Christians worship Christ; JW's do not!

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Exactly. All you have to do is accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and strive live by His teachings with the word and action.

And Jesus is the Judge of our salvation.

Many Christians don't like Jesus' hard to follow teachings because we have to abandon our worldly way of living to follow Him.

So they make up complicated doctrines to negate Jesus' simple and clear teachings.

I can see why your 'Rep Power' is at an AMAZING 0. Too bad it's not less than that.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Yes, arguments over semantics is at the very core of the debate over the Trinity Doctrine.

Trinity - History
Although there is much debate as to whether the beliefs of the Apostles were merely articulated and explained in the Trinitarian Creeds, or were corrupted and replaced with new beliefs, all scholars recognize that the Creeds themselves were created in reaction to disagreements over the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These controversies took some centuries to be resolved.

Of these controversies, the most significant developments were articulated in the first four centuries by the Church Fathers in reaction to Adoptionism, Sabellianism, and Arianism. Adoptionism was the belief that Jesus was an ordinary man, born of Joseph and Mary, who became the Christ and Son of God at his baptism. In 269, the Synods of Antioch condemned Paul of Samosata for his Adoptionist theology, and also condemned the term homoousios (ὁμοούσιος, "of the same being") in the sense he used it.

Sabellianism taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are essentially one and the same, the difference being simply verbal, describing different aspects or roles of a single being. For this view Sabellius was excommunicated for heresy in Rome c. 220.

In the fourth century, Arius, as traditionally understood, taught that the Father existed prior to the Son who was not, by nature, God but rather a changeable creature who was granted the dignity of becoming "Son of God". In 325, the Council of Nicaea adopted the Nicene Creed which described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father". The creed used the term homoousios (of one substance) to define the relationship between the Father and the Son. After more than fifty years of debate, homoousios was recognised as the hallmark of orthodoxy, and was further developed into the formula of "three persons, one being".

The third Council of Sirmium, in 357, was the high point of Arianism. The Seventh Arian Confession (Second Sirmium Confession) held that both homoousios (of one substance) and homoiousios (of similar substance) were unbiblical and that the Father is greater than the Son. (This confession was later known as the Blasphemy of Sirmium)

But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin substantia, but in Greek ousia, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to 'coessential,' or what is called, 'like-in-essence,' there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding;

Athanasius (293–373), who was present at the Council as one of the Bishop of Alexandria's assistants, stated that the bishops were forced to use this terminology, which is not found in Scripture, because the biblical phrases that they would have preferred to use were claimed by the Arians to be capable of being interpreted in what the bishops considered to be a heretical sense. Moreover, the meanings of "ousia" and "hypostasis" overlapped then, so that "hypostasis" for some meant "essence" and for others "person".

The Confession of the Council of Nicaea said little about the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by Athanasius in the last decades of his life. He defended and refined the Nicene formula.[50] By the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine had reached substantially its current form.​

Gen-o I looked at the length of your post and thought; "Do I want to bother to read what this guy just said?" The answer came within a swift moment in time; "Nah."

 

[JudgeRightly]

You missed the point of my post.

Anyone that relies on doctrines that are not clearly taught in the Bible for their understand of who Christ is cannot be following the Christ of scripture, whether that is a claim that Jesus is a Triune God or that Jesus is the archangel Michael.

However, scripture clearly teaches that we must believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and anything else we call Him will be forgiven.

Luke 12:10 10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.​

I have a question for you, GO, about how clear something needs to be in order for you to consider it "taught by the Bible."

GO, does the Bible state/describe what happened to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

 

[Tambora]

The book of Revelation begins: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" but His name is called "The Word of God" in Revelation 19:13.
This shows that it is a new name being used.

I offer the following perspective, using just a few of the scriptures that relate to this.

The new name ("new" not meaning one that never existed before, but one made anew).

Revelation is about the dealings with Israel, and the idioms and symbolism is in reference to Israel.

Isaiah 62 KJV
(1) For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.
(2) And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.
(3) Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the LORD, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God.
(4) Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married.


Isaiah 65 KJV
(15) And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name:


Zechariah 8 KJV
(13) And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing: fear not, but let your hands be strong.​

Speaking of the promised restoration of Israel.
During their rise and exaltation that will shine throughout to all nations.
Which is a different situation and time period than the present fall of Israel (later to be restored - made new).
The BOC is being established during the present fall of Israel, not their rise.
Their rise will come later.

No Jewish believer would have accepted the Trinity doctrine, that is why it took hundreds of years before the misunderstandings of the Gentile believers to develop the Trinity doctrine.

Not true at all.
Well respected Jews of old recognized that GOD was a unity and not a singular person.
(Will place in spoiler.)

Spoiler

Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai

(121-180 CE) wrote a fascinating passage recorded in the Zohar that is as clear a discussion of the mystery of the Trinity as you could find in any Christian theology text. Rabbi Simeon comments on the text found in Deuteronomy 32:39: "See now that I, I am he, and Elohim is not with me." He said: "Friends, here are some profound mysteries which I desire to reveal to you now that permission has been given to utter them. Who is it that says, 'See now that I, I am He?' This is the Cause which is above all those on high, that which is called the Cause of causes. It is above those other causes, since none of those causes does anything till it obtains permission from that which is above it, as we pointed out above in respect to the expression, 'Let us make man.' 'Us' certainly refers to two, of which one said to the other above it, 'Let us make,' nor did it do anything save with the permission and direction of the one above it, while the one above did nothing without consulting its colleague. But that which is called 'the Cause above all causes,' which has no superior or even equal, as it is written, 'To whom shall ye liken me, that I should be equal?' (referring to Isaiah 40:25), said, 'See now that I, I am he, and Elohim is not with me,' from whom he should take counsel, like that of which it is written, 'and God said, Let us make man.'"

Another book written by Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai, known as The Propositions of the Zohar, records the mystery of the Shechinah glory of God in these words. . . . the exalted Shechinah comprehends the Three highest Sephiroth; of Him (God) it is said, (Ps. lxii. 12), "God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this." Once and twice means the Three exalted Sephiroth, of whom it is said: Once, once, and once; that is, Three united in One. This is the mystery. - Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai, The Propositions of the Zohar, cap. 38, Amsterdam edition. 113

Another famous Jewish scholar, Rabbi Eliezer Hakkalir, who lived at the time of Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai, also taught the scriptural doctrine that there were three distinct Beings revealed in the one unified Godhead. In his commentary on Genesis 1:1, Rabbi Hakkalir wrote the following: When God created the world, He created it through the Three Sephiroth, namely, through Sepher, Sapher and Vesaphur, by which the Three twywh (Beings) are meant . . . The Rabbi, my Lord Teacher of blessed memory, explained Sepher, Sapher, and Sippur, to be synonymous to Ja, Jehovah, and Elohim meaning to say, that the world was created by these three names.

How can they (the three) be One? Are they verily One, because we call them One ? How Three can be One, can only be known through the revelation of the Holy Spirit. - Zohar, vol. ii. p. 43, versa., 22.

Come and see the mystery of the word hwhy, Jehova: there are three steps, each existing by itself; nevertheless they are One, and so united that one cannot be separated from the other. - Zohar, vol. iii. Amsterdam edition. 65.

The Ancient Holy One is revealed with three Heads, which are united in One, and that Head is thrice exalted. The Ancient Holy one is described as being Three; it is because the other Lights emanating from Him are included in the Three. Yet the Ancient One is described as being two. The Ancient One includes these two. He is the Crown of all that is exalted; the Chief of the chief, so exalted, that He cannot be known to perfection. Thus the other lights are two complete ones, yet is the Ancient Holy One described complete as one, and He is one, positively one; thus are the other lights united and glorified in because they are one. - Zohar, vol. iii. Amsterdam edition. 288.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Exactly. All you have to do is accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and strive live by His teachings with the word and action.

And Jesus is the Judge of our salvation.

Many Christians don't like Jesus' hard to follow teachings because we have to abandon our worldly way of living to follow Him.

So they make up complicated doctrines to negate Jesus' simple and clear teachings.

This coming from a poster who has REJECTED the majority of the Bible.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Gen-o how could you possibly give Meshak a Pos-rep all the time knowing she isn't a true Christian and has rejected most of the Bible? Do you REJECT most of the Bible, as well?

 

[genuineoriginal]

I have a question for you, GO, about how clear something needs to be in order for you to consider it "taught by the Bible."

GO, does the Bible state/describe what happened to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

The Bible teaches that Eve was deceived into eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil but Adam was not deceived and ate anyway.
When the two ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, their eyes were opened and they realized that they were naked.
Through Adam's transgression (eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) sin came into the world, from sin death came into the world and passed onto all men.
Adam and Eve were driven out of Eden and cherubim were set to prevent anyone from entering.
Later, a flood covered the entire earth, causing great destruction.

There is no mention of anyone finding the garden of Eden after the flood, so there is no way to know what happened to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

We can presume that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was destroyed in the flood along with the garden of Eden, though the Bible does not clearly teach that.

The biggest problem would come if we go around claiming that a person's salvation depends on believing that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was destroyed in the flood, since that is not taught clearly in the Bible.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I offer the following perspective, using just a few of the scriptures that relate to this.

The new name ("new" not meaning one that never existed before, but one made anew).

Revelation is about the dealings with Israel, and the idioms and symbolism is in reference to Israel.

Isaiah 62 KJV
(1) For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.
(2) And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.
(3) Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the LORD, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God.
(4) Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married.


Isaiah 65 KJV
(15) And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name:


Zechariah 8 KJV
(13) And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing: fear not, but let your hands be strong.​

Speaking of the promised restoration of Israel.
During their rise and exaltation that will shine throughout to all nations.
Which is a different situation and time period than the present fall of Israel (later to be restored - made new).
The BOC is being established during the present fall of Israel, not their rise.
Their rise will come later.

We are currently in the times of the Gentiles.
When the times of the Gentiles are ended, all Israel will be saved.
Your statements are about the salvation of all Israel (as a nation) at the end of the times of the Gentiles (the present fall of Israel).

Individual people also get new names in the Bible after life changing events happen to them.

Genesis 17:5 5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.​

Genesis 17:15 15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.​

Genesis 32:28 28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.​

Acts 13:9 9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him.​

 

[Tambora]

We are currently in the times of the Gentiles.

Revelation is about Israel, not the BOC.
The new name is about Israel, not the BOC.

 

[truthjourney]

A troubling story on W5: Avery Haines investigates an alleged sex abuse cover-up within the Jehovah's Witnesses. From across Canada, to the United States, England and Australia she reveals how the religious sect's doctrine protects accused sex offenders and pedophiles and makes it virtually impossible for complaints to be reported to police.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The Bible teaches that Eve was deceived into eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil but Adam was not deceived and ate anyway.
When the two ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, their eyes were opened and they realized that they were naked.
Through Adam's transgression (eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) sin came into the world, from sin death came into the world and passed onto all men.
Adam and Eve were driven out of Eden and cherubim were set to prevent anyone from entering.
Later, a flood covered the entire earth, causing great destruction.

There is no mention of anyone finding the garden of Eden after the flood, so there is no way to know what happened to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

We can presume that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was destroyed in the flood along with the garden of Eden, though the Bible does not clearly teach that.

The biggest problem would come if we go around claiming that a person's salvation depends on believing that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was destroyed in the flood, since that is not taught clearly in the Bible.

So, basically, you're saying, "no, the Bible does not say what happened to the Tree," is that correct?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Gen-o how could you possibly give Meshak a Pos-rep all the time

Who I give reps to and why I give them is my concern, not yours.

knowing she isn't a true Christian

I don't know that.

and has rejected most of the Bible?

I don't know that.

Do you REJECT most of the Bible, as well?

I accept the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

 

[genuineoriginal]

So, basically, you're saying, "no, the Bible does not say what happened to the Tree," is that correct?

If you want to do away with all the rest of the information provided, you could say that.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If you want to do away with all the rest of the information provided, you could say that.

I'm obviously talking about after Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden. Yes or no, does the Bible say or describe what happened to it?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Revelation is about Israel, not the BOC.
The new name is about Israel, not the BOC.

Revelation was written to the seven churches of Gentile believers that were established in Asia.
Most of Revelation is further prophecies related to the people of the nation of Israel, but those prophecies do not exclude the Gentile believers in Jesus (the body of Christ).

 

[genuineoriginal]

A troubling story on W5: Avery Haines investigates an alleged sex abuse cover-up within the Jehovah's Witnesses. From across Canada, to the United States, England and Australia she reveals how the religious sect's doctrine protects accused sex offenders and pedophiles and makes it virtually impossible for complaints to be reported to police.

The Roman Catholics have similar problems with covering up sex abuses.

Keeping the legal disputes within the church is the entire point of 1 Corinthians 6.
However, expelling members from the church because of sexual crimes is the point of 1 Corinthians 5.

The matter should have been pushed out of the church and onto the secular police.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I'm obviously talking about after Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden. Yes or no, does the Bible say or describe what happened to it?

I stated: "The biggest problem would come if we go around claiming that a person's salvation depends on believing that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was destroyed in the flood, since that is not taught clearly in the Bible."

You seem to be trying to make a point, but don't know want to make it without getting me to say yes or no.

Just post the point you are trying to make instead of trying to make it all about me saying yes or no.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I stated: "The biggest problem would come if we go around claiming that a person's salvation depends on believing that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was destroyed in the flood, since that is not taught clearly in the Bible."

You seem to be trying to make a point, but don't know want to make it without getting me to say yes or no.

Just post the point you are trying to make instead of trying to make it all about me saying yes or no.

Alright, I'm just gonna go with your "no, it doesn't answer from above.

GO, I want you to go read Ezekiel 31. Let me know when you're done.

And no, I'm not going to give you further instructions until you do.

And yes, this is how I'm going to make my point, so do us all a favor and go along with it.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Alright, I'm just gonna go with your "no, it doesn't answer from above.

GO, I want you to go read Ezekiel 31. Let me know when you're done.

And no, I'm not going to give you further instructions until you do.

And yes, this is how I'm going to make my point, so do us all a favor and go along with it.

I am assuming you are referring to the part that says all the trees of Eden went down into hell.

Ezekiel 31:15-17 15 Thus saith the Lord God; In the day when he went down to the grave I caused a mourning: I covered the deep for him, and I restrained the floods thereof, and the great waters were stayed: and I caused Lebanon to mourn for him, and all the trees of the field fainted for him. 16 I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit: and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted in the nether parts of the earth. 17 They also went down into hell with him unto them that be slain with the sword; and they that were his arm, that dwelt under his shadow in the midst of the heathen.​

Do you know how to identify the differences between historical narrative and prophecy in the Bible?
Genesis 2-3 is presented as a historical narrative, where the events are plainly stated.
Ezekiel 31 is presented as a prophecy, where the true nature of what is being talked about is hidden in symbols.

Is your next question going to be about Psalm 91 that clearly teaches that God has feathers and wings, or are you going to acknowledge that it and the rest of the Psalms take poetic license with the descriptions in them?

Psalm 91:4 4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.​

 

[glorydaz]

Why it is so difficult for you to find any verses to base such a question on?

Are you basing the question on these verses?

Romans 8:2-4 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.​

Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question?

Do you believe God came in the flesh to dwell among us?