Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple...
lovewithin

Denver, CO

#40612 Apr 12, 2014
Student wrote:
Daily Text

Jehovah reaches out to people by means of our preaching work.

The Kingdom message is the best possible news for humankind—yes, it is “good news.” w12 9/15 3:4, 5


God reaches out to people because of the JW preaching work???? LOL!!

Student...do you really think the kingdom message is the "good news"???

Do you ever read what the 'watch tower actually says, about scriptures ?? or do you just trust those watch tower men are right?

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40614 Apr 12, 2014
yon wrote:
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.
Excellent opinion, yon. What's missing, though, is your explanation as to the accurate interpretation of "his father's nakedness" and the reason Canaan was cursed and not Ham, especially considering that Canaan isn't mentioned, therefore it's safe to conclude that Canaan was innocent of transgression. Before you respond, keep in mind that I've, a few times, reasoned that "his father's nakedness" is explained at Leviticus 18:8.

"The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness."

Also, keep in mind that Ezekiel 18:20 declares, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

What say you?

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40615 Apr 12, 2014
Liam wrote:
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?
Genesis 8:7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

Which translation are you using?
Liam wrote:
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?
2Samuel 6:23 And Saul's daughter Michal bore no children from that day on until the day she died.

Obviously, the verse indicates that Michal bore no children for the remainder of her life.
Liam wrote:
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!
Did you answer "No"? The answer is a few verses after.

1Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Liam wrote:
So, til we meet again, may God bless you. Does that mean God should curse you after we meet again? lol
It doesn't mean that "God" should curse me upon our next meeting, but by the most accurate definition and understanding, it does mean that "God" should only bless me until we actually meet again.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40616 Apr 12, 2014
Liam wrote:
The word "Till' does not mean Mary and Joseph had other children of their own.
I never said it did. The word "till," though, does indicate that Joseph and Mary had relations after she gave birth to our anointed Savior.
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#40617 Apr 12, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
"The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness."
Also, keep in mind that Ezekiel 18:20 declares, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
What say you?
To go have sex with your mother because your father was passed out is preposterous and Ez 18:20 is irrelevant - but if you want to keep pushing this envelope I'll let you have the last word. As I've said I don't care for debate for the sake of debate.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40618 Apr 12, 2014
Liam wrote:
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.
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?

I'm well aware of the fact that the term "brother" has various meanings, just like "father" is still used to denote a person's grandfather. Regardless, the context of the verse doesn't suggest that the he was merely a close friend of James, Joses, Juda, and Simon. The context of the verse, though, does more than suggest that these "brothers" were 1) his siblings and 2) the children of Mary. And it's odd that you totally disregarded the fact that "sisters" are mentioned, too.

The questions that were raised regarding him was, "From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? 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 (Mark 6:2-3)?"

It's not reasonable to conclude that these "brothers" and "sisters" were mere countrymen, or especially members of his ministry, as this is what you'd have to be proposing. The terms "brothers" and "sisters" aren't used in such a general context. I mean, what if the answers were "Yes, his brothers and sisters, as countrymen, or members of his ministry, are here with us"? What would that prove? Would that prove where our anointed Savior received "these things"? or the wisdom he possessed? or the mighty works he wrought with his hands? And wouldn't those asking the questions be excluding themselves considering that they, too, would have to be his "brothers" and "sisters," coming from the same area?
lovewithin

Denver, CO

#40619 Apr 12, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>

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

<quoted text>
<quoted text>.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>.
<quoted text>.
.
BLL..........That is a very poorly written sentence.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40620 Apr 12, 2014
yon wrote:
To go have sex with your mother because your father was passed out is preposterous
Yes, to you and I. But, it has and does happen. Regardless, I've retracted my proposal that Noah's wife was Ham's mother. It's quite possible that she wasn't Ham's mother at all. Like I said, there's not much information to come to a reasonable conclusion as to the actual relationship of Ham and Noah's wife. What we do know, though, is that if we apply the law to this account, then we can most easily conclude that "his father's nakedness" means it was Noah's wife.
yon wrote:
and Ez 18:20 is irrelevant
Ezekiel 18:20 is most relevant, because it proves that the son will never be punished for a sin committed by his father. In the account we're discussing, Canaan, the son of Ham, was cursed because Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father Noah.
yon wrote:
but if you want to keep pushing this envelope I'll let you have the last word. As I've said I don't care for debate for the sake of debate.
I thought of it as a discussion, but okay. Nevertheless, my intention is to come to reasonable conclusions that quench the fire of atheists and unbelievers that discredit the whole Bible simply because these situations are perceived as wholly contradicting and hypocritical.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40621 Apr 12, 2014
lovewithin wrote:
BLL..........That is a very poorly written sentence.
I used the same format as Matthew 1:25.

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

In my first example, I worded it to fit our modern standards. Either way, it makes sense.

The children did not have dessert till they finished supper.

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

Miami Beach, FL

#40622 Apr 12, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>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?
I'm well aware of the fact that the term "brother" has various meanings, just like "father" is still used to denote a person's grandfather. Regardless, the context of the verse doesn't suggest that the he was merely a close friend of James, Joses, Juda, and Simon. The context of the verse, though, does more than suggest that these "brothers" were 1) his siblings and 2) the children of Mary. And it's odd that you totally disregarded the fact that "sisters" are mentioned, too.
When people are determined to argue - they're going to argue - especially when they don't believe what's inspired and written for our edification, but if it's not written by a so-called church father, they make up their own twisted reasonings.

Matt 1

24 "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."

What do you suppose happened after the consummation? Every other account in Scripture involving women who could not conceive is recorded.
lovewithin

Denver, CO

#40623 Apr 12, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>

Either way, it makes sense.

The children had dessert not till they had finished supper.
NO, it does not BLL!

(The children did not have dessert till they finished supper.) ONLY this way does

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40624 Apr 12, 2014
Liam wrote:
But aren't you a mere man?
Yes, I am.
Liam wrote:
Here you are, on a forum, asking people to accept your take on the Sacred Scriptures. Why should we listen to you?
You don't have to. I only make proposals and suggestions that, hopefully, entice people to examine their beliefs more thoroughly.
Liam wrote:
What happens when one of us disagrees with your interpretations?
Nothing.
Liam wrote:
Who's the authority to decide what is truth?
Or, rather, what's the authority? Answer: The law and testimony of 'Elohiym.
Liam wrote:
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.
But, our anointed Savior continually referred to the texts of the old covenant. Therefore, it's safe to conclude that these ancient texts are most necessary.
Liam wrote:
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.
Says you, but you already know I disagree with your assertion. Again, those men only "canonized" letters and compositions that were already popular and in circulation. What became the "New Testament" wasn't actually "books" that were accepted as canon as much as it was others that were not accepted as canon.
.
Liam wrote:
Tell me, Brother Lee (but not my biological sibling),
Nice jab.
Liam wrote:
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...
Truth can be found in any book. In the case of all these religious texts, I've come to, allegorically speaking, eat the meat, drink the milk, and discard of the fat and bones. The Koran also states that our anointed Savior is not the son of "God," but was merely a prophet, and that he's only the Messiah of the nation of Israel. And the book of Mormon states that our anointed Savior visited the Native Americans "soon after his resurrection," which is a blatant contradiction of what's written in the Bible. Also and according to my studies, all of the lands mentioned in The Book of Mormon are only found in The Book of Mormon and aren't found in any other text, whether secular, or religious. I've found and recorded many discrepancies in The Book of Mormon.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

All things are measured against the law and testimony of 'Elohiym.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40625 Apr 12, 2014
lovewithin wrote:
NO, it does not BLL!
(The children did not have dessert till they finished supper.) ONLY this way does
My GOODNESS, lovewithin! Perhaps, I'LL hire YOU to BE my ENGLISH professor, THEN.

REGARDLESS, my EXAMPLE still PROVES that THE children EVENTUALLY had DESSERT, just LIKE Joseph AND Mary EVENTUALLY had RELATIONS.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40626 Apr 12, 2014
yon wrote:
When people are determined to argue - they're going to argue - especially when they don't believe what's inspired and written for our edification, but if it's not written by a so-called church father, they make up their own twisted reasonings.
Matt 1
24 "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."
What do you suppose happened after the consummation? Every other account in Scripture involving women who could not conceive is recorded.
The verse, regardless of the preferred translation, is very clear to me. Some people will do anything to defend their so-called "choice" of affiliation, because they have to. To accept that their affiliation made a mistake is to admit that they accepted the mistake made. Pride is a killer.
lovewithin

Denver, CO

#40627 Apr 12, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>My GOODNESS, lovewithin! Perhaps, I'LL hire YOU to BE my ENGLISH professor, THEN.
REGARDLESS, my EXAMPLE still PROVES that THE children EVENTUALLY had DESSERT, just LIKE Joseph AND Mary EVENTUALLY had RELATIONS.
You just can not admit when you are wrong ...can you....?

Even when you KNOW you are!

I would not be your teacher....you already THINK, you know everything !

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40628 Apr 12, 2014
lovewithin wrote:
You just can not admit when you are wrong ...can you....?
Sure, I can. Why, just recently, I apologized to someone for a wrong assumption of them.
lovewithin wrote:
Even when you KNOW you are!
If I KNEW I was wrong, then why would I waste such time continuing this conversation, or even debating the point?
lovewithin wrote:
I would not be your teacher....you already THINK, you know everything !
If that were true, then why would I waste such time studying?

Well...four things have been established here.

1) You believe I'm wrong.

2) You believe I KNOW I'm wrong.

3) You would not be my teacher.

4) You believe that I believe I know everything.

What hasn't been established is any evidence whatsoever that proves I'm wrong. Let's examine other translations, shall we?

Matthew 1:25 in the.....

New International Version
But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

New Living Translation
But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.

New American Standard Bible
but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
but did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son. And he named Him Jesus.

International Standard Version
He did not have marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.

NET Bible
but did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And he did not know her sexually until she delivered her firstborn son, and she called his name Yeshua.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
He did not have marital relations with her before she gave birth to a son. Joseph named the child Jesus.

World English Bible
and didn't know her sexually until she had brought forth her firstborn son. He named him Jesus.

Well. Apparently, I'm not the only one wrong here.
lovewithin

Denver, CO

#40629 Apr 12, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Sure, I can. Why, just recently, I apologized to someone for a wrong assumption of them.
<quoted text>If I KNEW I was wrong, then why would I waste such time continuing this conversation, or even debating the point?
<quoted text>If that were true, then why would I waste such time studying?
Well...four things have been established here.
1) You believe I'm wrong.
2) You believe I KNOW I'm wrong.
3) You would not be my teacher.
4) You believe that I believe I know everything.
What hasn't been established is any evidence whatsoever that proves I'm wrong. Let's examine other translations, shall we?
Matthew 1:25 in the.....
New International Version
But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
New Living Translation
But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.
New American Standard Bible
but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
but did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son. And he named Him Jesus.
International Standard Version
He did not have marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.
NET Bible
but did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And he did not know her sexually until she delivered her firstborn son, and she called his name Yeshua.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
He did not have marital relations with her before she gave birth to a son. Joseph named the child Jesus.
World English Bible
and didn't know her sexually until she had brought forth her firstborn son. He named him Jesus.
Well. Apparently, I'm not the only one wrong here.
Now , BLL, was I talking about ANY of discussion on Mary and Joseph??

You are quite good at changing the subject, just like the JW's are.

Does any of that pertain to the "poorly written sentence" you wrote? or do you remember the sentence ? I will remind you.

"The children had dessert not till they had finished their supper "
Student

Nogales, Mexico

#40631 Apr 12, 2014
Daily Text

Sunday, April 13


No man that has put his hand to a plow and looks at the things behind is well fitted for the kingdom of God.—Luke 9:62.


We are fast approaching God’s day of judgment. None of us want to disappoint Jehovah or Jesus. They have entrusted us with precious privileges of service in these last days. How we cherish the confidence they have in us!(1 Tim. 1:12) Regardless of whether our hope is to enjoy life in heaven or in Paradise on earth, let us be determined to stay faithful to our God-given assignment to preach and make disciples. We still do not know the exact day or hour that Jehovah’s day will arrive, and do we really need to know? We can and will continue to prove ourselves ready.(Matt. 24:36, 44) As long as we fully trust in Jehovah and put his Kingdom first, we will not be disappointed.—Rom. 10:11. w12 9/15 4:17-19
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#40632 Apr 13, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Truth can be found in any book. In the case of all these religious texts, I've come to, allegorically speaking, eat the meat, drink the milk, and discard of the fat and bones. The Koran also states that our anointed Savior is not the son of "God," but was merely a prophet, and that he's only the Messiah of the nation of Israel. And the book of Mormon states that our anointed Savior visited the Native Americans "soon after his resurrection," which is a blatant contradiction of what's written in the Bible.

All things are measured against the law and testimony of 'Elohiym.
Eccl 12:12 "And of other things beside these, my son, take thou heed: for there is no end in making many books, and much reading is a weariness of the flesh."

Revelation 21:8 "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

(The abominable would obviously include the vile and vulgar on the internet)

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#40633 Apr 13, 2014
lovewithin wrote:
Now , BLL, was I talking about ANY of discussion on Mary and Joseph??
I honestly thought you were. I mean, I failed to imagine that you actually had a desire to continue such a useless and unprofitable discussion such as my choice of wording arrangement. But, since you care so much, upon careful examination, you'll notice that all I did was arrange the words to assimilate to that of the verse. The verse I quoted reads as "knew her not till," so I arranged my example to read as "had dessert not till." In Old English, my example is more than acceptable.
lovewithin wrote:
You are quite good at changing the subject, just like the JW's are.
Can you provide an example of my changing subjects? I don't recall ever changing subjects, as if I was either, abandoning the discussion at hand, or as you might believe, finding any way to not have to admit to being wrong.
lovewithin wrote:
Does any of that pertain to the "poorly written sentence" you wrote? or do you remember the sentence ? I will remind you.
"The children had dessert not till they had finished their supper "
It was merely an example, lovewithin. Please and if you will, get over it. Whether poorly written or not is not what's important. The point still stands, regardless.

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
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 1 min RiccardoFire 7,409
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 3 min Bongo 123,604
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 17 min kent 681,801
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 29 min lil whispers 619,460
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 34 min another viewer 982,293
News Bin Laden Reportedly Calls Obama 'Powerless' (Sep '09) 1 hr Robert Laity 22
News La. Governor to Summon National Guard (Jun '06) 4 hr Online Reality Bu... 20
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 7 hr onemale 286,526
More from around the web