Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple...
Student

Nogales, Mexico

#39917 Mar 21, 2014
lovewithin wrote:
<quoted text>
Geez student.......... You just cannot understand or believe the 'trinty" can you??
There are many scriptural references that show the coexistence of the the entities within the Trinity
Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
•Here we see the evidence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all mentioned within one verse. We also see the same reference elsewhere in the Gospels.
Matthew 3:16-17 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Mark 1:10-13 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
These three verses in NO WAY prove to me that there are three godheads.

The Scriptures tell us that Jesus was made “a little lower than angels.” Phil. 2:5-7.

Neither was he coequal with his Father, for he himself said:“The Father is greater than I am.” John 14:28

Cont...
Student

Nogales, Mexico

#39918 Mar 21, 2014
Think, for a moment, about the angel who announced Jesus’ birth to Mary. He did not say her child would be God, but that he would be “God’s Son.”(Luke 1:35)

And rather than saying, as do some, that “God Himself” came to earth to provide the ransom, the Scriptures say “God sent forth his Son” to do this.(Galatians 4:4, 5; 1 John 4:9, 10)

Jesus asked his disciples who they believed he was. Did Simon Peter reply:“You are God”? No. Peter said:“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Did Jesus correct Peter? No, Jesus said:“Happy you are, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did.”(Matthew 16:15-17)

Religious writers, believing God is a Trinity, speak of “God the Son.” However, John the Baptist did not call Jesus “God the Son” but “the Son of God.” Jesus’ disciples did not say,“You are God the Son,” but,“You are really God’s Son.” There is a great difference between these statements.(John 1:34; Matthew 14:33)

The Bible also says that “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ ... raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come.”(Philippians 2:8, 9; Ephesians 1:17, 20, 21)

Yet Jesus repeatedly showed not equality but submission to the Father. He said he was sent by his Father, instructed by his Father, commanded what to say by his Father.(John 3:17; 5:36; 6:38; 12:49, 50)

Jesus also said that he “finished the work” his Father gave him to do, and that his followers “have come to know that you [the Father] sent me forth.”(John 17:4, 6, 18, 25)

Even Jesus’ enemies did not accuse him of saying he was God. Instead, they said he was making himself “equal to God” by calling God his Father.(John 5:18, 19)

After Jesus ascended to heaven, his followers continued to teach that the Father is greater than the Son. More than 20 years later, Paul wrote about “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”(Romans 15:6)

Look carefully at those words. Paul is speaking of Jesus’ God. Consistently Paul makes this distinction not only between the Father and Jesus but between God and Jesus. He writes of God and Christ. Paul’s standard greeting in his letters was:“May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”(Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:3; Ephesians 1:2; Philippians 1:2)

This distinction between God and the Lamb Jesus Christ is made right down to the Bible’s last chapter, where the great heavenly throne of the magnificent New Jerusalem is not described as the throne of an imaginary Trinity, but as “the throne of God and of the Lamb.”(Revelation 22:1, 3)

These statements are not difficult to understand, unless you have been taught to try to make them say something they do not say.
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#39919 Mar 21, 2014
Slander, slander and vulgarity - could anyone like this have Yahweh's favor?
Who else but a demon could rant like this on and on and on?
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#39920 Mar 21, 2014
Dr Shrink wrote:
<quoted text>
See above

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#39921 Mar 21, 2014
If a so-called "trinity" truly exists, then the following cannot and must not contradict all those verses that we believe prove a so-called "trinity."

John 14:28 ...my Father is greater than I.

1Corinthians 11:3 ...the head of Christ is God.

1Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

1Corinthians 15:14-28 Then cometh the end, when [the Son] shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when [God, even the Father] shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For [the Son] must reign, till [God, even the Father] hath put all enemies under [the Son's] feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For [God, even the Father] hath put all things under [the Son's] feet. But when [God, even the Father] saith, all things are put under [the Son], it is manifest that [God, even the Father] is excepted, which did put all things under [the Son]. And when all things shall be subdued unto [the Son], then shall the Son also himself be subject unto [God, even the Father] that put all things under [the Son], that God [, even the Father] may be all in all.
Student

Nogales, Mexico

#39922 Mar 21, 2014
Daily Text

Saturday, March 22


She is free to be married to whom she wants, only in the Lord.—1 Cor. 7:39.


Jehovah cares about your choice of marriage mate. With regard to inhabitants of Canaan, the Israelites were commanded:“You must form no marriage alliance with them. Your daughter you must not give to his son, and his daughter you must not take for your son. For he will turn your son from following me, and they will certainly serve other gods; and Jehovah’s anger will indeed blaze against you, and he will certainly annihilate you in a hurry.”(Deut. 7:3, 4) Centuries later, Ezra the priest declared:“You yourselves have acted unfaithfully in that you gave a dwelling to foreign wives so as to add to the guiltiness of Israel.”(Ezra 10:10) If a dedicated servant of Jehovah married an unbeliever, this would be an act of disobedience to God. And it would be illogical to expect blessings while admitting in prayer,‘Jehovah, I deliberately disobeyed you, but please bless me anyway.’ w12 5/15 1:6, 7
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#39923 Mar 21, 2014
Dr Shrink wrote:
<quoted text>
my friend,
don't be discourage by this immoral disfallowship YON,
apostate and blasphemer of most holy name JEHOVA
Who else but a psycho-babbling demon would encourage you to keep putting out wt propaganda that gets shot full of holes that neither he nor you can defend and that nobody else seems to care about? Give it up and go pound the pavement

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#39924 Mar 21, 2014
Liam wrote:
Bible alone is impossible. Literally impossible. From everything we can read about in scriptures, it should be plain as day that Jesus Christ started a Church, not a Bible. The Bible is the result of the sacred traditions of this Church and compiled at the council of Rome in 383 AD.
You should have more faith and confidence in the Word of "God." Nevertheless, let's take a look of some of these traditions that have been passed down from Peter, shall we?

Before Innocent I (served 401-417), it was common to call all bishops "papa," or "pope," and not just the bishop of Rome. And before Innocent I, the term "papa," or "pope," was not an official title. Innocent I was the first to make the term an official title.

The term "papa," or "pope," became restricted for use, except for the bishop of Rome, by Gregory VII (served 1073-1085).

Boniface VIII (served 1294-1303) instituted papal supremacy.

And why weren't there any so-called "popes" during 1268 to 1271, 1292 to 1294, 1314 to 1316, and 1415 to 1417, if the succession is an unbroken chain?

And what information can you share regarding so-called "popes" Liberius, Honorius, Stephen VI, John XII, Benedict IX, Boniface VIII, Urban VI, Alexander VI, Leo X, and Clement VII, to name a few?
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#39927 Mar 21, 2014
lying, slander, vulgar - give it up student or you'll go to the pit with him.
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#39929 Mar 21, 2014
lies, slander, vulgarity - think of the damage you do Student. Give it up.
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#39930 Mar 21, 2014
If a person were in search of religious truth and saw Dr. Nut Case defending your daily wt messages, and you running from examination of it's claims - what do you think the reaction would be? When I first joined up with the cult the number if hours of campaigning it took to produce one new convert was 3000 hours. The last I heard it's now up around 5000. Give it up.
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#39931 Mar 21, 2014
And also think of the discouragement to other dubs who see this.
marvinbeta

Pittsburgh, PA

#39932 Mar 22, 2014

Jehovan are just are nonsense lies as Jesus Christ who is a Bullcrap...
liam

Saint Paul, MN

#39933 Mar 22, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>You should have more faith and confidence in the Word of "God." Nevertheless, let's take a look of some of these traditions that have been passed down from Peter, shall we?
Before Innocent I (served 401-417), it was common to call all bishops "papa," or "pope," and not just the bishop of Rome. And before Innocent I, the term "papa," or "pope," was not an official title. Innocent I was the first to make the term an official title.
The term "papa," or "pope," became restricted for use, except for the bishop of Rome, by Gregory VII (served 1073-1085).
Boniface VIII (served 1294-1303) instituted papal supremacy.
And why weren't there any so-called "popes" during 1268 to 1271, 1292 to 1294, 1314 to 1316, and 1415 to 1417, if the succession is an unbroken chain?
And what information can you share regarding so-called "popes" Liberius, Honorius, Stephen VI, John XII, Benedict IX, Boniface VIII, Urban VI, Alexander VI, Leo X, and Clement VII, to name a few?
1. You're confusing sacred tradition with regular tradition. Sacred tradition is the word of God. See, the Apostles hardly wrote at all. But they DID teach and established a clear visible Church with clear visible successors.
Regular traditions are Church rules, feast dates etc. Technically they can be changed anytime. But sacred tradition can not. Essentially, sacred tradition is the Apostles "explaining their writings" even though they hadn't wrote yet.. Baptism, confession, the Eucharist, Sacramental Priesthood and episcopal office etc.... Those things were taught by Jesus via the early Apostolic Church, before Paul wrote the first book of the NT, 25 Yrs after Calvary.

2. We didn't have a Pope for a month last year. Not a big deal. In the past, due to travel time, logistics, and bickering back and forth, sometimes it took a long time to elect a new Bishop of Rome.

3. I'll have to get back to you on those other Popes you mentioned. I assume they were "less than perfect". If so, that's a shame. We always pray God gives us noble men to lead the flock. We've had some remarkable Popes over the years. But 3 or 4 scoundrels (1.8.%) shouldn't ruin it for the whole office.
Also, many of you think our Popes have way more power than they actually do. Our Popes could never change the word of God. Francis doesn't have the power to eliminate the Eucharist, or meaning of Baptism. If he tried it, he'd be thrown out. In fact, even the bad popes couldn't alter the word of God.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#39935 Mar 22, 2014
liam wrote:
1. You're confusing sacred tradition with regular tradition. Sacred tradition is the word of God. See, the Apostles hardly wrote at all. But they DID teach and established a clear visible Church with clear visible successors.
Regular traditions are Church rules, feast dates etc. Technically they can be changed anytime. But sacred tradition can not. Essentially, sacred tradition is the Apostles "explaining their writings" even though they hadn't wrote yet.. Baptism, confession, the Eucharist, Sacramental Priesthood and episcopal office etc.... Those things were taught by Jesus via the early Apostolic Church, before Paul wrote the first book of the NT, 25 Yrs after Calvary.
If you'll notice, the teachings shared in the texts of the new covenant are explanations to that which was recorded and prophesied in the texts of the old covenant. If we view the Bible as a whole, we can clearly see how that not much changed from one covenant to the next. Both covenants were established by blood, but it's the origin of that blood that changed. Other than that, certain and specific laws were fulfilled in order to save Israel without all the religious technicalities. Of a surety, neither our anointed Savior, nor his apostles, included unnecessary, man-made traditions that didn't originate in the law and testimony. And I'm fully confident that had these traditions been required of us, they would have been mentioned and listed in the Bible.
liam wrote:
2. We didn't have a Pope for a month last year. Not a big deal. In the past, due to travel time, logistics, and bickering back and forth, sometimes it took a long time to elect a new Bishop of Rome.
My point is, we can't consider the succession of so-called "popes" an unbroken chain if the chain has been broken a few times and for years at a time, at that. And what about those so-called "popes" that, today, have been removed from the list of "popes"? That widens the gap in the chain, does it not?
liam wrote:
3. I'll have to get back to you on those other Popes you mentioned. I assume they were "less than perfect". If so, that's a shame. We always pray God gives us noble men to lead the flock. We've had some remarkable Popes over the years. But 3 or 4 scoundrels (1.8.%) shouldn't ruin it for the whole office.
Also, many of you think our Popes have way more power than they actually do. Our Popes could never change the word of God. Francis doesn't have the power to eliminate the Eucharist, or meaning of Baptism. If he tried it, he'd be thrown out. In fact, even the bad popes couldn't alter the word of God.
My point for mentioning those so-called "popes" is to remind us that as the priesthood of Israel was dismantled and replaced for lack of faith and wicked works, we've no reason to believe that any afterward wouldn't be punished for committing the same atrocities, if not more. Father is not partial. Paul warned us, though, about boasting against the branches. And to be so proud to even imagine that the Roman Catholic organization is exempt from such judgment is beyond preposterous and indeed, boasting against the branches. You mention "remarkable Popes." And yet, "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him," wrote John. But, this didn't hinder the judgment of Father. Father could no longer tolerate the unrighteousness of not the individual, but the organization as a whole, beginning with the Aaronites. But, the Catholic will have the world believe that Father shows favor more to the Roman Catholic organization than the priesthood that He, Himself, organized. Pride is the most deceitful of all sin, as it's pride that all sin derives.

And so you know, I truly appreciate your civility and respectful responses. That's rare in Topix. Until next time...

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#39936 Mar 22, 2014
If you don't mind, I'd like to add onto my original response.
liam wrote:
2. We didn't have a Pope for a month last year. Not a big deal. In the past, due to travel time, logistics, and bickering back and forth, sometimes it took a long time to elect a new Bishop of Rome.
My point is, we can't consider the succession of so-called "popes" an unbroken chain if the chain has been broken a few times and for years at a time, at that. And what about those so-called "popes" that, today, have been removed from the list of "popes"? That widens the gap in the chain, does it not?

My primary point is that, the reason for succession is not merely to pass on an office, or title, from one person to the next. In the case of what's called "Apostolic Succession," the idea is to pass on the actual teachings of the apostles. Therefore, if Peter taught that 1+1+1=3, then his successor must teach that 1+1+1=3. Then, the next successor after him must teach the same. And so on and so on and so on... but this didn't happen. Then, to have periods where no successor was appointed, it's safe to assume that the teachings became altered, to say the least. History actually attests to this simple fact. What was 1+1+1=3 became 1+1+1=1. Case in point...

The so-called "trinity" that people worship today wasn't completely established until the latter portion of the fourth century. The original "trinity" was Father, Sofia (Wisdom), and Son. This formula proved itself problematic, though, as it encouraged pride in women (the weaker vessel?). This formula was found unacceptable and withdrawn. Sofia was, then, replaced with the Queen Mother (Mary). But, this also proved problematic, as it did nothing toward discouraging pride in women. If anything, it encouraged more pride in women, as Mary is an actual historical figure and not symbolic. Therefore, another formula was sought out. And this is the formula we know, today.

NOTE: In ancient art of antiquity, we can see that the symbol for Sofia (Wisdom) was the dove. When Sofia was replaced by Mary, it was then Mary that was symbolized by a dove. Again, this can be seen in ancient art of antiquity. And finally, when the Holy Spirit replaced Mary, the dove was again used as a symbol, especially considering that this agreed with the gospel accounts.
lovewithin

Denver, CO

#39937 Mar 22, 2014
Student wrote:
Think, for a moment, about the angel who announced Jesus’ birth to Mary. He did not say her child would be God, but that he would be “God’s Son.”(Luke 1:35)

These statements are not difficult to understand, unless you have been taught to try to make them say something they do not say.
Your watch tower has taught you to make the NWT say something different than what it does NOT say!!

YOU think for a moment. The watch tower changed the scripture John 1 :1 to read "In the beginning was the WORD ( Jesus being the WORD) and the word was with GOD and the WORD was "A" God.

Watch tower ADDED the article "A" this CHANGES the meaning....

You are saying here that Jesus was "A" God......meaning ... one of many Gods.

One of the commandments (do you remember... student?) "Thou shall have no other Gods before me"

You say you serve Jesus Christ? that you are the true disciples? You say Jesus Christ died for your SALVATION? but yet the watch tower states in the NWT ...that JEHOVAH is your Salvation .....

Which is it ....student?

Yes , Jesus is God' SON.

3 different entities....Basically, there are three persons, each person is God, each person is distinct, and there’s only one God........ NOT each one "A" God.!

One simple way to get at the difference between person and substance/essence/nature is to say that the Trinity is..........three who’s” and.........“one what.”

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#39938 Mar 22, 2014
Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

People erroneously add unto this commandment by believing and teaching that no other gods exist. This is not what the commandment prohibits, though. Clearly, Father expects that we have no other gods before... I repeat, before... Him, but His prohibition says absolutely nothing regarding the existence of gods after Him. If this is not the case, then Deuteronomy 10:17 would not say "For YHWH your God is God of gods." Obviously, other gods must exist in order for Deuteronomy 10:17 to make any sense, at all, and for YHWH to be "God of gods." To verify this, Psalm 82:6 states, of mere men at that, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." Recorded at John 10:34, our anointed Savior proved this by asking, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" Even in the very law and again, regarding mere men, Exodus 22:28 says, "Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." In the Hebrew texts made available to us, we can clearly find many references to gods that are acceptable to Father and considered as such. In each case and in the Hebrew texts, the term "'elohiym" is used. In this, it should be no surprise to any of us that His only-begotten Son, our anointed Savior, will be called "God," too. After all, he is a god, in the most precise sense of the term and definition.
lovewithin

Denver, CO

#39939 Mar 22, 2014
Student.......do you introduce your earthly father (dad)..."this is "A" father of mine" ? If you would....you would be saying this is one of many fathers/ dads you had!.... It changes the MEANING! You would say...... MY father or this is THE father/dad ... of Student.......

Your watch tower men are very good at CHANGING the word of God! THAT is not GOOD!

The watch tower changed the Bible (NWT) to fit THEIR doctrine!
lovewithin

Denver, CO

#39940 Mar 22, 2014
Student...there are very many gods in this world.....Satan is called "A" god of this WORLD. This world!!

A lot of religions worship other gods.

That is why we pray OUR Father, who art in HEAVEN.....

THE God of HEAVEN .

NOT "A" God in Heaven

THE......meaning the ONE and ONLY ,,,,, God.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Huh 974,833
girls how many gangbangs have you had (Feb '15) 3 min Ewwwww 62
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 11 min guest 658,878
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 16 min Thinking 71,021
Trump is un-American... 29 min Tony 2
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Brian_G 618,857
rajkot gey (Nov '15) 1 hr abc 80
Should Black People Forgive White People for Sl... (Jun '07) 2 hr gundee123 5,059
News Reason to cringe: Female voters react to Trump 6 hr Go Blue Forever 253
More from around the web