in defense of the inerrancy of the bible, many believers make the assertion that the gospel writers wrote about what they witnessed firsthand.
let's consider the case of the gospel called "mark.
" the writer of those jesus stories does not tell us he walked and talked with jesus, or that he witnessed any of the events he described, so why should we not believe that he was only reporting what someone else said happened, or perhaps what he thought should have happened to fulfill scripture?.
Joe, are you not engaging in the exercise of the fundamentalists, in claiming for a certainty what you cannot possibly know? I don't know if Mark was an eyewitness or not, but I am pretty sure that you were not. So you can only speculate about Mark and the other Gospel writers.
You choose to not accept Marks' "speculation." I choose to not accept yours. Fair enough?
in an effort to bolster the name of jehovah, the watchtower book entitled "revelation its grand.
climax at hand!
if you want to know who the father is, look at jesus.
Frenchy is correct, here. Note that Jesus' exaltation is given to him by the Father, who must be greater than Jesus is. Even when the NT says that "Jesus is Lord!" it is not for himself, but "to the glory of God the Father."
The name of Jehovah (YHWH) is unique in the Bible in that it belongs to the Almighty God alone. When you really consider it, the name Jesus is the same in Hebrew as the name of Moses' assistant, Joshua. In the Greek Septuagint Bible, the book of Joshua is called IESOUS: Jesus.
Jesus the Christ is indeed worthy of honor, praise, and glory. But that is because he fulfilled the will of Someone else who was greater than he was -- his Father. And he was humble enough to admit this.
the other day, i was messaged by a young jw guy (using yahoo messenger, where i am breezyone2001; chat me up, gang!).
his opening line to me was, "why are you attacking the witnesses?
" i responded by asking him in what way i was attacking the witnesses, and he said that he saw my name in a yahoo club for ex-jw's.
Reading the Gospel of John convinced you that Jesus was God? It had the opposite effect on me. Much of John has Jesus expressing his agency, of doing nothing except what his Father dictated. John has Jesus praying to someone else. Why would God have to pray to anyone? Then, near the end of the book, there is Jesus saying he has to ascend to his God. Imagine that! If Jesus has a God, how is it that he is God? As a Christian, I make the same Confession that John made, "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." (John 20:31, King James Version) Peter made a similar Confession: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matthew 16:16, King James Version) "Son of God." Not "God the Son." The difference is more than semantic.
Oh yes, there's John 1:1. John 1:1 has to be read in the context of the rest of the Gospel, otherwise John could have ended his book right there.
on page 18, there is an article entitled, 'religious persecution in georgia-how much longer?
' for those of you current with the situation in georgia, you know that the witnesses there have been receiving many physical attacks.
you also know that the key player leading the attacks is vasili mkalavishvili, the defrocked orthodox priest.
What faithful Witnesses have been reproved or expelled for criticizing the Society's UN membership???
hello yk,.
trying to precis your long post, i quote the following:.
alan wrote : they declare that anyone who publicly disagrees with their opinions is also disagreeing with god, and therefore is an apostate.. yk replied : thats because they blaspheme god by denouncing those whom god appointed over his household.
If you would discount Vine, what about these? These works are later than the 1940s, and are generally praised by scholars of New Testament Greek:
"Parousia: 1. Presence. From pareimi, 'to be present.'" (Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 5, 1967, page 859).
"Parousia: The state of being present at a place, presence." (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, F. W. Danker, 2000, page 780).
"Parousia: Presence, of persons." (Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell-Scott, 1996 revision, page 1343).
In each case, the first definition listed for parousia is "presence." Though other shades of meaning (e.g., "arrival," "visit") are also given, parousia first of all means "presence."
here is an extract from the book: the bible fraud, by tony bushby.. some may find this a revelation!.
just who were the parents of jesus christ?
in the opening sentence of a new testament parable, jesus stated:.
I hope the rest of that stuff is more accurate than what was said about the story of Jesus' birth in the Koran. There is no such story. Rather, the Koran agrees that Jesus had a Virgin Birth:
"Behold! the angels said: 'O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God.'"
"She said: 'O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?' He said: 'Even so: God createth what He willeth; when He hath declared a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!'" (Koran, 3:45, 47, A. Yusuf Ali translation)
The Talmud does contain the ben Pantera story, but everything the Talmud says about Jesus is derogatory. The rabbinic Judaism of the time was antagonistic to Christianity.
Besides, if we cannot accept the stories of Jesus' disciples which were written in the first century, why should we accept legends that were enshrined in the Talmud in the fourth century?
i have verses from the nwt that contradict the jw teachings.
does anyone want to try to explain this to me?
how bout this.... col 1:16, in talking about jesus, says that"... all [other] things have been created through him and for him".
You cannot correctly understand Col 1:16 by isolating it to itself. You have to read it in context with the surrounding verses.
Also, you have to understand that the verb ektistai, in the Greek perfect tense, is not here referring to a creative act in the far-distant past, but one that continues and that includes the work of Jesus as the Messiah.
Col 1:16 is not referring to just the beginning of creation, nor to the status of the Logos at that time.
http://www.paxprofundis.com/parush/tradition.htm .
atheists will think this is fluff.. most christians will judge it satanic.. some spiritual christians, pagans, wiccans, eastern meditaters and those w a spiritual interest might find something of worth in this essay.
enjoy.
Frater Francois,
Salutem punctus trianguli!
i understand that jehovah's witnesses teach that jesus is not god, but the author of revelation seems to teach otherwise:.
yahweh speaking: "i am the alpha and the omega," says the lord god" (revelation 1:8).
more yahweh: "i am the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
I would have to agree with Kent that endless discussion of bits and pieces of the book of Revelation is pointless. So, I will make these few observations of inaccuracies in funkyderek's post, and take my leave of this thread.
1) It is not true that "there is no mention of Jehovah in this chapter." Who is the "Lord God" (KJV) mentioned in verses 5 and 6?
2) The "one coming quickly" is mentioned in verse 12, not verse 13. As there are several speakers in this chapter, one cannot say categorically that the same person speaks in verse 13.
3) Jesus' angel is not the only one speaking. Verse 6 identifies another angel: "And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel..."
And Yerusalyim, I am not denying the divinity of Jesus. The term "theos" is clearly applied to Jesus in the NT and in the OT. However, Scripture also proclaims that this does not make Jesus the Almighty God. Jesus is a theos who has a theos as head over him, unlike the Eternal God. And the Bible also applies the term "theos" to angels, Satan, and even the judges of Israel.
But I will not go round and round on this carousel.
i understand that jehovah's witnesses teach that jesus is not god, but the author of revelation seems to teach otherwise:.
yahweh speaking: "i am the alpha and the omega," says the lord god" (revelation 1:8).
more yahweh: "i am the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
I can't take seriously a thread on Jesus theology by Joe, since he has spent much time attempting to "prove" that Jesus is only a myth, and didn't really exist.
But larsguy made excellent points. Also, he does not commit the inconsistency of merely using "Jesus" with "Yahweh." Consistency requires using Yeshua with Yahweh. If you're going to be Hebrew about it, be Hebrew.
funkyderek, Jesus identifies himself as the speaker at Revelation 22:16. But no speaker is identified at 22:13. The last speaker identified before that is "the angel" (verse 8). Theological presupposition might say that it is Jesus who speaks at 22:13, but the Greek text does not. In the King James Version, Revelation 22:13 is written in red, but again, this is theological presupposition, since the Greek text makes no such distinction. Even so, "Alpha and Omega," the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, mean the same as "the first and the last," and as larsguy's post points out, this in itself is not limited, as a reference, to Jesus.
In Revelation, Jesus is called "the beginning of the creation of God" (3:14 KJV, NASB, etc.) That is consistent with the rest of the New Testament.
