KRSNA - as Vasudeva. to Vyasudeva
- Thread starter XianeX
- Start date
Part 2...
@XianeX
Quote:
“if i say i am a shard of the absolute how is the absolute impersonal to me????? LOL try again”
You being a shard of the absolute does not make you the absolute person. We are, (better yet, I am… and you also should be), discerning between the absolute person and His subordinate living entities. If you do actually believe that the absolute is personal, then you, being merely a shard, cannot righteously conceive of yourself as that personal feature. I understand that your concept of the absolute is one of totality, being that each shard makes up a piece of the absolute. But, you must understand what it means to be absolute. In the absolute, one plus one equals one and one minus one equals one. Even if you did not exist, the absolute would still be the same as it is now. Transcending all this there is the supreme person, Krsna. Krsna is both part of this totality and distinguished from it as the supreme personality Godhead.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“logically there are many other forms than human or "person" why would I limit "LOGICALLY" that the absolute is a form that is most miniscule compared to the span of the universe PUHLEASE.”
Imagine if that human-like form was eternal and was the source of His all-pervadingness yet was infinitely transcending everything simultaneously. As for the universal form…
Krsna showed Arjuna this form during the battle at Kuruksetra, according to the Bhagavad-Gita. The universal form was not above His personal form. His universal form was merely an expansion of His personal form used in duration of the manifest material universe. Once the universe becomes again unmanifest, that form of His does the same until it is once required to become manifest again. I accompany my logic by scriptural authority. Prabhupada said, “Religion without philosophy is sentimentality. And philosophy without religion is mental speculation.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“the absolute can be manifest in/as person but a person is miniscule and is incapable of containing the absoluteness of the One.”
Imagine if that human-like form was eternal and was the source of His all-pervadingness yet was infinitely transcending everything simultaneously.
There is no account of Krsna having any incapabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“in that the One is not limited but the vehicle.”
Krsna, being absolute, is non-different from His form just as He is non-different from His actions, His words, His senses, etc. The name Krsna alone contains all of these things. And this is just a small taste of His immeasurable potencies. So there is no use in speaking of the absolute as being separate from His body, actions, words, and senses. This is exactly what it means to be ABSOLUTE. If such distinctions were to be made about the absolute from His form, actions, etc, then He would not be absolute. Of course, if you understood this in the first place you would not have written the above statement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“think it is by my religious diligence into logic that I found the absolute. but i am not "in" a religion.”
I understand. Nor am I “in” a religion in the same sense that most people conceive of the term. Though I may be labeled by outsiders as being such.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“i've never said that the vedas are acceptable.”
Yet you are speaking about them and using them, at least in part, to reference back to your own logic of who Krsna is and what the absolute must be. This is your flaw; if you are to reference the Vedas, but only in part, and then, by your own desire, condemn other parts because they do not fit into what you have previously conceived must be the full truth, you can never understand greater truth. It is obvious by you doing this that you have no desire to obtain knowledge, but rather you wish to attempt to make palatable the Vedic philosophy into your own conceptions. If you are so inclined to spiritual knowledge then let the scriptural authority be your foundation, not your speculation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“I have never expressed that I am a vedic authority.”
Not in those words. But, you did tell Vyasadeva that you spoke as the “indoctrinating” as he spoke as the “indoctrinated”. By this it is apparent that you accept yourself as the authority of that which you speak. And given the circumstances in which you were quoting and referencing Vedic literature, it concludes that you were in fact placing yourself into an authoritive position on the writings even if you did not come forthright to claim such.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“you assume too much.”
I can’t even begin to compete with you in that field.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“actually you are the one judging me. how funny.”
Well, I know there is potential knowledge to be gained by the Vedic literature. So, when I see someone speaking about such things I attempt to put forth the philosophy to the best of my ability so it can be understood. Ultimately I am not judging you in that I am condemning your ability to knowledge. No, I cannot be guilty of such. Rather, I am offering you scriptural authority backed up by logic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“i take what I wish and leave what I wish. such is my perogative.”
I am now assuming that by saying this you are referring to your desire to accept certain specific Vedic references and reject others.
Does this not make apparent your inability to expand your knowledge when you choose only certain Vedic injunctions because they fit nicely into your pre-prepared palette of truth instead of attempting to just accept that the Vedic literature is written by the authority of God and thus incorporate its entirety? You really should try to study the Vedas from this angle. Otherwise, what is there to benefit from reading and speaking of such things if you are only going to incorporate what you accept into the palette of what you already know?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“logic is what i look for and i accept it when i find it and deject the rest.”
Good. But what if, agreeing that your logic is correct, you find that it is not complete in that there is a whole other level of reality in which you are failing to apply proper logic to simply because you do not have proper knowledge of this level? This level I speak of is the spiritual world and it can be understood logically.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“where in the vedas does it say that krsna isnt a deity??? once again.”
Krsna is the supreme deity. Krsna says to Arjuna that the demigods and sages have their origin in Him, as per the Bhagavad-Gita. That is just one example off my head of Krsna being the supreme. Like I said before, I do not have the references at hand because of my circumstances previously mentioned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“anyway. have fun with this post. i'm sure you'll have some time with it.”
It takes time to think of the best way to word it and often re-word it so it can be best understood.
@XianeX
Quote:
“if i say i am a shard of the absolute how is the absolute impersonal to me????? LOL try again”
You being a shard of the absolute does not make you the absolute person. We are, (better yet, I am… and you also should be), discerning between the absolute person and His subordinate living entities. If you do actually believe that the absolute is personal, then you, being merely a shard, cannot righteously conceive of yourself as that personal feature. I understand that your concept of the absolute is one of totality, being that each shard makes up a piece of the absolute. But, you must understand what it means to be absolute. In the absolute, one plus one equals one and one minus one equals one. Even if you did not exist, the absolute would still be the same as it is now. Transcending all this there is the supreme person, Krsna. Krsna is both part of this totality and distinguished from it as the supreme personality Godhead.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“logically there are many other forms than human or "person" why would I limit "LOGICALLY" that the absolute is a form that is most miniscule compared to the span of the universe PUHLEASE.”
Imagine if that human-like form was eternal and was the source of His all-pervadingness yet was infinitely transcending everything simultaneously. As for the universal form…
Krsna showed Arjuna this form during the battle at Kuruksetra, according to the Bhagavad-Gita. The universal form was not above His personal form. His universal form was merely an expansion of His personal form used in duration of the manifest material universe. Once the universe becomes again unmanifest, that form of His does the same until it is once required to become manifest again. I accompany my logic by scriptural authority. Prabhupada said, “Religion without philosophy is sentimentality. And philosophy without religion is mental speculation.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“the absolute can be manifest in/as person but a person is miniscule and is incapable of containing the absoluteness of the One.”
Imagine if that human-like form was eternal and was the source of His all-pervadingness yet was infinitely transcending everything simultaneously.
There is no account of Krsna having any incapabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“in that the One is not limited but the vehicle.”
Krsna, being absolute, is non-different from His form just as He is non-different from His actions, His words, His senses, etc. The name Krsna alone contains all of these things. And this is just a small taste of His immeasurable potencies. So there is no use in speaking of the absolute as being separate from His body, actions, words, and senses. This is exactly what it means to be ABSOLUTE. If such distinctions were to be made about the absolute from His form, actions, etc, then He would not be absolute. Of course, if you understood this in the first place you would not have written the above statement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“think it is by my religious diligence into logic that I found the absolute. but i am not "in" a religion.”
I understand. Nor am I “in” a religion in the same sense that most people conceive of the term. Though I may be labeled by outsiders as being such.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“i've never said that the vedas are acceptable.”
Yet you are speaking about them and using them, at least in part, to reference back to your own logic of who Krsna is and what the absolute must be. This is your flaw; if you are to reference the Vedas, but only in part, and then, by your own desire, condemn other parts because they do not fit into what you have previously conceived must be the full truth, you can never understand greater truth. It is obvious by you doing this that you have no desire to obtain knowledge, but rather you wish to attempt to make palatable the Vedic philosophy into your own conceptions. If you are so inclined to spiritual knowledge then let the scriptural authority be your foundation, not your speculation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“I have never expressed that I am a vedic authority.”
Not in those words. But, you did tell Vyasadeva that you spoke as the “indoctrinating” as he spoke as the “indoctrinated”. By this it is apparent that you accept yourself as the authority of that which you speak. And given the circumstances in which you were quoting and referencing Vedic literature, it concludes that you were in fact placing yourself into an authoritive position on the writings even if you did not come forthright to claim such.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“you assume too much.”
I can’t even begin to compete with you in that field.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“actually you are the one judging me. how funny.”
Well, I know there is potential knowledge to be gained by the Vedic literature. So, when I see someone speaking about such things I attempt to put forth the philosophy to the best of my ability so it can be understood. Ultimately I am not judging you in that I am condemning your ability to knowledge. No, I cannot be guilty of such. Rather, I am offering you scriptural authority backed up by logic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“i take what I wish and leave what I wish. such is my perogative.”
I am now assuming that by saying this you are referring to your desire to accept certain specific Vedic references and reject others.
Does this not make apparent your inability to expand your knowledge when you choose only certain Vedic injunctions because they fit nicely into your pre-prepared palette of truth instead of attempting to just accept that the Vedic literature is written by the authority of God and thus incorporate its entirety? You really should try to study the Vedas from this angle. Otherwise, what is there to benefit from reading and speaking of such things if you are only going to incorporate what you accept into the palette of what you already know?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“logic is what i look for and i accept it when i find it and deject the rest.”
Good. But what if, agreeing that your logic is correct, you find that it is not complete in that there is a whole other level of reality in which you are failing to apply proper logic to simply because you do not have proper knowledge of this level? This level I speak of is the spiritual world and it can be understood logically.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“where in the vedas does it say that krsna isnt a deity??? once again.”
Krsna is the supreme deity. Krsna says to Arjuna that the demigods and sages have their origin in Him, as per the Bhagavad-Gita. That is just one example off my head of Krsna being the supreme. Like I said before, I do not have the references at hand because of my circumstances previously mentioned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“anyway. have fun with this post. i'm sure you'll have some time with it.”
It takes time to think of the best way to word it and often re-word it so it can be best understood.
@EDJ - you've said alot and alot is easily disputed. even Heresy could back me on some points. I can only say study further. truthfully speaking, the artifacts in Iraq are proof that the sumerian and babylonian myths are earlier and more complete than the genesis story.
I believe that heresy may agree with me that the use of "elohim" could be looked at in the context of genesis as a way to genericize the pantheon of gods in the babylonian and sumerian accounts into one deity. also it may be the reason that so many details in the genesis account is left out (to show the solidarity of YHWH as one and Elohim as his manifestative forces).
like I said I won't dispute you because I rather not (too tired).
but i will say study deeper and objectively not with a religious bias just with the facts as they are.
I believe that heresy may agree with me that the use of "elohim" could be looked at in the context of genesis as a way to genericize the pantheon of gods in the babylonian and sumerian accounts into one deity. also it may be the reason that so many details in the genesis account is left out (to show the solidarity of YHWH as one and Elohim as his manifestative forces).
like I said I won't dispute you because I rather not (too tired).
but i will say study deeper and objectively not with a religious bias just with the facts as they are.
@9165150 - I swear if I quoted everything that that you've been saying you contradict and repremise your every argument. LMAO.
I know that Vasudeva is another name for KRSNA. that's what I told Vyasadeva at the beginning of this thread (in so little words).
you said that Vasudeva was Krsnas Earthly father. where in the vedas does it say Vasudeva was on earth in material form?
also the absolute is NOT limited from being limited. metrics is the evidence of this.
quote:
"Also, a father is not the cause of his son.Also, a father is not the cause of his son."
quote:
"ignorant conception that material birth is the beginning of the living entity's existence"
quote:
"We are not God."
if the absolute is all things what is NOT the absolute? if a father is not the cause of his son how is a son caused?what living thing is NOT caused by material birth
quote:
"Body produces body. Body does not produce the soul. So Krsna, being purely spiritual, although He was born into the material world, existed as He appeared there prior to the event of birth. "
I thought you said that Krsna WAS NOT material or born into it?
quote:
"Vasudeva would have only been an immediate cause for the material body begotten, but since Krsna has not a material body the logic cannot even work in that aspect."
so youre saying krsna was BORN with a spiritual body through spiritual beings? the same rules apply born is born.
quote:
"Because Krsna is not material and therefore cannot be materially derrived from the material body of Vasudeva."
but I thought you said that Krsna WAS born material?
quote:
"Krsna is merely a temporary personal manifestation of the impersonal absolute"
so krsna is limited i.e. temporary, and is a PERSONAL MANIFESTATION. that means he is not ABSOLUTE
quote:
"The One is supremely a Diety. this does not limit the absolute."
if the Absolute is a deity then the absolute is not absolute.
finally you've answer my question subordinate and i will disagree
everything is "in ordinance" nothing can be actually subordinate to the absolute when all things are a part of it. everything happens in ordinance to the destination of the absolute when you look at everything being part of the absolute. but it is seen as subordinate when you look at it as a constituent metric.
when you look at a car driving you make no distinction of whats in it that actually is the car. therefore even though you can remove its constituencies and it still remains a car as long as it has constituencies it is what it is. just as the the absolute is what it is. but the difference is that the shard is an inseperable piece of the absolute. but it is called shard because of metrics.
Predestination - read into it
THINK. if Vasudeva and Devaki are spiritual entities and Krsna by your words is a "purely spiritual" entity you are saying that krsna before Vasudeva and Devaki existed created them so that he could be born to them. are you saying Krsna desired to be a son of his creation? if krsna is omnipotent what is the purpose of him becoming a child??? is it because he is a "temporary manifestaion" of the absolute?
you said I concocted shit but look at your own delusions.
I know that Vasudeva is another name for KRSNA. that's what I told Vyasadeva at the beginning of this thread (in so little words).
you said that Vasudeva was Krsnas Earthly father. where in the vedas does it say Vasudeva was on earth in material form?
also the absolute is NOT limited from being limited. metrics is the evidence of this.
quote:
"Also, a father is not the cause of his son.Also, a father is not the cause of his son."
quote:
"ignorant conception that material birth is the beginning of the living entity's existence"
quote:
"We are not God."
if the absolute is all things what is NOT the absolute? if a father is not the cause of his son how is a son caused?what living thing is NOT caused by material birth
quote:
"Body produces body. Body does not produce the soul. So Krsna, being purely spiritual, although He was born into the material world, existed as He appeared there prior to the event of birth. "
I thought you said that Krsna WAS NOT material or born into it?
quote:
"Vasudeva would have only been an immediate cause for the material body begotten, but since Krsna has not a material body the logic cannot even work in that aspect."
so youre saying krsna was BORN with a spiritual body through spiritual beings? the same rules apply born is born.
quote:
"Because Krsna is not material and therefore cannot be materially derrived from the material body of Vasudeva."
but I thought you said that Krsna WAS born material?
quote:
"Krsna is merely a temporary personal manifestation of the impersonal absolute"
so krsna is limited i.e. temporary, and is a PERSONAL MANIFESTATION. that means he is not ABSOLUTE
quote:
"The One is supremely a Diety. this does not limit the absolute."
if the Absolute is a deity then the absolute is not absolute.
finally you've answer my question subordinate and i will disagree
everything is "in ordinance" nothing can be actually subordinate to the absolute when all things are a part of it. everything happens in ordinance to the destination of the absolute when you look at everything being part of the absolute. but it is seen as subordinate when you look at it as a constituent metric.
when you look at a car driving you make no distinction of whats in it that actually is the car. therefore even though you can remove its constituencies and it still remains a car as long as it has constituencies it is what it is. just as the the absolute is what it is. but the difference is that the shard is an inseperable piece of the absolute. but it is called shard because of metrics.
Predestination - read into it
THINK. if Vasudeva and Devaki are spiritual entities and Krsna by your words is a "purely spiritual" entity you are saying that krsna before Vasudeva and Devaki existed created them so that he could be born to them. are you saying Krsna desired to be a son of his creation? if krsna is omnipotent what is the purpose of him becoming a child??? is it because he is a "temporary manifestaion" of the absolute?
you said I concocted shit but look at your own delusions.
XIANEX,
I HAVE STUDIED. IF MY LOgIC SOUNDS BIAS IS CAUSE YOU PERCEIVE IT THAT WAY. BUT LET'S DEAL WITH FACTS. LACE ME WITH gAME PLAYA. LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU PERCEIVE AS TRUTH . IS YOUR TRUTH BASED ON WHAT FACTS?
HERESY,
LET'S gET DOWN TO THE NITTY gRITTY. BUT I AOLOgIZE FOR JUST gOIN' DOWN YOUR POSTS AND ANSWERIN' EVERY QUESTION EVEN THOUgH SOME WERE THE SAME. I DIDN'T gO OVER WHAT WAS STRESSED AND SEEN IT WAS THE SAME THINg. I APOLOgIZE FOR SOUNDIN' REDUNDANT. BUT LET ME RESPOND TO WHAT YOU STRESSED CAUSE WE gOT ISSUES TO RESOLVE AND I'M READY TO SEARCH FOR TRUTH THAT IS UNDISPUTED.
YOU STRESSED, "I THINK YOU SHOULD READ MY RESPONSES AND INFO POSTED.
FOR EXAMPLE "FIRSTBORN" CAN MEAN FIRST BORN IN A CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. IT CAN ALSO MEAN A "POSITION" OR "TITLE". THE WORD PROTOTOKOS IS THE PROPER WORD.
IF JESUS WAS INDEED THE "FIRSTBORN" AND "CREATED" (AS YOU HAVE SAID) THE WORD PROTOKTISTOS WOULD HAVE BEEN USED. WELL....IT ISNT.
I DONT SEE WHY YOU WOULD ASK "HOW YOU FIGURE" WHEN I JUST EXPLAINED WHY. HERES AN EXAMPLE:
HERESY IS COOL.
DOES THAT MEAN HERESY IS COLD AND SHIVERING? DOES IT MEAN THAT HERESY DOESNT WANT SOMETHING ("IM COOL ON THE WEED")? DOES IT MEAN THAT HERESY IS WEARING SHADES AND LEANING TO THE LEFT IN A LEXUS?
ARE YOU GETTING THE PICTURE NOW?"
YES I gET THE PICTURE. YOU SAYIN' THE WORD PROTOKITOS WAS NOT USED IN THE SAME CONTEXT AS THE OTHA SCRIPTURE. I WILL RESEARCH THE WORD AND THE WAY IT WAS USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHA INFORMATION.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "SO STOP READING ENGLISH RENDERINGS OF THE BIBLE AND LEARN GREEK AND HEBREW (AND ARAMAIC)."
I UNDA-STAND ENgLISH. I DON'T UNDA-STAND LATIN(EXPRESSED AND USED IN EVERYDAY). I DON'T SEE WHY I HAVE TO USE LATIN TO TRANSLATE THE BIBLE FROM IT'S ORIgINAL LANgUAgES. IT JUST AN EXTRA MIDDLE MAN.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I DONT KNOW IF YOU'RE BEING DUMB, SARCASTIC OR CONFRONTATIONAL. YOU LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF."
MORE CONFRONTATIONAL THAN N-E-THANg. BUT I WANT YOU TO SHARE YOUR INFORMATION.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THE WORD FOR "FIRSTBORN" (MEANING CREATED) IS ***NOT*** USED WHEN APPLIED TO JESUS. I DONT KNOW WHY YOU WOULD ASK THAT WHEN I JUST TOLD YOU (IN THE OTHER POST)."
I WAS JUST gOIN' DOWN THE LINE AND RESPONDIN' TO YOUR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS." DIDN'T MEAN TO SOUND REDUNDANT OR BLASPHEMOUS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I ALREADY EXPLAINED."
PROTOKITOS RIgHT?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THAT TEXT DON'T PROVE YOUR CLAIMS."
"KEEP THINKING THAT"
I WILL. CONVINCE ME.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THE "FIRST-BORN" IN COL 1:15 DOES NOT USE PROTOKTISTOS SO YOU'RE WRONG."
SO WHAT IS USED? SO HOW SHOULD I RENDER THAT TEXT? WHAT DOES IT MEAN? DOES IT CONTRADICT N-E OTHA BIBLE PASSAgE?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "AFTER THIS POST I NO LONGER WISH TO DISCUSS ANYTHING OF THIS NATURE WITH YOU. DONT EVEN REPLY MAN. WHAT YOU SEEK MAY BE FOUND IN REV 1:8 AND REV 22:13."
WHY NOT? DON'T BE NO SOUR PUSS. LET'S gET DOWN TO THE NITTY gRITTY. SHARE YOUR INFO AND LET ME KNOW WHY YOU RENDER SUCH INFO LIKE YOU DO. I'LL DO THE SAME. BUT REV. 1:8 STRESSES THAT (gOD)<NOT JESUS> STRESSED THAT HE WAS THE ALPHA AND THE OMEgA. REV. STRESSES THE SAME EXCEPT IT DOESN'T SAYS WHO SAYS IT. I WOULD ASSUME IT'S (gOD) SAYIN' HE'S THE ALPHA AND OMEgA CAUSE NO OTHA IS. ALSO READ ISA. 44:6, REV. 21:6, AND ISA. 48:12. RIgHT THERE (gOD) IS SPEAKIN', NOT JESUS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "OK LETS CHANGE IT TO YOUR VERSION. IT STILL DOESNT DENY THE DIETY OF YESHUA. BTW YOU DONT KNOW *WHAT* IM READING."
YOU STRESSED BEFORE THAT YOU READ OFF THE KINg JAMES VERSION. AND THE KINg JAMES VERSION STRESSES THAT TEXT YOU READ THE WAY YOU TYPED IT. SO IF IT'S NOT THE KINg JAMES VERSION THAT YOU READ, WHAT VERSION OF THE SCRIPTURES DO YOU USE? BUT THE DIETY OF YESHUA IS THAT HE IS A gOD. BUT HE IS NOT THE "ALMIgHTY gOD". YOUR BELLY CAN BE A gOD. THE DOLLA IS A gOD. N-E-THANg WORSHIPPED IS A gOD. EVEN SATAN IS A gOD. SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU WILL NOT FIND ONE GREEK RENDERING THAT STATES JESUS WAS CREATED. END OF DISCUSSION."
NOPE, END OF NATHAN. THAT TEXT STRESSED THAT ALL "OTHA THANgS" WERE CREATED BY HIM AND THRU HIM. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "ONCE AGAIN:
HERESY IS COOL."
YES YOU ARE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "DOES THAT MEAN HERESY IS COLD AND SHIVERING?"
IT MIgHT. DEPENDS IN THE CONTEXT YOU USED IT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "? DOES IT MEAN THAT HERESY DOESNT WANT SOMETHING ("IM COOL ON THE WEED")?"
IT MIgHT. DEPENDS IN THE CONTEXT YOU USED IT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "DOES IT MEAN THAT HERESY IS WEARING SHADES AND LEANING TO THE LEFT IN A LEXUS?"
IT MIgHT. DEPENDS IN THE CONTEXT YOU USED IT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "NO HEBREW,GREEK,LATIN OR ARAMAIC VERSIONS WILL SUPPORT THIS CLAIM. YOU DONT HAVE ONE VERSE IN THE BIBLE THAT SAYS "JESUS WAS MADE BY YHWH". WHEN "CREATED", "BEGOTTEN" AND "FIRSTBORN" ARE USED FOR JESUS IT **DOESNT** MEAN THAT HE WAS CREATED , BEGOTTEN OR BORN. THOSE ARE ***TITLES*** AND ***DESCRIPTIONS***. PLEASE PICK UP A LEXICON (THEY ARE CHEAP) OR FIND AN ONLINE LEXICON. AFTER THAT STUDY. IF YOU DONT WANT A KJV VERSION OF THE BIBLE FIND A TEXTUS RECEPTUS OR SEPTUIGANT (CHECK SPELLING)."
I WILL LOOK FURTHER INTO THIS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "HOW CAN HE CREATE "ALL THINGS" IF HE IS CREATED? IF HE WAS CREATED ITS **IMPOSSIBLE** TO CREATE ALL. IF YOU CANT COMPREHEND THAT I DONT KNOW WHAT TO TELL YOU."
NOT "ALL THANgS" BUT ALL "OTHA THANgS". THAT'S HOW. READ COL. 1:16
THEN YOU STRESSED, "ANYWAY I DONT FEEL LIKE DISCUSSING THIS ANY MORE. MUCH OF THIS HAS BEEN GIVEN TO YOU IN *PAST* THREADS. YOU WILL CONTINUE TO ARGUE AND DEBATE WITH YOUR J.W DOCTRINE/DOGMA (WHICH IS VERY FLAWED).
HOW IS JW FLAWED? HOW IS MY DOgMA THEIRS? THIS IS MY LOgICAL THINKIN', MY OWN WORDS. NOT THEIRS. I DON'T REPRESENT THEM OR THE ME. I USE THEIR RESEARCH AND IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE. YOU SHOULD OPEN YOUR MIND AND SEE WHAT THE FUK THEY STRESSIN' INSTEAD OF KNOCCIN' THEM IN EVERY WHICH WAY. ALL I'M SAYIN' IS TO PEEP gAME.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "PS EDJ I BET YOUR USING THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION (A VERY FLAWED BOOK)"
HOW IS IT FLAWED? COMPARED TO WHAT? SHOW ME PROOF THAT IT'S FLAWED. I'VE SEEN WHERE IT WAS PRAISED AMONg SCHOLARS. IT'S UP TO YOU TO DECIDE AND RESEARCH WHY IT'S FLAWED INSTEAD OF LISTENIN' TO THE WORDS OF OTHAS.
I HAVE STUDIED. IF MY LOgIC SOUNDS BIAS IS CAUSE YOU PERCEIVE IT THAT WAY. BUT LET'S DEAL WITH FACTS. LACE ME WITH gAME PLAYA. LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU PERCEIVE AS TRUTH . IS YOUR TRUTH BASED ON WHAT FACTS?
HERESY,
LET'S gET DOWN TO THE NITTY gRITTY. BUT I AOLOgIZE FOR JUST gOIN' DOWN YOUR POSTS AND ANSWERIN' EVERY QUESTION EVEN THOUgH SOME WERE THE SAME. I DIDN'T gO OVER WHAT WAS STRESSED AND SEEN IT WAS THE SAME THINg. I APOLOgIZE FOR SOUNDIN' REDUNDANT. BUT LET ME RESPOND TO WHAT YOU STRESSED CAUSE WE gOT ISSUES TO RESOLVE AND I'M READY TO SEARCH FOR TRUTH THAT IS UNDISPUTED.
YOU STRESSED, "I THINK YOU SHOULD READ MY RESPONSES AND INFO POSTED.
FOR EXAMPLE "FIRSTBORN" CAN MEAN FIRST BORN IN A CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. IT CAN ALSO MEAN A "POSITION" OR "TITLE". THE WORD PROTOTOKOS IS THE PROPER WORD.
IF JESUS WAS INDEED THE "FIRSTBORN" AND "CREATED" (AS YOU HAVE SAID) THE WORD PROTOKTISTOS WOULD HAVE BEEN USED. WELL....IT ISNT.
I DONT SEE WHY YOU WOULD ASK "HOW YOU FIGURE" WHEN I JUST EXPLAINED WHY. HERES AN EXAMPLE:
HERESY IS COOL.
DOES THAT MEAN HERESY IS COLD AND SHIVERING? DOES IT MEAN THAT HERESY DOESNT WANT SOMETHING ("IM COOL ON THE WEED")? DOES IT MEAN THAT HERESY IS WEARING SHADES AND LEANING TO THE LEFT IN A LEXUS?
ARE YOU GETTING THE PICTURE NOW?"
YES I gET THE PICTURE. YOU SAYIN' THE WORD PROTOKITOS WAS NOT USED IN THE SAME CONTEXT AS THE OTHA SCRIPTURE. I WILL RESEARCH THE WORD AND THE WAY IT WAS USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHA INFORMATION.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "SO STOP READING ENGLISH RENDERINGS OF THE BIBLE AND LEARN GREEK AND HEBREW (AND ARAMAIC)."
I UNDA-STAND ENgLISH. I DON'T UNDA-STAND LATIN(EXPRESSED AND USED IN EVERYDAY). I DON'T SEE WHY I HAVE TO USE LATIN TO TRANSLATE THE BIBLE FROM IT'S ORIgINAL LANgUAgES. IT JUST AN EXTRA MIDDLE MAN.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I DONT KNOW IF YOU'RE BEING DUMB, SARCASTIC OR CONFRONTATIONAL. YOU LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF."
MORE CONFRONTATIONAL THAN N-E-THANg. BUT I WANT YOU TO SHARE YOUR INFORMATION.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THE WORD FOR "FIRSTBORN" (MEANING CREATED) IS ***NOT*** USED WHEN APPLIED TO JESUS. I DONT KNOW WHY YOU WOULD ASK THAT WHEN I JUST TOLD YOU (IN THE OTHER POST)."
I WAS JUST gOIN' DOWN THE LINE AND RESPONDIN' TO YOUR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS." DIDN'T MEAN TO SOUND REDUNDANT OR BLASPHEMOUS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I ALREADY EXPLAINED."
PROTOKITOS RIgHT?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THAT TEXT DON'T PROVE YOUR CLAIMS."
"KEEP THINKING THAT"
I WILL. CONVINCE ME.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THE "FIRST-BORN" IN COL 1:15 DOES NOT USE PROTOKTISTOS SO YOU'RE WRONG."
SO WHAT IS USED? SO HOW SHOULD I RENDER THAT TEXT? WHAT DOES IT MEAN? DOES IT CONTRADICT N-E OTHA BIBLE PASSAgE?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "AFTER THIS POST I NO LONGER WISH TO DISCUSS ANYTHING OF THIS NATURE WITH YOU. DONT EVEN REPLY MAN. WHAT YOU SEEK MAY BE FOUND IN REV 1:8 AND REV 22:13."
WHY NOT? DON'T BE NO SOUR PUSS. LET'S gET DOWN TO THE NITTY gRITTY. SHARE YOUR INFO AND LET ME KNOW WHY YOU RENDER SUCH INFO LIKE YOU DO. I'LL DO THE SAME. BUT REV. 1:8 STRESSES THAT (gOD)<NOT JESUS> STRESSED THAT HE WAS THE ALPHA AND THE OMEgA. REV. STRESSES THE SAME EXCEPT IT DOESN'T SAYS WHO SAYS IT. I WOULD ASSUME IT'S (gOD) SAYIN' HE'S THE ALPHA AND OMEgA CAUSE NO OTHA IS. ALSO READ ISA. 44:6, REV. 21:6, AND ISA. 48:12. RIgHT THERE (gOD) IS SPEAKIN', NOT JESUS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "OK LETS CHANGE IT TO YOUR VERSION. IT STILL DOESNT DENY THE DIETY OF YESHUA. BTW YOU DONT KNOW *WHAT* IM READING."
YOU STRESSED BEFORE THAT YOU READ OFF THE KINg JAMES VERSION. AND THE KINg JAMES VERSION STRESSES THAT TEXT YOU READ THE WAY YOU TYPED IT. SO IF IT'S NOT THE KINg JAMES VERSION THAT YOU READ, WHAT VERSION OF THE SCRIPTURES DO YOU USE? BUT THE DIETY OF YESHUA IS THAT HE IS A gOD. BUT HE IS NOT THE "ALMIgHTY gOD". YOUR BELLY CAN BE A gOD. THE DOLLA IS A gOD. N-E-THANg WORSHIPPED IS A gOD. EVEN SATAN IS A gOD. SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU WILL NOT FIND ONE GREEK RENDERING THAT STATES JESUS WAS CREATED. END OF DISCUSSION."
NOPE, END OF NATHAN. THAT TEXT STRESSED THAT ALL "OTHA THANgS" WERE CREATED BY HIM AND THRU HIM. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "ONCE AGAIN:
HERESY IS COOL."
YES YOU ARE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "DOES THAT MEAN HERESY IS COLD AND SHIVERING?"
IT MIgHT. DEPENDS IN THE CONTEXT YOU USED IT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "? DOES IT MEAN THAT HERESY DOESNT WANT SOMETHING ("IM COOL ON THE WEED")?"
IT MIgHT. DEPENDS IN THE CONTEXT YOU USED IT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "DOES IT MEAN THAT HERESY IS WEARING SHADES AND LEANING TO THE LEFT IN A LEXUS?"
IT MIgHT. DEPENDS IN THE CONTEXT YOU USED IT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "NO HEBREW,GREEK,LATIN OR ARAMAIC VERSIONS WILL SUPPORT THIS CLAIM. YOU DONT HAVE ONE VERSE IN THE BIBLE THAT SAYS "JESUS WAS MADE BY YHWH". WHEN "CREATED", "BEGOTTEN" AND "FIRSTBORN" ARE USED FOR JESUS IT **DOESNT** MEAN THAT HE WAS CREATED , BEGOTTEN OR BORN. THOSE ARE ***TITLES*** AND ***DESCRIPTIONS***. PLEASE PICK UP A LEXICON (THEY ARE CHEAP) OR FIND AN ONLINE LEXICON. AFTER THAT STUDY. IF YOU DONT WANT A KJV VERSION OF THE BIBLE FIND A TEXTUS RECEPTUS OR SEPTUIGANT (CHECK SPELLING)."
I WILL LOOK FURTHER INTO THIS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "HOW CAN HE CREATE "ALL THINGS" IF HE IS CREATED? IF HE WAS CREATED ITS **IMPOSSIBLE** TO CREATE ALL. IF YOU CANT COMPREHEND THAT I DONT KNOW WHAT TO TELL YOU."
NOT "ALL THANgS" BUT ALL "OTHA THANgS". THAT'S HOW. READ COL. 1:16
THEN YOU STRESSED, "ANYWAY I DONT FEEL LIKE DISCUSSING THIS ANY MORE. MUCH OF THIS HAS BEEN GIVEN TO YOU IN *PAST* THREADS. YOU WILL CONTINUE TO ARGUE AND DEBATE WITH YOUR J.W DOCTRINE/DOGMA (WHICH IS VERY FLAWED).
HOW IS JW FLAWED? HOW IS MY DOgMA THEIRS? THIS IS MY LOgICAL THINKIN', MY OWN WORDS. NOT THEIRS. I DON'T REPRESENT THEM OR THE ME. I USE THEIR RESEARCH AND IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE. YOU SHOULD OPEN YOUR MIND AND SEE WHAT THE FUK THEY STRESSIN' INSTEAD OF KNOCCIN' THEM IN EVERY WHICH WAY. ALL I'M SAYIN' IS TO PEEP gAME.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "PS EDJ I BET YOUR USING THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION (A VERY FLAWED BOOK)"
HOW IS IT FLAWED? COMPARED TO WHAT? SHOW ME PROOF THAT IT'S FLAWED. I'VE SEEN WHERE IT WAS PRAISED AMONg SCHOLARS. IT'S UP TO YOU TO DECIDE AND RESEARCH WHY IT'S FLAWED INSTEAD OF LISTENIN' TO THE WORDS OF OTHAS.
^THEN HOW IN THE FUK YOU DETERMINE TRUTH? IF THERE'S ONLY ONE(THERE ONLY MUST BE ONE, JUST AS THERE IS ONLY ONE EARTH), THEN SOMEBODY'S RIgHT AND THE REST ARE WRONg OR DEVIATIATED FROM THAT TRUTH, WHICH MAKES IT ERRONEOUS.
YOU ALSO STRESSED, "it is what it is."
THE THANg IS, WHAT IS IT?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I don't wish for you to see things my way."
IN A NUTSHELL,WHAT ARE YOUR WAYS?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "just consider a side outside your own."
I CONSIDER ALL gAME SPITTED AT ME. THE THANg IS THAT NOT ALL gAME IS AUTHENTIC, AND NOT ALL CAN BE CONSUMED AND LOgICALLY BE COMPATIBLE WITH REASONIN'. NOT ALL gAME IS gOOD gAME. JUST REMEMBER THAT.
YOU ALSO STRESSED, "it is what it is."
THE THANg IS, WHAT IS IT?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I don't wish for you to see things my way."
IN A NUTSHELL,WHAT ARE YOUR WAYS?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "just consider a side outside your own."
I CONSIDER ALL gAME SPITTED AT ME. THE THANg IS THAT NOT ALL gAME IS AUTHENTIC, AND NOT ALL CAN BE CONSUMED AND LOgICALLY BE COMPATIBLE WITH REASONIN'. NOT ALL gAME IS gOOD gAME. JUST REMEMBER THAT.
futile.
futile. i meant to type 1:11
in rev 1:11 he makes the statement that he is alpha omega. in the scriptures (originals) you dont see a breaking point. his words continue to 3:22. evidence that it is NOT YHWH speaking can be found in 2:27 and 3:5. you endorse the dogma. it makes "perfect sense" so its yours. 99.9% of what you have stated now and in the past is j.w. doctrine/beliefs.
you use their research. why dont you throw that research in the nearest trash and do your own. forget ALL that you have learned and do your own research. how can they make perfect sense when they have predicted so much stuff that never came to past? if they were living in teh old testament they would have been stoned to death a thousand times by now.
they make perfect sense and say michael is jesus. no proof of this is found in scripture.
they make perfect sense and say 144,000 are going to heaven. the bible says that the 144,000 are virgin males (JEWS AT THAT) rev 14 : 1-5. so where does that put the j.w. females and non jews?
heres one for you. was jesus hung on a tree or crucified on a cross? j.w's will tell you he was hung on a tree and show comic book pictures of some skinny looking dude dying on a pole.
futile. compared to the greek and hebrew manuscripts its flawed. i will give you proof all day long but you wont accept it (check past threads).
futile.
:H:
futile. i meant to type 1:11
in rev 1:11 he makes the statement that he is alpha omega. in the scriptures (originals) you dont see a breaking point. his words continue to 3:22. evidence that it is NOT YHWH speaking can be found in 2:27 and 3:5. you endorse the dogma. it makes "perfect sense" so its yours. 99.9% of what you have stated now and in the past is j.w. doctrine/beliefs.
you use their research. why dont you throw that research in the nearest trash and do your own. forget ALL that you have learned and do your own research. how can they make perfect sense when they have predicted so much stuff that never came to past? if they were living in teh old testament they would have been stoned to death a thousand times by now.
they make perfect sense and say michael is jesus. no proof of this is found in scripture.
they make perfect sense and say 144,000 are going to heaven. the bible says that the 144,000 are virgin males (JEWS AT THAT) rev 14 : 1-5. so where does that put the j.w. females and non jews?
heres one for you. was jesus hung on a tree or crucified on a cross? j.w's will tell you he was hung on a tree and show comic book pictures of some skinny looking dude dying on a pole.
futile. compared to the greek and hebrew manuscripts its flawed. i will give you proof all day long but you wont accept it (check past threads).
futile.
:H:
HERESY,
YOU STRESSED, "futile.", WHEN I ASKED WHY NOT, AFTER YOU MADE YOUR COMMENT ABOUT, "ANYWAY I DONT FEEL LIKE DISCUSSING THIS ANY MORE."
THIS AIN'T FUTILE. I FEEL WE gETTIN' DOWN TO TRUTH.
THEN YOU STRESSED, " futile. i meant to type 1:11
in rev 1:11 he makes the statement that he is alpha omega. in the scriptures (originals) you dont see a breaking point. his words continue to 3:22. evidence that it is NOT YHWH speaking can be found in 2:27 and 3:5."
ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT? NONE OF THEM TEXTS SAY N-E-THANg ABOUT ALPHA OR OMEgA. ALL THOSE TEXTS TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENT CONgREgATIONS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "you endorse the dogma."
AS OPPOSED TO WHAT? I LISTEN AND MAKE MY OWN DISTINCTION ABOUT WHAT IS TRUTH. I LOOK INTO THEIR RESEARCH AND LOOK FOR FLAWS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "it makes "perfect sense" so its yours. 99.9% of what you have stated now and in the past is j.w. doctrine/beliefs."
IT'S NOT THEIRS. AND FOR ARgUMENT'S SAKE, LET'S SAY IT WAS THEIRS AND I WAS BRAINWASHED. WHY DOES IT MAKE SO MUTHA-FUCCIN' SENSE AND THEY BAK IT UP WITH RESEARCH? WHY AIN'T I A FULL FLEDgED JEHOVAH'S WITNESS IF I'M THAT BRAINWASHED? BUT LIKE I STRESSED, I PERSONALLY HAVE LOOKED INTO WHAT THEY STRESSIN' AND KNOW WHAT TO DISCERN FOR MYSELF. I AM NOT INVOLVED WITH THEM OR THEIR ORgANIZATION. ALL I'M DOIN' IS TRYIN' TO SEEK TRUTH.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "you use their research."
JUST LIKE I USE YOURS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, " why dont you throw that research in the nearest trash and do your own."
I DO DO MY OWN BUT NOT TO THE EXTENT WHERE I'M TRASHIN' OTHA'S JUST TO SAY I HAVE MY OWN. IN OTHA WORDS, IF SOMEBODY'S RESEARCH IS NOT FAULTY BY MY DISCERNMENT, IT HAS VALUE TO MY RESEARCH. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF YOU gAVE ME VALUABLE INFORMATION AND SOMEBODY WAS INSTRUCTIN' ME TO THROW IT AWAY? WOULDN'T YOU FEEL THAT THAT PERSON IS ADVISIN' ME WRONg? THAT THAT PERSON IS IMPEDIN' ME FROM REACHIN' TRUTH AND EXHAUSTIN' MY OPTIONS IN OBTAININ' INFORMATION?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "forget ALL that you have learned and do your own research."
WHAT HAVE I LEARNED? SO DO MY OWN RESEARCH AND START FROM WHERE? SO WHAT I KNOW NOW DOESN'T MEAN SHIT?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "how can they make perfect sense when they have predicted so much stuff that never came to past?"
THAT WAS ERRONEOUS HUMAN ERROR FROM OUT OF THE BUNCH, TRYIN' TO XCOND gUESS. IT'S LIKE IF YOU HAVE A BUSTA FROM YOUR HOOD. OUTSIDERS gONNA LOOK AT YOUR WHOLE HOOD AS BUSTAS EVEN THOUgH YOU NEVA DID NO BUSTA SHIT. SO THE THANg TO DO IS CHEK AND REgULATE THAT FOO' THAT DID THAT BUSTA SHIT AND REgULATE THE FOO'S THAT SCREAM THAT YOUR HOOD IS SOME BUSTAS. SEE WHAT I'M SAYIN'? I NEVA BELIEVED THOSE SPECIFIC DATES IN THE PAST THAT SOME gAVE. YOU HAVE TO REALIZE THAT HUMANS ARE IMPERFECT AND IN THESE TIMES, SHIT IS gETTIN' HARDER. AND LIKE I TOLD YOU BEFORE, THE SHIT IS LIKE A FILTERIN' PROCESS. THE JW DON'T CLAIM TO KNOW IT ALL CAUSE SOME SCRIPTURES ARE STILL LEFT TO BE REVEALED. ALL THEY DO IS STUDY THE BIBLE, RESEARCH, AND PREACH WHAT THEY'VE LEARNED. I NEVA HEARD OF N-E RELIgIOUS SECT THAT DOES THAT OR ADHERE'S TO BIBLE PRINCIPLES AS THEM.
THEN YOU STRESSED, " if they were living in teh old testament they would have been stoned to death a thousand times by now."
PROBABLY. DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD BE STONED AS AN ORgANIZATION OR WOULD THE REAL INFILTRATORS BE FILTERED OUT AND BE DEALT WITH?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "they make perfect sense and say michael is jesus. no proof of this is found in scripture."
I CAN SHOW YOU PROOF BUT YOU PROBABLY CRITICIZE THE RENDERIN' OF THE TEXT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "they make perfect sense and say 144,000 are going to heaven. the bible says that the 144,000 are virgin males (JEWS AT THAT) rev 14 : 1-5. so where does that put the j.w. females and non jews?"
THAT WOULD SOUND FUNNY IF TOOKEN LITERAL. BUT THAT'S A SPIRITUAL ISREAL, NOT AN EARTHLY ONE. (gOD) LEFT ISREAL FROM BEIN' HIS EARTHLY PEOPLE AgES AgO. THAT'S WHY HE LET BABYLON gET AT THEY ASS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "heres one for you. was jesus hung on a tree or crucified on a cross? j.w's will tell you he was hung on a tree and show comic book pictures of some skinny looking dude dying on a pole."
WHO SAID HE WAS HUNg ON A TREE? THAT'S A NEW ONE. I NEVA HEARD THAT ONE BEFORE. BUT I BELIEVE HE WAS HUNg ON A STAKE LIKE THE BIBLE STRESSES. WHETHA IT WAS A STAKE WITH A CROSS OR JUST A STRAIgHT STAKE IS UP FOR DEBATE, BUT I CAN RESEARCH AND TELL YOU WHAT IS ACTUAL AND FACTUAL. WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "futile." WHEN I ASKED YOU WHAT VERSION OF THE BIBLE YOU USED AND THAT N-E-THANg CAN BE A gOD.
WHY IS IT FUTILE? ANSWER MY QUESTION. AND WHY IS MY ILLUSTRATION FUTILE? MY POINT WAS THAT N-E-THANg CAN BE A gOD AND WHEN MAKIN' REFERENCE TO JESUS, HE IS A gOD, BUT NOT THE "ALMIgHTY gOD". THAT WAS MY POINT, BUT I gUESS TO YOU IT WAS FUTILE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "compared to the greek and hebrew manuscripts its flawed."
THAT'S WHAT SOME SCHOLARS SAY. BUT I SUggEST WE LOOK FURTHER INTO THIS RATHER THAN JUST LISTEN WHAT SOME SO-CALLED SCHOLARS SAY. CLIK HERE CUZZ http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/nwtmain.htm
READ IT AND CLIK ON THE BOTTOM LINKS IF YOU HAVE TIME.
THEN YOU STRESSED, ". i will give you proof all day long but you wont accept it (check past threads)."
DO THAT. AND WHAT THREADS HAVE YOU SPECIFICALLY TALKED ABOUT THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE AND POINTED OUT IT'S FLAWS? NAMES PLEASE. BUT CHEK THIS LINK:
http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/John 11.htm
THAT IS ONE OF THE THANgS WE JUST TALKED ABOUT. LOOK FURTHER INTO THAT TOPIC. CAUSE I DO BELIEVE YOU ARE FOLLOWIN' A RENDERIN' THAT IS FLAWED AND NOT SOAKIN' ALL INFORMATION.
YOU STRESSED, "futile.", WHEN I ASKED WHY NOT, AFTER YOU MADE YOUR COMMENT ABOUT, "ANYWAY I DONT FEEL LIKE DISCUSSING THIS ANY MORE."
THIS AIN'T FUTILE. I FEEL WE gETTIN' DOWN TO TRUTH.
THEN YOU STRESSED, " futile. i meant to type 1:11
in rev 1:11 he makes the statement that he is alpha omega. in the scriptures (originals) you dont see a breaking point. his words continue to 3:22. evidence that it is NOT YHWH speaking can be found in 2:27 and 3:5."
ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT? NONE OF THEM TEXTS SAY N-E-THANg ABOUT ALPHA OR OMEgA. ALL THOSE TEXTS TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENT CONgREgATIONS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "you endorse the dogma."
AS OPPOSED TO WHAT? I LISTEN AND MAKE MY OWN DISTINCTION ABOUT WHAT IS TRUTH. I LOOK INTO THEIR RESEARCH AND LOOK FOR FLAWS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "it makes "perfect sense" so its yours. 99.9% of what you have stated now and in the past is j.w. doctrine/beliefs."
IT'S NOT THEIRS. AND FOR ARgUMENT'S SAKE, LET'S SAY IT WAS THEIRS AND I WAS BRAINWASHED. WHY DOES IT MAKE SO MUTHA-FUCCIN' SENSE AND THEY BAK IT UP WITH RESEARCH? WHY AIN'T I A FULL FLEDgED JEHOVAH'S WITNESS IF I'M THAT BRAINWASHED? BUT LIKE I STRESSED, I PERSONALLY HAVE LOOKED INTO WHAT THEY STRESSIN' AND KNOW WHAT TO DISCERN FOR MYSELF. I AM NOT INVOLVED WITH THEM OR THEIR ORgANIZATION. ALL I'M DOIN' IS TRYIN' TO SEEK TRUTH.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "you use their research."
JUST LIKE I USE YOURS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, " why dont you throw that research in the nearest trash and do your own."
I DO DO MY OWN BUT NOT TO THE EXTENT WHERE I'M TRASHIN' OTHA'S JUST TO SAY I HAVE MY OWN. IN OTHA WORDS, IF SOMEBODY'S RESEARCH IS NOT FAULTY BY MY DISCERNMENT, IT HAS VALUE TO MY RESEARCH. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF YOU gAVE ME VALUABLE INFORMATION AND SOMEBODY WAS INSTRUCTIN' ME TO THROW IT AWAY? WOULDN'T YOU FEEL THAT THAT PERSON IS ADVISIN' ME WRONg? THAT THAT PERSON IS IMPEDIN' ME FROM REACHIN' TRUTH AND EXHAUSTIN' MY OPTIONS IN OBTAININ' INFORMATION?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "forget ALL that you have learned and do your own research."
WHAT HAVE I LEARNED? SO DO MY OWN RESEARCH AND START FROM WHERE? SO WHAT I KNOW NOW DOESN'T MEAN SHIT?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "how can they make perfect sense when they have predicted so much stuff that never came to past?"
THAT WAS ERRONEOUS HUMAN ERROR FROM OUT OF THE BUNCH, TRYIN' TO XCOND gUESS. IT'S LIKE IF YOU HAVE A BUSTA FROM YOUR HOOD. OUTSIDERS gONNA LOOK AT YOUR WHOLE HOOD AS BUSTAS EVEN THOUgH YOU NEVA DID NO BUSTA SHIT. SO THE THANg TO DO IS CHEK AND REgULATE THAT FOO' THAT DID THAT BUSTA SHIT AND REgULATE THE FOO'S THAT SCREAM THAT YOUR HOOD IS SOME BUSTAS. SEE WHAT I'M SAYIN'? I NEVA BELIEVED THOSE SPECIFIC DATES IN THE PAST THAT SOME gAVE. YOU HAVE TO REALIZE THAT HUMANS ARE IMPERFECT AND IN THESE TIMES, SHIT IS gETTIN' HARDER. AND LIKE I TOLD YOU BEFORE, THE SHIT IS LIKE A FILTERIN' PROCESS. THE JW DON'T CLAIM TO KNOW IT ALL CAUSE SOME SCRIPTURES ARE STILL LEFT TO BE REVEALED. ALL THEY DO IS STUDY THE BIBLE, RESEARCH, AND PREACH WHAT THEY'VE LEARNED. I NEVA HEARD OF N-E RELIgIOUS SECT THAT DOES THAT OR ADHERE'S TO BIBLE PRINCIPLES AS THEM.
THEN YOU STRESSED, " if they were living in teh old testament they would have been stoned to death a thousand times by now."
PROBABLY. DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD BE STONED AS AN ORgANIZATION OR WOULD THE REAL INFILTRATORS BE FILTERED OUT AND BE DEALT WITH?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "they make perfect sense and say michael is jesus. no proof of this is found in scripture."
I CAN SHOW YOU PROOF BUT YOU PROBABLY CRITICIZE THE RENDERIN' OF THE TEXT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "they make perfect sense and say 144,000 are going to heaven. the bible says that the 144,000 are virgin males (JEWS AT THAT) rev 14 : 1-5. so where does that put the j.w. females and non jews?"
THAT WOULD SOUND FUNNY IF TOOKEN LITERAL. BUT THAT'S A SPIRITUAL ISREAL, NOT AN EARTHLY ONE. (gOD) LEFT ISREAL FROM BEIN' HIS EARTHLY PEOPLE AgES AgO. THAT'S WHY HE LET BABYLON gET AT THEY ASS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "heres one for you. was jesus hung on a tree or crucified on a cross? j.w's will tell you he was hung on a tree and show comic book pictures of some skinny looking dude dying on a pole."
WHO SAID HE WAS HUNg ON A TREE? THAT'S A NEW ONE. I NEVA HEARD THAT ONE BEFORE. BUT I BELIEVE HE WAS HUNg ON A STAKE LIKE THE BIBLE STRESSES. WHETHA IT WAS A STAKE WITH A CROSS OR JUST A STRAIgHT STAKE IS UP FOR DEBATE, BUT I CAN RESEARCH AND TELL YOU WHAT IS ACTUAL AND FACTUAL. WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "futile." WHEN I ASKED YOU WHAT VERSION OF THE BIBLE YOU USED AND THAT N-E-THANg CAN BE A gOD.
WHY IS IT FUTILE? ANSWER MY QUESTION. AND WHY IS MY ILLUSTRATION FUTILE? MY POINT WAS THAT N-E-THANg CAN BE A gOD AND WHEN MAKIN' REFERENCE TO JESUS, HE IS A gOD, BUT NOT THE "ALMIgHTY gOD". THAT WAS MY POINT, BUT I gUESS TO YOU IT WAS FUTILE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "compared to the greek and hebrew manuscripts its flawed."
THAT'S WHAT SOME SCHOLARS SAY. BUT I SUggEST WE LOOK FURTHER INTO THIS RATHER THAN JUST LISTEN WHAT SOME SO-CALLED SCHOLARS SAY. CLIK HERE CUZZ http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/nwtmain.htm
READ IT AND CLIK ON THE BOTTOM LINKS IF YOU HAVE TIME.
THEN YOU STRESSED, ". i will give you proof all day long but you wont accept it (check past threads)."
DO THAT. AND WHAT THREADS HAVE YOU SPECIFICALLY TALKED ABOUT THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE AND POINTED OUT IT'S FLAWS? NAMES PLEASE. BUT CHEK THIS LINK:
http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/John 11.htm
THAT IS ONE OF THE THANgS WE JUST TALKED ABOUT. LOOK FURTHER INTO THAT TOPIC. CAUSE I DO BELIEVE YOU ARE FOLLOWIN' A RENDERIN' THAT IS FLAWED AND NOT SOAKIN' ALL INFORMATION.
MAN YOU DONT READ SO STOP ASKING ME ABOUT THIS.
LOOK MAN IT'S OBVIOUS THAT YOU DONT READ. I DONT WANT TO DEBATE THE BIBLE WITH YOU. I NEVER WANT TO DISCUSS THE BIBLE AND OR RELIGION WITH YOU AGAIN. YOU HAVE YOUR VIEWS (BASED ON NOTHING) AND YOU WILL KEEP THEM. IM NOT TRYING TO CHANGE YOU AND I DONT WANT TO CHANGE YOU. WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE AND THATS YOUR CHOICE. IM GOING TO KEEP THIS SHORT. AFTER THIS IM OUT OF THIS THREAD FOR GOOD BECAUSE YOU WANT TO KEEP GOING IN CIRCLES (THATS ALL YOU WILL DO).
WE ARENT GETTING DOWN TO ANYTHING IF YOU ARE ASKING THE SAME QUESTION 1,735 TIMES. WE ARENT GETTING DOWN TO ANYTHING IF YOU ARENT READING.
IF YOU WOULD PUT THAT COMIC BOOK DOWN (THE NEW WORLDS TRANSLATION WHICH PROBABLY OMITS SECTION OF THE VERSE) AND READ A REAL BIBLE YOU WOULD SEE WHAT THE VERSE SAYS. EITHER YOUR BIBLE IS SCREWED OR YOUR EYESIGHT IS SCREWED. HERE IS THE VERSE FOR YOUR ENJOYMENT:
REV 1:11 Saying,I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
futile.
because you use a FLAWED VERSION OF THE BIBLE THAT OMITS CERTAIN PASSAGES TO MAKE IT SUIT THE NEEDS OF THE CHURCH LEADERS. I DONT UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN "DOWNPLAY" THE LATIN BIBLE YET ENDORSE THAT COMIC BOOK THAT DOESNT HAVE THE COMPLETE RENDERINGS. HOW CAN YOU LOGICALLY ASK ME "AM I SURE" WHEN YOU ARE READING FROM ONE OF THE MOST FLAWED TRANSLATIONS KNOWN TO MAN? YOU AND I ARENT READING THE SAME BOOK. YOU HAVE ENDORSED EVERY FLAW THEY ENDORSE. YOU HAVE AGREED WITH EVERYTHING THEY HOLD TO BE DOCTRINE. YOU AGREE WITH THEM. YOUR POSTS AGREE WITH THEM. YOU DONT LISTEN AND MAK EYOUR OWN DISTINCTION. YOU LISTEN AND SWALLOW.
1.YOU USE A NEW WORLDS TRANSLATION (THE J.W. VERSION OF THE BIBLE)
2.YOU DONT BELIEVE IN A LITERAL HELL.
3.YOU ENDORSE THE "MEMORY GOING BACK TO GOD " CONCEPT.
4.IF YOU DIDNT HOLD THAT DOCTRINE YOU WOULDNT BE SO DEFENSIVE.
SEE THATS YOUR PROBLEM. YOU WANT TO ARGUE. I DONT.
SEE POINTS 1-4. BTW YOU ARE.
IT MAKES SENSE TO YOU BECAUSE THEY ARE TELLING YOU ABOUT GOD THROUGH A TWISTED VERSION OF SCRIPTURES. IT MAKES SENSE TO YOU BECAUSE YOUR MIND IS RECEPTIVE TO THAT TYPE OF DOCTRINE (GARBAGE). IT MAKES SENSE TO YOU BECAUSE YOU DONT "HEAR".
1.THEY DONT BACK IT UP WITH ANYTHING. FROM UNFULLFILLED PROPHECIES, TO WRONG DATES, TO TRANSLATION ERRORS, TO DOCTRINAL ERRORS ETC ETC ETC. THEY DO IT ALL. YOU ARE BRAINWASHED.
2.DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.
YOU ARENT ENVOLVED WITH THEM OR THE ORGANIZATION YET YOU ENDORSE THEIR VIEWS, USE THE VERSION OF THE BIBLE THEY USE AND *NEVER* DISAGREED WITH *ANY* OF THE DOCTRINE OR VIEWS WHEN PLACED UNDER SCRUTINY. WHAT YOU DO IS MAKE AN EXCUSE FOR THEM.
NO YOU DONT.
I'VE GIVEN YOU VALUABLE INFO AND YOU DONT EVEN LOOK INTO. SO THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES. IM NOT TRASHING ANYONE. IM SPEAKING THE TRUTH. THE J.W.'S ARE A CULT. THE J.W.'S HAVE A LUNATICS VERSION OF THE BIBLE. WHEN YOU COMPARE THAT BIBLE TO THE GREEK OR HEBREW YOU WILL SEE FOR YOURSELF. AND YOU CALL THE LATIN BIBLE A "MIDDLEMAN"?? HA!
THE RESEARCH IS NOT FAULTY BY YOUR DISCERNMENT BECAUSE YOU ARE OPEN TO THE DECEPTION AND LIES THAT THEY SHOVE DOWN YOUR MOUTH. IT TASTE GOOD TO YOU. ITS VERY APPEALING. ITS EYE CANDY AND IT TICKLES THE EAR. YOU HAVE LEARNED FALSE DOCTRINE. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND START WITH A HEBREW AND GREEK BIBLE. I HAVE SAID THIS THOUSANDS OF TIMES ON THIS BOARD. I DONT KNOW IF YOU ARE BEING SARCASTIC OR WHAT. WHAT YOU KNOW "DOESNT MEAN SHIT". THROW IT ALL OUT THE WINDOW AND START FROM SCRATCH.
ONCE AGAIN MAKING EXCUSES. YOU NEVER HEARD OF ANY RELIGIOUS SECT DOING IT BECAUSE WHAT THE J.W.'S DO IS ACCORDING TO J.W.'S DOCTRINE/DOGMA. IT WOULD BE FOOLISH FOR ANY RELIGIOUS SECT (OR INDIVIDUAL) TO HOLD THE DOCTRINE AS TRUTH. IM NOT GOING TO ASK WHAT SCRIPTURES ARE NOT REVEALED.
ERRONEOUS HUMAN ERROR? INSTEAD OF BEING LED BY THE SPIRIT THEY WERE LED BY MAN. THEY WERE IN ERROR AND YOU ENDORSE IT. YOU MAKE AN EXCUSE. PROBABLY? LMAO! THEY WOULD BE STONED TO DEATH. WHOEVER SET THE DATES WOULD BE STONED AND WHOEVER CONTINUED TO SET DATES WOULD BE STONED. SO IF ITS THE J.W. LEADER HE WOULD BE STONED. IF IT WAS A J.W. CHURCH COOK SHE WOULD BE PELTED WITH ROCKS. YOU WILL SHOW ME PROOF FROM A NEW WORLDS TRANSLATION WHICH IS A COMIC BOOK AND FLAWED VERSION OF THE BIBLE. YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF SHOWING ME (IN GREEK OR HEBREW TEXT) THAT JESUS IS MICHAEL THE ARCH ANGEL. THAT IS A RETARDED CONCEPT (ARIANISM) AND I LISTED IT EARLIER.
http://www.geocities.com/donotloseyourfaith/michael.html BLOWS HOLES IN YOUR DOCTRINE AND EVEN USES THE GREEK AND HEBREW WORDS.
HERE IS AN EXCERPT FROM ANOTHER SITE:
They believe Jesus is a mighty God and Jehovah is the almighty. That's two Gods, this is not monotheism. Then what of the angel Gabriel that also means mighty like God does this make him Jesus too? Where is Michael now since the resurrection has not occurred and Michael fights before it in Dan.12. Yet he is Jesus. Whose name is above all names forever. Did the angel Michael incarnate to die for our sins?
http://www.letusreason.org/JW22.htm
HERES AN EXCERPT FROM A SITE THAT SENDS YOUR DOGMA TO HELL AND BACK 666 TIMES.
Yet, although the Watchtower rejects the Deity of Christ on what they consider lack of overt biblical evidence, they have no qualms with manufacturing a new identity for Jesus out of whole cloth, which has not only no direct biblical support, but was unknown to the church from the apostolic period until the 19th century.
http://neirr.org/Is Jesus Really Michael.htm
LOL@ A SPIRITUAL ISRAEL. FUTILE. BECAUSE YOU HAVENT RESEARCHED J.W. DOCTRINE. YOU ACCEPT IT.
THE BIBLE DOES NOT STRESS THAT HE WAS HUNG ON A STAKE. YOUR BIBLE STRESSES THAT. ITS NOT UP FOR DEBATE. YESHUA WAS CRUCIFIED. THIS WAS A COMMON FORM OF ROMAN EXECUTION. THIS SITE WILL EXPLAIN (AND KILL) YOUR VIEW.
http://www.watchman.org/jw/crossjw.htm READ THE PREVIOUS LINKS.
LOOK MAN IT'S OBVIOUS THAT YOU DONT READ. I DONT WANT TO DEBATE THE BIBLE WITH YOU. I NEVER WANT TO DISCUSS THE BIBLE AND OR RELIGION WITH YOU AGAIN. YOU HAVE YOUR VIEWS (BASED ON NOTHING) AND YOU WILL KEEP THEM. IM NOT TRYING TO CHANGE YOU AND I DONT WANT TO CHANGE YOU. WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE AND THATS YOUR CHOICE. IM GOING TO KEEP THIS SHORT. AFTER THIS IM OUT OF THIS THREAD FOR GOOD BECAUSE YOU WANT TO KEEP GOING IN CIRCLES (THATS ALL YOU WILL DO).
WE ARENT GETTING DOWN TO ANYTHING IF YOU ARE ASKING THE SAME QUESTION 1,735 TIMES. WE ARENT GETTING DOWN TO ANYTHING IF YOU ARENT READING.
IF YOU WOULD PUT THAT COMIC BOOK DOWN (THE NEW WORLDS TRANSLATION WHICH PROBABLY OMITS SECTION OF THE VERSE) AND READ A REAL BIBLE YOU WOULD SEE WHAT THE VERSE SAYS. EITHER YOUR BIBLE IS SCREWED OR YOUR EYESIGHT IS SCREWED. HERE IS THE VERSE FOR YOUR ENJOYMENT:
REV 1:11 Saying,I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
futile.
because you use a FLAWED VERSION OF THE BIBLE THAT OMITS CERTAIN PASSAGES TO MAKE IT SUIT THE NEEDS OF THE CHURCH LEADERS. I DONT UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN "DOWNPLAY" THE LATIN BIBLE YET ENDORSE THAT COMIC BOOK THAT DOESNT HAVE THE COMPLETE RENDERINGS. HOW CAN YOU LOGICALLY ASK ME "AM I SURE" WHEN YOU ARE READING FROM ONE OF THE MOST FLAWED TRANSLATIONS KNOWN TO MAN? YOU AND I ARENT READING THE SAME BOOK. YOU HAVE ENDORSED EVERY FLAW THEY ENDORSE. YOU HAVE AGREED WITH EVERYTHING THEY HOLD TO BE DOCTRINE. YOU AGREE WITH THEM. YOUR POSTS AGREE WITH THEM. YOU DONT LISTEN AND MAK EYOUR OWN DISTINCTION. YOU LISTEN AND SWALLOW.
1.YOU USE A NEW WORLDS TRANSLATION (THE J.W. VERSION OF THE BIBLE)
2.YOU DONT BELIEVE IN A LITERAL HELL.
3.YOU ENDORSE THE "MEMORY GOING BACK TO GOD " CONCEPT.
4.IF YOU DIDNT HOLD THAT DOCTRINE YOU WOULDNT BE SO DEFENSIVE.
SEE THATS YOUR PROBLEM. YOU WANT TO ARGUE. I DONT.
SEE POINTS 1-4. BTW YOU ARE.
IT MAKES SENSE TO YOU BECAUSE THEY ARE TELLING YOU ABOUT GOD THROUGH A TWISTED VERSION OF SCRIPTURES. IT MAKES SENSE TO YOU BECAUSE YOUR MIND IS RECEPTIVE TO THAT TYPE OF DOCTRINE (GARBAGE). IT MAKES SENSE TO YOU BECAUSE YOU DONT "HEAR".
1.THEY DONT BACK IT UP WITH ANYTHING. FROM UNFULLFILLED PROPHECIES, TO WRONG DATES, TO TRANSLATION ERRORS, TO DOCTRINAL ERRORS ETC ETC ETC. THEY DO IT ALL. YOU ARE BRAINWASHED.
2.DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.
YOU ARENT ENVOLVED WITH THEM OR THE ORGANIZATION YET YOU ENDORSE THEIR VIEWS, USE THE VERSION OF THE BIBLE THEY USE AND *NEVER* DISAGREED WITH *ANY* OF THE DOCTRINE OR VIEWS WHEN PLACED UNDER SCRUTINY. WHAT YOU DO IS MAKE AN EXCUSE FOR THEM.
NO YOU DONT.
I'VE GIVEN YOU VALUABLE INFO AND YOU DONT EVEN LOOK INTO. SO THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES. IM NOT TRASHING ANYONE. IM SPEAKING THE TRUTH. THE J.W.'S ARE A CULT. THE J.W.'S HAVE A LUNATICS VERSION OF THE BIBLE. WHEN YOU COMPARE THAT BIBLE TO THE GREEK OR HEBREW YOU WILL SEE FOR YOURSELF. AND YOU CALL THE LATIN BIBLE A "MIDDLEMAN"?? HA!
THE RESEARCH IS NOT FAULTY BY YOUR DISCERNMENT BECAUSE YOU ARE OPEN TO THE DECEPTION AND LIES THAT THEY SHOVE DOWN YOUR MOUTH. IT TASTE GOOD TO YOU. ITS VERY APPEALING. ITS EYE CANDY AND IT TICKLES THE EAR. YOU HAVE LEARNED FALSE DOCTRINE. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND START WITH A HEBREW AND GREEK BIBLE. I HAVE SAID THIS THOUSANDS OF TIMES ON THIS BOARD. I DONT KNOW IF YOU ARE BEING SARCASTIC OR WHAT. WHAT YOU KNOW "DOESNT MEAN SHIT". THROW IT ALL OUT THE WINDOW AND START FROM SCRATCH.
ONCE AGAIN MAKING EXCUSES. YOU NEVER HEARD OF ANY RELIGIOUS SECT DOING IT BECAUSE WHAT THE J.W.'S DO IS ACCORDING TO J.W.'S DOCTRINE/DOGMA. IT WOULD BE FOOLISH FOR ANY RELIGIOUS SECT (OR INDIVIDUAL) TO HOLD THE DOCTRINE AS TRUTH. IM NOT GOING TO ASK WHAT SCRIPTURES ARE NOT REVEALED.
ERRONEOUS HUMAN ERROR? INSTEAD OF BEING LED BY THE SPIRIT THEY WERE LED BY MAN. THEY WERE IN ERROR AND YOU ENDORSE IT. YOU MAKE AN EXCUSE. PROBABLY? LMAO! THEY WOULD BE STONED TO DEATH. WHOEVER SET THE DATES WOULD BE STONED AND WHOEVER CONTINUED TO SET DATES WOULD BE STONED. SO IF ITS THE J.W. LEADER HE WOULD BE STONED. IF IT WAS A J.W. CHURCH COOK SHE WOULD BE PELTED WITH ROCKS. YOU WILL SHOW ME PROOF FROM A NEW WORLDS TRANSLATION WHICH IS A COMIC BOOK AND FLAWED VERSION OF THE BIBLE. YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF SHOWING ME (IN GREEK OR HEBREW TEXT) THAT JESUS IS MICHAEL THE ARCH ANGEL. THAT IS A RETARDED CONCEPT (ARIANISM) AND I LISTED IT EARLIER.
http://www.geocities.com/donotloseyourfaith/michael.html BLOWS HOLES IN YOUR DOCTRINE AND EVEN USES THE GREEK AND HEBREW WORDS.
HERE IS AN EXCERPT FROM ANOTHER SITE:
They believe Jesus is a mighty God and Jehovah is the almighty. That's two Gods, this is not monotheism. Then what of the angel Gabriel that also means mighty like God does this make him Jesus too? Where is Michael now since the resurrection has not occurred and Michael fights before it in Dan.12. Yet he is Jesus. Whose name is above all names forever. Did the angel Michael incarnate to die for our sins?
http://www.letusreason.org/JW22.htm
HERES AN EXCERPT FROM A SITE THAT SENDS YOUR DOGMA TO HELL AND BACK 666 TIMES.
Yet, although the Watchtower rejects the Deity of Christ on what they consider lack of overt biblical evidence, they have no qualms with manufacturing a new identity for Jesus out of whole cloth, which has not only no direct biblical support, but was unknown to the church from the apostolic period until the 19th century.
http://neirr.org/Is Jesus Really Michael.htm
LOL@ A SPIRITUAL ISRAEL. FUTILE. BECAUSE YOU HAVENT RESEARCHED J.W. DOCTRINE. YOU ACCEPT IT.
THE BIBLE DOES NOT STRESS THAT HE WAS HUNG ON A STAKE. YOUR BIBLE STRESSES THAT. ITS NOT UP FOR DEBATE. YESHUA WAS CRUCIFIED. THIS WAS A COMMON FORM OF ROMAN EXECUTION. THIS SITE WILL EXPLAIN (AND KILL) YOUR VIEW.
http://www.watchman.org/jw/crossjw.htm READ THE PREVIOUS LINKS.
HERE ARE EXCERPTS FROM THAT SITE:
BIAS. FUTILE. FUTILE. DID THAT. MISINFORMED. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO GREEK RENDERINGS.
USE THE SEARCH ENGINE.
EDJ I DONT CARE ***WHAT*** YOU BELIEVE. LOOK AT THE LIST OF BIBLES ON THAT PAGE. MORE COMIC BOOKS.
"THE WORD WAS A GOD"........ISNT FOUND IN THE GREEK VERSIONS.
http://www.cpats.org/CPATSAnswerDirectory/Answers_to_Questions/2000AugJohn1_1&JehovahWitnesses.cfm
http://truthsaves.org/john.shtml
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-r001.html
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~gvcc/theology_notes/New_World_Translation.html
http://www.dtl.org/trinity/article/john-1-1.htm
http://www.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html
http://www.caic.org.au/jws/theology/john1-1.htm
http://www.valleybible.net/resource...estamentDifficulties/difficulties.john1.shtml
HERES WHAT GREEK SCHOLARS SAY:
http://www.geocities.com/dpatrickwood/john1.html
WATCH THE WATCHTOWER MISQUOTE SOMEONE TO MAKE THEIR VERSION FIT.
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Mantey.Overview.htm
THE WATCHTOWER ENDORSE THOSE WHO PRACTICE SORCERY,SPIRITISM AND CONSULT WITH MEDIUMS
http://www.macgregorministries.org/jehovahs_witnesses/john1_support.html
http://www.soundwitness.org/newlite/Does the WT Consult Spiritists.htm
HERES SOMETHING I **KNOW FOR A FACT** THAT MYSELF OR YEHUDA CAN DO:
http://www.caic.org.au/jws/theology/danger.htm
THE NEW WORLDS TRANSLATION ADDS WORDS, REMOVE WORDS AND CHANGE WORDS:
http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/nwtontrial.htm
http://www.eskimo.com/~jcw/jcw97.html
http://www.watchman.org/jw/nwt.htm
CRAZY J.W. DOCTRINE:
http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/doctrine.htm
http://www.apolresearch.org/eng/jw_eng.php3
GIVE IT UP MAN.
1.RESPECT THE GAME AND MY WISHES. END THE CONVO NOW. LEAVE IT ALONE. I DONT WANT TO DISCUSS THSI WITH YOU ANY LONGER. IF SOMEONE ELSE CHOOSES TO DISCUSS IT WITH YOU FINE. IM LEAVING IT ALONE AND YOU SHOULD GO ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS. NO NEED TO REPLY. IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR US BOTH IF YOU DIDNT. YOU WANT TO BE CONFRONTATIONAL. YOU WANT TO ARGUE. YOU WANT TO RUN IN CIRCLES. I DONT WANNA DO THOSE THINGS.
I DUST MY FEET IM OUT.
HERESY
BIAS. FUTILE. FUTILE. DID THAT. MISINFORMED. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO GREEK RENDERINGS.
USE THE SEARCH ENGINE.
EDJ I DONT CARE ***WHAT*** YOU BELIEVE. LOOK AT THE LIST OF BIBLES ON THAT PAGE. MORE COMIC BOOKS.
"THE WORD WAS A GOD"........ISNT FOUND IN THE GREEK VERSIONS.
http://www.cpats.org/CPATSAnswerDirectory/Answers_to_Questions/2000AugJohn1_1&JehovahWitnesses.cfm
http://truthsaves.org/john.shtml
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-r001.html
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~gvcc/theology_notes/New_World_Translation.html
http://www.dtl.org/trinity/article/john-1-1.htm
http://www.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html
http://www.caic.org.au/jws/theology/john1-1.htm
http://www.valleybible.net/resource...estamentDifficulties/difficulties.john1.shtml
HERES WHAT GREEK SCHOLARS SAY:
http://www.geocities.com/dpatrickwood/john1.html
WATCH THE WATCHTOWER MISQUOTE SOMEONE TO MAKE THEIR VERSION FIT.
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Mantey.Overview.htm
THE WATCHTOWER ENDORSE THOSE WHO PRACTICE SORCERY,SPIRITISM AND CONSULT WITH MEDIUMS
http://www.macgregorministries.org/jehovahs_witnesses/john1_support.html
http://www.soundwitness.org/newlite/Does the WT Consult Spiritists.htm
HERES SOMETHING I **KNOW FOR A FACT** THAT MYSELF OR YEHUDA CAN DO:
http://www.caic.org.au/jws/theology/danger.htm
THE NEW WORLDS TRANSLATION ADDS WORDS, REMOVE WORDS AND CHANGE WORDS:
http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/nwtontrial.htm
http://www.eskimo.com/~jcw/jcw97.html
http://www.watchman.org/jw/nwt.htm
CRAZY J.W. DOCTRINE:
http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/doctrine.htm
http://www.apolresearch.org/eng/jw_eng.php3
GIVE IT UP MAN.
1.RESPECT THE GAME AND MY WISHES. END THE CONVO NOW. LEAVE IT ALONE. I DONT WANT TO DISCUSS THSI WITH YOU ANY LONGER. IF SOMEONE ELSE CHOOSES TO DISCUSS IT WITH YOU FINE. IM LEAVING IT ALONE AND YOU SHOULD GO ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS. NO NEED TO REPLY. IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR US BOTH IF YOU DIDNT. YOU WANT TO BE CONFRONTATIONAL. YOU WANT TO ARGUE. YOU WANT TO RUN IN CIRCLES. I DONT WANNA DO THOSE THINGS.
I DUST MY FEET IM OUT.
HERESY
HERESY, HERESY, HERESY,
WE FINALLY PROgRESSIN' AND YOU WANNA QUIT ON A NIggA? I CAN gIVE YOU MORE SITES THAT HATE ON THE WITNESSES, BUT ARE THEY CLAIMS TRUTHFUL? JUST IMPERFECT HUMANS WOOFIN' ON THEY PERCEPTION. I COULD SEE RIgHT THRU THEY STATEMENTS AND WHERE THEY MISPERCEIVED SHIT. SEE CUZZ, I HAVE INSIgHT ON WHAT THE WITNESSES DO AND WHAT THEY TEACH. THEM PEOPLE WOOFIN' AND MOST ARE OUTSIDERS gLANCIN' AND NOT KNOWIN'. SOME ARE X WITNESSES THAT ARE SOUR. THE THANg IS THIS: IF YOUR FACTS ARE STRAIgHT, YOUR INFO FROM A CREDIBLE SOURCE AND TRANSLATION ACCURATE I HAVE NO OTHA CHOICE BUT RESPECT AND BELIEVE WHAT IS STRESSED WHETHER IT BE SOME gAME OR SOME WHOLE THEOLOgY. THE THANg IS THAT I'VE SEEN WHERE YOU WOULD SEE THANgS THIS WAY OR THAT WAY. HONESTLY WITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE, I DON'T SEE HOW YOU COULD CALL YOURSELF HERESY IF YOU BELIEVE IN ALMOST EVERY FALSE DOCTRINE THE CHURCHES ENDORSE. AND THESE ARE THE SAME CHURCHES YOU CONDEMN FOR BEIN' NON-PROFIT AND HAVIN' THE PREACHA gET OVER AND CONTROL THE MASSES FOR PERSONAL gAIN. (BY THE WAY THE SITE YOU LINKED ME TO ARE (501) 3C AND YOUR DONATIONS ARE TAX DEDUCTIBLE. LOL)
BTW,
DID YOU PEEP THAT SITE? JUST LET THE WITNESSES DEFEND THEMSELVES. gO ON AND READ.
BUT LET ME RESPOND IN CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER SO EVERYTHANg WILL BE ADDRESSED.
WE FINALLY PROgRESSIN' AND YOU WANNA QUIT ON A NIggA? I CAN gIVE YOU MORE SITES THAT HATE ON THE WITNESSES, BUT ARE THEY CLAIMS TRUTHFUL? JUST IMPERFECT HUMANS WOOFIN' ON THEY PERCEPTION. I COULD SEE RIgHT THRU THEY STATEMENTS AND WHERE THEY MISPERCEIVED SHIT. SEE CUZZ, I HAVE INSIgHT ON WHAT THE WITNESSES DO AND WHAT THEY TEACH. THEM PEOPLE WOOFIN' AND MOST ARE OUTSIDERS gLANCIN' AND NOT KNOWIN'. SOME ARE X WITNESSES THAT ARE SOUR. THE THANg IS THIS: IF YOUR FACTS ARE STRAIgHT, YOUR INFO FROM A CREDIBLE SOURCE AND TRANSLATION ACCURATE I HAVE NO OTHA CHOICE BUT RESPECT AND BELIEVE WHAT IS STRESSED WHETHER IT BE SOME gAME OR SOME WHOLE THEOLOgY. THE THANg IS THAT I'VE SEEN WHERE YOU WOULD SEE THANgS THIS WAY OR THAT WAY. HONESTLY WITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE, I DON'T SEE HOW YOU COULD CALL YOURSELF HERESY IF YOU BELIEVE IN ALMOST EVERY FALSE DOCTRINE THE CHURCHES ENDORSE. AND THESE ARE THE SAME CHURCHES YOU CONDEMN FOR BEIN' NON-PROFIT AND HAVIN' THE PREACHA gET OVER AND CONTROL THE MASSES FOR PERSONAL gAIN. (BY THE WAY THE SITE YOU LINKED ME TO ARE (501) 3C AND YOUR DONATIONS ARE TAX DEDUCTIBLE. LOL)
BTW,
DID YOU PEEP THAT SITE? JUST LET THE WITNESSES DEFEND THEMSELVES. gO ON AND READ.
BUT LET ME RESPOND IN CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER SO EVERYTHANg WILL BE ADDRESSED.
1.EDJ. SERIOUSLY MAN STOP TALKING TO ME ABOUT THIS. IM TELLING YOU THIS BECAUSE I DONT WANT THIS TO BURN BRIDGES BETWEEN US OR CAUSE A RIFT.
2.I DONT BELIEVE EVERYTHING THAT CHURCH DOGMA SAYS. I DONT GO TO CHURCH,HAVENT JOINED A CHURCH ETC ETC ETC. I CALL MYSELF HERESY BECAUSE THE NAME WAS GIVEN TO ME AND THE MUSIC FITS THE NAME. THE NAME FITS THE MUSIC. I DONT HOLD THE "TRADITIONAL" CHRISTIAN VIEWS. I DONT HOLD THE TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC VIEWS. I SUGGEST YOU READ THE ORIGINS AND DEFINITION OF "HERESY".
3.THOSE SCHOLARS WHO DESTROY THE J.W. TRANSLATIONS WITH PROPER GREEK RENDERINGS ARE NOT FORMER WITNESSESS.
4 THE J.W.S MADE CLAIMS THAT NEVER HAPPENED. THE J.W'S FACTS ARENT STRAIGHT, THEY DONT HAVE A CREDIBLE SOURCE AND THE TRANSLATIONS ARENT ACCURATE.
5.YOU HAVE INSIGHT ON WHAT THEY DO AND WHAT THEY TEACH BECAUSE THATS ALL YOU KNOW. YOU ARE INVOLVED WITH A CULT.
6.YOU HAVENT SEEN WHERE I SEEN THIS OR THAT. IM NOT TOOTING MY OWN HORN BUT EDJ YOU ARENT OWN MY LEVEL WHEN IT COMES TO THESE TYPE OF TOPICS. MY STUDIES SURPASS THE INTERNET AND WEB LINKS.
7.I HAVENT STRESSED WHAT I BELIEVE TO YOU. I EXPRESSED IT TO XIANEX (IN ANOTHER POST) AND THATS ABOUT IT (OH AND YEHUDA). I HAVENT GAVE MUCH INSIGHT ON MY VIEWS AND WHAT I BELIEVE IN THIS THREAD.
8. YOU WILL NOT FIND ME ENDORSING ANY FALSE DOCTRINE. NO RAPTURE THEORY, NO THREE GODS (PEEP EARLIER POSTS) , NO SUNDAY WORSHIP ETC ETC ETC.
9.I WONT GO INTO HOW THE ROTHS FUNDED THE J.W.'S. THATS **WORSE** THAN A 501C3 CHURCH.:dead:
10.CHARLES RUSSELL (YOU KNOW WHO HE IS) IS A *DIRECT* DESECENDENT OF THE "ELITE" ROESELL/RUSSELL BLOODLINE/FAMILY. THIS IS THE SAME FAMILY WHO HELPED CREATE THE SKULL AND BONES. THIS IS COMMON FACT.
TAKE HEED TO #1 PIMPIN. I KEEP ASKING YOU TO RESPECT MY WISHES BUT YOU WONT.
:h:
YOU STRESSED, "LOOK MAN IT'S OBVIOUS THAT YOU DONT READ."
IS IT? OR THE FACT THAT I'M NOT EASILY MANIPULATED BY N-E-ONE? I READ EVERYTHANg. I SOAK ALL INFORMATION PATNA. THE THANg IS THAT I'M NOT SOAKIN' IT THE WAY YOU WANT ME TO.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU HAVE YOUR VIEWS (BASED ON NOTHING) AND YOU WILL KEEP THEM."
QUITE AN ASSESSMENT YOU gOT THERE. SO SHOULD I gET ALL EMOTIONAL THAT YOU THINK THAT YOU PERCEIVE ME AS SOMEBODY WHO FOLLOWS NOTHIN' CAUSE MY LOgIC AND HEAD AIN'T RIgHT? MAKES ME WONDER. NO WONDER.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IM NOT TRYING TO CHANGE YOU AND I DONT WANT TO CHANGE YOU."
THAT'S REFRESHIN' TO KNOW.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "AFTER THIS IM OUT OF THIS THREAD FOR GOOD BECAUSE YOU WANT TO KEEP GOING IN CIRCLES (THATS ALL YOU WILL DO).
WHY YOU LYIN'? YOU CAME BAK. I'M gLAD YOU LIED. BUT HOW DO I gO IN CIRCLES? YOU'VE FAILED TO LOgICALLY EXPLAIN SHIT TO ME IN THE PAST. AND NOW WITH TRANSLATIONS OF BIBLES.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "WE ARENT GETTING DOWN TO ANYTHING IF YOU ARE ASKING THE SAME QUESTION 1,735 TIMES. WE ARENT GETTING DOWN TO ANYTHING IF YOU ARENT READING."
I AM READIN', BUT I WANT IT WITHOUT A BIAS. SOME STUFF YOU gIVE ME IS BIAS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IF YOU WOULD PUT THAT COMIC BOOK DOWN (THE NEW WORLDS TRANSLATION WHICH PROBABLY OMITS SECTION OF THE VERSE) AND READ A REAL BIBLE YOU WOULD SEE WHAT THE VERSE SAYS."
I WONDER WHY THEY LEFT IT OUT. PROBABLY SUPPORTED SOME CHURCH DOgMA AND WASN'T ORIgINALLY THERE. I'LL PEEP.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "EITHER YOUR BIBLE IS SCREWED OR YOUR EYESIGHT IS SCREWED. HERE IS THE VERSE FOR YOUR ENJOYMENT:
REV 1:11 Saying,I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
futile."
gLAD TO SEE YOU HAVE OTHA INTERPRETATIONS. WHAT BIBLE YOU gET THAT FROM?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "because you use a FLAWED VERSION OF THE BIBLE THAT OMITS CERTAIN PASSAGES TO MAKE IT SUIT THE NEEDS OF THE CHURCH LEADERS. I DONT UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN "DOWNPLAY" THE LATIN BIBLE YET ENDORSE THAT COMIC BOOK THAT DOESNT HAVE THE COMPLETE RENDERINGS. HOW CAN YOU LOGICALLY ASK ME "AM I SURE" WHEN YOU ARE READING FROM ONE OF THE MOST FLAWED TRANSLATIONS KNOWN TO MAN? YOU AND I ARENT READING THE SAME BOOK."
WE SURE AREN'T. HOW WOULD IT SUIT THE NEEDS OF THE CHURCH LEADERS? DO YOU KNOW THEM? WHAT IS THEIR AgENDAS? ARE THEY PART OF THE WORLD COUNCIL, OR WORLD BANK, NWO SHIT YOU WOOF ABOUT?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU HAVE ENDORSED EVERY FLAW THEY ENDORSE. YOU HAVE AGREED WITH EVERYTHING THEY HOLD TO BE DOCTRINE. YOU AGREE WITH THEM. YOUR POSTS AGREE WITH THEM. YOU DONT LISTEN AND MAK EYOUR OWN DISTINCTION. YOU LISTEN AND SWALLOW."
SO IT SEEMS IN YOUR PERCEPTION. I HAVE TESTED OTHA AgENDAS AND RELIgIONS AgAINST WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND IN MY HEART, I CAN SEE THAT THEY "TRY" TO SEEK TRUTH. THAT'S ALL. AND AS A TRUTH SEEKER MYSELF, I LISTEN TO WHAT IS WHAT. I DON'T JUST LISTEN TO THE BLASPHEMY OF OTHAS OF THEM, CAUSE I'M ALREADY KNOWIN'. AND N-ETHANg RELATED I TEST, BOTH LOgICALLY AND SCRIPTURALLY.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "1.YOU USE A NEW WORLDS TRANSLATION (THE J.W. VERSION OF THE BIBLE)
2.YOU DONT BELIEVE IN A LITERAL HELL.
3.YOU ENDORSE THE "MEMORY GOING BACK TO GOD " CONCEPT.
4.IF YOU DIDNT HOLD THAT DOCTRINE YOU WOULDNT BE SO DEFENSIVE."
IN #F(4), WHAT DOCTRINE? BUT I TRUST MY LOgIC AND DISCERNMENT. AND A LITERAL HELL IS HARD TO SWALLOW. I COULD NEVA LOgICALLY UNDA-STAND THAT BULLSHIT. SOUNDS TOO MEDIEVAL FOR A LOVIN' AND JUST gOD TO DO THAT SHIT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "SEE THATS YOUR PROBLEM. YOU WANT TO ARGUE. I DONT."
SAYS WHO? THAT STATEMENT I MADE SAYS THE OPPOSITE. THAT RIgHT THERE TELLS YOU YOU INTERPRET SHIT WRONg.
FIFTY-FIRST OFF ALL WE DISCUSSIN'(OR ATLEAST I'M TRYIN' TO DO SO).
XCONDLY,
"FOR ARgUMENTS SAKE" IS A FORM OF EXPRESSION.
THIRDLY,
LET'S SAY WE ARE ARgUIN', I'M TRYIN' TO CALM THE ARgUMENT. BUT WE NOT ARgUIN', SO I'M JUST MAKIN' A POINT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "SEE POINTS 1-4. BTW YOU ARE."
NO I'M NOT. NIggA THIS IS 51ST HORTON gANg. IF I WAS BRAINWASHED I WOULDN'T HAVE MY OWN THOUgHTS CUZZ. SO MISS ME WITH YOUR MISSASSESSMENT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IT MAKES SENSE TO YOU BECAUSE THEY ARE TELLING YOU ABOUT GOD THROUGH A TWISTED VERSION OF SCRIPTURES. IT MAKES SENSE TO YOU BECAUSE YOUR MIND IS RECEPTIVE TO THAT TYPE OF DOCTRINE (GARBAGE). IT MAKES SENSE TO YOU BECAUSE YOU DONT "HEAR". "
THEN YOU STRESSED, "1.THEY DONT BACK IT UP WITH ANYTHING. FROM UNFULLFILLED PROPHECIES, TO WRONG DATES, TO TRANSLATION ERRORS, TO DOCTRINAL ERRORS ETC ETC ETC. THEY DO IT ALL. YOU ARE BRAINWASHED."
YOU gOT ME FUCCED UP. YOU BRAINWASHED. LOL . I'VE STRESSED IT BEFORE THAT IT'S HUMAN ERROR. JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AIN'T SPECIAL. THEY PRONED TO ERROR. BUT IN THE SITUATIONS YOU MENTIONIN', IT HAS BEEN SOMEBODY STRESSIN' SOMETHIN' THEY THOUgHT AND SOME FOLLOWED. AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO gROUP EVERYBODY(SOUND LIKE SOME WHITE PEOPLE PREJUDICE BULLSHIT), AND FIgURES THAT "ALL" ARE BAD.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "2.DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH."
I DO. I'VE SHOWED YOU SITES THAT WERE NOT EVEN ASSOCIATED WITH J.W'S. AND YOU HAVE YOUR NERVE. HOW DARE YOU? LOL
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU ARENT ENVOLVED WITH THEM OR THE ORGANIZATION YET YOU ENDORSE THEIR VIEWS, USE THE VERSION OF THE BIBLE THEY USE AND *NEVER* DISAGREED WITH *ANY* OF THE DOCTRINE OR VIEWS WHEN PLACED UNDER SCRUTINY. WHAT YOU DO IS MAKE AN EXCUSE FOR THEM."
THAT RIgHT THERE SHOULD TELL YOU SOMETHIN'.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "NO YOU DONT."
I DO. HOW IN THE FUK YOU gONNA TELL ME WHAT gAME I SOAKED AND HAVEN'T SOAKED?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I'VE GIVEN YOU VALUABLE INFO AND YOU DONT EVEN LOOK INTO."
SAYS WHO?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IM NOT TRASHING ANYONE. IM SPEAKING THE TRUTH. THE J.W.'S ARE A CULT. THE J.W.'S HAVE A LUNATICS VERSION OF THE BIBLE."
THAT IS NOT TRUE AT ALL. J.W'S IS NOT A CULT. THEY BIBLE READERS AND PREACHERS. THEY STUDY AND MEDITATE OVER BIBLE SCRIPTURE. THEY BELIEVE IN SEEKIN' TRUTH.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "WHEN YOU COMPARE THAT BIBLE TO THE GREEK OR HEBREW YOU WILL SEE FOR YOURSELF. AND YOU CALL THE LATIN BIBLE A "MIDDLEMAN"?? HA!"
YUP, LATIN WASN'T AN ORIgINAL BIBLE LANgUAgE. SO WHY DO I NEED IT? OLD ENgLISH WASN'T EITHA SO FUK ALL THAT THEE, THOU, THY BULLSHIT. BUT WHICH BIBLE YOU RECOMMEND THE gREEK SEPTAgUINT? NOT NO LATIN VULgATE. HOW ABOUT THE A BOOK IN HEBREW?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THE RESEARCH IS NOT FAULTY BY YOUR DISCERNMENT BECAUSE YOU ARE OPEN TO THE DECEPTION AND LIES THAT THEY SHOVE DOWN YOUR MOUTH."
NOBODY SHOVES NOTHIN' DOWN MY THROAT. I DO THIS SHIT ON MY OWN.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IT TASTE GOOD TO YOU. ITS VERY APPEALING. ITS EYE CANDY AND IT TICKLES THE EAR."
LOL. CUZZ, YOU A NUT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU HAVE LEARNED FALSE DOCTRINE."
NO, YOU ARE STILL BLIND BELIEVIN' IN FALSE DOCTRINES. WHAT I BELIEVE IS TRUTH TO ME. IT MAKES LOgICAL SENSE. I FEEL THAT ONCE YOU gET TO KNOW TRUTH YOU CAN'T gO BAK TO THEM LIES. WHY IS IT THEN THAT MOST OF SO CALLED CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN A TORUTRE IN A FIERY HELL(SAME DOCTRINE YOU ENDORSE) WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN OPEN THERE BIBLES? SO MOST OF THE WORLD BELIEVES IN THIS SHIT BUT IT IS SAID THAT THERE ARE TWO PATHS, ONE THAT IS WIDE AND ONE THAT IS NARROW. THE WIDE ONE LEADS TO DEATH AND THE NARROW LEADS TO EVERLASTIN' LIFE. SO IF EVERYBODY BELIEVIN' IN THIS HELL THEOLOgY, AND A FEW DENOUNCIN' IT AS A FALSE DOCTRINE, WHAT IS THAT TELLIN' YOU?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND START WITH A HEBREW AND GREEK BIBLE."
OTHA THAN THE BOOKS YOU HAVE RECOMMENDED, WHICH ONES? AND WITH WHAT OTHA BOOKS DO I CROSS REFERENCE IT AND TRANSLATE IT WITH?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I HAVE SAID THIS THOUSANDS OF TIMES ON THIS BOARD."
I WOULDN'T SAY THOUSANDS OF TIMES.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I DONT KNOW IF YOU ARE BEING SARCASTIC OR WHAT. WHAT YOU KNOW "DOESNT MEAN SHIT". THROW IT ALL OUT THE WINDOW AND START FROM SCRATCH."
IS IT? OR THE FACT THAT I'M NOT EASILY MANIPULATED BY N-E-ONE? I READ EVERYTHANg. I SOAK ALL INFORMATION PATNA. THE THANg IS THAT I'M NOT SOAKIN' IT THE WAY YOU WANT ME TO.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU HAVE YOUR VIEWS (BASED ON NOTHING) AND YOU WILL KEEP THEM."
QUITE AN ASSESSMENT YOU gOT THERE. SO SHOULD I gET ALL EMOTIONAL THAT YOU THINK THAT YOU PERCEIVE ME AS SOMEBODY WHO FOLLOWS NOTHIN' CAUSE MY LOgIC AND HEAD AIN'T RIgHT? MAKES ME WONDER. NO WONDER.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IM NOT TRYING TO CHANGE YOU AND I DONT WANT TO CHANGE YOU."
THAT'S REFRESHIN' TO KNOW.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "AFTER THIS IM OUT OF THIS THREAD FOR GOOD BECAUSE YOU WANT TO KEEP GOING IN CIRCLES (THATS ALL YOU WILL DO).
WHY YOU LYIN'? YOU CAME BAK. I'M gLAD YOU LIED. BUT HOW DO I gO IN CIRCLES? YOU'VE FAILED TO LOgICALLY EXPLAIN SHIT TO ME IN THE PAST. AND NOW WITH TRANSLATIONS OF BIBLES.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "WE ARENT GETTING DOWN TO ANYTHING IF YOU ARE ASKING THE SAME QUESTION 1,735 TIMES. WE ARENT GETTING DOWN TO ANYTHING IF YOU ARENT READING."
I AM READIN', BUT I WANT IT WITHOUT A BIAS. SOME STUFF YOU gIVE ME IS BIAS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IF YOU WOULD PUT THAT COMIC BOOK DOWN (THE NEW WORLDS TRANSLATION WHICH PROBABLY OMITS SECTION OF THE VERSE) AND READ A REAL BIBLE YOU WOULD SEE WHAT THE VERSE SAYS."
I WONDER WHY THEY LEFT IT OUT. PROBABLY SUPPORTED SOME CHURCH DOgMA AND WASN'T ORIgINALLY THERE. I'LL PEEP.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "EITHER YOUR BIBLE IS SCREWED OR YOUR EYESIGHT IS SCREWED. HERE IS THE VERSE FOR YOUR ENJOYMENT:
REV 1:11 Saying,I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
futile."
gLAD TO SEE YOU HAVE OTHA INTERPRETATIONS. WHAT BIBLE YOU gET THAT FROM?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "because you use a FLAWED VERSION OF THE BIBLE THAT OMITS CERTAIN PASSAGES TO MAKE IT SUIT THE NEEDS OF THE CHURCH LEADERS. I DONT UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN "DOWNPLAY" THE LATIN BIBLE YET ENDORSE THAT COMIC BOOK THAT DOESNT HAVE THE COMPLETE RENDERINGS. HOW CAN YOU LOGICALLY ASK ME "AM I SURE" WHEN YOU ARE READING FROM ONE OF THE MOST FLAWED TRANSLATIONS KNOWN TO MAN? YOU AND I ARENT READING THE SAME BOOK."
WE SURE AREN'T. HOW WOULD IT SUIT THE NEEDS OF THE CHURCH LEADERS? DO YOU KNOW THEM? WHAT IS THEIR AgENDAS? ARE THEY PART OF THE WORLD COUNCIL, OR WORLD BANK, NWO SHIT YOU WOOF ABOUT?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU HAVE ENDORSED EVERY FLAW THEY ENDORSE. YOU HAVE AGREED WITH EVERYTHING THEY HOLD TO BE DOCTRINE. YOU AGREE WITH THEM. YOUR POSTS AGREE WITH THEM. YOU DONT LISTEN AND MAK EYOUR OWN DISTINCTION. YOU LISTEN AND SWALLOW."
SO IT SEEMS IN YOUR PERCEPTION. I HAVE TESTED OTHA AgENDAS AND RELIgIONS AgAINST WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND IN MY HEART, I CAN SEE THAT THEY "TRY" TO SEEK TRUTH. THAT'S ALL. AND AS A TRUTH SEEKER MYSELF, I LISTEN TO WHAT IS WHAT. I DON'T JUST LISTEN TO THE BLASPHEMY OF OTHAS OF THEM, CAUSE I'M ALREADY KNOWIN'. AND N-ETHANg RELATED I TEST, BOTH LOgICALLY AND SCRIPTURALLY.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "1.YOU USE A NEW WORLDS TRANSLATION (THE J.W. VERSION OF THE BIBLE)
2.YOU DONT BELIEVE IN A LITERAL HELL.
3.YOU ENDORSE THE "MEMORY GOING BACK TO GOD " CONCEPT.
4.IF YOU DIDNT HOLD THAT DOCTRINE YOU WOULDNT BE SO DEFENSIVE."
IN #F(4), WHAT DOCTRINE? BUT I TRUST MY LOgIC AND DISCERNMENT. AND A LITERAL HELL IS HARD TO SWALLOW. I COULD NEVA LOgICALLY UNDA-STAND THAT BULLSHIT. SOUNDS TOO MEDIEVAL FOR A LOVIN' AND JUST gOD TO DO THAT SHIT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "SEE THATS YOUR PROBLEM. YOU WANT TO ARGUE. I DONT."
SAYS WHO? THAT STATEMENT I MADE SAYS THE OPPOSITE. THAT RIgHT THERE TELLS YOU YOU INTERPRET SHIT WRONg.
FIFTY-FIRST OFF ALL WE DISCUSSIN'(OR ATLEAST I'M TRYIN' TO DO SO).
XCONDLY,
"FOR ARgUMENTS SAKE" IS A FORM OF EXPRESSION.
THIRDLY,
LET'S SAY WE ARE ARgUIN', I'M TRYIN' TO CALM THE ARgUMENT. BUT WE NOT ARgUIN', SO I'M JUST MAKIN' A POINT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "SEE POINTS 1-4. BTW YOU ARE."
NO I'M NOT. NIggA THIS IS 51ST HORTON gANg. IF I WAS BRAINWASHED I WOULDN'T HAVE MY OWN THOUgHTS CUZZ. SO MISS ME WITH YOUR MISSASSESSMENT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IT MAKES SENSE TO YOU BECAUSE THEY ARE TELLING YOU ABOUT GOD THROUGH A TWISTED VERSION OF SCRIPTURES. IT MAKES SENSE TO YOU BECAUSE YOUR MIND IS RECEPTIVE TO THAT TYPE OF DOCTRINE (GARBAGE). IT MAKES SENSE TO YOU BECAUSE YOU DONT "HEAR". "
THEN YOU STRESSED, "1.THEY DONT BACK IT UP WITH ANYTHING. FROM UNFULLFILLED PROPHECIES, TO WRONG DATES, TO TRANSLATION ERRORS, TO DOCTRINAL ERRORS ETC ETC ETC. THEY DO IT ALL. YOU ARE BRAINWASHED."
YOU gOT ME FUCCED UP. YOU BRAINWASHED. LOL . I'VE STRESSED IT BEFORE THAT IT'S HUMAN ERROR. JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AIN'T SPECIAL. THEY PRONED TO ERROR. BUT IN THE SITUATIONS YOU MENTIONIN', IT HAS BEEN SOMEBODY STRESSIN' SOMETHIN' THEY THOUgHT AND SOME FOLLOWED. AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO gROUP EVERYBODY(SOUND LIKE SOME WHITE PEOPLE PREJUDICE BULLSHIT), AND FIgURES THAT "ALL" ARE BAD.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "2.DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH."
I DO. I'VE SHOWED YOU SITES THAT WERE NOT EVEN ASSOCIATED WITH J.W'S. AND YOU HAVE YOUR NERVE. HOW DARE YOU? LOL
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU ARENT ENVOLVED WITH THEM OR THE ORGANIZATION YET YOU ENDORSE THEIR VIEWS, USE THE VERSION OF THE BIBLE THEY USE AND *NEVER* DISAGREED WITH *ANY* OF THE DOCTRINE OR VIEWS WHEN PLACED UNDER SCRUTINY. WHAT YOU DO IS MAKE AN EXCUSE FOR THEM."
THAT RIgHT THERE SHOULD TELL YOU SOMETHIN'.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "NO YOU DONT."
I DO. HOW IN THE FUK YOU gONNA TELL ME WHAT gAME I SOAKED AND HAVEN'T SOAKED?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I'VE GIVEN YOU VALUABLE INFO AND YOU DONT EVEN LOOK INTO."
SAYS WHO?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IM NOT TRASHING ANYONE. IM SPEAKING THE TRUTH. THE J.W.'S ARE A CULT. THE J.W.'S HAVE A LUNATICS VERSION OF THE BIBLE."
THAT IS NOT TRUE AT ALL. J.W'S IS NOT A CULT. THEY BIBLE READERS AND PREACHERS. THEY STUDY AND MEDITATE OVER BIBLE SCRIPTURE. THEY BELIEVE IN SEEKIN' TRUTH.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "WHEN YOU COMPARE THAT BIBLE TO THE GREEK OR HEBREW YOU WILL SEE FOR YOURSELF. AND YOU CALL THE LATIN BIBLE A "MIDDLEMAN"?? HA!"
YUP, LATIN WASN'T AN ORIgINAL BIBLE LANgUAgE. SO WHY DO I NEED IT? OLD ENgLISH WASN'T EITHA SO FUK ALL THAT THEE, THOU, THY BULLSHIT. BUT WHICH BIBLE YOU RECOMMEND THE gREEK SEPTAgUINT? NOT NO LATIN VULgATE. HOW ABOUT THE A BOOK IN HEBREW?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THE RESEARCH IS NOT FAULTY BY YOUR DISCERNMENT BECAUSE YOU ARE OPEN TO THE DECEPTION AND LIES THAT THEY SHOVE DOWN YOUR MOUTH."
NOBODY SHOVES NOTHIN' DOWN MY THROAT. I DO THIS SHIT ON MY OWN.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IT TASTE GOOD TO YOU. ITS VERY APPEALING. ITS EYE CANDY AND IT TICKLES THE EAR."
LOL. CUZZ, YOU A NUT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU HAVE LEARNED FALSE DOCTRINE."
NO, YOU ARE STILL BLIND BELIEVIN' IN FALSE DOCTRINES. WHAT I BELIEVE IS TRUTH TO ME. IT MAKES LOgICAL SENSE. I FEEL THAT ONCE YOU gET TO KNOW TRUTH YOU CAN'T gO BAK TO THEM LIES. WHY IS IT THEN THAT MOST OF SO CALLED CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN A TORUTRE IN A FIERY HELL(SAME DOCTRINE YOU ENDORSE) WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN OPEN THERE BIBLES? SO MOST OF THE WORLD BELIEVES IN THIS SHIT BUT IT IS SAID THAT THERE ARE TWO PATHS, ONE THAT IS WIDE AND ONE THAT IS NARROW. THE WIDE ONE LEADS TO DEATH AND THE NARROW LEADS TO EVERLASTIN' LIFE. SO IF EVERYBODY BELIEVIN' IN THIS HELL THEOLOgY, AND A FEW DENOUNCIN' IT AS A FALSE DOCTRINE, WHAT IS THAT TELLIN' YOU?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND START WITH A HEBREW AND GREEK BIBLE."
OTHA THAN THE BOOKS YOU HAVE RECOMMENDED, WHICH ONES? AND WITH WHAT OTHA BOOKS DO I CROSS REFERENCE IT AND TRANSLATE IT WITH?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I HAVE SAID THIS THOUSANDS OF TIMES ON THIS BOARD."
I WOULDN'T SAY THOUSANDS OF TIMES.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I DONT KNOW IF YOU ARE BEING SARCASTIC OR WHAT. WHAT YOU KNOW "DOESNT MEAN SHIT". THROW IT ALL OUT THE WINDOW AND START FROM SCRATCH."
I BEg TO DIFFER. SO I SHOULD START WITH BELIEVIN' THE SCRIPTURES HOW IT IS TRADITIONALLY BELIEVED TO BE(BELIEVIN' IN FALSE DOCTRINES LIKE A FIERY HELL AND A TRINITY)?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "ONCE AGAIN MAKING EXCUSES."
I DON'T MAKE THEM, THE ANSWERS ARE THERE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU NEVER HEARD OF ANY RELIGIOUS SECT DOING IT BECAUSE WHAT THE J.W.'S DO IS ACCORDING TO J.W.'S DOCTRINE/DOGMA."
ACTUALLY IT'S FROM THE SCRIPTURES. BASICALLY EVERYTHANg THE J.W'S BELIEVE IS BIBLE BASED. AND WHAT THEY DO THAT NO OTHA RELIgION DOES IS WHAT MATHEW 24:14 STRESSES. I NEVA SEEN N-E-BODY gO HOUSE TO HOUSE PREACHIN' LIKE THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES(NOWADAYS YOU MIgHT SEE SOME OTHA SECTS TRYIN' TO DO THE SAME SINCE THEY CAUgHT ON), BUT THEY DO IT CAUSE IT'S INSTRUCTED SCRIPTURALLY.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IT WOULD BE FOOLISH FOR ANY RELIGIOUS SECT (OR INDIVIDUAL) TO HOLD THE DOCTRINE AS TRUTH."
WHICH DOCTRINE WOULD THAT BE?
THEN YOU STRESSED, ". IM NOT GOING TO ASK WHAT SCRIPTURES ARE NOT REVEALED."
THEN DON'T. BUT THE MEANIN' OF SUCH ARE TOWARDS THE END.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "ERRONEOUS HUMAN ERROR?"
YES. MUTHA-FUKAS TRYIN' TO XCOND gUESS (gOD).
THEN YOU STRESSED, "INSTEAD OF BEING LED BY THE SPIRIT THEY WERE LED BY MAN."
SOME ENTRUSTED MEN THEY THOUgHT HAD THE SPIRIT.
THEY ENTRUSTED THOSE HUMANS AND SATAN SOMEHOW INFILTRATED.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THEY WERE IN ERROR AND YOU ENDORSE IT."
WHO IS THEY AND WHAT DID OR DO I ENDORSE?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU MAKE AN EXCUSE."
EXCUSE FOR WHOM AND WHAT? I AIN'T gOTTA LIE TO KIK IT. JUST PUTTIN' YOU UP ON gAME.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "PROBABLY?"
YUP, LMAO TOO. BAK IN THEM DAYS THEY TORURED FOO'S AND EVEN PEOPLE WHO READ BIBLES WERE BURNT ON A STAKE."
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THEY WOULD BE STONED TO DEATH. WHOEVER SET THE DATES WOULD BE STONED AND WHOEVER CONTINUED TO SET DATES WOULD BE STONED."
HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? AND BY WHOM? WHO'S AUTHORITY?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "SO IF ITS THE J.W. LEADER HE WOULD BE STONED. IF IT WAS A J.W. CHURCH COOK SHE WOULD BE PELTED WITH ROCKS."
LOL. LIL KIDS WOULD gET IT TOO. LOL
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU WILL SHOW ME PROOF FROM A NEW WORLDS TRANSLATION WHICH IS A COMIC BOOK AND FLAWED VERSION OF THE BIBLE. YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF SHOWING ME (IN GREEK OR HEBREW TEXT)"
I THOUgHT THE NEWSPAPER WAS THE COMIC BOOKS? LOL BUT AgAIN WE AT THE RENDERIN' OF TEXTS AND HOW THE gREEK OR HEBREW ARE TRANSLATED. I SAY WE REASON WITH THE WORDS USED IN THE TEXTS IN THEM INSTANCES.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THAT JESUS IS MICHAEL THE ARCH ANGEL. THAT IS A RETARDED CONCEPT (ARIANISM) AND I LISTED IT EARLIER."
WHY IS IT RETARDED? IS ARIANISM THAT WHITEBOY BULLSHIT? SHOW ME CUZZ. LINK ME.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "BLOWS HOLES IN YOUR DOCTRINE AND EVEN USES THE GREEK AND HEBREW WORDS."
BIAS SITE. THEM POINTS ARE DEBATABLE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "HERES AN EXCERPT FROM A SITE THAT SENDS YOUR DOGMA TO HELL AND BACK 666 TIMES."
ALSO BIAS. THOSE POINTS CAN BE DEBATED 51,000 TIMES.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "LOL@ A SPIRITUAL ISRAEL. FUTILE."
IT CAN'T BE NO LITERAL ISRAEL. THAT WOULD LEAVE ME AND YOU OUT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "BECAUSE YOU HAVENT RESEARCHED J.W. DOCTRINE. YOU ACCEPT IT."
I'VE RESEARCHED J.W AND WHAT THEY BELIEVE. I HAVE ALSO LISTENED TO SOME OF THEIR HATERS(MOST OF THE WORLD) AND THEY POINTS. SEE, I DON'T LISTEN TO THE HATIN' BUT THE POINTS MADE WITHOUT A BIAS.
IT MAKES MORE SENSE THEN BURNIN' FOREVA IN TORTURE FOR A FEW YEARS OF SIN IF YOU SINNED. IT MAKES MORE SENSE THEN BELIEVIN' IN A DIETY THAT IS 3 IN 1 WHEN NOT EVEN THE WORD TRINITY WAS EVA MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE. IT MAKES MORE SENSE THEN BELIEVIN' ALL THE DOCTRINES USED TO CONQUER NATIONS AND CIVILIZATIONS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THE BIBLE DOES NOT STRESS THAT HE WAS HUNG ON A STAKE. YOUR BIBLE STRESSES THAT. ITS NOT UP FOR DEBATE. YESHUA WAS CRUCIFIED. THIS WAS A COMMON FORM OF ROMAN EXECUTION. THIS SITE WILL EXPLAIN (AND KILL) YOUR VIEW."
THAT SITE TAKIN' WORDS FROM J.F RUTHERFORD WHEN HE PERSONALLY BELIEVED IN A CROSS, BUT LATER RESEARCH FOUND THAT IT WASN'T NO CROSS. THE ROMANS USED BOTH STAKES THAT WERE CROSSED AND STRAIgHT.
.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "READ THE PREVIOUS LINKS."
ALL THOSE SITES ARE BIAS. I BET YOU ALL THAT HATIN' IS OLD AND THOSE ISSUES BEEN ADDRESSED BAK AND FORTH.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "ONCE AGAIN MAKING EXCUSES."
I DON'T MAKE THEM, THE ANSWERS ARE THERE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU NEVER HEARD OF ANY RELIGIOUS SECT DOING IT BECAUSE WHAT THE J.W.'S DO IS ACCORDING TO J.W.'S DOCTRINE/DOGMA."
ACTUALLY IT'S FROM THE SCRIPTURES. BASICALLY EVERYTHANg THE J.W'S BELIEVE IS BIBLE BASED. AND WHAT THEY DO THAT NO OTHA RELIgION DOES IS WHAT MATHEW 24:14 STRESSES. I NEVA SEEN N-E-BODY gO HOUSE TO HOUSE PREACHIN' LIKE THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES(NOWADAYS YOU MIgHT SEE SOME OTHA SECTS TRYIN' TO DO THE SAME SINCE THEY CAUgHT ON), BUT THEY DO IT CAUSE IT'S INSTRUCTED SCRIPTURALLY.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IT WOULD BE FOOLISH FOR ANY RELIGIOUS SECT (OR INDIVIDUAL) TO HOLD THE DOCTRINE AS TRUTH."
WHICH DOCTRINE WOULD THAT BE?
THEN YOU STRESSED, ". IM NOT GOING TO ASK WHAT SCRIPTURES ARE NOT REVEALED."
THEN DON'T. BUT THE MEANIN' OF SUCH ARE TOWARDS THE END.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "ERRONEOUS HUMAN ERROR?"
YES. MUTHA-FUKAS TRYIN' TO XCOND gUESS (gOD).
THEN YOU STRESSED, "INSTEAD OF BEING LED BY THE SPIRIT THEY WERE LED BY MAN."
SOME ENTRUSTED MEN THEY THOUgHT HAD THE SPIRIT.
THEY ENTRUSTED THOSE HUMANS AND SATAN SOMEHOW INFILTRATED.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THEY WERE IN ERROR AND YOU ENDORSE IT."
WHO IS THEY AND WHAT DID OR DO I ENDORSE?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU MAKE AN EXCUSE."
EXCUSE FOR WHOM AND WHAT? I AIN'T gOTTA LIE TO KIK IT. JUST PUTTIN' YOU UP ON gAME.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "PROBABLY?"
YUP, LMAO TOO. BAK IN THEM DAYS THEY TORURED FOO'S AND EVEN PEOPLE WHO READ BIBLES WERE BURNT ON A STAKE."
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THEY WOULD BE STONED TO DEATH. WHOEVER SET THE DATES WOULD BE STONED AND WHOEVER CONTINUED TO SET DATES WOULD BE STONED."
HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? AND BY WHOM? WHO'S AUTHORITY?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "SO IF ITS THE J.W. LEADER HE WOULD BE STONED. IF IT WAS A J.W. CHURCH COOK SHE WOULD BE PELTED WITH ROCKS."
LOL. LIL KIDS WOULD gET IT TOO. LOL
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU WILL SHOW ME PROOF FROM A NEW WORLDS TRANSLATION WHICH IS A COMIC BOOK AND FLAWED VERSION OF THE BIBLE. YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF SHOWING ME (IN GREEK OR HEBREW TEXT)"
I THOUgHT THE NEWSPAPER WAS THE COMIC BOOKS? LOL BUT AgAIN WE AT THE RENDERIN' OF TEXTS AND HOW THE gREEK OR HEBREW ARE TRANSLATED. I SAY WE REASON WITH THE WORDS USED IN THE TEXTS IN THEM INSTANCES.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THAT JESUS IS MICHAEL THE ARCH ANGEL. THAT IS A RETARDED CONCEPT (ARIANISM) AND I LISTED IT EARLIER."
WHY IS IT RETARDED? IS ARIANISM THAT WHITEBOY BULLSHIT? SHOW ME CUZZ. LINK ME.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "BLOWS HOLES IN YOUR DOCTRINE AND EVEN USES THE GREEK AND HEBREW WORDS."
BIAS SITE. THEM POINTS ARE DEBATABLE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "HERES AN EXCERPT FROM A SITE THAT SENDS YOUR DOGMA TO HELL AND BACK 666 TIMES."
ALSO BIAS. THOSE POINTS CAN BE DEBATED 51,000 TIMES.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "LOL@ A SPIRITUAL ISRAEL. FUTILE."
IT CAN'T BE NO LITERAL ISRAEL. THAT WOULD LEAVE ME AND YOU OUT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "BECAUSE YOU HAVENT RESEARCHED J.W. DOCTRINE. YOU ACCEPT IT."
I'VE RESEARCHED J.W AND WHAT THEY BELIEVE. I HAVE ALSO LISTENED TO SOME OF THEIR HATERS(MOST OF THE WORLD) AND THEY POINTS. SEE, I DON'T LISTEN TO THE HATIN' BUT THE POINTS MADE WITHOUT A BIAS.
IT MAKES MORE SENSE THEN BURNIN' FOREVA IN TORTURE FOR A FEW YEARS OF SIN IF YOU SINNED. IT MAKES MORE SENSE THEN BELIEVIN' IN A DIETY THAT IS 3 IN 1 WHEN NOT EVEN THE WORD TRINITY WAS EVA MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE. IT MAKES MORE SENSE THEN BELIEVIN' ALL THE DOCTRINES USED TO CONQUER NATIONS AND CIVILIZATIONS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THE BIBLE DOES NOT STRESS THAT HE WAS HUNG ON A STAKE. YOUR BIBLE STRESSES THAT. ITS NOT UP FOR DEBATE. YESHUA WAS CRUCIFIED. THIS WAS A COMMON FORM OF ROMAN EXECUTION. THIS SITE WILL EXPLAIN (AND KILL) YOUR VIEW."
THAT SITE TAKIN' WORDS FROM J.F RUTHERFORD WHEN HE PERSONALLY BELIEVED IN A CROSS, BUT LATER RESEARCH FOUND THAT IT WASN'T NO CROSS. THE ROMANS USED BOTH STAKES THAT WERE CROSSED AND STRAIgHT.
.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "READ THE PREVIOUS LINKS."
ALL THOSE SITES ARE BIAS. I BET YOU ALL THAT HATIN' IS OLD AND THOSE ISSUES BEEN ADDRESSED BAK AND FORTH.