Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is death the only fair punishment?

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 10:27:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Depends if you look at death from God's viewpoint or man's I guess.

The only punishment God has ever used or ever will use is death. Torture and torment just aren't in his vocabulary or imagination.

Death means they can't do it again.

The resurrection will give them the chance to learn properly why they shouldn't, in ideal conditions, on a cleansed earth without the disruption of Satan.

If that lesson doesn't sink in they will be destroyed so they can't trouble anyone, ever again.

To me that is the punishment which is fairest to all, including the wrongdoer.

This is why I can understand how hurt God must feel when people think he sends people to a hell of torment. That is almost as big, and false, a slander as the Trinity teaching.

All who bother to get to now him personally know he would never countenance something so pointlessly cruel when he has the above alternative he can use.

All he ants for his creation is happiness and peace. Those who truly want the same will be welcome in the "Ark". Those who insist on things being their way will not.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 11:01:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 10:27:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Depends if you look at death from God's viewpoint or man's I guess.

Can we depend on you (again to presume to present "God's viewpoint" for us?

The only punishment God has ever used or ever will use is death. Torture and torment just aren't in his vocabulary or imagination.

Patently untrue.

Death means they can't do it again.

Death merely means separation in many instances.

The resurrection will give them the chance to learn properly why they shouldn't, in ideal conditions, on a cleansed earth without the disruption of Satan.

That sounds like some more JW speculation, and we all know how well they fare at that.

If that lesson doesn't sink in they will be destroyed so they can't trouble anyone, ever again.

To me that is the punishment which is fairest to all, including the wrongdoer.

This is why I can understand how hurt God must feel when people think he sends people to a hell of torment. That is almost as big, and false, a slander as the Trinity teaching.

LOL
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 12:57:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 11:01:56 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/17/2014 10:27:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Depends if you look at death from God's viewpoint or man's I guess.

Can we depend on you (again to presume to present "God's viewpoint" for us?

The only punishment God has ever used or ever will use is death. Torture and torment just aren't in his vocabulary or imagination.

Patently untrue.

Death means they can't do it again.

Death merely means separation in many instances.

The resurrection will give them the chance to learn properly why they shouldn't, in ideal conditions, on a cleansed earth without the disruption of Satan.

That sounds like some more JW speculation, and we all know how well they fare at that.

If that lesson doesn't sink in they will be destroyed so they can't trouble anyone, ever again.

To me that is the punishment which is fairest to all, including the wrongdoer.

This is why I can understand how hurt God must feel when people think he sends people to a hell of torment. That is almost as big, and false, a slander as the Trinity teaching.

LOL

Yes Anna, I always present scripture from God's viewpoint and not that of any man

Is it my fault if the JWs reach the same conclusions? All that proves is that they too view things from God's perspective.

No Anna, none of it is speculation JW or otherwise, it is purely what scripture promises, amongst the things that are "shortly to come to pass", as well as all the Hebrew Scripture prophecy that Revelation expand on.

It is God's way, and the fairest and best way to achieve the overall success of his plan.

You know, the plan which scripture tells us all about but which you prefer to deny.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 1:26:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 12:57:47 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 11:01:56 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/17/2014 10:27:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Depends if you look at death from God's viewpoint or man's I guess.

Can we depend on you (again to presume to present "God's viewpoint" for us?

The only punishment God has ever used or ever will use is death. Torture and torment just aren't in his vocabulary or imagination.

Patently untrue.

Death means they can't do it again.

Death merely means separation in many instances.

The resurrection will give them the chance to learn properly why they shouldn't, in ideal conditions, on a cleansed earth without the disruption of Satan.

That sounds like some more JW speculation, and we all know how well they fare at that.

If that lesson doesn't sink in they will be destroyed so they can't trouble anyone, ever again.

To me that is the punishment which is fairest to all, including the wrongdoer.

This is why I can understand how hurt God must feel when people think he sends people to a hell of torment. That is almost as big, and false, a slander as the Trinity teaching.

LOL

Yes Anna, I always present scripture from God's viewpoint and not that of any man

God's viewpoint is man's viewpoint when it comes to scripture.

Is it my fault if the JWs reach the same conclusions? All that proves is that they too view things from God's perspective.

Or it proves that the both of you make constant and egregious errors. Which is it? I think the history of the JW's points to "egregious and constant errors" - all while they claimed to be presenting "God's viewpoint".

No Anna, none of it is speculation JW or otherwise, it is purely what scripture promises, amongst the things that are "shortly to come to pass", as well as all the Hebrew Scripture prophecy that Revelation expand on.

The prophesies of Revelation "expand upon" very, very little of the OT prophesies.

It is God's way, and the fairest and best way to achieve the overall success of his plan.

You know, the plan which scripture tells us all about but which you prefer to deny.

As always, I merely deny the false theology of the WatchTower (which amounts to denying your theology.)
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
12_13
Posts: 1,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 2:59:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 10:27:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Death means they can't do it again.

I agree with that, but I think death is not even any punishment. It is just result for unrighteousness. It wouldn"t be good to let evil, unrighteous people live forever. That is why they don"t get eternal life that is gift for those who are righteous.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 3:10:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Watching these two bicker over things neither of them can prove is amusing. Especially the level of vitriol these "christians" have for one another.

*munches popcorn*

Ya'll keep it up, I'm enjoying the show.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 3:11:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 1:26:06 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/17/2014 12:57:47 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 11:01:56 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/17/2014 10:27:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Depends if you look at death from God's viewpoint or man's I guess.

Can we depend on you (again to presume to present "God's viewpoint" for us?

The only punishment God has ever used or ever will use is death. Torture and torment just aren't in his vocabulary or imagination.

Patently untrue.

Death means they can't do it again.

Death merely means separation in many instances.

The resurrection will give them the chance to learn properly why they shouldn't, in ideal conditions, on a cleansed earth without the disruption of Satan.

That sounds like some more JW speculation, and we all know how well they fare at that.

If that lesson doesn't sink in they will be destroyed so they can't trouble anyone, ever again.

To me that is the punishment which is fairest to all, including the wrongdoer.

This is why I can understand how hurt God must feel when people think he sends people to a hell of torment. That is almost as big, and false, a slander as the Trinity teaching.

LOL

Yes Anna, I always present scripture from God's viewpoint and not that of any man

God's viewpoint is man's viewpoint when it comes to scripture.

Is it my fault if the JWs reach the same conclusions? All that proves is that they too view things from God's perspective.

Or it proves that the both of you make constant and egregious errors. Which is it? I think the history of the JW's points to "egregious and constant errors" - all while they claimed to be presenting "God's viewpoint".

No Anna, none of it is speculation JW or otherwise, it is purely what scripture promises, amongst the things that are "shortly to come to pass", as well as all the Hebrew Scripture prophecy that Revelation expand on.

The prophesies of Revelation "expand upon" very, very little of the OT prophesies.

It is God's way, and the fairest and best way to achieve the overall success of his plan.

You know, the plan which scripture tells us all about but which you prefer to deny.

As always, I merely deny the false theology of the WatchTower (which amounts to denying your theology.)

No Anna, you frequently have to deny scripture in order to do so. You know that. I know that. And by now most people on here know that.

You have denied so many parts of Gods plan, many of which are clearly, yes clearly and plainly, described in scripture, but because they don;t fit your theology, your false doctrine, then you deny them or twist them beyond recognition.

You have to twist the meanings of a number of scriptures to deny the creation of God son as the beginning of his creation, the first act of it, and the only sole creation by him, which makes him, as John described, God's only begotten son.

You know as well as I do that can only describe the original creation of God's son, not the birth of Jesus, because Jesus was first from the first of God's sons, not even the first of his human sons, which place is held by Adam.

Your distortion of that scripture is so easy to expose.

Throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures, boht Christ and the Apostles spoke of God and his son as separate entities, of which God was the superior.

You know it.

I know it.

but you deny it in order to support your counterfeit triune god doctrine, the greatest insult to God you could ever contrive.

The second worst is your support of the idea of a hell of torment, something which God would never even think about let alone arrange, and which can therefore only be a distortion of the meaning of scripture.

You even have the temerity to deny that man has made a muddle of scripture when it is so easy to prove from the number of different versions and the incessant arguing between so called scholars over some of the important scriptural passages.

If God had not allowed Satan to influence the translators, if he had guided them himself there would only be on translation, and it would be 100% accurate, and you would not like it at all.

However he allowed it as a test of us. A test you fail dismally. There is absolutely no other reason he would allow it, because it threatens to defeat his aim, which is for all to get to know him well.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 3:14:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 3:10:41 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
Watching these two bicker over things neither of them can prove is amusing. Especially the level of vitriol these "christians" have for one another.

*munches popcorn*

Ya'll keep it up, I'm enjoying the show.

I have no vitriol for anyone, I have no reason to have, because God will sort it out in his own good time.

There is only one of us loaded with vitriol and it sure ain't me, lol. It is Anna's teachings I hate for their slandering God, not Anna.

However I can and have proven from scripture, for those who accept scripture as evidence, many times over, everything I teach.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 3:31:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 3:11:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 1:26:06 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/17/2014 12:57:47 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 11:01:56 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/17/2014 10:27:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Depends if you look at death from God's viewpoint or man's I guess.

Can we depend on you (again to presume to present "God's viewpoint" for us?

The only punishment God has ever used or ever will use is death. Torture and torment just aren't in his vocabulary or imagination.

Patently untrue.

Death means they can't do it again.

Death merely means separation in many instances.

The resurrection will give them the chance to learn properly why they shouldn't, in ideal conditions, on a cleansed earth without the disruption of Satan.

That sounds like some more JW speculation, and we all know how well they fare at that.

If that lesson doesn't sink in they will be destroyed so they can't trouble anyone, ever again.

To me that is the punishment which is fairest to all, including the wrongdoer.

This is why I can understand how hurt God must feel when people think he sends people to a hell of torment. That is almost as big, and false, a slander as the Trinity teaching.

LOL

Yes Anna, I always present scripture from God's viewpoint and not that of any man

God's viewpoint is man's viewpoint when it comes to scripture.

Is it my fault if the JWs reach the same conclusions? All that proves is that they too view things from God's perspective.

Or it proves that the both of you make constant and egregious errors. Which is it? I think the history of the JW's points to "egregious and constant errors" - all while they claimed to be presenting "God's viewpoint".

No Anna, none of it is speculation JW or otherwise, it is purely what scripture promises, amongst the things that are "shortly to come to pass", as well as all the Hebrew Scripture prophecy that Revelation expand on.

The prophesies of Revelation "expand upon" very, very little of the OT prophesies.

It is God's way, and the fairest and best way to achieve the overall success of his plan.

You know, the plan which scripture tells us all about but which you prefer to deny.

As always, I merely deny the false theology of the WatchTower (which amounts to denying your theology.)

No Anna, you frequently have to deny scripture in order to do so. You know that. I know that. And by now most people on here know that.

You have denied so many parts of Gods plan, many of which are clearly, yes clearly and plainly, described in scripture, but because they don;t fit your theology, your false doctrine, then you deny them or twist them beyond recognition.

You have to twist the meanings of a number of scriptures to deny the creation of God son as the beginning of his creation, the first act of it, and the only sole creation by him, which makes him, as John described, God's only begotten son.

Name one.

Point out a scripture which describes Jesus as God's "only begotten Son" - or the equivalent - prior to His birth in Bethlehem. We all know you can't. As you say, you know it. I know it. We all know it.

As everyone here has seen, you go in one big circle. You'll run to the "firstborn of all creation", but when you find out it merely means "pre-eminent over", you run elsewhere. Then you finally wind up having to assert that "wisdom" is the equivalent of the Son.

Was Jesus the Creator of everything that was ever been created? You say, "NO!" You beg us to read into the passage something that is not there!

Here's how you handle things:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

You can't have that, so you offer us a different translation!

"All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made."

You can't have that, either - for the plain truth is that your doctrine has Jesus Christ creating Himself! So you tell us to just make an addendum: "John meant that Jesus created everything other than Himself." LOL! Hell's bells, why didn't He say it?

You have made an absolute fool of yourself on John 8: 58, all the way to the point of giving the WatchTower's dishonest attempts at justifying their perversions. Did you ever give us an example to "ego eimi" being translated "I have been" in a declarative sentence? Of course not - and you won't. Not ever. It's an absurd perversion.

And others have pointed out the WatchTower's indiscriminate of adding words such as "other" to the text in Colossians, knowing full well that such a word is not there in the original.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 4:09:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 3:31:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/17/2014 3:11:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 1:26:06 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/17/2014 12:57:47 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 11:01:56 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/17/2014 10:27:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Depends if you look at death from God's viewpoint or man's I guess.

Can we depend on you (again to presume to present "God's viewpoint" for us?

The only punishment God has ever used or ever will use is death. Torture and torment just aren't in his vocabulary or imagination.

Patently untrue.

Death means they can't do it again.

Death merely means separation in many instances.

The resurrection will give them the chance to learn properly why they shouldn't, in ideal conditions, on a cleansed earth without the disruption of Satan.

That sounds like some more JW speculation, and we all know how well they fare at that.

If that lesson doesn't sink in they will be destroyed so they can't trouble anyone, ever again.

To me that is the punishment which is fairest to all, including the wrongdoer.

This is why I can understand how hurt God must feel when people think he sends people to a hell of torment. That is almost as big, and false, a slander as the Trinity teaching.

LOL

Yes Anna, I always present scripture from God's viewpoint and not that of any man

God's viewpoint is man's viewpoint when it comes to scripture.

Is it my fault if the JWs reach the same conclusions? All that proves is that they too view things from God's perspective.

Or it proves that the both of you make constant and egregious errors. Which is it? I think the history of the JW's points to "egregious and constant errors" - all while they claimed to be presenting "God's viewpoint".

No Anna, none of it is speculation JW or otherwise, it is purely what scripture promises, amongst the things that are "shortly to come to pass", as well as all the Hebrew Scripture prophecy that Revelation expand on.

The prophesies of Revelation "expand upon" very, very little of the OT prophesies.

It is God's way, and the fairest and best way to achieve the overall success of his plan.

You know, the plan which scripture tells us all about but which you prefer to deny.

As always, I merely deny the false theology of the WatchTower (which amounts to denying your theology.)

No Anna, you frequently have to deny scripture in order to do so. You know that. I know that. And by now most people on here know that.

You have denied so many parts of Gods plan, many of which are clearly, yes clearly and plainly, described in scripture, but because they don;t fit your theology, your false doctrine, then you deny them or twist them beyond recognition.

You have to twist the meanings of a number of scriptures to deny the creation of God son as the beginning of his creation, the first act of it, and the only sole creation by him, which makes him, as John described, God's only begotten son.

Name one.

Point out a scripture which describes Jesus as God's "only begotten Son" - or the equivalent - prior to His birth in Bethlehem. We all know you can't. As you say, you know it. I know it. We all know it.

There isnt one because Jesus didn't exist until he was born in Bethlehem. God's son is rarely mentioned in scripture, in fact the only direct discussion of him I can think of is Proverbs 8, which can only apply to God's son because it describes "wisdom, not only as the beginning of God's creative works (Proverbs 8:22; Revelation 3:14) but as working alongside him ion the creation of everything (Proverbs 8:30; Colossians 1:15,16). There are other parallels, but the connection is obvious.

As everyone here has seen, you go in one big circle. You'll run to the "firstborn of all creation", but when you find out it merely means "pre-eminent over", you run elsewhere. Then you finally wind up having to assert that "wisdom" is the equivalent of the Son.

Actually that is not what it means at all, it means precisely what it says, hit is only your distortion of it that makes it that way. First-borns were only ever pre-eminent because they were born first. Simple as.

You can make it appear to mean what you want it to, as you do many times over ins scripture, but that won't change it's true meaning, nor will it prevent it from contradicting other scriptures.

Was Jesus the Creator of everything that was ever been created? You say, "NO!" You beg us to read into the passage something that is not there!

Actually I do not ask you to believe anyting that isn't there, simply what is, that he assisted in creating everything that was brought into existence after him.

That is perfectly in line with the meaning of all scriptures which discuss that despite your objection to the addition of the word "other" which despite clarifying things makes no real difference to the text.

The apostles simply took it for granted that their readers would realise that either way, God's son could not create himself.

Here's how you handle things:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

You can't have that, so you offer us a different translation!


I can't have that because it is a mistranslation, a deliberate mistranslation in order to confuse things, that is easy to prove as I have done many times.

I know your pet experts don;t agree but there are more than enough that do, as I have also shown you.

Of course you scathingly dismiss all who don;t agree with you as "tards

"All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made."

I think you will find that is a deliberate mistranslation introduced by trinitarians to support the trinity. Don;t forget most translations were done by trinitarians and most would not be able to think in any otehr way, as you can't.

You can't have that, either - for the plain truth is that your doctrine has Jesus Christ creating Himself! So you tell us to just make an addendum: "John meant that Jesus created everything other than Himself." LOL! Hell's bells, why didn't He say it?

No, the doctrine of scripture does not have Christ creating himself, as scripture points out it is God who creates him.

You have made an absolute fool of yourself on John 8: 58, all the way to the point of giving the WatchTower's dishonest attempts at justifying their perversions. Did you ever give us an example to "ego eimi" being translated "I have been" in a declarative sentence? Of course not - and you won't. Not ever. It's an absurd perversion.

No Anna I have not, but you have had to resort to describing any scholar who disagrees with you as tards, something I have never needed to do, nor had the desire to do, with those who disagree with me. I just chose the ""side" that agree with the rest of scripture. You, as always choose the side that agree with your doctrine because you put doctrine before scripture.

And others have pointed out the WatchTower's indiscriminate of adding words such as "other" to the text in Colossians, knowing full well that such a word is not there in the original.

There is nothing indiscriminate about their adding words, nor do they make any secret of it habitually putting such words in square parentheses to draw attention to them, because they have no intention of deceiving anybody.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 4:50:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 3:14:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 3:10:41 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
Watching these two bicker over things neither of them can prove is amusing. Especially the level of vitriol these "christians" have for one another.

*munches popcorn*

Ya'll keep it up, I'm enjoying the show.

I have no vitriol for anyone, I have no reason to have, because God will sort it out in his own good time.

There is only one of us loaded with vitriol and it sure ain't me, lol. It is Anna's teachings I hate for their slandering God, not Anna.

However I can and have proven from scripture, for those who accept scripture as evidence, many times over, everything I teach.

Both of you are wrong, but that's why I enjoy the fight. I could care less if two wrong people want to bicker with one another about their wrong positions. It simply makes for great entertainment. Like watching news about Sarah Palin's family. Sometimes it's just fun to watch the lesser evolved apes throw poo.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 5:22:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 4:09:12 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 3:31:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/17/2014 3:11:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 1:26:06 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/17/2014 12:57:47 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 11:01:56 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/17/2014 10:27:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


Point out a scripture which describes Jesus as God's "only begotten Son" - or the equivalent - prior to His birth in Bethlehem. We all know you can't. As you say, you know it. I know it. We all know it.

There isnt one because Jesus didn't exist until he was born in Bethlehem. God's son is rarely mentioned in scripture, in fact the only direct discussion of him I can think of is Proverbs 8, which can only apply to God's son because it describes "wisdom, not only as the beginning of God's creative works (Proverbs 8:22; Revelation 3:14) but as working alongside him ion the creation of everything (Proverbs 8:30; Colossians 1:15,16). There are other parallels, but the connection is obvious.

As everyone here has seen, you go in one big circle. You'll run to the "firstborn of all creation", but when you find out it merely means "pre-eminent over", you run elsewhere. Then you finally wind up having to assert that "wisdom" is the equivalent of the Son.

Actually that is not what it means at all, it means precisely what it says, hit is only your distortion of it that makes it that way. First-borns were only ever pre-eminent because they were born first. Simple as.

Untrue.

You can make it appear to mean what you want it to, as you do many times over ins scripture, but that won't change it's true meaning, nor will it prevent it from contradicting other scriptures.

Was Jesus the Creator of everything that was ever been created? You say, "NO!" You beg us to read into the passage something that is not there!

Actually I do not ask you to believe anyting that isn't there, simply what is, that he assisted in creating everything that was brought into existence after him.

It doesn't say anything about "after Him", does it?

That is perfectly in line with the meaning of all scriptures which discuss that despite your objection to the addition of the word "other" which despite clarifying things makes no real difference to the text.

It makes all the difference in the world - or else the WatchTowerites would have never added it.

The apostles simply took it for granted that their readers would realise that either way, God's son could not create himself.

Apparently not.

Here's how you handle things:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

You can't have that, so you offer us a different translation!


I can't have that because it is a mistranslation, a deliberate mistranslation in order to confuse things, that is easy to prove as I have done many times.

LMAO.

I know your pet experts don;t agree but there are more than enough that do, as I have also shown you.

I don't have any "pet experts".

Of course you scathingly dismiss all who don;t agree with you as "tards

"All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made."

I think you will find that is a deliberate mistranslation introduced by trinitarians to support the trinity. Don;t forget most translations were done by trinitarians and most would not be able to think in any otehr way, as you can't.

Don't just claim it is a mistranslation. Prove it.

You can't have that, either - for the plain truth is that your doctrine has Jesus Christ creating Himself! So you tell us to just make an addendum: "John meant that Jesus created everything other than Himself." LOL! Hell's bells, why didn't He say it?

No, the doctrine of scripture does not have Christ creating himself, as scripture points out it is God who creates him.

.... and the scriptures, of course, never say that the Son was a created being.

You have made an absolute fool of yourself on John 8: 58, all the way to the point of giving the WatchTower's dishonest attempts at justifying their perversions. Did you ever give us an example to "ego eimi" being translated "I have been" in a declarative sentence? Of course not - and you won't. Not ever. It's an absurd perversion.

No Anna I have not,

Of course ya haven't. There is no such thing! Do you get that? Does it sink in? Repeat it slowly for us: "I can find no lexicographer ... no grammarian ... who will confirm that "ego eimi" can be translated "I have been" in a declarative sentence. YET THE WATCHTOWER DID IT!

And others have pointed out the WatchTower's indiscriminate of adding words such as "other" to the text in Colossians, knowing full well that such a word is not there in the original.

There is nothing indiscriminate about their adding words, nor do they make any secret of it habitually putting such words in square parentheses

They are indiscriminate because they are so inconsistent.

Do you not have enough sense to see that your defense of John 8: 58 pretty much tells the whole tale? I sat and watched you dig a hole for yourself. And how? Why, you dug it by citing a very dishonest source: the WatchTower. I've never seen a group so deliberately mislead the ill-informed in such a manner!

Imagine trying to juggle things through the Syriac translations in an effort to deceive. Imagine quoting the words of a few scholars, then totally misapplying their words to declarative sentences. No wonder the New World perversion was summarily rejected by everyone but the Witnesses.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 5:25:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 3:14:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 3:10:41 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
Watching these two bicker over things neither of them can prove is amusing. Especially the level of vitriol these "christians" have for one another.

*munches popcorn*

Ya'll keep it up, I'm enjoying the show.

I have no vitriol for anyone, I have no reason to have, because God will sort it out in his own good time.

There is only one of us loaded with vitriol and it sure ain't me, lol. It is Anna's teachings I hate for their slandering God, not Anna.

However I can and have proven from scripture, for those who accept scripture as evidence, many times over, everything I teach.

Why, you have habitually quoted the NWT and tried to pass it off as "scripture." There's mistake #1. Nobody on here is gonna fall for that.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 10:18:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 10:27:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Depends if you look at death from God's viewpoint or man's I guess.

The only punishment God has ever used or ever will use is death. Torture and torment just aren't in his vocabulary or imagination.

Death means they can't do it again.

The resurrection will give them the chance to learn properly why they shouldn't, in ideal conditions, on a cleansed earth without the disruption of Satan.

If that lesson doesn't sink in they will be destroyed so they can't trouble anyone, ever again.

To me that is the punishment which is fairest to all, including the wrongdoer.

This is why I can understand how hurt God must feel when people think he sends people to a hell of torment. That is almost as big, and false, a slander as the Trinity teaching.

All who bother to get to now him personally know he would never countenance something so pointlessly cruel when he has the above alternative he can use.

All he ants for his creation is happiness and peace. Those who truly want the same will be welcome in the "Ark". Those who insist on things being their way will not.

God's people believe their flesh is real so all these years since man existed, they didn't know they were only characters in a dream of God's. Once their flesh perishes in this age, they will awaken to their true reality in God and know that every experience they have is but a dream. Can you imagine what Adam and Eve would have thought if God told them they were in a dream? They wouldn't understand what a make-believe world meant.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 7:13:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 5:25:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/17/2014 3:14:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 3:10:41 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
Watching these two bicker over things neither of them can prove is amusing. Especially the level of vitriol these "christians" have for one another.

*munches popcorn*

Ya'll keep it up, I'm enjoying the show.

I have no vitriol for anyone, I have no reason to have, because God will sort it out in his own good time.

There is only one of us loaded with vitriol and it sure ain't me, lol. It is Anna's teachings I hate for their slandering God, not Anna.

However I can and have proven from scripture, for those who accept scripture as evidence, many times over, everything I teach.

Why, you have habitually quoted the NWT and tried to pass it off as "scripture." There's mistake #1. Nobody on here is gonna fall for that.

It is scripture, and is an accurate distillation of a vast range of manuscripts and translations. returning scripture to as close to the coherent original as is currently possible.

However it is still a "work in progress".

Actually Anna, it s your claim that people will not fall for because everyone on here knows that I have also habitually quoted from your favourite translation the ASV, as well as occasionally from the KJV and Rotherham's Emphasised, and Young's Literal and others.

You see, unlike you I don't need to tell anyone to ignore any translation, because I can and do use any I feel like to prove the same points.

I can, have, and usually do, destroy all of your teachings from your own favourite translation, lol, and acknowledge it as the second most accurate translation I know because at least it has made a serious attempot to replace the holy name in as many places as they feel appropriate. My only "pick" with it, apart from the usual deliberate mistranslations they have carried forward due to the mistaken beliefs of the translators, is that they have not replaced it in the Christian Greek scriptures where those scriptures quote from Hebrew Scriptures that contained it. However at least they made a good effort.

Also, I never tell people to use any particular translation to check my points in, for the same reason as above, even though I could continually site the NWT.

I can teach you exactly the same things as I teach from the NWT, from every translation you care to name, in the end they all teach the same things, despite the Satanically inspired tampering, God has protected his word to sufficient

Yes I usually use the NWT for searching in, purely because I am more used to the wording in there, and then I frequently, and increasingly, look up the same scripture in the ASV and post that version, especially when dealing with you, as any here know.

No Anna, as so often this is simply another of your empty bluffs which relies on your readers being as stupid as you obviously think they are.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 7:57:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 5:22:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:09:12 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


Actually that is not what it means at all, it means precisely what it says, hit is only your distortion of it that makes it that way. First-borns were only ever pre-eminent because they were born first. Simple as.

Untrue.

Perfectly true.


You can make it appear to mean what you want it to, as you do many times over ins scripture, but that won't change it's true meaning, nor will it prevent it from contradicting other scriptures.

Actually I do not ask you to believe anyting that isn't there, simply what is, that he assisted in creating everything that was brought into existence after him.

It doesn't say anything about "after Him", does it?

It doesn't need to whatever your belief that is so obvious it doesn't need stating, and as scriptures like John 1:14, John 1:18 and Revelation 3:14 make clear it is the only option. Therefore "after him", like "[other]" would represent nothing more than a clarification of what was already known.


That is perfectly in line with the meaning of all scriptures which discuss that despite your objection to the addition of the word "other" which despite clarifying things makes no real difference to the text.

It makes all the difference in the world - or else the WatchTowerites would have never added it.

Wrong again, they added it as a clarification, nothing more, as they have done with the few other additions they made, none of which alter the meaning of the verse at all, and all of which were originally carefully added in square parentheses.

It was simply people like you who ave trouble understanding the original that they were trying to help. And whilst I personally have always felt that adding it was a mistake, because it left them open to criticism by false teachers such as you, I have always believed what that verse really teaches.


The apostles simply took it for granted that their readers would realise that either way, God's son could not create himself.

Apparently not.

Obviously so,.


I can't have that because it is a mistranslation, a deliberate mistranslation in order to confuse things, that is easy to prove as I have done many times.

LMAO.

Well you would wouldn't you.


I know your pet experts don;t agree but there are more than enough that do, as I have also shown you.

I don't have any "pet experts".

Oh you do, pet as in favourite. You call any expert who disagrees with what you want to read a "tard" and I am not the only one top have commented on that fact.

Of course you scathingly dismiss all who don;t agree with you as "tards

"All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made."

I think you will find that is a deliberate mistranslation introduced by trinitarians to support the trinity. Don;t forget most translations were done by trinitarians and most would not be able to think in any otehr way, as you can't.

Don't just claim it is a mistranslation. Prove it.

I have many times buy the scriptures which prove, beyond reasonable argument, that God's son was indeed the "Only begotten son" of God since he was the oly one created with no assistance from others, and that Jesus was far from the only human "son of god".

Even the scripture which calls him the "Firstborn of all creation" the meaning of which you like to distort even though the root of what you like to say is found in precisely what truth teaches not in what you teach.

He was pre-eminent because as the first born he had all the legal rights of a first born. simple as.


No, the doctrine of scripture does not have Christ creating himself, as scripture points out it is God who creates him.

.... and the scriptures, of course, never say that the Son was a created being.

Except that they do, as I have shown you, even in the Hebrew Scriptures.. But as usual you choose to deny those scriptures.


No Anna I have not,

Of course ya haven't. There is no such thing! Do you get that? Does it sink in? Repeat it slowly for us: "I can find no lexicographer ... no grammarian ... who will confirm that "ego eimi" can be translated "I have been" in a declarative sentence. YET THE WATCHTOWER DID IT!

Except that as I have shown you many grammarians do just that, but of course because they disagree with you, you replied by calling them "tards" as you always do when you know you have been presented with proof that you just might be wrong.


There is nothing indiscriminate about their adding words, nor do they make any secret of it habitually putting such words in square parentheses

They are indiscriminate because they are so inconsistent.

Except they are always completely consistent with the scripture they are inserted into, and never change the meaning of the scripture at all, just clarify it.


Do you not have enough sense to see that your defense of John 8: 58 pretty much tells the whole tale? I sat and watched you dig a hole for yourself. And how? Why, you dug it by citing a very dishonest source: the WatchTower. I've never seen a group so deliberately mislead the ill-informed in such a manner!


Yes I know it tells the whole tale, it tells that you need to check because your version doesn't fit in with the rest of scripture. Actually I did not cite the Watchtower as a source, and the Watchtower is scrupulously honest anyway. I cited external sources they had found and drawn our attention to, that is all.,

Imagine trying to juggle things through the Syriac translations in an effort to deceive. Imagine quoting the words of a few scholars, then totally misapplying their words to declarative sentences. No wonder the New World perversion was summarily rejected by everyone but the Witnesses.

I can't imagine it, they set themselves quite a task trawling through all the manuscripts they can find in order to smooth out the ripples in truth. That is why the need a committee, no one man's word would have been good enough.

That is why they are still doing it, and have released a 2013 edition, because they do not believe thy have it all perfectly correct even after all these decades, and they want to be 100% sure, if they can.

Unlike people like you they don't sit on their laurels, partly because they realise that if you sit on laurels they dry up and become very uncomfortable. As you find frequently when you come up against me, lol.

Try as you like Anna you cannot change truth and it will catch you out in the end.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 8:04:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 4:50:34 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 9/17/2014 3:14:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 3:10:41 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
Watching these two bicker over things neither of them can prove is amusing. Especially the level of vitriol these "christians" have for one another.

*munches popcorn*

Ya'll keep it up, I'm enjoying the show.

I have no vitriol for anyone, I have no reason to have, because God will sort it out in his own good time.

There is only one of us loaded with vitriol and it sure ain't me, lol. It is Anna's teachings I hate for their slandering God, not Anna.

However I can and have proven from scripture, for those who accept scripture as evidence, many times over, everything I teach.

Both of you are wrong, but that's why I enjoy the fight. I could care less if two wrong people want to bicker with one another about their wrong positions. It simply makes for great entertainment. Like watching news about Sarah Palin's family. Sometimes it's just fun to watch the lesser evolved apes throw poo.

No, I am not wrong, or right, and for one reason and one reason only. I rely on God and holy spirit rather than on myself, therefore what I teach comes from scripture and God.

I don;t expect you to believe it. Few believed either Christ or the Apostles either, despite the confirmation of all they taught in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Guess it all depends on how much scripture, and scriptural truth mean to you. They mean life and everything to me.

Everything I teach on here comes from scripture, mostly from the Hebrew scriptures which Christ and the Apostles taught from, and everything in the Christian Greek Scriptures is exactly as the Hebrew Scriptures foretold it would be, including the rejection of what little remained of Israel for their continued unfaithfulness.

There was only one reason Judah was tolerated for as long as they were, because the Messiah was to come from their line, so they could not be allowed to die out completely, much as Satan wanted them to. He succeeded with all of Israel apart from Judah,but eventually even they were given over to him completely, once their purpose was over and the Messiah arrived and proved faithful..
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 9:11:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 8:04:12 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:50:34 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 9/17/2014 3:14:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 3:10:41 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
Watching these two bicker over things neither of them can prove is amusing. Especially the level of vitriol these "christians" have for one another.

*munches popcorn*

Ya'll keep it up, I'm enjoying the show.

I have no vitriol for anyone, I have no reason to have, because God will sort it out in his own good time.

There is only one of us loaded with vitriol and it sure ain't me, lol. It is Anna's teachings I hate for their slandering God, not Anna.

However I can and have proven from scripture, for those who accept scripture as evidence, many times over, everything I teach.

Both of you are wrong, but that's why I enjoy the fight. I could care less if two wrong people want to bicker with one another about their wrong positions. It simply makes for great entertainment. Like watching news about Sarah Palin's family. Sometimes it's just fun to watch the lesser evolved apes throw poo.

No, I am not wrong, or right, and for one reason and one reason only. I rely on God and holy spirit rather than on myself, therefore what I teach comes from scripture and God.

So you're putting reliance on an imaginary friend. Hence your choice to waste away the hours of your twilight years, prattling on about the superiority of your version of the word on the interwebs.

Meanwhile, people who focus their time and effort on meaningful pursuits continue to make meaningful advancement.

I don;t expect you to believe it. Few believed either Christ or the Apostles either, despite the confirmation of all they taught in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Accounts taken from subjective interpretations of mistranslated "books" written nearly a century after the death of a man who might never have existed to begin with. The problem with prophesy is they are easily fulfilled when followers want them to be.

Guess it all depends on how much scripture, and scriptural truth mean to you. They mean life and everything to me.
They mean nothing to me, as they are false books written by false men representing a false god, entirely engineered as a methodology of social control and cultural uniformity.

Everything I teach on here comes from scripture,

Which is why everything you "teach" is suspect. Scripture is not based in fact or truth. Neither do you use the older, more reliable Coptic translations.

mostly from the Hebrew scriptures which Christ and the Apostles taught from,
AKA the old testament. Oral histories which are incredibly fanciful, filled with inaccurate time-tables and certainly watered down from nearly 1000 years of oral storytelling. Nothing in the Old Testament can be taken literally.

You have played the game where you whisper in a person's ear, then they whisper the same thing in the next person's ear and so on and so forth? What began as "a white elephant eating peanuts" becomes a "fight with a sycophant over keeping deez nuts".

In other words, there is a law of diminishing returns for accuracy where oral history is concerned.

and everything in the Christian Greek Scriptures is exactly as the Hebrew Scriptures foretold it would be,

Only if you work really really hard to jury rig the "prophesies" into the Christian mythos. Again, however none of the Old testament can be considered in any way an accurate reflection of the original oral history.

including the rejection of what little remained of Israel for their continued unfaithfulness.
Anti-Semitic drivel with no basis in reality.

There was only one reason Judah was tolerated for as long as they were, because the Messiah was to come from their line, so they could not be allowed to die out completely, much as Satan wanted them to.

All of this, is blather. It is useless drivel, with no basis in fact. Satan is not real, and even if I were Christian, there is no scriptural basis for what you have said. Literally none. You cite this as justification for global oppression of Jewish people.

He succeeded with all of Israel apart from Judah,but eventually even they were given over to him completely, once their purpose was over and the Messiah arrived and proved faithful..

None of this even has any meaning, because it has no basis in reality or fact. All of this is the conjecture of an old zealot who takes great liberties with the text written to control people by Greek and Roman theocrats. Nothing of this has any value to individuals who do not see the world through the closed eyes of blind, polarizing faith.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 9:32:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 9:11:46 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 9/18/2014 8:04:12 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:50:34 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 9/17/2014 3:14:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 3:10:41 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
Watching these two bicker over things neither of them can prove is amusing. Especially the level of vitriol these "christians" have for one another.

*munches popcorn*

Ya'll keep it up, I'm enjoying the show.

I have no vitriol for anyone, I have no reason to have, because God will sort it out in his own good time.

There is only one of us loaded with vitriol and it sure ain't me, lol. It is Anna's teachings I hate for their slandering God, not Anna.

However I can and have proven from scripture, for those who accept scripture as evidence, many times over, everything I teach.

Both of you are wrong, but that's why I enjoy the fight. I could care less if two wrong people want to bicker with one another about their wrong positions. It simply makes for great entertainment. Like watching news about Sarah Palin's family. Sometimes it's just fun to watch the lesser evolved apes throw poo.

No, I am not wrong, or right, and for one reason and one reason only. I rely on God and holy spirit rather than on myself, therefore what I teach comes from scripture and God.

So you're putting reliance on an imaginary friend. Hence your choice to waste away the hours of your twilight years, prattling on about the superiority of your version of the word on the interwebs.

Meanwhile, people who focus their time and effort on meaningful pursuits continue to make meaningful advancement.

I don;t expect you to believe it. Few believed either Christ or the Apostles either, despite the confirmation of all they taught in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Accounts taken from subjective interpretations of mistranslated "books" written nearly a century after the death of a man who might never have existed to begin with. The problem with prophesy is they are easily fulfilled when followers want them to be.

Guess it all depends on how much scripture, and scriptural truth mean to you. They mean life and everything to me.
They mean nothing to me, as they are false books written by false men representing a false god, entirely engineered as a methodology of social control and cultural uniformity.

Everything I teach on here comes from scripture,

Which is why everything you "teach" is suspect. Scripture is not based in fact or truth. Neither do you use the older, more reliable Coptic translations.

mostly from the Hebrew scriptures which Christ and the Apostles taught from,
AKA the old testament. Oral histories which are incredibly fanciful, filled with inaccurate time-tables and certainly watered down from nearly 1000 years of oral storytelling. Nothing in the Old Testament can be taken literally.

You have played the game where you whisper in a person's ear, then they whisper the same thing in the next person's ear and so on and so forth? What began as "a white elephant eating peanuts" becomes a "fight with a sycophant over keeping deez nuts".

In other words, there is a law of diminishing returns for accuracy where oral history is concerned.

and everything in the Christian Greek Scriptures is exactly as the Hebrew Scriptures foretold it would be,

Only if you work really really hard to jury rig the "prophesies" into the Christian mythos. Again, however none of the Old testament can be considered in any way an accurate reflection of the original oral history.

including the rejection of what little remained of Israel for their continued unfaithfulness.
Anti-Semitic drivel with no basis in reality.

There was only one reason Judah was tolerated for as long as they were, because the Messiah was to come from their line, so they could not be allowed to die out completely, much as Satan wanted them to.

All of this, is blather. It is useless drivel, with no basis in fact. Satan is not real, and even if I were Christian, there is no scriptural basis for what you have said. Literally none. You cite this as justification for global oppression of Jewish people.

He succeeded with all of Israel apart from Judah,but eventually even they were given over to him completely, once their purpose was over and the Messiah arrived and proved faithful..

None of this even has any meaning, because it has no basis in reality or fact. All of this is the conjecture of an old zealot who takes great liberties with the text written to control people by Greek and Roman theocrats. Nothing of this has any value to individuals who do not see the world through the closed eyes of blind, polarizing faith.

I am anti anything that God is anti, but if it is blether it is blether from God, so it would pay you to read the Hebrew scriptures a little more carefully, especially the prophecies about the abandonment fo Israel for it's unfaithfulness, and the end of the Mosaic Law as law code. It is all there in the Hebrew Scriptures.

That is the irony of all such arguments. Your won scriptures condemn your belief.

Of course it is polarising, it is polarising around truth.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 9:44:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 9:32:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/18/2014 9:11:46 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 9/18/2014 8:04:12 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:50:34 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 9/17/2014 3:14:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 3:10:41 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
Watching these two bicker over things neither of them can prove is amusing. Especially the level of vitriol these "christians" have for one another.

*munches popcorn*

Ya'll keep it up, I'm enjoying the show.

I have no vitriol for anyone, I have no reason to have, because God will sort it out in his own good time.

There is only one of us loaded with vitriol and it sure ain't me, lol. It is Anna's teachings I hate for their slandering God, not Anna.

However I can and have proven from scripture, for those who accept scripture as evidence, many times over, everything I teach.

Both of you are wrong, but that's why I enjoy the fight. I could care less if two wrong people want to bicker with one another about their wrong positions. It simply makes for great entertainment. Like watching news about Sarah Palin's family. Sometimes it's just fun to watch the lesser evolved apes throw poo.

No, I am not wrong, or right, and for one reason and one reason only. I rely on God and holy spirit rather than on myself, therefore what I teach comes from scripture and God.

So you're putting reliance on an imaginary friend. Hence your choice to waste away the hours of your twilight years, prattling on about the superiority of your version of the word on the interwebs.

Meanwhile, people who focus their time and effort on meaningful pursuits continue to make meaningful advancement.

I don;t expect you to believe it. Few believed either Christ or the Apostles either, despite the confirmation of all they taught in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Accounts taken from subjective interpretations of mistranslated "books" written nearly a century after the death of a man who might never have existed to begin with. The problem with prophesy is they are easily fulfilled when followers want them to be.

Guess it all depends on how much scripture, and scriptural truth mean to you. They mean life and everything to me.
They mean nothing to me, as they are false books written by false men representing a false god, entirely engineered as a methodology of social control and cultural uniformity.

Everything I teach on here comes from scripture,

Which is why everything you "teach" is suspect. Scripture is not based in fact or truth. Neither do you use the older, more reliable Coptic translations.

mostly from the Hebrew scriptures which Christ and the Apostles taught from,
AKA the old testament. Oral histories which are incredibly fanciful, filled with inaccurate time-tables and certainly watered down from nearly 1000 years of oral storytelling. Nothing in the Old Testament can be taken literally.

You have played the game where you whisper in a person's ear, then they whisper the same thing in the next person's ear and so on and so forth? What began as "a white elephant eating peanuts" becomes a "fight with a sycophant over keeping deez nuts".

In other words, there is a law of diminishing returns for accuracy where oral history is concerned.

and everything in the Christian Greek Scriptures is exactly as the Hebrew Scriptures foretold it would be,

Only if you work really really hard to jury rig the "prophesies" into the Christian mythos. Again, however none of the Old testament can be considered in any way an accurate reflection of the original oral history.

including the rejection of what little remained of Israel for their continued unfaithfulness.
Anti-Semitic drivel with no basis in reality.

There was only one reason Judah was tolerated for as long as they were, because the Messiah was to come from their line, so they could not be allowed to die out completely, much as Satan wanted them to.

All of this, is blather. It is useless drivel, with no basis in fact. Satan is not real, and even if I were Christian, there is no scriptural basis for what you have said. Literally none. You cite this as justification for global oppression of Jewish people.

He succeeded with all of Israel apart from Judah,but eventually even they were given over to him completely, once their purpose was over and the Messiah arrived and proved faithful..

None of this even has any meaning, because it has no basis in reality or fact. All of this is the conjecture of an old zealot who takes great liberties with the text written to control people by Greek and Roman theocrats. Nothing of this has any value to individuals who do not see the world through the closed eyes of blind, polarizing faith.

I am anti anything that God is anti,

God is not anti-Semitic, only your misinterpretation of the mistranslated text you build your life around.

but if it is blether it is blether from God,
Who isn't real. So it's imaginary blather.

so it would pay you to read the Hebrew scriptures a little more carefully, especially the prophecies about the abandonment fo Israel for it's unfaithfulness, and the end of the Mosaic Law as law code. It is all there in the Hebrew Scriptures.

No, it's not, none of that is in the Hebrew Scripture at all.

That is the irony of all such arguments. Your won scriptures condemn your belief.
The irony of your own argument is that it is built upon the assumption of my beliefs.

Of course it is polarising, it is polarising around truth.
more meaningless doublespeak. The "word" was supposed to bring people together. Then people like you came about to use it as a methodology to justify exclusion.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 10:11:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 9:44:10 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 9/18/2014 9:32:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/18/2014 9:11:46 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 9/18/2014 8:04:12 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:50:34 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 9/17/2014 3:14:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 3:10:41 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
Watching these two bicker over things neither of them can prove is amusing. Especially the level of vitriol these "christians" have for one another.

*munches popcorn*

Ya'll keep it up, I'm enjoying the show.

I have no vitriol for anyone, I have no reason to have, because God will sort it out in his own good time.

There is only one of us loaded with vitriol and it sure ain't me, lol. It is Anna's teachings I hate for their slandering God, not Anna.

However I can and have proven from scripture, for those who accept scripture as evidence, many times over, everything I teach.

Both of you are wrong, but that's why I enjoy the fight. I could care less if two wrong people want to bicker with one another about their wrong positions. It simply makes for great entertainment. Like watching news about Sarah Palin's family. Sometimes it's just fun to watch the lesser evolved apes throw poo.

No, I am not wrong, or right, and for one reason and one reason only. I rely on God and holy spirit rather than on myself, therefore what I teach comes from scripture and God.

So you're putting reliance on an imaginary friend. Hence your choice to waste away the hours of your twilight years, prattling on about the superiority of your version of the word on the interwebs.

Meanwhile, people who focus their time and effort on meaningful pursuits continue to make meaningful advancement.

I don;t expect you to believe it. Few believed either Christ or the Apostles either, despite the confirmation of all they taught in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Accounts taken from subjective interpretations of mistranslated "books" written nearly a century after the death of a man who might never have existed to begin with. The problem with prophesy is they are easily fulfilled when followers want them to be.

Guess it all depends on how much scripture, and scriptural truth mean to you. They mean life and everything to me.
They mean nothing to me, as they are false books written by false men representing a false god, entirely engineered as a methodology of social control and cultural uniformity.

Everything I teach on here comes from scripture,

Which is why everything you "teach" is suspect. Scripture is not based in fact or truth. Neither do you use the older, more reliable Coptic translations.

mostly from the Hebrew scriptures which Christ and the Apostles taught from,
AKA the old testament. Oral histories which are incredibly fanciful, filled with inaccurate time-tables and certainly watered down from nearly 1000 years of oral storytelling. Nothing in the Old Testament can be taken literally.

You have played the game where you whisper in a person's ear, then they whisper the same thing in the next person's ear and so on and so forth? What began as "a white elephant eating peanuts" becomes a "fight with a sycophant over keeping deez nuts".

In other words, there is a law of diminishing returns for accuracy where oral history is concerned.

and everything in the Christian Greek Scriptures is exactly as the Hebrew Scriptures foretold it would be,

Only if you work really really hard to jury rig the "prophesies" into the Christian mythos. Again, however none of the Old testament can be considered in any way an accurate reflection of the original oral history.

including the rejection of what little remained of Israel for their continued unfaithfulness.
Anti-Semitic drivel with no basis in reality.

There was only one reason Judah was tolerated for as long as they were, because the Messiah was to come from their line, so they could not be allowed to die out completely, much as Satan wanted them to.

All of this, is blather. It is useless drivel, with no basis in fact. Satan is not real, and even if I were Christian, there is no scriptural basis for what you have said. Literally none. You cite this as justification for global oppression of Jewish people.

He succeeded with all of Israel apart from Judah,but eventually even they were given over to him completely, once their purpose was over and the Messiah arrived and proved faithful..

None of this even has any meaning, because it has no basis in reality or fact. All of this is the conjecture of an old zealot who takes great liberties with the text written to control people by Greek and Roman theocrats. Nothing of this has any value to individuals who do not see the world through the closed eyes of blind, polarizing faith.

I am anti anything that God is anti,

God is not anti-Semitic, only your misinterpretation of the mistranslated text you build your life around.

but if it is blether it is blether from God,
Who isn't real. So it's imaginary blather.

so it would pay you to read the Hebrew scriptures a little more carefully, especially the prophecies about the abandonment fo Israel for it's unfaithfulness, and the end of the Mosaic Law as law code. It is all there in the Hebrew Scriptures.

No, it's not, none of that is in the Hebrew Scripture at all.

That is the irony of all such arguments. Your won scriptures condemn your belief.
The irony of your own argument is that it is built upon the assumption of my beliefs.

Of course it is polarising, it is polarising around truth.
more meaningless doublespeak. The "word" was supposed to bring people together. Then people like you came about to use it as a methodology to justify exclusion.

I am sorry, but that last line especially is totally and utterly untrue.

All are welcome as part of God's people as long as they obey the Ts and Cs set out in his word. God has the perfect right to set the Terms and Conditions, as he did for Israel originally, but which Israel refused to obey with any consistency.

In fact the "Israel of God", True Christianity, is built on a foundation of faithful members of Judah who became a part of that "Israel of God". The only ones ever excluded are those who do not wish to join in under any terms but their own.

Nations are debarred because Satan is in charge of all nations, but individuals are welcome to come out of every faith creed and nation to join in.

That is why his son has set up the world wide preaching work, preaching "This Good News of the Kingdom" as commanded and foretold by Christ.

The whole point of that News is to attract as many people in as wish to come in, and only to exclude those who choose not to come in.

True Christianity, the true "Israel of God" seeks to unite all that want to be part of God's world, and exclude none. Any who are excluded are excluded by their own choices or stubbornness. Stubbornness such as yours to accept what is true.

As Moses said to Israel, "Choose life" choose God's way and become part of his, to steal a clich" "Brave New World". Don't be a "stiff necked" person as the original Israel were all too often for God's patience to stand.

God wants all to join him, but he knows not all will choose to do so.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 10:37:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
No, I am not wrong, or right, and for one reason and one reason only. I rely on God and holy spirit rather than on myself, therefore what I teach comes from scripture and God.

So you're putting reliance on an imaginary friend. Hence your choice to waste away the hours of your twilight years, prattling on about the superiority of your version of the word on the interwebs.

Meanwhile, people who focus their time and effort on meaningful pursuits continue to make meaningful advancement.

I don;t expect you to believe it. Few believed either Christ or the Apostles either, despite the confirmation of all they taught in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Accounts taken from subjective interpretations of mistranslated "books" written nearly a century after the death of a man who might never have existed to begin with. The problem with prophesy is they are easily fulfilled when followers want them to be.

Guess it all depends on how much scripture, and scriptural truth mean to you. They mean life and everything to me.
They mean nothing to me, as they are false books written by false men representing a false god, entirely engineered as a methodology of social control and cultural uniformity.

Everything I teach on here comes from scripture,

Which is why everything you "teach" is suspect. Scripture is not based in fact or truth. Neither do you use the older, more reliable Coptic translations.

mostly from the Hebrew scriptures which Christ and the Apostles taught from,
AKA the old testament. Oral histories which are incredibly fanciful, filled with inaccurate time-tables and certainly watered down from nearly 1000 years of oral storytelling. Nothing in the Old Testament can be taken literally.

You have played the game where you whisper in a person's ear, then they whisper the same thing in the next person's ear and so on and so forth? What began as "a white elephant eating peanuts" becomes a "fight with a sycophant over keeping deez nuts".

In other words, there is a law of diminishing returns for accuracy where oral history is concerned.

and everything in the Christian Greek Scriptures is exactly as the Hebrew Scriptures foretold it would be,

Only if you work really really hard to jury rig the "prophesies" into the Christian mythos. Again, however none of the Old testament can be considered in any way an accurate reflection of the original oral history.

including the rejection of what little remained of Israel for their continued unfaithfulness.
Anti-Semitic drivel with no basis in reality.

There was only one reason Judah was tolerated for as long as they were, because the Messiah was to come from their line, so they could not be allowed to die out completely, much as Satan wanted them to.

All of this, is blather. It is useless drivel, with no basis in fact. Satan is not real, and even if I were Christian, there is no scriptural basis for what you have said. Literally none. You cite this as justification for global oppression of Jewish people.

He succeeded with all of Israel apart from Judah,but eventually even they were given over to him completely, once their purpose was over and the Messiah arrived and proved faithful..

None of this even has any meaning, because it has no basis in reality or fact. All of this is the conjecture of an old zealot who takes great liberties with the text written to control people by Greek and Roman theocrats. Nothing of this has any value to individuals who do not see the world through the closed eyes of blind, polarizing faith.

I am anti anything that God is anti,

God is not anti-Semitic, only your misinterpretation of the mistranslated text you build your life around.

but if it is blether it is blether from God,
Who isn't real. So it's imaginary blather.

so it would pay you to read the Hebrew scriptures a little more carefully, especially the prophecies about the abandonment fo Israel for it's unfaithfulness, and the end of the Mosaic Law as law code. It is all there in the Hebrew Scriptures.

No, it's not, none of that is in the Hebrew Scripture at all.

That is the irony of all such arguments. Your won scriptures condemn your belief.
The irony of your own argument is that it is built upon the assumption of my beliefs.

Of course it is polarising, it is polarising around truth.
more meaningless doublespeak. The "word" was supposed to bring people together. Then people like you came about to use it as a methodology to justify exclusion.

I am sorry, but that last line especially is totally and utterly untrue.

It most certainly is true. You've already shown your personal exclusion of Jews, justified by your interpretation of the scripture.

All are welcome as part of God's people as long as they obey the Ts and Cs set out in his word.

Basically convert or be excluded. Again, this is all a methodology for cultural homogeneity.

God has the perfect right to set the Terms and Conditions, as he did for Israel originally, but which Israel refused to obey with any consistency.

Again you have confirmed that you use your faith as a justification for bigotry and exclusion.

In fact the "Israel of God", True Christianity, is built on a foundation of faithful members of Judah who became a part of that "Israel of God". The only ones ever excluded are those who do not wish to join in under any terms but their own.

Again, your words prove your belief system is naught but a methodology of coercing cultural homogeneity

Nations are debarred because Satan is in charge of all nations, but individuals are welcome to come out of every faith creed and nation to join in.

Again, you confirm your mistranslations and misinterpretations are simply methodologies for you to dehumanize governments, reject national boundaries and cultural differences, and demand uniformity, conformity and homogeneity. Otherwise, damnation.

That is why his son has set up the world wide preaching work, preaching "This Good News of the Kingdom" as commanded and foretold by Christ.

And that man was not exclusionary. You do not follow his words.

The whole point of that News is to attract as many people in as wish to come in, and only to exclude those who choose not to come in.

Nope, you're only half right. There is no exclusion of individuals in Jesus' teachings. To say otherwise is to admit you lack knowledge of his teachings.

True Christianity, the true "Israel of God" seeks to unite all that want to be part of God's world, and exclude none.

You literally just contradicted yourself and confirmed my arguments. You think and believe your particular flavor of radical western Christianity is, and should, be the only culture acceptable.

Any who are excluded are excluded by their own choices or stubbornness. Stubbornness such as yours to accept what is true.

And here we see confirmation of my statements. You have already excluded people. Based entirely on your assumptions about them. You know little about me, save for my aversion to your myopic brand of religion.

Don't be a "stiff necked" person as the original Israel were all too often for God's patience to stand.

Why not? God used to kill people for it, now he lacks the power (because he isn't real)

God wants all to join him, but he knows not all will choose to do so.

What god wants isn't up for debate, as he isn't real. National leaders want homogeneity, it's easier to control people.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 12:27:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 7:57:35 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/17/2014 5:22:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:09:12 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


Actually that is not what it means at all, it means precisely what it says, hit is only your distortion of it that makes it that way. First-borns were only ever pre-eminent because they were born first. Simple as.

Untrue.

Perfectly true.

Really? Then why are fellas who were not "born first" still called "first-born"?


You can make it appear to mean what you want it to, as you do many times over ins scripture, but that won't change it's true meaning, nor will it prevent it from contradicting other scriptures.

Actually I do not ask you to believe anyting that isn't there, simply what is, that he assisted in creating everything that was brought into existence after him.

It doesn't say anything about "after Him", does it?

It doesn't need to

Thanks. Then you admit that it says not a word about "after Him." You have to add that part based upon preconceptions.


That is perfectly in line with the meaning of all scriptures which discuss that despite your objection to the addition of the word "other" which despite clarifying things makes no real difference to the text.

It makes all the difference in the world - or else the WatchTowerites would have never added it.

Wrong again, they added it as a clarification,

They do not have permission to add it. One cannot merely add the word "other" to scriptures to suit his tastes. If you think it can be done, cite some standard translations that do so - anywhere.



The apostles simply took it for granted that their readers would realise that either way, God's son could not create himself.

Apparently not.

Obviously so,.


I can't have that because it is a mistranslation, a deliberate mistranslation in order to confuse things, that is easy to prove as I have done many times.

LMAO.

Well you would wouldn't you.


I know your pet experts don;t agree but there are more than enough that do, as I have also shown you.

I don't have any "pet experts".

Oh you do, pet as in favourite. You call any expert who disagrees with what you want to read a "tard" and I am not the only one top have commented on that fact.



Don't just claim it is a mistranslation. Prove it.

I have many times buy the scriptures which prove, beyond reasonable argument, that God's son was indeed the "Only begotten son" of God since he was the oly one created with no assistance from others, and that Jesus was far from the only human "son of god".

"Begotten" does not mean "without assistance from others". If you think it does, please cite the source.

Even the scripture which calls him the "Firstborn of all creation" the meaning of which you like to distort even though the root of what you like to say is found in precisely what truth teaches not in what you teach.

I do not distort it. I use a completely acceptable translation, one verified by any lexicon.

He was pre-eminent because as the first born he had all the legal rights of a first born. simple as.

Then why weren't other first-borns "pre-eminent"?


No, the doctrine of scripture does not have Christ creating himself, as scripture points out it is God who creates him.

.... and the scriptures, of course, never say that the Son was a created being.

Except that they do, as I have shown you, even in the Hebrew Scriptures.. But as usual you choose to deny those scriptures.

Well, take the "Hebrew scriptures" and show us. All I ask is that you don't run around trying to claim that "Wisdom" means the "Son of God".


No Anna I have not,

Of course ya haven't. There is no such thing! Do you get that? Does it sink in? Repeat it slowly for us: "I can find no lexicographer ... no grammarian ... who will confirm that "ego eimi" can be translated "I have been" in a declarative sentence. YET THE WATCHTOWER DID IT!

Except that as I have shown you many grammarians do just that, but of course because they disagree with you, you replied by calling them "tards"

Really? Name one! You sure didn't do it last time. You cited a couple, but we came to discover that they were referring to interrogatories.


There is nothing indiscriminate about their adding words, nor do they make any secret of it habitually putting such words in square parentheses

They are indiscriminate because they are so inconsistent.

Except they are always completely consistent with the scripture they are inserted into, and never change the meaning of the scripture at all, just clarify it.

LOL @ "The WatchTower 'clarifies' things for us."


Do you not have enough sense to see that your defense of John 8: 58 pretty much tells the whole tale? I sat and watched you dig a hole for yourself. And how? Why, you dug it by citing a very dishonest source: the WatchTower. I've never seen a group so deliberately mislead the ill-informed in such a manner!


Yes I know it tells the whole tale, it tells that you need to check because your version doesn't fit in with the rest of scripture. Actually I did not cite the Watchtower as a source,

Yes you did. You copied and pasted the WatchTower defense of the perversion.

and the Watchtower is scrupulously honest anyway.

They are notoriously dishonest.

Imagine trying to juggle things through the Syriac translations in an effort to deceive. Imagine quoting the words of a few scholars, then totally misapplying their words to declarative sentences. No wonder the New World perversion was summarily rejected by everyone but the Witnesses.

I can't imagine it, they set themselves quite a task trawling through all the manuscripts they can find in order to smooth out the ripples in truth. That is why the need a committee, no one man's word would have been good enough.

Repeat: "Imagine trying to juggle things through the Syriac translations in an effort to deceive."


Unlike people like you they don't sit on their laurels,

What laurels? "Most incorrect prophesy predictions?" "Worst Bible perversion?" I'm not sure to which "laurels" you refer.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 5:19:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 10:37:46 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:


What god wants isn't up for debate, as he isn't real. National leaders want homogeneity, it's easier to control people.

God is very real and you ignore him at your peril.

On the contrary the easiest way to control people is to divide them and leave them to fight amongst themselves. Then they are too busy to notice what you are doing. It is a typically Satanic scheme. If they wanted homogeneity they would work to unite themselves first instead of bickering all the time.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 5:35:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 11:01:56 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/17/2014 10:27:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Depends if you look at death from God's viewpoint or man's I guess.

Can we depend on you (again to presume to present "God's viewpoint" for us?

He doesn't do anything differently than you do.

The only punishment God has ever used or ever will use is death. Torture and torment just aren't in his vocabulary or imagination.

Patently untrue.

There are a few exceptions, yes. Death is, however, the overwhelmingly primary choice for this deity (according to its mouthpieces).

Death means they can't do it again.

Death merely means separation in many instances.

You say "tomayto" he says "tuhmahto."

The resurrection will give them the chance to learn properly why they shouldn't, in ideal conditions, on a cleansed earth without the disruption of Satan.

That sounds like some more JW speculation, and we all know how well they fare at that.

Only the speculation differs, not whether it is speculation. ALL christian denominations speculate. That's all one CAN do, with respect to this intellectual carcinogen.

If that lesson doesn't sink in they will be destroyed so they can't trouble anyone, ever again.

To me that is the punishment which is fairest to all, including the wrongdoer.

This is why I can understand how hurt God must feel when people think he sends people to a hell of torment. That is almost as big, and false, a slander as the Trinity teaching.

LOL

I agree! LOL
All biblical teaching is false.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 5:44:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 5:35:13 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 9/17/2014 11:01:56 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/17/2014 10:27:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Depends if you look at death from God's viewpoint or man's I guess.

Can we depend on you (again to presume to present "God's viewpoint" for us?

He doesn't do anything differently than you do.

The only punishment God has ever used or ever will use is death. Torture and torment just aren't in his vocabulary or imagination.

Patently untrue.

There are a few exceptions, yes. Death is, however, the overwhelmingly primary choice for this deity (according to its mouthpieces).

Death means they can't do it again.

Death merely means separation in many instances.

You say "tomayto" he says "tuhmahto."

The resurrection will give them the chance to learn properly why they shouldn't, in ideal conditions, on a cleansed earth without the disruption of Satan.

That sounds like some more JW speculation, and we all know how well they fare at that.

Only the speculation differs, not whether it is speculation. ALL christian denominations speculate. That's all one CAN do, with respect to this intellectual carcinogen.

If that lesson doesn't sink in they will be destroyed so they can't trouble anyone, ever again.

To me that is the punishment which is fairest to all, including the wrongdoer.

This is why I can understand how hurt God must feel when people think he sends people to a hell of torment. That is almost as big, and false, a slander as the Trinity teaching.

LOL

I agree! LOL
All biblical teaching is false.

The comments to MadCornish were not directed to you or any other atheist.

You can go on practically any thread and take a jab here and there that "all Biblical teaching is false." The trouble is: that's not the subject.

So I'll counter your statement:

A pack of Marlboros here is $5.10. Kinda-of interesting. Nobody cares, either.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 5:49:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 5:44:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:35:13 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 9/17/2014 11:01:56 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/17/2014 10:27:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Depends if you look at death from God's viewpoint or man's I guess.

Can we depend on you (again to presume to present "God's viewpoint" for us?

He doesn't do anything differently than you do.

The only punishment God has ever used or ever will use is death. Torture and torment just aren't in his vocabulary or imagination.

Patently untrue.

There are a few exceptions, yes. Death is, however, the overwhelmingly primary choice for this deity (according to its mouthpieces).

Death means they can't do it again.

Death merely means separation in many instances.

You say "tomayto" he says "tuhmahto."

The resurrection will give them the chance to learn properly why they shouldn't, in ideal conditions, on a cleansed earth without the disruption of Satan.

That sounds like some more JW speculation, and we all know how well they fare at that.

Only the speculation differs, not whether it is speculation. ALL christian denominations speculate. That's all one CAN do, with respect to this intellectual carcinogen.

If that lesson doesn't sink in they will be destroyed so they can't trouble anyone, ever again.

To me that is the punishment which is fairest to all, including the wrongdoer.

This is why I can understand how hurt God must feel when people think he sends people to a hell of torment. That is almost as big, and false, a slander as the Trinity teaching.

LOL

I agree! LOL
All biblical teaching is false.

The comments to MadCornish were not directed to you or any other atheist.

You can go on practically any thread and take a jab here and there that "all Biblical teaching is false." The trouble is: that's not the subject.

So I'll counter your statement:

A pack of Marlboros here is $5.10. Kinda-of interesting. Nobody cares, either.

The problem with that post is that you do, in fact, care. I thought it was funny that the two of you are arguing about whose doctrinal interpretation of a FALSE collection of books was actually the more correct. You are arguing that your interpretation of FALSEHOOD is more accurate that his interpretation of FALSEHOOD. He argues in the contrary vein. You are BOTH deluded. It's like watching a couple of pre-teens argue over whether or not Superman can kick Batman's @ss. Most entertaining.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 6:01:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 12:27:02 PM, annanicole wrote:

It doesn't need to

Thanks. Then you admit that it says not a word about "after Him." You have to add that part based upon preconceptions.

Of course, I only ever speak truth.


Wrong again, they added it as a clarification,

They do not have permission to add it. One cannot merely add the word "other" to scriptures to suit his tastes. If you think it can be done, cite some standard translations that do so - anywhere.

They had God's permission to do so. Their whole role is to make scripture understandable to the people, as Christ and the Apostles did before them. If they did not do that they would not be true to their role.

Tell me, who gave the translators even of the ASV permission to remove, or omit, God's name from where they have? For instance:

Joel 2:32
ASV(i) 32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape, as Jehovah hath said, and among the remnant those whom Jehovah doth call.

Acts 2:21
ASV(i) 21 And it shall be, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Romans 10:13
ASV(i) 13 for, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Notice that whilst the ASV have been honest enough to leave Jehovah's name in the original in Joel, they have omitted it from the quotations from that scripture. There is no way the Apostles would have been so dishonest as to do so.




"Begotten" does not mean "without assistance from others". If you think it does, please cite the source.

No, but only begotten does, because there was no-one else to assist him.


Even the scripture which calls him the "Firstborn of all creation" the meaning of which you like to distort even though the root of what you like to say is found in precisely what truth teaches not in what you teach.

I do not distort it. I use a completely acceptable translation, one verified by any lexicon.

So? They distort it also, that si the problem with relying on men rather than relying on God.

The simple fact is that First-born only has one meaning and that meaning is the entire reason for the pre-eminence of any first-born.

That is a fact of life and of language.


He was pre-eminent because as the first born he had all the legal rights of a first born. simple as.

Then why weren't other first-borns "pre-eminent"?

All other first-borns are pre-eminent in their situation. The pre-eminence of a first-born human son is the right of inheritance, which was why Jacob had to buy the birthright as first-born off his brother Esau.

The pre-eminence of all first-borns throughout history has been that as the one born first they got first choice of everything.

Try learning about the rights of the First-born in the Mosaic Law.

The pre-eminence of God's son was precisely the same. He was chief of all angels, and as Proverbs 8 tells us, the one of whom his father was most fond.

Except that they do, as I have shown you, even in the Hebrew Scriptures.. But as usual you choose to deny those scriptures.

Well, take the "Hebrew scriptures" and show us. All I ask is that you don't run around trying to claim that "Wisdom" means the "Son of God".

I don't need to try to claim it. the role of "wisdom" in proverbs 8 mirrors precisely the
role of God's son before during and after his earthly sojourn.

There is no otehr explanation feasible than that "Wisdom" is God's son.

Proverbs 8 fits n with Revelation 3:14, 1 John 1:14, Colossians 1:15-17

Of course that is why you deny it, because ot proves you wrong yet again.


Except that as I have shown you many grammarians do just that, but of course because they disagree with you, you replied by calling them "tards"

Really? Name one! You sure didn't do it last time. You cited a couple, but we came to discover that they were referring to interrogatories.

I have cited more than a couple, some of whom were indeed quoting from others, but not all. I am not going there again because you will only call them tards like you do all who disagree with you, including me more than once. Since you are so determined not to accept anything you don't want to believe in why should I bother. I already take far more trouble than I should to point out teh error of your beliefs, casting "Pearls before swine" as I am.

Yes I know it tells the whole tale, it tells that you need to check because your version doesn't fit in with the rest of scripture. Actually I did not cite the Watchtower as a source,

Yes you did. You copied and pasted the WatchTower defense of the perversion.

I copied and pasted citations and quotations from a Watchtower publication, yes, but I was not copying and pasting the words of the WTBTS, but of the external sources they were citing and quoting. That is far from the same as what you are saying.


and the Watchtower is scrupulously honest anyway.

They are notoriously dishonest.

Only amongst those who lie about them. Like you for instance.


Imagine trying to juggle things through the Syriac translations in an effort to deceive. Imagine quoting the words of a few scholars, then totally misapplying their words to declarative sentences. No wonder the New World perversion was summarily rejected by everyone but the Witnesses.

I can't imagine it, they set themselves quite a task trawling through all the manuscripts they can find in order to smooth out the ripples in truth. That is why the need a committee, no one man's word would have been good enough.

Repeat: "Imagine trying to juggle things through the Syriac translations in an effort to deceive."

They have never had any intent to deceive only to enlighten.


What laurels? "Most incorrect prophesy predictions?" "Worst Bible perversion?" I'm not sure to which "laurels" you refer.

Those two phrases very neatly describe your doctrine, not the JWs teachings, not even their past errors. There are no worse bible perversions than those which support Trinitarian thinking or the ideal of a hell of torment.

God is not one to be mocked Anna and you mock him continually, even when you mock his people on earth today.

2 Chronicles 36:15, 16
ASV(i) 15 And Jehovah, the God of their fathers, sent to them by his messengers, rising up early and sending, because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling-place: 16 but they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and scoffed at his prophets, until the wrath of Jehovah arose against his people, till there was no remedy.

Luke 10:16
ASV(i) 16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that rejecteth you rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me.

Acts 5:34-39
ASV(i) 34 But there stood up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in honor of all the people, and commanded to put the men forth a little while. 35 And he said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves as touching these men, what ye are about to do. 36 For before these days rose up Theudas, giving himself out to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were dispersed, and came to nought. 37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the enrolment, and drew away some of the people after him: he also perished; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered abroad. 38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown: 39 but if it is of God, ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 6:32:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 5:49:20 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:44:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:35:13 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 9/17/2014 11:01:56 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/17/2014 10:27:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Depends if you look at death from God's viewpoint or man's I guess.

Can we depend on you (again to presume to present "God's viewpoint" for us?

He doesn't do anything differently than you do.

The only punishment God has ever used or ever will use is death. Torture and torment just aren't in his vocabulary or imagination.

Patently untrue.

There are a few exceptions, yes. Death is, however, the overwhelmingly primary choice for this deity (according to its mouthpieces).

Death means they can't do it again.

Death merely means separation in many instances.

You say "tomayto" he says "tuhmahto."

The resurrection will give them the chance to learn properly why they shouldn't, in ideal conditions, on a cleansed earth without the disruption of Satan.

That sounds like some more JW speculation, and we all know how well they fare at that.

Only the speculation differs, not whether it is speculation. ALL christian denominations speculate. That's all one CAN do, with respect to this intellectual carcinogen.

If that lesson doesn't sink in they will be destroyed so they can't trouble anyone, ever again.

To me that is the punishment which is fairest to all, including the wrongdoer.

This is why I can understand how hurt God must feel when people think he sends people to a hell of torment. That is almost as big, and false, a slander as the Trinity teaching.

LOL

I agree! LOL
All biblical teaching is false.

The comments to MadCornish were not directed to you or any other atheist.

You can go on practically any thread and take a jab here and there that "all Biblical teaching is false." The trouble is: that's not the subject.

So I'll counter your statement:

A pack of Marlboros here is $5.10. Kinda-of interesting. Nobody cares, either.

The problem with that post is that you do, in fact, care. I thought it was funny that the two of you are arguing about whose doctrinal interpretation of a FALSE collection of books was actually the more correct.

We are operating under the conviction that the Bible is true; therefore, we are conversing based upon that as a given. What you may or may not think hardly entered into my mind - and I doubt that MCB gave much thought to it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 6:38:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 6:01:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/18/2014 12:27:02 PM, annanicole wrote:

It doesn't need to

Thanks. Then you admit that it says not a word about "after Him." You have to add that part based upon preconceptions.

Of course, I only ever speak truth.


Wrong again, they added it as a clarification,

They do not have permission to add it. One cannot merely add the word "other" to scriptures to suit his tastes. If you think it can be done, cite some standard translations that do so - anywhere.

They had God's permission to do so. Their whole role is to make scripture understandable to the people, as Christ and the Apostles did before them. If they did not do that they would not be true to their role.

Tell me, who gave the translators even of the ASV permission to remove, or omit, God's name from where they have?

Show me where they did so - and cite the Greek text employed. I can assure you that they "removed" nothing.

(Hint: we'll never see you do that)




"Begotten" does not mean "without assistance from others". If you think it does, please cite the source.

No, but only begotten does, because there was no-one else to assist him.

That's not what "only begotten" means. If a woman has two sons, is either one of them an "only begotten" son?


Even the scripture which calls him the "Firstborn of all creation" the meaning of which you like to distort even though the root of what you like to say is found in precisely what truth teaches not in what you teach.

I do not distort it. I use a completely acceptable translation, one verified by any lexicon.

So? They distort it also, that si the problem with relying on men rather than relying on God.

God didn't write any lexicons. Of course we rely on learned men to translate for us.

The simple fact is that First-born only has one meaning and that meaning is the entire reason for the pre-eminence of any first-born.

That is a fact of life and of language.


He was pre-eminent because as the first born he had all the legal rights of a first born. simple as.

Then why weren't other first-borns "pre-eminent"?

All other first-borns are pre-eminent in their situation. The pre-eminence of a first-born human son is the right of inheritance, which was why Jacob had to buy the birthright as first-born off his brother Esau.

Again, we want to know: why were children other than the eldest referred to as "first-born"? (And it had nothing to do with a birthright). Tell us!
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."