It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Debunking false claims about Jehovah's Witnesses. 1-14

page: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
You should be a JW. Because what your believing goes against the scriptures. Do you attend a church? If you do, what's the name?
God was in Jesus reconciling the world back to Himself. God in Jesus was showing us how to get back to Him.


thats your answer to to list? that what im believing goes against bible?

sorry texas, but apparently you dont know how to read. john 17 ALONE smashes everything you just said.



They say one thing, then say another, then they go back again to the first thing they said.


im sorry, i honestly dont understand what you are saying, can you give an example?




posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

What you are advocating is what the gnostics believed ~ Christ was a spirit with no physical body. He rose in the flesh. Thomas even put his hand in the wound. I would abandon that position because the Bible has name for those who deny he came in the flesh...


um no, actually gnostis believed that jesus NEVER came in the flesh, that even before being killed jesus' body was just a "shell" for the spirit jesus.

not the same.

you are also ignoring the rest of 1 cor 15 "flesh and blood cannot inherit god's kingdom."

apparently there is more to jesus' resurrection than a simple bodily resurrection.

if it was jesus' human body that was resurrected and WAS jesus, what happened to it when it ascended to heaven?

unless you are saying jesus didnt ascend to heaven....



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
A question for any Jehovah's Witness:


You believe and base many of your main doctrinal teachings on the fact that Christ returned in 1914, is that correct?


i dont believe so, i think the MAIN beliefs come from the bible.

but they believe christ started to reign in 1914.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
Ego Eimi means "I am"
In Greek, the words recorded in John 8:58 are "'prin abraam genesthai ego eimi." Literally, this is "Before Abraham was existing, I am." "Ego eimi" is literally, "I am." This is the present tense. To say "I have been" is to use the perfect tense. In Greek, his would have been "aemane." But Jesus didn't use it here. He used the present tense, "ego eimi" which is "I am."


lol, i already explained this to you but apparently you ignored my post

in Koine, PRESENT PERFECT DOES [B][U]NOT[/B][/U] HAVE THE SAME SIGNIFICANCE AS PRESENT PERFECT IN MODERN GREEK.

in koine, present perfect means an action that started in the past and finished in the past (it equals todays past perfect).

to denote an action that astrted in the past and continues beyond now, you use the present indicative (present simple)

did you get that?

that why those scripture have "ego" and yet are translated "i have been"

even IF jesus was claiming to be god, the correct translation is "I have been" because jesus' existence didnt terminated before saying that



Originally posted by miriam0566
you still didnt answer my question, why would the disciples need a sign of his presence?


Jesus’s disciples were interested in future developments. When Jesus pointed to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, they asked Him when that would happen and what would be the sign of His coming.
Fortunately they turned to Jesus who provides correct answers.


still doesnt answer my question. if jesus "presence" (as the greek puts it) was to be so obvious, why would they need a sign?



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 

This is in response to this video that is linked to about Ellen White.
The main person in this is someone who is obviously biased because he got fired as a pastor from the church and he should be suspect.
The video mentions some five thousand articles plus books written by Ms.White. How many writings of hers are unavailable? Hardly any. They say they lock up the "embarrassing" stuff she wrote in a vault. So. That does not mean people are not allowed to see them. They just do not want the original manuscripts stolen. There are always people going through them and independently publishing books based on them on a constant bases. You just have to present yourself as a legitimate researcher. They imply that these are not allowed to be seen but they never say that. These people who made this video are deceptive and why would you want to trust them.
Ellen White did not found the SDA church and was never considered the leader of it and no one considered her the authority over the church and she was actually kicked off the board of the church. She was a SDA person who wrote a bunch of books that were influential, peaking probably back in the fifties, mainly, and so what? Write your own books, anyone can do it. If your book becomes popular then woopty do for you. Why bash this woman with a third grade education who was a successful writer.
Outside of the U.S., if you asked an SDA who Ellen white was, they most likely would say they never heard of her. She has roots in this country and was never forced on churches outside of the US. Belief in Ellen white is not, and never has been a test of faith or requirement in the SDA church. I personally refer to her writings as a last resort if I come up against something I can not figure out on my own. For example, I have been wrestling over Genesis 3:16. Did God curse Eve, or was he informing her to expect to have a lot of children? I pretty much came to the conclusion that it is a misinterpretation to say that God actively cursed her, from looking at the Hebrew. I did a search in Mrs. White's writings an pulled up her stories about it and I felt somewhat vindicated to see that she does not buy into the curse thing at all. So, am I some kind of heretic to do that? Hardly!
People love her books because she takes all the stories from the Bible and humanizes them on a personal level and she did that back in the day when such a thing was unheard of.
For example I was reading one of her stories last night about the woman who anointed Jesus' feet and it made me cry to read it. Nowadays that kind of writing is very popular and when she was writing, she kind of had to invent the genre. I find it very cruel and unnecessary to throw her face in the mud because you have a personal beef with the church, as this ex-pastor in this video does, and he comes off as a real jerk, to me.


[edit on 20-6-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566lol, i already explained this to you but apparently you ignored my post

Your explanation is not correct.
The Prestigious Greek Scholar Julius Mantey disagrees with you. Here's what he says and I'd believe him over anyone.
What Mantey has said about the New World Translation:
1. "Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation. " (These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation" )
2. Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
3. "I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey, Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)
4. the translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers." (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin)


Originally posted by miriam0566
still doesnt answer my question. if jesus "presence" (as the greek puts it) was to be so obvious, why would they need a sign?


I guess I don't understand what your asking. I thought I answered your question.

Thanks,
TT



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
thats your answer to to list? that what im believing goes against bible?


It's really hard to reply to your list because bts.com only allows 4000 characters maximum.


Originally posted by miriam0566
sorry texas, but apparently you dont know how to read. john 17 ALONE smashes everything you just said.


Paul said the same thing. God was in Christ reconciling the world back to Himself. Is Paul wrong? He can't be because he seen Jesus.
You don't understand Jesus' dual nature.


Originally posted by miriam0566
im sorry, i honestly dont understand what you are saying, can you give an example?


I was saying that the jw's flip flop on their doctrines as evidenced below. That means they can't be trusted.

Resurrection of the Men of Sodom
1879 - They will be resurrected.
1952 - They will not be resurrected.
1965 - They will be resurrected.
1988 - They will not be resurrected.24
24. Zion's Watch Tower Reprints, July 1879, p. 7; The Watchtower, June 1, 1952, p. 338; August 1, 1965, p. 479; June 1, 1988, pp. 30-31.

'Higher Powers' of Romans 13:1
1916 - 'Higher powers' refers to governments.
1943 - 'Higher powers' refers to Jehovah God & Jesus Christ.
1964 - 'High
26. Watch Tower Reprints, September 1, 1916, p. 5952; The Truth Shall Make You Free, [1943 ed.], p. 312; The Watchtower, June 15, 1964, p. 20. The WT Society admitted this change in doctrine cost many Jehovah's Witnesses their lives (The Watchtower, November 15, 1950, p. 441).

Separating 'sheep and goats' (Matt. 25:31-46)
1919 - will take place after the time of tribulation.
1923 - is taking place now, before the tribulation.
1995 - will take place after the tribulation.27
27. The Watchtower, August 1, 1919, p. 238; Jehovah's Witnesses — Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, 1993, pp. 163-164; The Watchtower, October 15, 1995, p. 19, 22-23.

Thanks,
TT



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 

They say they lock up the "embarrassing" stuff she wrote in a vault.


Burning it would be better.



These people who made this video are deceptive and why would you want to trust them.


Actually your responses have been deceptive, defending the date setting - then claiming there was no date setting , then explaining it as meaning something different from the original prediction, then they weren't really part of your church - excuses ad infinitum!

It reeks of cult mind programming.

Dr James Kennedy is a very respected pastor with a long history in ministry. He has proven himself by faithful service. While I may not share all of his views I am much more prone to take his word over that of unbiblical cultists. He endorsed the video but its not surprising at all that someone who is indoctrinated (fourth generation no less) disagrees.



Ellen White did not found the SDA church and was never considered the leader of it and no one considered her the authority over the church and she was actually kicked off the board of the church. She was a SDA person who wrote a bunch of books that were influential, peaking probably back in the fifties, mainly, and so what? Write your own books, anyone can do it. If your book becomes popular then woopty do for you. Why bash this woman with a third grade education who was a successful writer.


Because she represents her mad scribblings as coming from God. False prophets are worse than atheists. If being successful is your criterion Richard Dawkins is a successful writer perhaps you should base doctrine on the God Delusion too.



For example, I have been wrestling over Genesis 3:16. Did God curse Eve, or was he informing her to expect to have a lot of children? I pretty much came to the conclusion that it is a misinterpretation to say that God actively cursed her, from looking at the Hebrew. I did a search in Mrs. Whites writings an pulled up her stories about it and I felt somewhat vindicated to see that she does not buy into the curse thing at all. So, am I some kind of heretic to do that? Hardly!


This is a prime example. You are completely deceived and her head injury induced Satanically inspired ramblings are only encouraging your apostasy.
If there was no curse - the cross was a waste if time. Because you are not under the curse of sin, so you should be able to achieve salvation entirely on your own. You don't need Jesus to remove what never existed. Good luck with that. Or better yet

...leave the cult and accept Christ as your savior.



" Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." (1 Co 15:1-5)






[edit on 6/20/2009 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   

The Bible Says "Jesus is God" - Cultists Disagree





"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily," (Col 2:8-9)


Let's look closely at verse 9. "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily."

πλήρωμα = fullness

κατοικέω = dwells

θεότης = deity = that which makes God - it is NOT merely "divine quality" which is the deceptive rendering of the Antichrist watchtower cult .

Strongs.



θεότης thĕŏtēs, theh-ot´-ace; from 2316; divinity (abstr.):— godhead.

Strong, J. (1997, c1996). The new Strong's dictionary of Hebrew and Greek words (H8674). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.


And another greek lexicon




θεότης, ητος, ἡ as an abstract noun for θεός (god); divinity, deity, Godhead, divine nature (CO 2.9)

Friberg, T., Friberg, B., & Miller, N. F. (2000). Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker's Greek New Testament library (196). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.


And examples from extra biblical Greek literature prove that is the meaning.



θεότης, ητος, ἡ (Plut., Mor. 415bc οὕτως ἐκ μὲν ἀνθρώπων εἰς ἥρωας, ἐκ δὲ ἡρώων εἰς δαίμονας αἱ βελτίονες ψυχαὶ τὴν μεταβολὴν λαμβάνουσιν. ἐκ δὲ δαιμόνων ὀλίγαι μὲν ἔτι χρόνῳ πολλῷ διʼ ἀρετῆς καθαρθεῖσαι παντάπασι θεότητος μετέσχον=so from humans into heroes and from heroes into demi-gods the better souls undergo their transition; and from demi-gods, a few, after a long period of purification, share totally in divinity

Thus it is intended to mean the state of being god, divine character/nature, deity, divinity

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr̲terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker." (3rd ed.) (452). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.






[edit on 6/20/2009 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
No one is going to loose their eternal life getting a blood transfusion. That's the most ridiculous doctrine they have. By them not letting their members get blood transfusions, the jw's have sent people to their deaths.


adam and eve lost their eternal lives for eating a piece of fruit they were told not to.

how is

gen 9:[3] Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
[4] But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
[5] And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
[6] Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

any less of a commandment from god?

so god's laws are optional when you disagree or dont understand? is that what you are saying? are you saying that god will not resurrect those obedient to his laws?

this is not JW's laws you find ridiculous, its god's


Originally posted by miriam0566
When someone really accepts Christ, they are immediately saved. God meets us where we are at. We don't have to goto the party.


jesus disagrees...

[2] The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
[3] And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
[4] Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
[5] But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
[6] And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.

[7] But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

those who were invited were not saved but destroyed. nothing about having an invitation saved them. action was required on their part and it wasnt the action they chose. they all went back to their business.

perhaps you should research more before making those types of statements



Originally posted by miriam0566
jesus died for those that put faith in him. (john 3:16)

Wrong. Jesus died for everyone(john 3:16). Everyone who believes in Him receives eternal life.


do you even read what you write? everyone who believes in him. what do you think faith is?

does everyone who believes in him include those that dont put faith in jesus?



Originally posted by miriam0566
those that put faith in god learn and each the truth (john 4:23,24)
those who put faith in god love one another (john 13:34,35)
those with faith back their faith with works (james 2: 18-20)
those with works follow jesus' command to preach (matt 28:19,20)

so yeah, if you as a christian were doing all these things then logically you would become a JW. no need to get all mad about it.


That doesn't mean you are a jw.


yes, yes it does. jw's are the only organization actually doing the times jesus told them to do.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
jmdewey60, Walter never said anything about basing your salvation on what kind of body Jesus had. Walter said that if Jesus wasn't resurrected then our faith is nothing. Can you watch it again to see?


lol, jw's never claimed that jesus wasnt resurrected. so if that is the argument, then the videos are even more ridiculous than before



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Their spirits go to heaven instantly! Jesus said to the thief on the cross.



"And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”" (Lk 23:43)


Today (33 AD) - not in 1844.



wow... so the thief made it to heaven before jesus did, and jesus was STILL call the firstborn of the dead..


amazing



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
This post is to refute false accusations and half truths made by texastig and bigwhammy. I apologize, but I don't have the time to type my response as I am a mother of a 4 year old and a two (almost 3) year old boys... they pretty much monopolize my time. For the sake of saving time, I will post links to sites or videos that refute ALL the false accusations, and provides answers to questions posed by either texatig or bigwhammy. To these two posters, I strongly encourage you to take the time to view this information before posting more bias garbage. I will provide more links as my time permits, some may be repeats from previous posts.

And as a side note, bigwhammy posted this on another JW thread:


Dangerous Cults like the Watchtower are more disgustingly vile than Satanism or Atheism because they actually fool people with good intentions into believing they are saved. But its a false gospel - with a false Christ and a bunch of false doctrines. So they are damned and believe they are saved. Its really sad.


Luke 6:42 (New International Version)

How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

what's the deal with 1914? pt 1, at about 5:50, it starts to explain how we get to 1914.
what's the deal with 1914? pt 2

are JW a cult?


Q: are JW guilty of false prophesies or scriptural expectations

A: JW are guilty of scriptural expectations, which is very different from false prophecies. And scriptural expectations is NOT unique to JW. See for example some expectations mentioned in the Bible:

Luke 3:15 (New American Standard Bible)

Now while the people were in a state of expectation and all were wondering in their hearts about John, as to whether he was the Christ, (obviously many Jews could discern the year the Messiah was to come from studying prophecies and chronology)


Luke 19:11 (New American Standard Bible)

While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately.


Acts 1:6 (New American Standard Bible)

So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"


failed predictions by other churches
failed predictions by other churches

JW are NOT false prophets!

who are the false prophets today?


More links to come later... I've got kids to feed, diapers to change and a home to keep.

[edit on 20-6-2009 by holywar]



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
Your explanation is not correct.
The Prestigious Greek Scholar Julius Mantey disagrees with you. Here's what he says and I'd believe him over anyone.
What Mantey has said about the New World Translation:


so.. you are arguing a point about greek, and your rebuttal is to quote general opinions?

www.prudentialpublishing.info...

Did Jesus really say “I am?” Let us examine the context of John’s passage. The Jews questioned Jesus: “Then said the Jews to him, You are not yet fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham?” (John 8:57 KJV) This question was not about who Jesus was, but about how long he had been in existence. Jesus answered, “Before Abraham was, I have been.” In other words, “I existed before Abraham.” (This, too, is not a saying of the historical Jesus. John put it in Jesus’ mouth because he believed that Jesus pre-existed.) “I have been” is the proper translation.
            Why did the KJV translators rendered it “I am”? A peculiarity in the grammar of the Koine Greek presented the opportunity for the KJV translators to render this grammatically awkward phrase. The Koine Greek was a dialect inferior to the Attic Greek. In the 1st century CE, it was used mainly by non-Greeks. Being a secondary language to them, they compromised several of its grammatical rules. One of the compromises was the lack of perfect tense for the verb “to be” (“I have been”). John, like the rest of the New Testament writers, used the Koine Greek. He meant to write “I have been.” But because the Koine had no perfect tense, he had to use the present tense, “I am” (Gr. ego eimi). The English language, though, has a perfect tense to accommodate the meaning intended by the writer. However, the KJV translators declined to use the intended meaning of the phrase because by translating it as “I am” it sounds like the “I am” of Exodus 3:14. They used the similarity of these English words to promote the belief that Jesus is God. But this similarity is merely a play on words, created by translators. (The Hebrew word “haw-yaw” has nothing to do with the Greek words “ego eimi.”)


koine greek actually has a perfect tense, but it is used to describe an action that is completed in the past.

even mantey knows this!



Originally posted by miriam0566
still doesnt answer my question. if jesus "presence" (as the greek puts it) was to be so obvious, why would they need a sign?


I guess I don't understand what your asking. I thought I answered your question.


if im in the room, do you need a sign to show you? or do you just look at me?

if jesus' presence is literal and physical, why would his disciples need a sign?



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
When false teaching and apostasy muddies the waters the Pharisees come to the rescue !!

reply to post by miriam0566
 



lol, i already explained this to you but apparently you ignored my post in Koine, PRESENT PERFECT DOES [B][U]NOT[/B][/U] HAVE THE SAME SIGNIFICANCE AS PRESENT PERFECT IN MODERN GREEK.


This entire line of reasoning is a rather pointless bit of sophistry because the Pharisee's obviously understood it to be a claim to being God!


"So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple." (Jn 8:57-59)


So why did they want to stone him? Hello? They knew it was a claim to deity referencing "I am"!


"but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands." (Jn 10:38-39)


Sought to arrest him for....?


"And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, “Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”" (Lk 5:21)


God alone!

It just doesn't get any clearer than this:


"The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”" (Jn 10:33)





[edit on 6/20/2009 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Actually your responses have been deceptive, defending the date setting - then claiming there was no date setting , then explaining it as meaning something different from the original prediction, then they weren't really part of your church - excuses ad infinitum!
No I didn't. The SDA church did not exist until after 1844, so they did not set a date for Christ's return, that was Miller, who was not an SDA.
Mrs. White thought one of the dates was ok and that is her personal opinion and so what. (that was written well after the date so it had no impact on anything anyone was expecting. She believed it was Jesus entering the judgment room in heaven to plead on behalf of believers so that they would be ready to join him, whenever that future event would arrive. i.e. the second coming)
Do you think it would be fair to dig up every comment a Southern Baptist wrote, even in a personal letter, and threw that in the face of every member of the denomination?
To be a SDA member, you never have to subscribe to believing in any date. That is just history. If you do not want to believe that you are ever judged, and somehow skip that, then that is your opinion. You do not have to face the judgment in person as long as you are in Christ because he stands there in your place. That is what Jesus is doing in Heaven right now. If you miss that, it is your loss and do not get crazy about me believing in it. If you end up standing in front of the white throne and the book of your life is opened before you, you best understand you are about to be tossed into the lake of fire and not going to heaven. Would you like to avoid that? I hope so. You had best believe in Jesus and that he is your High priest or you may have a problem later. Denying Christ is not a good thing for your future.

This is a prime example. You are completely deceived and her head injury induced Satanically inspired ramblings are only encouraging your apostasy.
If there was no curse - the cross was a waste if time. Because you are not under the curse of sin, so you should be able to achieve salvation entirely on your own. You don't need Jesus to remove what never existed. Good luck with that. Or better yet ...leave the cult and accept Christ as your savior.
There is a curse of sin, taken in a broader sense of the word. But God was not pronouncing a curse on Eve in particular in Genesis 3:16. It was being informed to her that she would have many offspring in her life, not spaced out through eternity, like would have happened if she had not fallen under the rule of sin.(I would like to invite you to argue against that, from the Hebrew.)


[edit on 20-6-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


Ἐγώ εἰμι = Ἐγώ εἰμι



Greek Septugiant Old Testament translated into Greek 300 years before Christ.

Exodus 3:14 "I AM"



"καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς." (Ex 3:14)

Lexham LXX Interlinear | The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint


Now the New Testament Greek. John 8:58 "I am"



"εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί." (Jn 8:58)

NA27 | Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition


Your argument is demonstrated invalid.

Cultism doesn't become you.

[edit on 6/20/2009 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 




There is a curse of sin, taken in a broader sense of the word. But God was not pronouncing a curse on Eve in particular in Genesis 3:16. It was being informed to her that she would have many offspring in her life, not spaced out through eternity, like would have happened if she had not fallen under the rule of sin.


Yes he cursed her in particular.


"To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”" (Ge 3:16)


"Multiply you pain" is an explicit curse. I am amazed that this was so unclear to you that you needed to refer to the scribblings of a brain injured prophetess? One who you already knew had a record of false prophecies.

Yet you missed the clear wrds: “I will surely multiply your pain".

This misunderstanding is the best evidence of what cultism does by demonstrating that you are incapable of proper discernment. I think you need to really need wonder if you are in the body of Christ at all. Because you seem to be blinded.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 



This entire line of reasoning is a rather pointless bit of sophistry because the Pharisee's obviously understood it to be a claim to being God!


I think it's quite disturbing that you side with the Pharisees and not with Jesus. Would you also side with them when they accused Jesus of performing miracles by the powers of beelzebub? (Mat.12:24), or that he was wrong for healing on a Sabbath? Of course you wouldn't!!! you would only side with the Pharisees if their accusations and lies supports your false doctrine. But you forgot what Jesus' response was to their false accusation:

John 10:33-38 (New American Standard Bible)

The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'?

"If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

"If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;

but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."


You see... in the Bible the word "god", is just that..... a word, a descriptive word. So in the Bible, judges are called "gods", angels are called "gods", and even Moses was "god" to Pharaoh.


Do you realize that the Pharisees were always looking for ways to trap Jesus. When they asked "who can forgive sins but God alone?" Did Jesus not say time and time again that he did nothing of his own? Obviously, Jesus' FATHER Jehovah GAVE his SON such authority.

[edit on 20-6-2009 by holywar]



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by holywar
 



I think it's quite disturbing that you side with the Pharisees and not with Jesus.


Perhaps you didn't understand my post. The point is that the Pharisee's clearly understood that Jesus was claiming to be God. Because obviously He was claiming to be God. And when they confronted him He never denied it.

Gee maybe because ...He is God.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join