Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple...
lovewithin

Denver, CO

#40590 Apr 12, 2014
Student wrote:
<quoted text>

baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit,

.
Do I detect a " shunning" of the Holy Spirit ? Why does your NWT not capitalize the 'holy spirit?

or....did they just FORGET!
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#40591 Apr 12, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Noah's first wife, perhaps? Again, there's not enough information given to establish an irrefutable conclusion. Let us not veer too far from the subject,
And who would have his first wife have been since there's "not enough information" to establish anything in the way of a conclusion that you seem determined to establish?

Let's see, Noah passed out so naturally Ham had sex with somebody and went to tell his brothers.This resulted in a generational curse on an innocent party when Noah found out. Not a very loving arrangement.
Liam

Denver, CO

#40592 Apr 12, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>I believe the Word of "God" are records so that the doctrine not be lost. And before our anointed Savior walked among us, the texts of the old covenant were already established as "canon." All the texts of the new covenant are, for the most part, are records that show how our anointed Savior fulfilled the prophecies and promises. There are many quotes from the texts of the old covenant in the text of the new. This, to me, means the texts of the old covenant should not be ignored, or set aside. The texts of the new covenant rests on that of the old. If anything contradicts what's written in the texts of the old covenant, then they're not worth our adherence and should be acknowledged as unworthy material. And in regards to your statement, because I highlighted the word "till." I did that, because I know that it's taught and believed that Mary never had relations. The term "till" proves otherwise, though, and the Catholic institution should accept this fact. The belief that Mary remained a virgin forever shows the uselessness and error of such traditions.
The word "til" does not prove otherwise on Mary's ever virginity. It just doesn't. And certainly, the Catholic Church does not examine each little word in every little verse, in every little chapter. That's not "searching the scriptures", that's approaching the scriptures like each little word is a god. Its an OCD approach. It's assuming each little grammar and punctuation mark is the literal word of God. Thats idolatry.
The Holy Spirit impregnated Mary with the Son of God. No Jew would violate this Holiest of wombs. Thats why earlier Christians never taught that Mary and Joseoh had other kids together.

If Mary had other children, then they would have taking her in after Jesus died. Instead, Jesus asked John to at the foot of the cross.
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#40593 Apr 12, 2014
Maybe the RCC has some tradition to esplain the situation.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40594 Apr 12, 2014
Liam wrote:
Ok, where did this "universal" church that Ignatius was a part of go?
The Church became scattered. Regardless of what either of us believe, nothing changes the fact that Ignatius didn't use the term "catholic" as a name for an institution. Nothing changes the fact that Ignatius merely used the term "catholic" to express it's most literal definition, that being "universal."
Liam wrote:
Did they dissipate after a few yrs?
Not a few, no.
Liam wrote:
What happened to the people who believed like Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus.....
They died.
Liam wrote:
you do realize these guys predated your "Roman religion"?
You do realize that I ceased from calling the Catholic institution "Roman," do you not? And regardless, anyone can gather writings and claim them as their own. Christianity was still a few hundred years old, so it was quite simple for the Catholic institution to "usurp the throne," if you will, having either, little to no opposition and resistance. The fact of the matter is, had it not been for the Roman government, the Catholic institution would have come to naught.
Liam wrote:
Translation: your opinion that the Roman empire became the Roman Church, thus corrupting the word of God, is impossible.
I don't think the Roman Empire became the Catholic institution. Where'd you get that from? It's a well-known fact that as Rome legalized Christianity, Rome remained quite pagan. In that, Rome didn't become Christian, but Christianity became Roman.

[QUOTE who="Liam"The Roman Empire was toppled. The Catholic Church in Rome was not. They are still there with Francis as the 266th Bishop of Rome.[/QUOTE]Well...it wasn't until the thirteenth century that "Holy Roman Empire" came to be, but it dissolved in 1806. Regardless, the fact that the Catholic institution still exists means absolutely nothing. Even without a temple, many so-called "Jews" still observe sacrifice. Such observance doesn't mean 'Elohiym accepts it.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40595 Apr 12, 2014
Liam wrote:
Ok, where did this "universal" church that Ignatius was a part of go?
The Church became scattered. Regardless of what either of us believe, nothing changes the fact that Ignatius didn't use the term "catholic" as a name for an institution. Nothing changes the fact that Ignatius merely used the term "catholic" to express it's most literal definition, that being "universal."
Liam wrote:
Did they dissipate after a few yrs?
Not a few, no.
Liam wrote:
What happened to the people who believed like Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus.....
They died.
Liam wrote:
you do realize these guys predated your "Roman religion"?
You do realize that I ceased from calling the Catholic institution "Roman," do you not? And regardless, anyone can gather writings and claim them as their own. Christianity was still a few hundred years old, so it was quite simple for the Catholic institution to "usurp the throne," if you will, having either, little to no opposition and resistance. The fact of the matter is, had it not been for the Roman government, the Catholic institution would have come to naught.
Liam wrote:
Translation: your opinion that the Roman empire became the Roman Church, thus corrupting the word of God, is impossible.
I don't think the Roman Empire became the Catholic institution. Where'd you get that from? It's a well-known fact that as Rome legalized Christianity, Rome remained quite pagan. In that, Rome didn't become Christian, but Christianity became Roman.
Liam wrote:
The Roman Empire was toppled. The Catholic Church in Rome was not. They are still there with Francis as the 266th Bishop of Rome.
Well...it wasn't until the thirteenth century that "Holy Roman Empire" came to be, but it dissolved in 1806. Regardless, the fact that the Catholic institution still exists means absolutely nothing. Even without a temple, many so-called "Jews" still observe sacrifice. Such observance doesn't mean 'Elohiym accepts it.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40596 Apr 12, 2014
Liam wrote:
The word "til" does not prove otherwise on Mary's ever virginity. It just doesn't.
Boy, you are a stubborn one.

Sure, it does. That's why I used a simple example to prove my point. Again...

The children had dessert not till they had finished their supper.

Nothing in the above example indicates that the children never had dessert. Rather, it indicates that the children eventually had dessert, but only after finishing supper.

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Nothing in the above verse indicates that Joseph and Mary never had relations. Rather, it indicates that Joseph and Mary eventually had relations, but only after she gave birth to our anointed Savior.
Liam wrote:
And certainly, the Catholic Church does not examine each little word in every little verse, in every little chapter. That's not "searching the scriptures", that's approaching the scriptures like each little word is a god. Its an OCD approach. It's assuming each little grammar and punctuation mark is the literal word of God. Thats idolatry.
Call it what you will and believe as you wish. I, on the other hand, will continue dissecting the Bible to it's very last compound, so that I know what's what. I'll not just accept whatever I'm spoon-fed by mere men.
Liam wrote:
The Holy Spirit impregnated Mary with the Son of God.
If that doesn't sound like ancient mythology, I don't know what does.
Liam wrote:
No Jew would violate this Holiest of wombs.
I'm sure some would have, but Joseph was a just man.
Liam wrote:
Thats why earlier Christians never taught that Mary and Joseoh had other kids together.
Thy didn't have to. The Bible disclosed that information already.

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?
Liam wrote:
If Mary had other children, then they would have taking her in after Jesus died. Instead, Jesus asked John to at the foot of the cross.
Matthew 12:48-50 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40597 Apr 12, 2014
yon wrote:
And who would have his first wife have been since there's "not enough information" to establish anything in the way of a conclusion that you seem determined to establish?
Who cares? Is such information necessary? What's known is that, according to what's written, Ham saw his father's nakedness, yet his son Canaan and not Ham was cursed. There must be a logical explanation and conclusion.
yon wrote:
Let's see, Noah passed out so naturally Ham had sex with somebody and went to tell his brothers.This resulted in a generational curse on an innocent party when Noah found out. Not a very loving arrangement.
Exactly. And unbelievers make sport of believers that lack the knowledge of these situations. In the end, they reject the existence of 'Elohiym and the authenticity of the Bible.
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#40598 Apr 12, 2014
I think you're trying to prove something that is simply a figment of your imagination and making the next leap of illogic that anybody who doesn't agree is an unbeliever.
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#40599 Apr 12, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Who cares? Is such information necessary? What's known is that, according to what's written, Ham saw his father's nakedness, yet his son Canaan and not Ham was cursed. There must be a logical explanation and conclusion.
<quoted text>Exactly. And unbelievers make sport of believers that lack the knowledge of these situations. In the end, they reject the existence of 'Elohiym and the authenticity of the Bible.
See above
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#40600 Apr 12, 2014
This is how cults get started -say many things that are correct and then slip in something that makes no sense, with the expectation that since much that's already gone under the bridge is true, then this also must be, and attempt to silence dissent.
Liam

Saint Paul, MN

#40601 Apr 12, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Boy, you are a stubborn one.
Sure, it does. That's why I used a simple example to prove my point. Again...
The children had dessert not till they had finished their supper.
Nothing in the above example indicates that the children never had dessert. Rather, it indicates that the children eventually had dessert, but only after finishing supper.
Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Nothing in the above verse indicates that Joseph and Mary never had relations. Rather, it indicates that Joseph and Mary eventually had relations, but only after she gave birth to our anointed Savior.
.
The word "Till' does not mean Mary and Joseph had other children of their own. There are no records what-so-ever, that speak of Jesus' other siblings.
The Bible does not settle the issue....

Gen 8:7 "the raven did not return until the waters were dried up" . Question: did the raven return?

2Sam 6:23 "and Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death" Does this mean she had children after she died?

1 Cor 15:25 "For he must reign TILL he has put all enemies under his feet: Question: after all the enemies are put away, does Christ' reign end"? No!

So, til we meet again, may God bless you. Does that mean God should curse you after we meet again? lol
Liam

Saint Paul, MN

#40602 Apr 12, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Thy didn't have to. The Bible disclosed that information already.
Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?
.
The word "brother" in the Bible doesn't automatically mean a biological sibling, so you can't take it upon yourself to use that word for your opinion that Mary had other children.
There are numerous texts in scripture where the word "brother is used" and its impossible that there was a "brother" relationship like our modern English language refers to biological male siblings.
Again, Scripture does not settle this issue.
Liam

Saint Paul, MN

#40603 Apr 12, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Call it what you will and believe as you wish. I, on the other hand, will continue dissecting the Bible to it's very last compound, so that I know what's what. I'll not just accept whatever I'm spoon-fed by mere men..
But aren't you a mere man? Here you are, on a forum, asking people to accept your take on the Sacred Scriptures. Why should we listen to you? What happens when one of us disagrees with your interpretations? Who's the authority to decide what is truth?

Example:
I read the Bible and I conclude: Jesus Christ established a Church, not a collection of books, otherwise, he'd certainly have given us a list of books to go with, had that list been essential for our salvation. There is no verse where Jesus says to compile a Bible for the sole source of His ministry.
In fact, to go by "just the Bible", you have to first NOT go by "just the Bible', because you're forced to accept the list compiled by mere men..

Tell me, Brother Lee (but not my biological sibling), why is Al-imran, the 3rd chapter of the Quaran, not Biblical? 3:101 "whosoever holds fast to God, he has been guided on to the straight path" Using our Christian canon, and ONLY our Christian canon, can we prove that Al-imran is not inspired texts?

How about this: Prove to me using ONLY your Bible, that the book Omni1 in the Mormon scriptures is not inspired texts.
You can't do it without verse that gives us a Biblical list...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#40604 Apr 12, 2014
Student wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the work of Jesus Christ true followers.
Luke 10:1-After these things the Lord designated seventy others and sent them forth by twos in advance of him into every city and place to which he himself was going to come
Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying:¬ďAll authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU.

Which was ALL happening 1800 years before the WatchTower cult reared its blasphemous head.
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#40605 Apr 12, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Just about every religion I've studied and read about, in more ways than a few, perfectly fit the description of a cult. And yet, we have one person, here, that's constantly attacked and accused of being affiliated with a cult. But, the issue I find most disturbing is that, as the attacks and accusations continue, I've yet to see corrections being made, in a reasonable manner, to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the institution they're a member of is truly a cult. It would be most refreshing to witness, just one time even, irrefutable evidence presented alongside the accusation that a verse has been corrupted.
That's about the size of it. All are organizations of men that don't follow Scripture - only the parts they like. They put on a pristine outer appearance, but........

Matthew 23:27
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness."
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#40606 Apr 12, 2014
Liam wrote:
Next time you go to a hospital, i hope you remember who invented the hospital: the Catholic Church (or "Roman" Catholic Church for you fundies lol).
BTW- about a year ago I had a long conversation with a Dr who said he had worked in a hospital somewhere in the Northeast that had a whole floor of priests with aids. One of them told him, "I only did it once." Do Catholics treat their own with sexually transmitted diseases or allow them to take communion?
Liam

Denver, CO

#40607 Apr 12, 2014
yon wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW- about a year ago I had a long conversation with a Dr who said he had worked in a hospital somewhere in the Northeast that had a whole floor of priests with aids. One of them told him, "I only did it once." Do Catholics treat their own with sexually transmitted diseases or allow them to take communion?
Yes, Catholics would treat their own, even if they had STD'S. They would be allowed communion, provided they repent for their conduct and refrain from future sexual relations outside the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#40608 Apr 12, 2014
That's nice.
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#40609 Apr 12, 2014
You seem to know a lot more about your religion than the average Catholic I've talked with. Are you a priest?

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 Aura Mytha 979,267
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 4 min Aura Mytha 92,251
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 12 min MUQ2 285,940
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 29 min bad bob 183,605
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr truth 667,516
Waiting to pee 2 hr Tallguy95 1
allofourstuff.com 3 hr AllofOurStuff 1
More from around the web