- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 57,470
- Reaction score
- 14,587
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You cant show one event in their interactions --where the Pharisees were right a singletime.
I already did read my quote again.
You cant show one event in their interactions --where the Pharisees were right a singletime.
????
:lol:
That's what I call, side-stepping.
You never address serious flaws about your corrupted manuscript that's being pointed out to you. You're simply taught to avoid them like the plague.....because your teachers has no defense against what's been clearly pointed out.
So, never mind pointing that finger at anyone about the anti-Christ. Point it to your teachers.
Basing your own argument with the NWT interpretation:
33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy;+ for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.”
Why do you think the Jews would consider it blasphemy if Jesus claims Himself to be just ...a god?
Why would they be so enraged that they'd want to stone Him for claiming to be just.... a god?
This is correct analysis as because in that day there were many gods. Romans had tons of gods. so did other societies that they interacted with.
The only way that someone could be charged with blasphemy was claiming to be Jehovah or a part of Jehovah.
the NWT inserts A everywhere that Christ compares himself to being God or part of the father. this is a gross distortion of scripture and is no where found in the greek translation.
they added it into the scripture in order to lower Christ to something other than God.
Kjw47 is caught between a hard rock and hard place.
NWT version of Jesus claiming to be a god (and the Jews getting all enraged and accusing Him of blasphemy for it) would suggest that these Jews were worshipping other gods as well (whatever god that may be that they accuse Jesus of claiming to be). In other words, NWT is saying these Jews have other gods!
Otherwise, why would they consider that claim blasphemous? Why should they care about other gods?
So thanks to the NWT, he contradicts his own argument about the Trinity in claiming the Jews were monotheistic. :lol:
????
:lol:
That's what I call, side-stepping.
You never address serious flaws about your corrupted manuscript that's being pointed out to you. You're simply taught to avoid them like the plague.....because your teachers has no defense against what's been clearly pointed out.
So, never mind pointing that finger at anyone about the anti-Christ. Point it to your teachers.
exactly the same goes for other non-Trinitarian denominations and there are a few of them. they are all polytheistic which is anti-bible.
Here( John 20:17)--Jesus teaches--EVERYONE WHO LISTENS TO HIM---Everyones God was--Still in heaven while he was here. Either Jesus is wrong or every trinity teacher on the planet--no other choice can be taken.
exactly the same goes for other non-Trinitarian denominations and there are a few of them. they are all polytheistic which is anti-bible.
And, the funny thing about the non-Trintarian denominations, they make the exact same accusation about the Trintarian ones. From an outsider view, it's all very amusing.
they can't. Trinitarians believe in 1 God not many.
That is what they say.. but the whole 'Three in one' sounds like an excuse to me, because it doesn't make sense. It sounds like retrofitting things into place after a man is made into a God..
And, since they say that Jesus is not a God, then ... then it's not polythesim.
Trinitarians is the only way to reconcile God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit without being a polytheist.
otherwise you have 3 individual gods that you have to believe in in order for salvation to work. of course that makes you a polytheist.
Not true at all.
absolutely true
Only absolutely true to people who are susceptible to false choice.
Is your view that "your belief is for you and my belief is for me" just for you or is it for everybody. If it is just for you, that belief belongs to you and means nothing to me, for as you said I have my own beliefs. On the other hand if that view is for everybody, why are you forcing that view on me? Either way your post self-destructs.As a chrisitian myself my religion is FOR ME, my relationship with my religion and with GOD is MINE.
Its not yours, its not to be forced on you nor are you to force me how to have it.
What you do with your religion or lack of one is YOUR business, not mine and vice-versa.
Im not to make the laws reflect only my beliefs nor are you to make laws to stop my relationship with my god. etc etc
To each thier own but i think this is a great message
LOVE
Is your view that "your belief is for you and my belief is for me" just for you or is it for everybody. If it is just for you, that belief belongs to you and means nothing to me, for as you said I have my own beliefs. On the other hand if that view is for everybody, why are you forcing that view on me? Either way your post self-destructs.
wow somebody created a poster just for this huge fail?
You left out a KEY part . . . LAWS as mentioned in the OP
the statment is about LAWS in my country which leads to rights
so the only self destruct is those that thing they get to force thier views on others and make laws only reflecting thier opinions and belifes
thanks for playing, let me know if theres any other mistakes i can help out with, thanks
1.)While I thank you for clarifying your view, your are still confusing me.
2.) Yes, I agree that there shouldn't be laws prohibiting religious liberty.
3.) Your view seems to go beyond that.
4.) Your comments look over the fact that all laws reflect peoples opinions and beliefs. Including the law granting religious liberty! On top of that the law of religious liberty "forces" its view on those who disagree. Truth by definition excludes. While I think your view has some truth to it, i think it could be clarified better
As a chrisitian myself my religion is FOR ME, my relationship with my religion and with GOD is MINE.
Its not yours, its not to be forced on you nor are you to force me how to have it.
What you do with your religion or lack of one is YOUR business, not mine and vice-versa.
Im not to make the laws reflect only my beliefs nor are you to make laws to stop my relationship with my god. etc etc