A Question for Jehovah's Witnesses

[Aunty Jane]

if we want a firm grasp of WHO GOD IS , read the scrips
and learn JESUS THE CHRIST .

I have for over 50 years…..and continue to do so. All my beliefs are based on Scripture alone…all of it.

He who believes ON ME , believes not on me BUT ON HE WHO SENT ME .
Anyone here wanna try and explain WHY JESUS has just become another prophet amongst
many other prophets like satans right hand man muhammed or budda or any other false religoin .

Exactly….Jesus said that he taught only what the Father taught him…he never spoke of his own originality.
John 7:14-18…
”When the festival was half over, Jesus went up into the temple and began teaching. 15 And the Jews were astonished, saying: “How does this man have such a knowledge of the Scriptures when he has not studied at the schools?” 16 Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him who sent me. 17 If anyone desires to do His will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or I speak of my own originality. 18 Whoever speaks of his own originality is seeking his own glory; but whoever seeks the glory of the one who sent him, this one is true and there is no unrighteousness in him.”

Jesus also identified his Father as “the only true God” without including himself in that description. He said he was the one whom God had “sent”….his “holy servant, Jesus”. (John 17:3; Acts 4:27, 30)
Jesus is the “son of God”…the only declaration he ever made about who he was. (John 10:31-36)

But he is also a prophet as it is plainly stated in Deut 18:15…
”Moses told the nation of Israel: “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your own people, like myself; him you shall heed.”
The apostle Peter applied this prophecy to Jesus Christ when he stated….
“Moses indeed said—A prophet unto you shall the Lord God raise up among your brethren like unto me: Unto him shall ye hearken respecting all things whatsoever he shall speak unto you
23 And it shall be—Every soul whatsoever which shall not hearken unto that prophet Shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.” (Acts 3:22) In fact, Jesus himself had stated: “If you believed Moses you would believe me, for that one wrote about me.” (John 5:46)

WHY the heck are so many falling for a false love that has come to unify the lost to be as ONE .
THROUGHOUT all ages many have splintered off and away and now in the last hour
a love of satan has come to UNIFY THEM TO NOW RISE AS ONE
under what all religoins believe to be GOD and LOVE . when really ITS THE DEVIL and a very strong delusion
I would love to talk about that my friend . really i would .

I hear you.....and I agree that it only sounds good on the surface of it…..but it is a false unity based on a misguided tolerance, not genuine love.
I once heard a famous black woman say that tolerance was what American society had adopted (albeit under sufferance by many) with regard to its African American population….she said ‘I don’t want people to tolerate me, but I want them to accept me as a fellow human being…..an equal under God’.….and she was right….racial hatred is taught…it is not inborn.

Skin color, educational standards, social standing, fame, wealth and position are all worldly standards of the things that divide humanity. (1 John 2:15-17) These are concepts that are also taught….but Christians do not have those impediments because Jesus taught us how to rid ourselves of those satanic traits. We don’t care what the world thinks, or what it’s standards (or lack of them) are….we care only about what God thinks….and we will stand up for his standards.

Jesus did not tolerate the beliefs and practices of the apostate religious leaders of Judaism, but exposed them as the hypocritical frauds that they were….they hated him for it, and like their predecessors, they wanted to silence any criticism of themselves by the prophets whom God sent to correct them…..stoning many to death…..we have Jesus’ confirmation for that….(Matt 23:37-39)

So any efforts on the part of worldly powers, be they religious or political, will be in accord with their “one world government”…promising freedom and love…..but slapping on chains that most people would never imagine were planned to be implemented…giving “slavery” a whole new meaning.
The devil and his agents will go down, as the Bible says that they will….but who will they take down with them? Sadly the majority are travelling the wrong road….as Jesus said….

”Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it.”

The superhighway to death has the ”many“ blissfully ignorant, speeding along this dead end path, unaware that they have been led into a trap that has no escape. Only the enlightened “few” will have chosen to be ill treated like Jesus and his apostles were, (John 15:18-21) waiting patiently for their salvation out of world calamity.…the greatest tribulation in world history that is looming…(Matt 24:21) By our faith and endurance, we will be saved. (Matt 24:13) Truth can never be sacrificed for expediency.

 

[The Learner]

Well, it's just as I said. Trinitarians don't hold a monopoly on their belief in the deity of Jesus. There is Oneness theology, there is Binitarianism, there is Modalism, there is Social Trinitarianism, and there are probably miscellaneous flavors of all of those and other theologies/schools of thought about Jesus' perceived deity.

The Bible also doesn't really say Jesus is God. There are the Jews (Jesus included) who don't believe that and they predate the Trinitarians by millenia. There were Jewish converts, the Ebionites, and Arians who were also non-Trinitarians in the early church.

none before arius that I know of.

 

[Jack]

You missed this, Megillah 9a.12:
And they wrote for him: God created in the beginning [bereshit], reversing the order of the words in the first phrase in the Torah that could be misinterpreted as: “Bereshit created God” (Genesis 1:1). They did so to negate those who believe in the preexistence of the world and those who maintain that there are two powers in the world: One is Bereshit, who created the second, God. And they wrote: I shall make man in image and in likeness, rather than: “Let us make man in our image and in our likeness” (Genesis 1:26), as from there too one could mistakenly conclude that there are multiple powers and that God has human form.

All of our English Bibles declare that Jesus is God!

Edit: We are not supposed to talk about this, by the way.

Father and Son are not the Trinity.

 

[The Learner]

You missed this, Megillah 9a.12:
And they wrote for him: God created in the beginning [bereshit], reversing the order of the words in the first phrase in the Torah that could be misinterpreted as: “Bereshit created God” (Genesis 1:1). They did so to negate those who believe in the preexistence of the world and those who maintain that there are two powers in the world: One is Bereshit, who created the second, God. And they wrote: I shall make man in image and in likeness, rather than: “Let us make man in our image and in our likeness” (Genesis 1:26), as from there too one could mistakenly conclude that there are multiple powers and that God has human form.

Edit: We are not supposed to talk about this, by the way.

The mishna stated: Torah scrolls are written in any language. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: A Torah scroll containing a Hebrew verse in the Bible that one wrote in Aramaic translation, or a verse written in Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible, or that was written in the ancient Hebrew script and not in Ashurit, renders the hands impure only if one writes it in Ashurit script, on a parchment scroll, and in ink. Apparently, contrary to the mishna, a scroll written in a language other than Hebrew is not sacred.


אָמַר רָבָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא
Rava said: This is not difficult.

9a

כָּאן בְּגּוֹפָן שֶׁלָּנוּ, כָּאן בְּגּוֹפָן שֶׁלָּהֶן.
Here, the mishna is referring to Torah scrolls written in another language in our script, i.e., in Hebrew letters. There, the baraita is referring to Torah scrolls written in another language in their script, in the letters of another alphabet.


אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתָּא לְהַהִיא? בְּגּוֹפָן שֶׁלָּהֶן, מַאי אִירְיָא מִקְרָא שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ תַּרְגּוּם וְתַרְגּוּם שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ מִקְרָא? אֲפִילּוּ מִקְרָא שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ מִקְרָא וְתַרְגּוּם שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ תַּרְגּוּם נָמֵי. דְּהָא קָתָנֵי: עַד שֶׁיִּכְתְּבֶנּוּ אַשּׁוּרִית עַל הַסֵּפֶר בִּדְיוֹ!
Abaye said to Rava: How did you establish that baraita, i.e., that it is referring to Torah scrolls written in another language in their script? If it is so, why did the baraita specifically teach that the legal status of a Hebrew verse in the Bible that one wrote in Aramaic translation, or a verse written in Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible, is not that of sacred writings? The legal status of even a Hebrew verse in the Bible that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible and a verse written in Aramaic translation that one wrote in Aramaic translation are also not that of sacred writings, as it is taught at the end of the baraita: A Torah scroll renders the hands impure only if one writes it in Ashurit script, on a parchment scroll, and in ink.


אֶלָּא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבָּנַן, הָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.
Rather, the matter must be explained differently. This is not difficult. This ruling in the mishna is according to the Rabbis, who permit writing Torah scrolls in any language, and that ruling in the baraita is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.


אִי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הָא אִיכָּא יְוָנִית! אֶלָּא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בִּסְפָרִים, כָּאן בִּתְפִלִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת.
The Gemara asks: If the baraita is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, in addition to Ashurit, isn’t there Greek in which the Torah may also be written? Rather, say this is not difficult. Here, the mishna is referring to Torah scrolls, which may be written in any language; there, the baraita is referring to phylacteries and mezuzot, which may be written only in Hebrew, using Hebrew script.


תְּפִלִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת מַאי טַעְמָא? מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ: ״וְהָיוּ״ — בַּהֲוָיָיתָן יְהוּ, מַאי תַּרְגּוּם שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ מִקְרָא אִיכָּא? בִּשְׁלָמָא תּוֹרָה — אִיכָּא ״יְגַר שָׂהֲדוּתָא״, אֶלָּא הָכָא מַאי תַּרְגּוּם אִיכָּא?
The Gemara asks: With regard to phylacteries and mezuzot, what is the reason that they must be written in Hebrew? The Gemara explains: It is because it is written with regard to them: “And these words shall be” (Deuteronomy 6:6), indicating that as they are so shall they be, without change. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If the baraita is referring to phylacteries and mezuzot, what Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible is there? Granted, in the Torah there is a verse written in Aramaic translation: “Yegar sahaduta” (Genesis 31:47); however, here, in phylacteries and mezuzot, what verses in Aramaic translation are there that could be written in Hebrew?


אֶלָּא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בִּמְגִילָּה, כָּאן בִּסְפָרִים. מְגִילָּה מַאי טַעְמָא, דִּכְתִיב בַּהּ: ״כִּכְתָבָם וְכִלְשׁוֹנָם״. מַאי תַּרְגּוּם שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ מִקְרָא אִיכָּא?
Rather, say this is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to the Megilla, the Scroll of Esther, which must be written in Hebrew; there, the mishna is referring to Torah scrolls, which may be written in any language. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Megilla must be written in Hebrew? It is due to the fact that it is written with regard to the Megilla: “According to their writing, and according to their language” (Esther 8:9), without change. The Gemara asks: But if the baraita is referring to the Megilla, what Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible is there? The entire Megilla is written in Hebrew.

Megillah 8b:14

Abaye said to him: However, if that is so, then also with regard to the verse: “All the days during which the plague shall be in him [bo] he shall be impure”...

www.sefaria.org

 

[Aunty Jane]

Are we marshaling scholars on both sides of this question now? Cool! Can I play? John 1:1 and the New World Translation - Christian Research Institute

Well that just made me smile…..anyone who has access to a Greek Interlinear can see clearly what the problem is…..
John 1:1 simply says….”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (ho theos) and the Word was god.“ (theos)
Remembering that the Greek has no capital letters we can see how easy it is to suggest something the verse does not say. God is mentioned only once in this verse (ho theos) Jesus is never identified by this designation in any passage of scripture…..he is though rightly called “theos” without the definite article.

Strongs primary definition of “theos“ is……

1. “a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities”

It also gives these as definitions….

1. “spoken of the only and true God
   
   1. refers to the things of God
   2. his counsels, interests, things due to him
2. whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
   
   1. God's representative or viceregent
      
      1. of magistrates and judges”

And yet, out of all those definitions of “theos”, they chose the trinitarian view to suggest something the Bible does not teach in a single verse. (Read also John 10:31-36 in the Greek and see where the definite article is clearly seen.…Jesus calls himself the son of “ho theos”.)

Was God with God? Or was God with his Logos?…..his spokesman? “One who speaks God’s words”.
Verse 14 says that it was “ho Logos” who became flesh, not “ho theos”.

If God’s name had still been in use, this verse could never have suggested what Christendom’s scholars want it to say.
It would have said….”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Yahweh and the Word was divine.” And that would still have been an accurate translation, according to Strongs Concordance, in keeping with what is written in the original Greek.

I find these scholars’ interpretation to be what Jesus said….”the blind leading the blind”….so who causes this “blindness”? No guessing required….
2 Cor 4:3-4…
“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: 4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.” (ASV)

 

[Wrangler]

none before arius that I know of.

All of the New Testament writers were before Arius and affirmed Arius. If I say the man in question, Bob, is the brother of Harry, that implies he (the man in question) is NOT Harry right?

 

[The Learner]

Megillah 9 - Daf Yomi with Rabbi Rosner - OU Torah

Megillah 9

outorah.org

Talmud (Oral Torah) - Megillah 9a - Megillah 9b

www.torah-box.net

https://www.chabad.org/dailystudy/talmud_cdo/aid/5345560/jewish/Talmud-Megillah-9.htm

Talmud (Oral Torah) - Megillah 9a - Megillah 9b

www.torah-box.net

https://www.chabad.org/multimedia/video_cdo/aid/3569787/jewish/An-Epic-Miscalculation.htm

https://www.chabad.org/multimedia/video_cdo/aid/3569787/jewish/An-Epic-Miscalculation.htm

Megillah 9 | My Jewish Learning

In a mishnah at the bottom of yesterday’s daf, we learned that a Torah scroll can be written in any ...

www.myjewishlearning.com

 

[Jack]

Strongs primary definition of “theos“ is……

1. “a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities”

Should we believe the Governing Body puppets or Thomas who Jesus taught personally?

John 20 Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God"!

 

[The Learner]

Talmud is not a vaild source of Christian Doctrines:

Jesus in the Talmud

The Jesus Narrative In The Talmud

There are four main passages in the Talmud that are alleged by some to discuss the story of Jesus' life and death. Let's find out more in this post.

jewsforjudaism.org

Jesus in the Talmud - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Talmud's contradiction about Jesus

To this day, when the rabbis are asked about Jesus they always refer to the same story. What does the talmud say about Jesus?

www.oneforisrael.org

The Jesus Narrative In The Talmud

There are four main passages in the Talmud that are alleged by some to discuss the story of Jesus' life and death. Let's find out more in this post.

jewsforjudaism.org

google Talmud Jesus

 

[The Learner]

Howabout we assume the Talmud is correct about the LXX. Does this imply the apostles believed otherwise?

What exactly does the talmud say about Jesus?

 

[The Learner]

What exactly does the talmud say about Jesus?

Onkelos said to him: What is the punishment of that man, a euphemism for Jesus himself, in the next world? Jesus said to him: He is punished with boiling excrement. As the Master said: Anyone who mocks the words of the Sages will be sentenced to boiling excrement.

Gittin 57a:4

Onkelos said to him: What is the punishment of that man, a euphemism for Jesus himself, in the next world? Jesus said to him: He is punished with boiling...

www.sefaria.org

 

[The Learner]

What exactly does the talmud say about Jesus?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27900232.pdf

Jesus in the Talmud

Does the Talmud Teach That Jesus is Burning in Hell? - The Stream

Before we condemn the Talmud for its hateful, blasphemous statements about Jesus, let’s understand how our beliefs can sound to others.

stream.org

Jesus in the Talmud

T he Jesus passages in the rabbinic literature, most prominently in the Babylonian Talmud, reveal a colorful kaleidoscope of many fragments—often dismissed as figments—of Jesus' life, teachings, and not least his death. They are not told as an

www.academia.edu

Jesus in the Talmud

Scattered throughout the Talmud, the founding document …

www.goodreads.com

 

[The Learner]

other problems of Talmud

Talmud Permits Child-Adult Sex​

Talmud law permits sexual intercourse between children and adults. This doctrine is contained in a number of Mishnahs. Before we examine them, however, it is necessary that the reader be familiar with the word kethubah.

According to the Soncino Talmud Glossary:

KETHUBAH (Lit., 'a written [document]'); (a) a wife's marriage settlement which she is entitled to recover on her being divorced or on the death of her husband. The minimum settlement for a virgin is two hundred zuz, and for a widow remarrying one hundred zuz; (b) the marriage contract specifying the mutual obligations between husband and wife and containing the amount of the endowment and any other special financial obligations assumed by the husband.

— Babylonian Talmud, Soncino Talmud Glossary

Zuz is a unit of currency. We see, then, that a dollar (or zuz) value is put on virginity.

Now let's look at a Mishnah from Kethuboth 11a:

MISHNAH. WHEN A GROWN-UP MAN (7) HAS HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH (8) A LITTLE GIRL, (9) OR WHEN A SMALL BOY (10) HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A GROWN-UP WOMAN, OR [WHEN A GIRL WAS ACCIDENTALLY] INJURED BY A PIECE OF WOOD (11) — [IN ALL THESE CASES] THEIR KETHUBAH IS TWO HUNDRED [ZUZ] …

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 11a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 57

The translator, Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches, amplifies the text with footnotes:

1. A man who was of age.
2. Lit., 'who came on'.
3. Less than three years old.
4. Less than nine years of age.
5. Lit., 'One who was injured by wood', as a result of which she injured the hymen.

— Rabbi Dr. Daiches

Let's review the above-cited Mishnah: "When a grown-up man has had sexual intercourse with a little girl, or when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman …" It is obvious that sex activity between a grown man and a little girl, and between a grown woman and a little boy, is a part of the woof and the warp of everyday Talmud life; such relationships, in the eyes of the Sages, are unremarkable. There is no prohibition on sexual activity between adults and young children — it is simply regulated. Recall the words of the Very Reverend the Chief Rabbi of the British Empire the late Dr. Joseph Herman Hertz:

GEMARA. Rab Judah said that Rab said: A small boy who has intercourse with a grown-up woman makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood. (1) When I said it before Samuel he said: 'Injured by a piece of wood' does not apply to (2) flesh. Some teach this teaching by itself: (3) [As to] a small boy who has intercourse with a grown-up woman, Rab said, he makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood; whereas Samuel said: 'Injured by a piece of wood' does not apply to flesh. R. Oshaia objected: WHEN A GROWN-UP MAN HAS HAD INTERCOURSE WITH A LITTLE GIRL, OR WHEN A SMALL BOY HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A GROWN-UP WOMAN, OR WHEN A GIRL WAS ACCIDENTALLY INJURED BY A PIECE OF WOOD — [IN ALL THESE CASES] THEIR KETHUBAH IS TWO HUNDRED [ZUZ]; SO ACCORDING TO R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES SAY: A GIRL WHO WAS INJURED ACCIDENTALLY BY A PIECE OF WOOD — HER KETHUBAH IS A MANEH! (4) Raba said, It means (5) this: When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this, (6) it is as if one puts the finger into the eye; (7) but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman he makes her as 'a girl who is injured by a piece of wood,' and [with regard to the case of] 'a girl injured by a piece of wood,' itself, there is the difference of opinion between R. Meir and the Sages.

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 11b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 57-58

Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches amplifies the text with footnotes (page 58):

1. Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood.
2. Lit., 'is not in'.
3. I.e., the difference of opinion between Rab and Samuel with regard to that question was recorded without any reference to R. Judah.
4. The Sages differ only with regard to a girl injured by a piece of wood, but not with regard to a small boy who has intercourse with a grown-up woman. This shows that the latter case cannot be compared with the former case. The Mishnah would consequently be against Rab and for Samuel.
5. Lit., 'says'.
6. Lit., 'here', that is, less than three years old.
7. I.e., tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years. Cf. Nid. 45a.

— Rabbi Dr. Daiches

 

[The Learner]

MISHNAH. A WOMAN PROSELYTE, A WOMAN CAPTIVE, AND A WOMAN SLAVE, WHO HAVE BEEN REDEEMED, CONVERTED, OR FREED [WHEN THEY WERE] LESS THAN THREE YEARS AND ONE DAY OLD — THEIR KETHUBAH IS TWO HUNDRED [ZUZ]. AND THERE IS WITH REGARD TO THEM THE CLAIM OF [NON-]VIRGINITY. (17)

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 11a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 54

1. If they had sexual intercourse before they were three years and one day old the hymen would grow again, and they would be virgins. V. 9a and 11b and cf. Nid. 44b and 45a.

GEMARA. … Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that. (2) What is the basis of their dispute? — Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt [upon the active offender]; whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty [in that respect]. (3) But Samuel maintains: Scripture writes, [And thou shalt not lie with mankind] as with the lyings of a woman. (4)

It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; [55a] [he] who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally; or a woman who causes herself to be bestially abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment. (5)

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 54b - 55a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 371

 

[The Learner]

The translator, Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman, amplifies the text with footnotes. Note particularly footnote 2: "… but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred." See also the final sentence of footnote 5: "… nine years (and a day) is the minimum age of the passive partner for the adult to be liable." (See Soncino Talmud Glossary for definition of Baraitha.)

1. I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.
2. At nine years a male attains sexual matureness.
3. Lev. XVIII, 22. Thus the point of comparison is the sexual matureness of woman, which is reached at the age of three.
4. (Rashi reads [H] instead of the [H] in our printed texts. A male, aged nine years and a day who commits etc.] There are thus three distinct clauses in this Baraitha. The first — a male aged nine years and a day — refers to the passive subject of pederasty, the punishment being incurred by the adult offender. This must be its meaning — because firstly, the active offender is never explicitly designated as a male, it being understood, just as the Bible states, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, where only the sex of the passive participant is mentioned; and secondly, if the age reference is to the active party, the guilt being incurred by the passive adult party, why single out pederasty: in all crimes of incest, the passive adult does not incur guilt unless the other party is at least nine years and a day? Hence the Baraitha supports Rab's contention that nine years (and a day) is the minimum age of the passive partner for the adult to be liable.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Should we believe the Governing Body puppets or Thomas who Jesus taught personally?

John 20 Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God"!

Where is the face palm when you need it…?

Was Thomas completely out of sync with the rest of the apostles in his belief about who Jesus was?
Please refer to post #1825 above as to the definition of “theos”…..Thomas was not calling Jesus Yahweh.

What did the apostles say as a collective?
1 Cor 8:5-6…
”For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; AND there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.”

If the apostles proclaimed Yahweh (the Father) to be the their “one God” AND Jesus Christ to be their “Lord”, what do you think they knew about God and Christ, that Thomas didn’t?

You are like a broken record….try doing some actual Bible study for yourself instead of parroting other people.….you might learn something….I can only hope.

 

[The Learner]

GEMARA. … Our Rabbis taught: If a woman sported lewdly with her young son [a minor], and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her, — Beth Shammai say, he thereby renders her unfit to the priesthood. Beth Hillel declare her fit. R. Hiyya the son of Rabbah b. Nahmani said in R. Hisda's name; others state, R. Hisda said in Ze'iri's name: All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not: (2) their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old, Beth Shammai maintaining, We must base our ruling on the earlier generations, but (3) Beth Hillel hold that we do not.
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 69b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 470

 

[Jack]

Thomas was not calling Jesus Yahweh.

Pay close attention Aunty. Thomas called Jesus "My Lord and my God"! Even your JW bible says so. You're not a Bible language expert no matter what the Governing Body told you. All of our English Bibles say you're WRONG!

 

[The Learner]

GEMARA. … It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, (2) for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, (3) and Phinehas (4) surely was with them. And the Rabbis? (5) — [These were kept alive] as bondmen and bondwomen. (6) If so, (7) a proselyte whose age is three years and one day (8) should also be permitted! — [The prohibition is to be explained] in accordance with R. Huna. For R. Huna pointed out a contradiction: It is written, Kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him, (9) but if she hath not known, save her alive; from this it may be inferred that children are to be kept alive whether they have known or have not known [a man]; and, on the other hand, it is also written, But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, (3) but do not spare them if they have known. Consequently (10) it must be said that Scripture speaks of one who is fit (11) for cohabitation. (12)

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth 60b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 402

GEMARA. … From what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission? From the age of nine years and one day, [37a] for inasmuch as he is then capable of the sexual act he likewise defiles by emission. Rabina said: It is therefore to be concluded that a heathen girl [communicates defilement] from the age of three years and one day, for inasmuch as she is then capable of the sexual act she likewise defiles by a flux. This is obvious! — You might argue that he is at an age when he knows to persuade [a female] but she is not at an age when she knows to persuade [a male, and consequently although she is technically capable of the sexual act, she does not cause defilement until she is nine years and one day old]. Hence he informs us [that she communicates defilement at the earlier age].

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Abodah Zarah 36b-37a
Soncino 1961 Edition, pages 178-179

 

[The Learner]

Babylonian Talmud: Kethuboth 11

Talmud Online, zipped for download, searchable: Tohoroth, Niddah, Nazir, Horayoth, Sanhedrin, Sotah, Yebamoth, Shabbath, Kethuboth, Gittin, Berakoth, Baba Mezi'a, Baba Kamma, Baba Bathra, Nedarim, Abodah Zara

come-and-hear.com