in what you are saying. But feel free to say things from different angels if you think I haven't understood you.
I want to thank you again, for taking the time to clarify your own understanding of the trinity
If I (or whoever) ever convince(s) you, I am sure you are going to be great at explaining it to others.
and helping me to see what you are saying when you say Jesus is God, and the Father is God, and they are the same but different.
Naturally it can be confusing. You will run into similar confusion over the simple concept of "the Son of God" with Muslims. They reject it as impossible altogether so maybe it isn't confusion with them. You never know what a particular group of people are going to find confusing or downright impossible.
I think I am starting to get a gist of what you believe, though I must say I actually did believe that Jesus was God for over 20 years
I thought (and believed) Jesus was the "Son of God" for over 10 years before I learned that it was actually true.
thank you for caring enough to share.
I care but that isn't why I share.
Peace out
hello :) i suppose this is my introduction to the forum, though i am not sure if i will actually post and read much here.
i did go through several posts, and didn't find anything helpful, though i did find many posts interesting... anyway, i am not a jehovahs witness.
i hope this doesn't immediatly diqualify me from posting this question here... but basically, i was wondering just what is jw?
No, I don't understand at all. A son is lower in rank than his father, yet still equal? How can someone be lower or less then and still equal to someone?
A man is equal to a man regardless of whether or not the other man is his father or even his son. G.W. Bush is greater than his Father while at the same time they are both equal (being men), and his father is greater than he is because he is his Father. Different aspects are being measured with these three calculations of greatness. You, for some reason, take one measurement and then apply it to every aspect. Because the Father has greater rank you remove the sonship of the Son and compare him to his father as a cup of seawater compares to the ocean. You deny that Jesus is the Son of God if you make that analogy.
A Judge, under the law is both greater than his bailiff and at the same time equal. The Judge could be the son of the bailiff. So who is greater? It would depend upon what aspect you are measuring. If you are measuring in terms of humanity they have equality. If you measure in terms of office the son is greater. If you measure in terms of relationship the father is greater.
The Son of God has equal deity with God. Just as the Son of Man has equal humanity with Man. Deny his humanity while you are denying his deity, it would be using the same logic.
When have I denied that jesus is the Son of God? I have done no such thing
"If we took a cup of water from the ocean. Would this cup of water be the ocean?" You deny the deity of the Son of God with this false analogy. If the son does not have deity how is he the Son? You act as though 'son' is only a title not an intrinsic fact. That is how you deny he is the true Son of God.
I have done no such thing. What I do is deny that Jesus is God
Then for the very same reason you must deny Jesus is Man because he is only the Son of Man. If you apply your reasoning, Jesus is removed from actual existence altogether.
Pardon me, but if there is ONE GOD, and you claim that both JESUS IS GOD and the FATHER IS GOD, then you are saying that Jesus the Christ is the same as the Father.
Jesus exists in the same form as the Father, but he is not the Father. He is like the Father. He is ONE with the Father. That does not mean he is the Father. Your assertion here is unclear. I think that in your mind you keep going beyond what I say because you can't rest on one piece at a time.
Can you say that this person is God and that that person is God and that both of these are God and one person
We are not saying that the Father and the Son are one person. The Father is a different person. The Father AND (AND!!!!!!!) the Son are One. To answer that question (above) : I suppose so, but that is no part of what I am saying. I am not saying what you have just asked.
He is either the same person, or he is not the same person.
The Father is not the same person as the Son and I have not made that claim.
Why, if Jesus is God, does Jesus not know the same things that God knows?
Jesus completely submitted to the form of man, Phil 2:8. He had no power as God after his incarnation and before his death. Jesus grew in knowledge and wisdom throughout his life. He is now no longer bound to the human limits.
Why, if Jesus is God does he say (repeatedly) "These words are not my own, but the one who sent me" or "I do not seek my own will, but the will of father
He is not the Father. I don't know why you keep thinking we are saying he is the Father. How many times do I have to say he is not the Father before you figure it out. Can you give me a clue? 5? 10? 950? am i getting close?
if he is God, again, why not just say so?
At Rev 1:8 he claims to be God. Many things are revealed in the bible that God doesn't say directly. His apostles testify to him creating ALL things. If he did it, why didn't he say it? If he is not God, then why not just deny it by saying I am not God. He doesn't. When his opposers accuse (of blasphemy) him of claiming to be God he doesn't deny it he throws it in their faces. Why doesn't he say "I am God" to them? You know why. They tried to kill him for that without even saying those words.You don't even consider what he would say IF he is God. He would say exactly what he did.
But where in scripture does Jesus say that you must confess that he is God?
Correct me if I am wrong. Right now we are discussing whether or not he is God. You are saying he is God, want to end this discussion, and start discussing whether or not we must confess he is God?
You can't just tell someone if they don't confess that Jesus is God they are denying God in us,
The bible says Jesus is in us. The bible says the Holy Spirit is in us. The bible doesn't say the Father is in us.
When you say "Jesus is God" you are saying (at least as far as I can tell) that the being of God is Jesus Christ.
No. The very being of Jesus Christ is God. In his essential existence he exists in the form of God. It is easier to understand if you recognize he is the true Son of God. The problem is you are not understanding the Sonship so how can you possibly understand the Godship? What is a more complicated concept, Sonship or Godship? You don't even understand the simpler one.
Now you are telling me that the person of the son is NOT EQUAL to the very being of God
These are two entirely different concepts. Compare the person of the Son to the person of the Father. In that sense there is disparity in rank (but not in quality and certainly not in existence.) Then compare the existence of the Son to that of the Father. In that sense their is TOTAL equality or you deny he is the True Son of God. You are conceptualizing God's existence into the form of a physical creature, which is why you are not understanding. Stop putting limits on God's existence as if he could fit into a box of any measure.
You are saying that the person of the son is LESS THEN the being of God?
The person of the Son and the being of God are two different concepts. How could I have said that? I know the difference between the two concepts. When I say the being of God I'm talking about the tangible makeup of the Son in his spirit existence. When I am talking about the person of the Son I am talking about the intangible identity.
Except that Jesus isn't God, and we do not "burn in hell" when we die if we do not believe this, other then that...
I (using the word we is an odd way of putting it, if you don't mind me saying) certainly am not going to any such place, although the place of "burning" was prepared for the devil and his angels (according to Jesus) which is also the inheritance of sinners. Matt 25:41
seems to me a lot of Christians believe the english Bible was handed down to man just as it is... now THIS is ignorant.
That is an ignorant statement. Talk about blowing something out of proportion. but that is a whole other subject.
he says there are some things that he does not know that the Father does know
He said that while he was living as a man, and willingly subjected himself to that role completely. Phil 2:8
and that there are some things he cannot do,
So then you are saying the Father is not God because the Father could not perform the greatest act of the love among other things. John 15:13. Phil 2:8 still applies.
which the father can do.
which the son can do.
How can you then turn around and say he's God?
He created all things that were created, for one. He claimed to be God, Rev 1:8. So I try to understand what you say is a contradiction before lowering Jesus to a place below the True Son of God and denying his own words. I am not turning around and saying he is God. It is established that he is God. You are turning from that and saying he is not God. Why don't you see the confirmation of it before you try to deny it. You are "reading the book backwards." If it was proven to you in the bible that Jesus was God what would you do? Say he is not because xyz? But would you first believe it? You are debating, not trying to learn. I'm not trying to attack your motive. You are denying confirmation though. I'm sorry but you are trying to prove a negative when the bible already proves the positive. Maybe you should approach the side of confirmation first.
An atheist will look right into the face of evidence for God and say we can't know for sure it is evidence. I don't mean to compare your motives to that of an atheist but your tactics and resistence are similar for whatever reason.
I do understand how the Spirit of God can exist "in the flesh".
It didn't say Spirit of God. It said all the fullness of the Godship. And it didn't say "in the flesh." It said in bodily form. col 2:9
And I understand that the Father is IN the Son and the Son is in the Father, that they are one IN SPIRIT,
God is spirit, which you don't seem to understand or are taking for granted without applying.
but that jesus is NOT GOD himself.
Jesus is not the Father. The only form Jesus had before the incarnation was that of the Father. He is a different identity and tangibly, entrirely one with that identity of the Father. That doesn't mean he is the Father but that he shared the form of his Father and in his very existence is God. You just aren't accepting the entire reality. You are limiting it because you, in your mind, are unintentionally "putting God in a box."
The words you use describe that reality but you don't understand the reality you describe.
he is not the being of God.
Correct, the person of the Son is not the very being of God nor is the Father the very being of God. The Son exists out (like "made" (made implies creation so I use the word out) out of) of the very being of God. Just as the Father's existence is out of the very being of God. You still don't realize the difference between substance and identity. The Father and Son are One. Their substance is spirit. They are one in spirit you say. Yes, they are entirely one spirit, not one person.
let's assume Jesus is God. God sent Jesus, correct?
The Father, who is God, sent Jesus. Correct.
Then did he send himself?
The Father sent the Son. The Father is not the one that came so why would I say the Father sent himself?
this right here tells me that Jesus DID make a distinction between God and himself.
Jesus is more than God. He is also man. That alone means there is distinction. Yes their is disctinction between Jesus and God just as there is disctinction between Jesus and Man. You are still seeking to deny Jesus' deity instead of understanding it. You will never understand it yourself until you understand what I am saying (for our conversation that is, Im not saying you need me of course) and you can't understand what I am saying if you don't want to (just so you know).
let's assume Jesus is God
you are going to have to do that for more than 1.3 seconds if you are going to understand it. If you would simply rely on the scriptures that confirm it for the time being you could understand how it is true in the face of what you THINK denies it.
The Bible teaches that Jesus is not God, but a Servant of God
The bible does not teach that Jesus is not God. Jesus also serves man. So you are saying he is not man? I already told you Jesus is subordinate to the Father. Jesus is not the Father. You keep bringing up scriptures to deny Jesus' deity when they don't deny his deity, they deny him being the Father. You ignore the scriptures that make his deity undeniable.
And anyone who knows the Bible as the will know that a son of man cannot be God. The Bible declares that God is neither a man nor a son of man (Numbers 23:19):
First of all the declaration was made in the present tense over 1000 years before the incarnation. So in the context you use it does not deny Jesus is God. Second of all, it was saying is that "he is not a man that he should lie." Jesus himself could say that at any time past or future. It says "he is not a son of man that he should change his mind....(meaning) 'break a promise."
You just remove the context of what is being said to deny Jesus is God. With the very same scripture in the context you use, you can call Jesus a liar or a promise breaker.
The context you use is clearly invalid and completely arbitrary on your part. I said I was wrong if I called you biased. You are being biased if you choose to continue in your usage of this scripture with the context you apply. Neither way, in or out of context, does it deny the deity of Christ.
"How can he be called clean that is born of a woman? Behold even the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?" (Job 25:4-6)
Wow, you have used the words of Job's accuser against Jesus (so it seems) too. Amazing. This man, Bildad, saying this, was accusing Job. His words are not binding as canon any more than Korah's are.
You choose to say that Jesus is a maggot (my bible has both) and a worm when the bible does not call him a maggot or a worm (but the Lamb of God, the Lion of Judah) then when he claims to be God you tell him, "No you cannot be God because you are a maggot and a worm. Bildad, the accuser of the righteous Job said so!"
It is truly amazing. When the Jews who said he was calling himself God you say they were wrong and instead seek the words of a Job's accuser for support.
Job 24:1 "Why does the Almighty not set times for Judgement?" is what Job said. So does this mean God does not set times for Judgement?
It is certainly a more valid question because it was posed by Job than it is what was posed by Bildad, Job's accuser. To make such a claim still removes the context even when it comes from job.
I am starting to wonder if you are not just grabbing "proof-texts" without even knowing the circumstances. There is no way you would have posed that text as evidence had you done the simplest of research.
Well, I will write more later... i want to say that I really believe you are wrong in your theology...
Well, I really know you are wrong in your theology and that last scripture you posted tells me you are barely researching some of your proofs.
but there remains the fact that it could be me that is wrong, and I am more then interested in continuing this discussion
Im not interested in being right or wrong just so that you know. I welcome the discussion. I'm sure you know things that I don't know and can teach me as well. Some of what you claim is not true though.
I think if you can show me where I err, this would be an awesome thing,
You need to understand a few things that you are taking for granted before you should bother to go on. One is the Son of God. There are many so-called or adopted sons of God. Jesus however is truly the Son of God. He compares to his Father in a way similar to a man comparing to his father, or a dog comparing to his father....
however, so far what you say still sounds contradictory and muddled.
That is because you have not understood the simpler concepts first. You have taken them for granted. That is not your fault most people do and they are easy to overlook.
Did I ever call myself God, or tell you that I was the maker of the world and to be worshipped?Jesus claimed to be God. The Apostles say he was the maker of the World. God said that All his angels would worship him and even called him God. The Apostles worshipped him.
Did I not uniformly and to the last set you an example myself of praying to the Father, to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God? (John 20:17)
When my disciples requested me to teach them to pray (Luke 11:1-2) , did I teach them to pray to myself or to any other person but the Father?
Jesus did not pose these questions and he wouldn't pose them either. His Apostles did pray to him. Was this Lindsey fellow an Apostle of Christ? If not why do you pose his philosophy which supersedes the actions and teachings of the Apostles? Lindsey's game was just silly and extrememly ignorant.
A mind free from sin is the true temple of God.
The Apostles said the Body was the temple of God.
would you say the debil is a spirit creature (fallen) or do you think its just a descriptive word for the depravity of man?.
if you dont believe in the debil then you must still believe that humans have inherited sin ...right?
what other explanation is there?.
Aztec,
The Easter Bunny doesn't really exist. It is a guy in a suit
would you say the debil is a spirit creature (fallen) or do you think its just a descriptive word for the depravity of man?.
if you dont believe in the debil then you must still believe that humans have inherited sin ...right?
what other explanation is there?.
the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist.
