Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - lapwing

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 273
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Has Q11 Gone Mad?
« on: July 11, 2014, 12:23:38 PM »
Hi Questions11,

I'm a bit concerned about titles such as
How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity

I know "liberal" has different interpretations either side of the Pond but this title seems to be implying insidiously that Christian values are synonymous with right wing political views. Why should someone who believes in active government (all governments are active with very little difference between parties) be waging war against Christianity?

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: A question about sin and heaven.
« on: July 11, 2014, 12:02:30 PM »
The kings of the earth

Odd to find myself agreeing with Jem (as well as SPF, OC, AD and FW) but I do think that trying to establish universalism from Revelation in this way is like trying to build an airfix model aeroplane by starlight on the night of a new moon inside with the curtains closed and no lights on.

Who are these "kings of the earth"? Rulers at the time Revelation was written, rulers down through the ages or only at the end of time. Would Barack Obama or Bill Gates be kings of the earth? Henry VIII?

In between Rev 19:19-21 and Rev 21:24 the old earth has been replaced by a new earth and so a completely new order. So doesn't that mean by definition that the two sets of "kings of the earth" are different?

There's no account of the conversion and revivifying of the kings of the earth of Rev 19 which brings us back to SPF's question about a clear scripture that teaches postmortem salvation. Is there one?


"equal with God"

There is another instance where this phrase is used. Note that the words belong to the evangelist not to the Jews. Jesus had just healed on the Sabbath.

This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. Jn 5:18

Jesus frequently refers to the Father as "my Father" whereas he taught his disciples to pray "our Father". Jesus was claiming a special relationship with the Father not shared by mankind or even the Jews. In Jn 20:17 Jesus (speaking to the disciples) refers to "my Father and your Father" rather than simply "our Father".

The previous 2 verses are pertinent:
And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. 17But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”

Although it is recorded that God rested on the seventh day the Jews believed at this time that God was still "working" in what he had created.


So not only was Jesus claiming to have a special father-son relationship with God not shared by his fellow Jews, he was also claiming to not to be considered to be breaking the Sabbath in the same way that God does not break the Sabbath while sustaining His creation. As God was working until now so was His Son. Hence the accusation of "equality with God".

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? 64You have heard his blasphemy

Jesus claims to be the Christ, the Son of God (definite article present!) but also:

you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven

where Jesus alludes to Dan 7:13 and Ps 110:1


I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. 14And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

Note that it has already been shown that the Aramaic word for "serve" (and its Hebrew equivalent) is used exclusively in the Bible for serving God.

The LORD says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."

This refers to King David's "lord", a verse that is taken up in Hebrews chapter 1. Jn 1:18 refers to Jesus as "the only begotten God" (μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς) so Jesus is described as the Son of God (begotten) and as God. Hence in the case of Jesus it is possible to be both the only begotten Son of God and to be God.

It's interesting to note that Jesus called the Father "my God" when speaking to Mary Magdalene in Gethsemane without a definite article ("God of me") whereas Thomas uses the definite article: "the God of me". This lays the ghost of the importance JWs etc. put on the absence of the article in Jn 1:1. Taken as a whole Jn 1:1-18 clearly teaches that Jesus is both Son of God and God.

their notion that God alone can forgive sins was in error.
it was in fact well founded in the scriptures that Jesus treated as authoritative:

“I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins. Is 43:25 ESV

David taught that sin is only against God even though he was confessing both adultery and murder in Ps 51.

Given the limited scope of this account, there is little in way of knowing for certain what Thomas by his exclamation. Though my inclination tells me he was likely overwhelmed by the experience of seeing and touching the holes in Jesus' feet, and thanked Christ and his God in response to that.
It is so sad that JWs and others attack the integrity of this passage ignoring the fact that it is part of God's inspired word which is not intended in any way to be deceptive. John was inspired to include this passage so to mount an ad hominem attack on Thomas is completely out of order. Thomas was also an apostle chosen by Jesus.

as it causes people to substitute the worship destined for YHWH toward Jesus ... That is to say that we need to worship Father YHWH as the One True God through his Son Christ Jesus
This betrays a basic misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity since YHWH=Father+Son+Holy Spirit

JohnBee and Kevron,

The difficulty with translating that word in Dan 7:14 is that it is in the Aramaic part of the Bible and there aren't many other occurrences:

This includes the Hebrew equivalent and in all cases it means serving God

Quote from: Jem
The famous John 1:1, when you take it from the Greek, shows that the Word (Logos) was "with THE God" (ho theos) and "the Word was god" (theos) The Greek clearly identifies THE God as opposed to one simply called a god. Two different "gods" are spoken of here. The title "god" is not used in the Bible specifically of the Father. A god is merely a powerful one. Even some humans are called "gods" by the Father himself.

Despite the fact that this verse has been gone over before in this forum on several occasions, Jem is still repeating the same misinfromation yet again. This thread was devoted to Jn 1:1

Ho theos and theos

This ignores Colwell's Rule:

"Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article ... a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun ..
see or

NB: copula here is "and"

In Jn 1:1
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ [the] Λόγος [Word]ἦν [was] πρὸς [with] τὸν [the] Θεόν [God], καὶ [and] Θεὸς [God] ἦν  [was] ὁ [the] Λόγος [Word].
The second occurrence of theos comes before the verb "was" whereas the first comes after the verb "was".

There are other instances of this e.g Jn  1:49
ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ Ναθαναήλ Ῥαββεί, σὺ [you] εἶ [are] ὁ [the] Υἱὸς son] τοῦ [of the] Θεοῦ [God], σὺ [you] Βασιλεὺς [king] εἶ [are] τοῦ [of the] Ἰσραήλ. [Israel]

Now I don't think even Jem would say that Jesus was just one of many kings of Israel. There  is only one true king of Israel and His name is Jesus. So Jesus is not a king of Israel but the king of Israel yet there is no definite article before "king" in this verse because "king" comes before the verb as does the second occurrence of God in Jn 1:1. Hence Jem is unjustified in saying that Jn 1;1 should read "a god". Also note that the small letter (god) and large letter (God) is not in the Greek. There is no difference in the capitalisation of these two instances of theos.

The NWT for Jn 1:49 is Na·than′a·el responded: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel. not "a king of Israel" Note the capitalisation!

"No one has seen God"
Jem is showing her ignorance of the Bible here.
Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, 10and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. 11And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank. Ex 24:9-11

I would think that Jem believes there are no contradictions in the Bible as I do. All these people survived "seeing God". Hence Jesus must mean seeing God in a particular way.

Moses said, “Please show me your glory.” 19And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The LORD.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. 20But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.” 21And the LORD said, “Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock, 22and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.”

When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent, and the LORD would speak with Moses. 10And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people would rise up and worship, each at his tent door. 11Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses turned again into the camp, his assistant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.

Jesus means not seeing God in his full glory. Jesus had "emptied himself" and become a man (as well as God) so that we could see God
"He who has seen me has seen the Father"

Jem is using a naive scientistic argument beloved of people like Richard Dawkins which has no grounding in the Bible.

He did not once say he was God Almighty.....he did not once ask to be worshipped even when he had ample opportunity to do so.
Yet again the same old argument from silence fallacy. Jem does not see her mistake because she has been brainwashed not to. Earlier Jem said that even calling God "God" is worship and Thomas called Jesus "my God" so on Jem's own definition Thomas worshipped Jesus as God and Jesus accepted Thomas' worship.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: The Jehovah's Witnesses' new tactic
« on: July 10, 2014, 05:25:01 PM »
Quote from: JohnBee
Which btw I conclude to be similar to the Trinity. ie, imposing mad-made Bible doctrines onto others as pre-requisites for salvation.
I know of no instance when a church or even an individual Christian has described belief in the Trinity to be a pre-requisite for salvation. Rather the Bible teaches that what is required for salvation is repentance of sin and trust in God.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: The Jehovah's Witnesses' new tactic
« on: July 10, 2014, 04:58:34 PM »
Hi Snoochies,

I may be telling you how to suck eggs but I thought I'd show you and/or others how easy it is to study words like "generation" in this verse.

1. Look at

As you can see "generation" is a translation of the Greek word genea (I colour Greek words green). Sounds like a good translation since generation obviously derives from genea. But "generation" has different meanings and so might genea. We want to check which meaning is intended.

2. Look at
In English generation can mean a time period, a group of people, a stage of development, creation or procreation=begetting

3. If you click on genea in 1 you get the other occurences and it's pretty clear it refers to a particular set of people rather than a time period. This group certainly includes the people who were around in Jesus day. You can also click on the column at he right under the Strong's Number 1074 to get all the 43 related occurrences of the word

There is an exception to the people around at a particular time (or lifetime) meaning in Lk 16:8 which seems to refer to people of the world more generrally.

So the most common meaning is the people who live in a particular time period. There's no particular time period specified but 30-40 years seems likely. However, there is at least one possible exception (Lk 16:8).

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Christian Whining
« on: July 10, 2014, 02:56:46 PM »
Sorry searcherman I misconstrued your meaning. I'm in the UK. Are you in the USA because I don't see much that is a big deal.

Christmas and Easter holidays: JW Jem will tell you they're not Christian! But given that in a pretty secular country these holidays are popular inc. the Christian aspects. A local Anglican church to me runs a candle-lit nine lessons and carols service every year and it is always packed out unlike other services.

There are plenty of mosques in the UK (and places of worship of other religions) and I can't think of any incident of violence by the public against any mosque in the UK in my memory - certainly not inspired by Christians.

There are "churches" for atheists, Dawkins has had more then one TV series and speaks at many events

You can practice your religious customs without being questioned, mocked, or inhibited.
If you declare your religious faith in a secular setting you often do suffer these things - more so than for atheism/agnosticism/other faiths

If you are being tried in court, you can assume that the jury of “your peers” will share your faith and not hold that against you in weighing decisions.
Certainly not true and I fail to see the connection since juries are supposed to decide on the evidence (previous criminal records are not declared until after the verdict). If the court suspects they are biased the jury will be dismissed and a retrial arranged. The defence can call for this.

When swearing an oath, you will place your hand on a religious scripture pertaining to your faith.
Allowance is made for other faiths and no faith. Isn't that the case in the US as well?

Positive references to your faith are seen dozens a time a day by everyone, regardless of their faith.
You don't live in the UK then since the opposite is the case: more negative than positive.

Politicians responsible for your governance are probably members of your faith.
13.Politicians can make decisions citing your faith without being labeled as heretics or extremists.
Not true

It is easy for you to find your faith accurately depicted in television, movies, books, and other media
Q11 has shown this not to be true.

You can reasonably assume that anyone you encounter will have a decent understanding of your beliefs. ... Your faith is accepted/supported at your workplace.
18.You can go into any career you want without it being associated with or explained by your faith
Not true

You can travel to any part of the country and know your religion will be accepted, safe, and you will have access to religious spaces to practice your faith.
You might find this difficult in low population areas such as the Western Isles. I don't expect to find too many churches in Saudi Arabia.

Your faith can be an aspect of your identity without being a defining aspect (e.g., people won’t think of you as their “Christian” friend)
21.You can be polite, gentle, or peaceful, and not be considered an “exception” to those practicing your faith.
There are going to be people who contravene this as well some who don't.

Fundraising to support congregations of your faith will not be investigated as potentially threatening or terrorist behavior.
The police and security services are a bit more intelligent than this suggests and don't have the time to investigate every allegedly suspect religion. Some places of worship have harboured violent extremists.

Construction of spaces of worship will not likely be halted due to your faith
I know of no such incident and suspect it would be illegal

You can go anywhere and assume you will be surrounded by members of your faith.
27.Without special effort, your children will have a multitude of teachers who share your faith.
28.Without special effort, your children will have a multitude of friends who share your faith.
29.It is easily accessible for you or your children to be educated from kindergarten through post-grad at institutions of your faith.
30.Disclosing your faith to an adoption agency will not likely prevent you from being able to adopt children.
31.In the event of a divorce, the judge won’t immediately grant custody of your children to your ex because of your faith.
32.Your faith is taught or offered as a course at most public institutions
None of these are true. Church schools are in the minority and are hard to get into because they have better results and are popular with people of no faith.

To provide evidence for all this would take a long time - more time than I have currently. You will have to accept my honest impressions of life in the UK.

Some good books coming out of this thread. Thanks to the contributors

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Christian Whining
« on: July 10, 2014, 11:51:15 AM »

But aren't many of the things you listed basic human rights guaranteed by conventions like the ECHR. To imply they are bad could lead to a very unhealthy race to the bottom.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: The Jehovah's Witnesses' new tactic
« on: July 10, 2014, 11:45:24 AM »
We are very proud of our unity
This is a false unity since if anyone disagrees with Brooklyn diktat they are chucked out, shunned and labelled "obnoxious" (your word Jem not mine!).

Quote from: Jem
Jesus was Jewish and never once did he identify himself as God Almighty.
Argument from silence fallacy yet again Jem. I think you are clever enough to understand that this is a fallcy so you are simply burying your head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge it.

[quote ]He said we should worship God "alone". (Luke 4:8.) He was quoting Deuteronomy where the Tetragrammaton[/quote]
Jesus was responding to the devil who was tempting Jesus to worship the devil. As shown earlier YHWH=Father + Son + Holy Spirit e.g. Paul's use of the Shema in 1 Cor 8:6.

Jesus never claimed to be Jehovah,
The Apostle Paul equated identified Jesus with YHWH in 1 Cor 8:6

identified him as "the only true God" and separated himself from his own God. (John 17:3; John 20:17)
The three persons of the Trinity are distinct yet comprise the one God=YHWH.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: The Jehovah's Witnesses' new tactic
« on: July 10, 2014, 05:46:49 AM »
There are no payments
we are fully funded by our own brotherhood,
since by definition new recruits join the brotherhood

The small allowance they receive covers only meagre personal expenses.
Compare with

The average Jehovah's Witness often hears that Governing Body members get only about a hundred dollars a month and live in humble apartments at Bethel headquarters in Brooklyn.

In fact they also get:  to travel anywhere in the world they care to apply for and even do so numerous times in a year, vacation time, free meals not just at Bethel but when traveling, free dental work, free medical care, free laundry and maid clean-up service, and "Green Hand Shakes."

Green Hand Shakes are where someone such as a wealthy local Elder or someone else wanting to curry favor or wheedle "priveleges," shakes hands with a Watchtower official such as a Circuit Overseer, District Overseer or Governing Body member and while doing so passing to them a check or dollar bills.

Some Green Hand Shakes can be substantial.  According to researcher Barbara Anderson, decades ago a wealthy patron gave a check of over twenty thousand dollars to then Watchtower President Nathan Homer Knorr on a yearly basis.  For some reason, though, he only gave seventeen thousand dollar checks each year to later Watchtower President Frederick ("Freddie") Franz.  Other "patrons" and "supporters of the Kingdom" also gave. 

God has given his son authority over everything, but his has no authority over his Father. Once he has accomplished all that his role as Messiah entails, he will the subject himself to his God so that God may be all things to everyone.
The 3 persons of the Trinity have different roles and work together in perfect harmony. They do not compete to be the top dog. That's what sinful humans do.

God’s created Son and Servant, Jesus Christ properly addresses his Father and God (John 20:17) as “Lord” (ʼAdho·nai′ or Ky′ri·os), the One having superior power and authority, his Head. (Matt 11:25; 1Cor 11:3)
"Lord" only occurs in Mt 11:25 where it is in the phrase "Lord of heaven and earth" not Jesus' Lord. Jem you should check your deceptive JW literature more carefully before quoting it.


Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Off Topic: World Cup 2014
« on: July 09, 2014, 05:54:05 PM »
Argentina slightly better over 120 mins with better chances but the Dutch penalty order was odd. I'd always front up with the best i.e. Robben.

The conventional wisdom is that Germany will win. However, I don't think Argentina will collapse like Brazil but I think the efficient powerful Germans will win.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Off Topic: World Cup 2014
« on: July 09, 2014, 02:46:34 PM »
NETHERLANDS!!!!!!! Prediction: 4-2 Netherlands over Argentina. Messi is held in check, wile Robin and Robben both run wild.

What does SoyElqueSoy say?

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 273