Are Jehovah's witnesses real Christians?

[Ronald Nolette]

God has already judged--By the traditions of men you make the word of God invalid Mark 7:13)--Christmas= not biblical, thus worldly. Jesus cares little about lip service. He wants to obeyed. The bible says-Obeying is proof of ones love. Catholicism created christmas and added things off the table of demons to it, and easter as well. Neither is biblical.

Well ripping a VERSE OUT OF CONTEXT AND THE READON WHY jESUS RESPONDED DOES NOTHING TO ADD TO YOUR FAILED DEFENSE.

I have answered you biblically and Paul said it is okay to eat from teh shambles- that means eating meat sacrificed to idols! But take care for the weak faith brethren who still believe that demons have real power over a believer.

I encourage you to not have a Christmas tree. But don't sin by judging those who don't accpet teh demons and celebrate teh birth of the Lord with holiday trappings! And I sahowed you why from Gods Wor.

YOu rip that passage out of context.

It was a new law apart from the law god gave to Israel about money to parents.

Mark 7
King James Version

7 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.

2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

It has nothing to do with whether a tree in your home to celebrate a festive time for remembering Jesus birth is okay or not. But th ePharisees made a law that contradicted the Mosaic Law!

Please keep verses in context. I am not making a law about christmas trees! I am simply saying people are free to celebrate the Lord with them or not celebrate the Lord with them.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

....................................................
I wish you would do some actual research. The pronouns when standing alone are as I showed you. When they are part of a compound word, it's the last letter (to the far left) of the word which gives the intended pronoun, Pronomial Suffixes for Singular Nouns (hebrew4christians.com).

So your answer to all those trinitarian scholars who did not capitalize the English word "his" is simply "Capitalization is arbitrary." Of course it is! You cannot be seriously ignoring the point that so many trinitarian scholars disagree with you by means of their not capitalizing the word in translation.

And if you did put some effort into your "study" you would find that the antecedent is not always the last noun in agreement.
Watch Your Antecedents! (faithweb.com)

How about doing some real research into my study of John 1:1c

....................................................
I wish you would do some actual research. The pronouns when standing alone are as I showed you. When they are part of a compound word, it's the last letter (to the far left) of the word which gives the intended pronoun, Pronomial Suffixes for Singular Nouns (hebrew4christians.com).

So your answer to all those trinitarian scholars who did not capitalize the English word "his" is simply "Capitalization is arbitrary." Of course it is! You cannot be seriously ignoring the point that so many trinitarian scholars disagree with you by means of their not capitalizing the word in translation.

And if you did put some effort into your "study" you would find that the antecedent is not always the last noun in agreement.
Watch Your Antecedents! (faithweb.com)

How about doing some real research into my study of John 1:1c

I do actual research- though you will never see that! So I just move on!

Teh construct once again when a personal pronoun appears has to match its nearest antecedant .

Isaiah 44:6 Hebrew Text Analysis (biblehub.com)

As redeemer is in msc, we have to go back and find the next msc noun and that is the one it refers to!

And in this passage it is not Israel, and nor Yahweh directly, but teh noun King! And as King is a modifying noun for Yahweh- the his in redeemer refers to Yahweh!

So Yahweh of hosts is Yahweh the Kings redeemer of Israel! Now go see a Jewish rabbi who speaks and write Hebrew and find out for yourself. I did!

 

[Webers_Home]

.
This thread has become so bloated that I'm not sure it's worthwhile posting
here anymore. Oh well; what the hay.

Continued From No.530

So-called Replacement Theology is just another name for identity theft. Take
for example the Watchtower Society's interpretation of Rev 7:1-8 wherein is
listed a specific number of Hebrews taken from every tribe of the sons of
Israel.

The Society claims that those aren't biological sons of Israel; but rather
"spiritual" sons-- referring of course to the Society's elite cadre of 144,000
Witnesses who have supposedly undergone a spirit birth per Christ's
instructions at John 3:3-12; and the anointing as per 1John 2:26-27.

The Society's claim is premised upon its observation that there never was a
tribe of Joseph; when in reality Joseph is listed as both a son and a tribe
(Gen 49:2-28 and Ezek 48:31-34). So that portion of the Society's reasoning
is clearly a false premise.

The Society's claim is also premised upon its observation that Ephraim and
Dan are missing from the list of tribes at Rev 7:4-8. However, what the
Society's theologians have somehow overlooked in the Old Testament is that
it doesn't matter whose names are chosen to represent the twelve tribes of
Israel just so long as there are twelve names. Are there twelve in Rev 7:4-
-8? Yes. Well then that's good enough. I realize that makes no sense but
then the Lord's apostles were still referred to as "the twelve" even with
Judas out of the picture. So that premise in the Society's reasoning is
spurious too.

The Society's claim is also premised upon its reasoning that Levi isn't a valid
tribe based upon the fact that the Levites are exempt from warfare.
However, Levi is clearly listed as both a son and a tribe (Gen 49:2-28 plus
Ezek 48:31-34) which is a good many years after Num 1:1-54. So that
premise is bogus too.

The Watchtower Society not wanting the 144,000 to be biological Hebrews is
one thing; but I would just like to know from whence Charles T. Russell's
and Joseph F. Rutherford's followers got the idea that their people constitute
the 144,000. That's a pretty serious claim. How do they validate it? I don't
know; but I can just about guarantee that their explanation is an outlandish
stretch of the imagination consisting of humanistic reasoning, rationalizing,
spiritualizing, clever sophistry, and semantic double-speak.

NOTE: According to Rev 14:1-4, the 144,000 are supposed to all be males,
and none have ever slept with a woman. That, if true, would of course
disqualify married JWs and all the females among them too.
_

 

[Wrangler]

This thread has become so bloated that I'm not sure it's worthwhile posting
here anymore. Oh well; what the hay.

Continued From No.530

So-called Replacement Theology is just another name for identity theft. Take
for example the Watchtower Society's interpretation of Rev 7:1-8 wherein is
listed a specific number of Hebrews taken from every tribe of the sons of
Israel.

I really don't know what the purpose is of such posts. I thought the question was Are Jehovah's witnesses real Christians? The question is not, "do you agree with JW doctrine."

I suspect we all agree on some doctrines. And I take it as a given that only those of a certain denomination ***might*** fully agree with all of that denominations doctrines. There is no benefit of focusing on other denominations doctrines one does not agree with, is there?

 

[ScottA]

Yes sir, Jesus even had a hand in it's creation. Were you aware that Jesus was the beginning of the creation of God, His first and only creation done solely by Him alone? Of course when He created His firstborn, nothing else existed. It is impossible for us to understand, but God always existed. I am not sure if we will ever understand that.

We can and will understand, for it is promised.

And if you can receive it, that creation that you have referred to--it was manifest by image as a revelation of all things, as the story--in story form, of the only begotten Son of whom we are a part. Which is not to say, nor should it be believed, that the Son was created--for it was and is only an image of what is. That is, what was and is revealed did not come to be, but was--making the Son who is revealed born of God only as a manner of speaking, but rather born unto Himself, that is from God to God, that God Himself "should not be alone."

 

[Wrangler]

making the Son who is revealed born of God only as a manner of speaking

LANGUAGE USAGE. Not your friend. A requirement to be a son is to be born from one’s father.

Otherwise, you are using words but making up your own definitions - that CONTRADICT actual word meanings.

 

[ScottA]

Was Adam God Scott? Remember Jesus was a corresponding ransom, equal to Adam. Jesus has never been equal to God even in the heavens sir.

This I have just explained in another post:

What you are referring to was and is a mere image, the story of the only begotten Son in story form, for the purpose of revelation to all of us who are a part. Which is not to say, nor should it be believed, that the Son was created--for it was and is only an image of what is. That is, what was and is revealed did not come to be, but was--making the Son who is revealed born of God only as a manner of speaking, but rather born unto Himself, that is from God to God, that God Himself "should not be alone."​

 

[ScottA]

Jesus said he has a God - who we relate to as father - who is the only true God. What does this ‘point to?’

It points to God's plan for salvation, that one should die for the sins of all. Which to qualify meant God sending out of Himself what is best described to children with the mind of children, as a Son of God which was a Son of Man. And from there most children loose track of what was conceived by the higher thoughts of God. And what good is it if I say to those same child-minded children the same thing that God has already said, that those created were created as a mere image of what is--rather than what actually is. Thus, many say, "See, the image cannot be God for he refers to God as God!" not realizing that a walking talking image of God who came from God, would indeed point back to Himself...for that was His purpose all along.

So, if you want to be right about the image of God not being God--be right. That is right--no picture of anyone is actually them. Hooray! But if that is all the further you have gotten...you have only just begun to see the whole picture of "all truth."

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus said he has a God - who we relate to as father - who is the only true God. What does this ‘point to?’

It points to God's plan for salvation

What a pivot! I didn't see that coming. We were talking about the man-is-god thesis and all of a sudden we aren't.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

There is no benefit of focusing on other denominations doctrines one does not agree
with, is there?

On numerous occasions, Jesus utilized his opponents' errors as teaching
aids.

Christian internet forums are much more than social media platforms.
They're also mission fields. Take for example this thread. In less than a
month's time, it has drawn 5000+ views. Some of those views are by the
handful of folk contributing posts; but no doubt the overwhelming majority
of those views are by non contributors, viz: looky-loos. The worldwide web
is watching.
_

 

[ScottA]

What a pivot! I didn't see that coming. We were talking about the man-is-god thesis and all of a sudden we aren't.

Actually I was explaining the man-is god thesis which you apparently do not believe...which as I have explained, is because you indeed thought we were talking about something else and didn't see the bigger picture. But no worries, that is what we're here for.

 

[ScottA]

LANGUAGE USAGE. Not your friend. A requirement to be a son is to be born from one’s father.

Otherwise, you are using words but making up your own definitions - that CONTRADICT actual word meanings.

The words are not literary but are spirit and must be spiritually discerned. Just try to follow along.

 

[Wrangler]

The words are not literary but are spirit and must be spiritually discerned. Just try to follow along.

How repugnant! Request declined.

I reject the claim that mystics have authority over word meanings and language usage.

With you, it is always the same; you’re always telling me we are talking about something else. Every conversation is tangential, ‘pointing’ to something else.

 

[ScottA]

How repugnant! Request declined.

I reject the claim that mystics have authority over word meanings and language usage.

With you, it is always the same; you’re always telling me we are talking about something else. Every conversation is tangential, ‘pointing’ to something else.

And still you do not see...that for me to have spoken to you in parables, is not what you have thought. You should have perceived it.

 

[Wrangler]

And still you do not see...that for me to have spoken to you in parables, is not what you have thought. You should have perceived it.

I see and reject the mystical BS; only those with spiritual discernment see the truth of things my way. What sublime Circular Reasoning AS IF God is only capable of riddles, the Supreme Being who wrote the ultimate book of explicitness; thou shall not written in stone! 4th century mystical dualists come along and all a sudden, 1 is 3, dead is alive, son mean not begotten and if you don't agree, you aren't spiritually discerning. Yea, right!

 

[Keiw]

Well ripping a VERSE OUT OF CONTEXT AND THE READON WHY jESUS RESPONDED DOES NOTHING TO ADD TO YOUR FAILED DEFENSE.

I have answered you biblically and Paul said it is okay to eat from teh shambles- that means eating meat sacrificed to idols! But take care for the weak faith brethren who still believe that demons have real power over a believer.

I encourage you to not have a Christmas tree. But don't sin by judging those who don't accpet teh demons and celebrate teh birth of the Lord with holiday trappings! And I sahowed you why from Gods Wor.

YOu rip that passage out of context.

It was a new law apart from the law god gave to Israel about money to parents.

Mark 7
King James Version

7 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.

2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

It has nothing to do with whether a tree in your home to celebrate a festive time for remembering Jesus birth is okay or not. But th ePharisees made a law that contradicted the Mosaic Law!

Please keep verses in context. I am not making a law about christmas trees! I am simply saying people are free to celebrate the Lord with them or not celebrate the Lord with them.

Paul said this-1 Cor 10:21--he would not contradict himself, thus you are twisting the other things he said. Nothing off the table of demons is ok. Or what God was saying is that if one does partake off that table, what they do off his table counts 0 for them. Satan misleads the majority that way--From generation to generation, from parent to child, the traditions of men loaded with stuff off the table of demons has them beat.

 

[ScottA]

I see and reject the mystical BS; only those with spiritual discernment see the truth of things my way. What sublime Circular Reasoning AS IF God is only capable of riddles, the Supreme Being who wrote the ultimate book of explicitness; thou shall not written in stone! 4th century mystical dualists come along and all a sudden, 1 is 3, dead is alive, son mean not begotten and if you don't agree, you aren't spiritually discerning. Yea, right!

That is quite a confession. Quite telling--finally.

 

[Robert Gwin]

We can and will understand, for it is promised.

And if you can receive it, that creation that you have referred to--it was manifest by image as a revelation of all things, as the story--in story form, of the only begotten Son of whom we are a part. Which is not to say, nor should it be believed, that the Son was created--for it was and is only an image of what is. That is, what was and is revealed did not come to be, but was--making the Son who is revealed born of God only as a manner of speaking, but rather born unto Himself, that is from God to God, that God Himself "should not be alone."

And of course He is not alone. Speculative thinking would reveal that God was complete, needing nothing. We believe it was not that He was concerned with being alone, rather He created out of love, wanting other conscious beings to enjoy life. Creation of course had to start somewhere, and we believe Jn 1:1's beginning was referring to the start of creation sir.

 

[Robert Gwin]

This I have just explained in another post:

What you are referring to was and is a mere image, the story of the only begotten Son in story form, for the purpose of revelation to all of us who are a part. Which is not to say, nor should it be believed, that the Son was created--for it was and is only an image of what is. That is, what was and is revealed did not come to be, but was--making the Son who is revealed born of God only as a manner of speaking, but rather born unto Himself, that is from God to God, that God Himself "should not be alone."​

Yes sir you did, so no sense in me commenting on it here.

 

[BarneyFife]

only those with spiritual discernment see the truth of things my way.

.
.
Dude, you said that out loud.
.
.