Total Posts:81|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do we need a mediator?

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hebrews 8:6
ASV(i) 6 But now hath he obtained a ministry the more excellent, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises.

1 Timothy 2:3-5
ASV(i) 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus,

Yes we need a mediator, because God cannot deal with us directly since Adam brought us down from the holy state he had enjoyed.

That mediator was provided by Jehovah himself in the form of his only begotten son who came to earth to occupy the flesh of Jesus and become the Christ.

So, when you look at that, where can you find room for a Trinity in there?

You can't, because Christ, Jehovah only begotten son, as holy as he is, is not so holy that he cannot be a mediator between us and the Most Holy God, Jehovah.

There are so many ways in which scripture destroys any chance of the Trinity teaching, in all it's forms having any credibility.

It also destroys the credibility of the "accepted" version of John 1:1 which teaches absolutely against what .

Accepted version?

Yes, accepted by men, but not b y Christ and his only begotten son.

There are many versions of John 1:1 about which are more in keeping with 1 Timothy 2: 3-5.

Why because they describe the word, not as God, but as a godlike one, as one with divine being, as one with divine nature.

All those descriptions are accurate, where the "accepted" version is so obviously not.

When you stop to think that Jehovah's only begotten son refused even to be called "Good teacher" saying that only his father is good, and corrected the one who called him that very forcefully, how forcefully do you think he will correct those who exalt him to equality with his father?

Yes we need a mediator, and in Jehovah's only begotten son, we have the perfect one.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 6:55:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Hebrews 8:6
ASV(i) 6 But now hath he obtained a ministry the more excellent, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises.


1 Timothy 2:3-5
ASV(i) 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus,

Yes we need a mediator, because God cannot deal with us directly since Adam brought us down from the holy state he had enjoyed.

Then, screw God if He's going to be a jerk about it. God needs to grow up and stop holding a grudge. He needs to understand the concept of forgiveness.

That mediator was provided by Jehovah himself in the form of his only begotten son who came to earth to occupy the flesh of Jesus and become the Christ.

So, when you look at that, where can you find room for a Trinity in there?

You can't, because Christ, Jehovah only begotten son, as holy as he is, is not so holy that he cannot be a mediator between us and the Most Holy God, Jehovah.

There are so many ways in which scripture destroys any chance of the Trinity teaching, in all it's forms having any credibility.

It also destroys the credibility of the "accepted" version of John 1:1 which teaches absolutely against what .

Accepted version?

Yes, accepted by men, but not b y Christ and his only begotten son.

There are many versions of John 1:1 about which are more in keeping with 1 Timothy 2: 3-5.

Why because they describe the word, not as God, but as a godlike one, as one with divine being, as one with divine nature.

All those descriptions are accurate, where the "accepted" version is so obviously not.

When you stop to think that Jehovah's only begotten son refused even to be called "Good teacher" saying that only his father is good, and corrected the one who called him that very forcefully, how forcefully do you think he will correct those who exalt him to equality with his father?

Yes we need a mediator, and in Jehovah's only begotten son, we have the perfect one.

Sorry, but Christ is long dead, we need God to step forward and be a God, not a pouting child.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

So, when you look at that, where can you find room for a Trinity in there?

Hopefully you will fare better on this subject than you did with your bungling of the prophesies in Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 24. Like a monkey from the Jungle Book, when you climb out on a rotten limb with your absurd claims and silly "interpretations", you conveniently slide off right before it breaks.

You need to back up and justify that downright stupid claim you made that Jesus would have NEVER used the word oikemene or the phrase all nations like everyone else did at the time. You said that when Jesus said "all the nations", that's exactly what He meant, including the nations of the Americas. You assured us of that because, after all, He was there during creation and thus knew better! You then advised us that we better get to know "Jehovah and His Son" as well as you do so that we might also have such insight!
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
10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

So, when you look at that, where can you find room for a Trinity in there?

Hopefully you will fare better on this subject than you did with your bungling of the prophesies in Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 24. Like a monkey from the Jungle Book, when you climb out on a rotten limb with your absurd claims and silly "interpretations", you conveniently slide off right before it breaks.

You need to back up and justify that downright stupid claim you made that Jesus would have NEVER used the word oikemene or the phrase all nations like everyone else did at the time. You said that when Jesus said "all the nations", that's exactly what He meant, including the nations of the Americas. You assured us of that because, after all, He was there during creation and thus knew better! You then advised us that we better get to know "Jehovah and His Son" as well as you do so that we might also have such insight!

I do not need to back up on that at all.

The point is context. Whenever Jesus speaks of the future preaching of his word he means literally the whole inhabited earth.

When he speaks of the Diaspora, he also means it literally, and by the time the Times of the Gentiles ran out if 1914, they had certainly been spread all round the globe.

The Diaspora, in fact, wasn't broken until after WWII. History records a mass migration back to the holy land in the post war years culminating in the recognition of Israel as a nation in 1948.

Yet another way that scripture and history combined knock great big holes on your doctrine, leaving it with more and bigger holes than substance.

It is rather like you dishonestly say that the JWs altered John 1:1 when there were numerous skilled translators long before them who came out with versions that fit into the overall picture of scripture immeasurably better than you preferred version does.

All of the more accurate versions speak of what the word was, where your version speak of who you want us to think the word was.

I have many them in my new thread if you haven't already seen it.
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 9:32:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

So, when you look at that, where can you find room for a Trinity in there?

Hopefully you will fare better on this subject than you did with your bungling of the prophesies in Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 24. Like a monkey from the Jungle Book, when you climb out on a rotten limb with your absurd claims and silly "interpretations", you conveniently slide off right before it breaks.

You need to back up and justify that downright stupid claim you made that Jesus would have NEVER used the word oikemene or the phrase all nations like everyone else did at the time. You said that when Jesus said "all the nations", that's exactly what He meant, including the nations of the Americas. You assured us of that because, after all, He was there during creation and thus knew better! You then advised us that we better get to know "Jehovah and His Son" as well as you do so that we might also have such insight!

I do not need to back up on that at all.

The point is context. Whenever Jesus speaks of the future preaching of his word he means literally the whole inhabited earth.

We aren't too interested in your BotchTower assertions. You also informed us that since the Son was back there during creation, He would never have used "all nations" in the same manner that His peers did. To have done so would have been dishonest, you informed us - because the Son knew better!

Now it turns out that even you admit that, yes, He did use the phrase just as his peers did. And Paul used it that way, too.

You are at the point of saying, "Well, in Mark 13 when Jesus employed the phrase "all nations", He used it differently than everybody else ever used it, including HIMSELF. You see how this works: if oikemene and all nations were found 100 times in the NT, and 99 of those times it obviously meant the Roman Empire, when you got to the 100th time, you'd claim it included the Americas if you needed to in order to fit it with BotchTower doctrines.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 9:40:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

So, when you look at that, where can you find room for a Trinity in there?

Hopefully you will fare better on this subject than you did with your bungling of the prophesies in Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 24. Like a monkey from the Jungle Book, when you climb out on a rotten limb with your absurd claims and silly "interpretations", you conveniently slide off right before it breaks.

You need to back up and justify that downright stupid claim you made that Jesus would have NEVER used the word oikemene or the phrase all nations like everyone else did at the time. You said that when Jesus said "all the nations", that's exactly what He meant, including the nations of the Americas. You assured us of that because, after all, He was there during creation and thus knew better! You then advised us that we better get to know "Jehovah and His Son" as well as you do so that we might also have such insight!

I do not need to back up on that at all.

The point is context. Whenever Jesus speaks of the future preaching of his word he means literally the whole inhabited earth.

When he speaks of the Diaspora, he also means it literally, and by the time the Times of the Gentiles ran out if 1914, they had certainly been spread all round the globe.

"Spread all around the globe" isn't what the passage says, is it?

(Luke 21: 20) "But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand."

Is this fulfilled? When did it occur?

(Luke 21: 21) "Then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains; and let them that are in the midst of her depart out; and let not them that are in the country enter therein."

To what event did these instructions pertain?

(Luke 21: 22) For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

What days? Give us a time frame.
Vengeance against whom?
What things were written about those particular days?

(Luke 21: 23) Woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days! for there shall be great distress upon the land, and wrath unto this people.

What days? When did this happen?

(Luke 21: 24) 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive into all the nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Who will fall by the sword?
Who will be led captive into all nations?
Why did Jesus use the phrase "all the nations" since He knew full well that "all the nations of the earth", literally, were not included?

******

My prediction is that, although the answers to the above queries are fairly easy, you'll never really dig in and answer. You can't. Why? Well, you know full well that Luke 21 parallels Mark 13 and Matthew 24 - and you do not want to face up to the consequences of your own answers.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 9:44:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

It is rather like you dishonestly say that the JWs altered John 1:1 when there were numerous skilled translators long before them who came out with versions that fit into the overall picture of scripture immeasurably better than you preferred version does.

Ummm ... I didn't say that the JW's altered John 1: 1. Not recently, anyhow. It looks like your extra special, one-on-one "holy spirit guidance" would enable you to refrain from these errors.

HOWEVER, since you've claimed that a group of "skilled translators" came up with this "a god" business in John 1: 1, I'd like to see an example of it. All I've ever seen are a few one-man wonders with no system of checks and balances at all. Exactly who was in this group of "skilled translators" who produced whatever version you are talking about?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
777iam
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 9:49:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Hebrews 8:6
ASV(i) 6 But now hath he obtained a ministry the more excellent, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises.


1 Timothy 2:3-5
ASV(i) 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus,

Yes we need a mediator, because God cannot deal with us directly since Adam brought us down from the holy state he had enjoyed.

That mediator was provided by Jehovah himself in the form of his only begotten son who came to earth to occupy the flesh of Jesus and become the Christ.

So, when you look at that, where can you find room for a Trinity in there?

You can't, because Christ, Jehovah only begotten son, as holy as he is, is not so holy that he cannot be a mediator between us and the Most Holy God, Jehovah.

There are so many ways in which scripture destroys any chance of the Trinity teaching, in all it's forms having any credibility.

It also destroys the credibility of the "accepted" version of John 1:1 which teaches absolutely against what .

Accepted version?

Yes, accepted by men, but not b y Christ and his only begotten son.

There are many versions of John 1:1 about which are more in keeping with 1 Timothy 2: 3-5.

Why because they describe the word, not as God, but as a godlike one, as one with divine being, as one with divine nature.

All those descriptions are accurate, where the "accepted" version is so obviously not.

When you stop to think that Jehovah's only begotten son refused even to be called "Good teacher" saying that only his father is good, and corrected the one who called him that very forcefully, how forcefully do you think he will correct those who exalt him to equality with his father?

Yes we need a mediator, and in Jehovah's only begotten son, we have the perfect one. : :

God won't need mediators called prophets and saints in the next age;

Jeremiah 31
31: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
32: not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD.
33: But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34: And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, `Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 10:43:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

When he speaks of the Diaspora, he also means it literally, and by the time the Times of the Gentiles ran out if 1914, they had certainly been spread all round the globe.

That's another of your cop-outs.

"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive into all the nations." (Luke 24: 21)

When were any Jews led captive into the United States? Into Vatican City? Into Uganda? Into Tibet? Into Monaco? Who captured them? Who led them into these places? C'mon.

You say that "will be preach in all nations" includes these, so 'tis difficult to see why "led captive into all nations" does not - unless you must force a different meaning to accommodate your little theories.
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
10/2/2015 11:54:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 10:43:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

When he speaks of the Diaspora, he also means it literally, and by the time the Times of the Gentiles ran out if 1914, they had certainly been spread all round the globe.

That's another of your cop-outs.

No Anna it is not a cop out it is a scriptural and historical truth.


"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive into all the nations." (Luke 24: 21)

When were any Jews led captive into the United States? Into Vatican City? Into Uganda? Into Tibet? Into Monaco? Who captured them? Who led them into these places? C'mon.

They have continually been driven by prejudice and anti-Semitism from one place to another. As you well know they have not known freedom until just after the war years, that is why when they were able they migrated en masse back to what they still considered their homeland.

Generation after generation had wanted to return but had been unable to, hence they were captive , certainly as far as they were concerned.

Sorry Anna, you can try and avoid the truth all you like, it is still there staring you in the face if you did but choose to look past the blinders of your false doctrine.


You say that "will be preach in all nations" includes these, so 'tis difficult to see why "led captive into all nations" does not - unless you must force a different meaning to accommodate your little theories.

It does include these, as I have shown. Christ didn't say it would happen all at once, simply that it would happen, and it was only actually achieved over the centuries by Jews being driven from pillar to post, as the saying goes.

You forget Anna, deliberately I am sure, that since scripture tells us, through the long range fulfilment of Daniel 4, that the Times of the Nations would not end for almost 1900 years, Christ knew that there was more than adequate time for it to be fulfilled completely. Whatever else he was not told by his father, I am sure he was well aware of that particular date.

I suggest that you learn a little more of Jewish history, not just the bits you want to know. Living in one of the many countries that persecuted the Jews for centuries I have reason to know about such things.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 12:10:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 9:44:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

It is rather like you dishonestly say that the JWs altered John 1:1 when there were numerous skilled translators long before them who came out with versions that fit into the overall picture of scripture immeasurably better than you preferred version does.

Ummm ... I didn't say that the JW's altered John 1: 1. Not recently, anyhow. It looks like your extra special, one-on-one "holy spirit guidance" would enable you to refrain from these errors.

Actually Anna you have done, more than once. I would have thought that you claim to Christianity would prevent you from deliberate lies like it does me.


HOWEVER, since you've claimed that a group of "skilled translators" came up with this "a god" business in John 1: 1, I'd like to see an example of it. All I've ever seen are a few one-man wonders with no system of checks and balances at all. Exactly who was in this group of "skilled translators" who produced whatever version you are talking about?

No Anna That has never been my claim. I have never claimed that they were all skilled translators, and you know it.

You also know that I have no idea who is currently on the Translation Committee so I could not possibly make such a claim if I wanted to. Many times I have challenged you dogmatic assumption that, like any who disagree with you, they were or are all "Tards" because like me you only have access to limited knowledge of parts of the past Committees. All I know for certain, is Jehovah proven ability to draw to his son's side any expert he needs for whatever purpose. It only takes one or two such experts to guide the rest of the Committee though the mass of English Language manuscripts that are already available to them, as well as any Greek manuscripts they can obtain.

I know full well that when you are presented with a choice of versions, the way to find the correct one is not to compare it to your doctrine, as you do, but to other scriptures on similar subjects to see who they work together, which is what I, and the JW have always done.

Hence comparison with texts such as Hebrews 8:6, and others like it, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the versions that speak of the nature of the Word, rather than the identity of him are the ones that fit.

That rules out completely your preferred version of John 1:1

Yes, Anna, whether you understand it to mean that the Word is "a god", "of divine nature", or any of the other versions which describe his state, he most definitely was not, is not, and never will be, God.

Like Jehovah, and all the Angels he is a spirit.

He is, and was until he became incarnate, of the same nature as Jehovah, as are the Angels.

That is also why his becoming human brought him to being a little lower than the angels, rather than a little higher than them.

Hie pre-eminence comes from being the only one that Jehovah created all by himself. All other spirit creatures, as well as absolutely everything else, were created through him, as Colossians 1 tells us correctly, whichever version you choose to read.

That is just one thing which makes him the Archangel, and therefore Michael.

Your doctrine forces you to deny that also, but truth does not blind me like your doctrine does you.

It all fits Anna whereas your doctrine does not.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 12:27:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 9:40:12 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

So, when you look at that, where can you find room for a Trinity in there?

Hopefully you will fare better on this subject than you did with your bungling of the prophesies in Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 24. Like a monkey from the Jungle Book, when you climb out on a rotten limb with your absurd claims and silly "interpretations", you conveniently slide off right before it breaks.

You need to back up and justify that downright stupid claim you made that Jesus would have NEVER used the word oikemene or the phrase all nations like everyone else did at the time. You said that when Jesus said "all the nations", that's exactly what He meant, including the nations of the Americas. You assured us of that because, after all, He was there during creation and thus knew better! You then advised us that we better get to know "Jehovah and His Son" as well as you do so that we might also have such insight!

I do not need to back up on that at all.

The point is context. Whenever Jesus speaks of the future preaching of his word he means literally the whole inhabited earth.

When he speaks of the Diaspora, he also means it literally, and by the time the Times of the Gentiles ran out if 1914, they had certainly been spread all round the globe.

"Spread all around the globe" isn't what the passage says, is it?

(Luke 21: 20) "But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand."

As is so often the case with this sort of prophecy it has a dual meaning, as does "Jeruslaem".

In it's initial fulfilment Jerusalem is indeed a physical, geographical location.

In the second fulfilment, the one currently happening, "Jerusalem" is wherever Jehovah's true worship is being carried out.


Is this fulfilled? When did it occur?

(Luke 21: 21) "Then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains; and let them that are in the midst of her depart out; and let not them that are in the country enter therein."

Again a dual fulfilment.

1st the literal flight to the mountains to avoid the Romans.

Now it's current fulfilment, which is actually also a fulfilment of Isaiah 2:3
ASV(i) 3 And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem.

That is happening now, People are saying and doing just that, hence the great number of Bible studies being carried out by the JWs.


To what event did these instructions pertain?

See above.


(Luke 21: 22) For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

What days? Give us a time frame.

Both in the 1st century, and now.

Vengeance against whom?

in both cases days of vengeance against false teachers such as the Pharisees, and yourself.

What things were written about those particular days?

Read it for yourself.


(Luke 21: 23) Woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days! for there shall be great distress upon the land, and wrath unto this people.

What days? When did this happen?

You know when the first fulfilment happened as well as I do, well almost as well.

However they will strike again in the tribulation "such as has never happened before, no, nor will ever happen again" which is now building up to its inevitable crescendo even as we argue.


(Luke 21: 24) 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive into all the nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Who will fall by the sword?
Who will be led captive into all nations?
Why did Jesus use the phrase "all the nations" since He knew full well that "all the nations of the earth", literally, were not included?

They were included. Jesus knew full well that captivity by the Romans was only the start, and that the persecution of the Jews, as well as of any who stood up for his truth, would carry on for almost 19 centuries.

Many whop tried to stand up for what little they new of Jehovah's truth were burned at the stake for their troubles

Many were incarcerated in Concentration camps, along with the Jews.

No Anna, your human impatience does not take into account Jehovah's way of taking his own time over things and doing them thoroughly.

In your impatience you are like those who Peter felt the need to address at 2 Peter 3:8-10
ASV(i) 8 But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

At will all come to pass in Jehovah's time, not yours, mine, or anyone else's.


******

My prediction is that, although the answers to the above queries are fairly easy, you'll never really dig in and answer. You can't. Why? Well, you know full well that Luke 21 parallels Mark 13 and Matthew 24 - and you do not want to face up to the consequences of your own answers.

Yes, I do know that it does, despite my earlier careless error in identifying it as such.

But yes, the answers are easy, to someone who is allowed to discern the spiritual aspects of these things, but they are not what you want to hear, since they speak truth, not doctrine.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 12:34:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 9:32:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

So, when you look at that, where can you find room for a Trinity in there?

Hopefully you will fare better on this subject than you did with your bungling of the prophesies in Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 24. Like a monkey from the Jungle Book, when you climb out on a rotten limb with your absurd claims and silly "interpretations", you conveniently slide off right before it breaks.

You need to back up and justify that downright stupid claim you made that Jesus would have NEVER used the word oikemene or the phrase all nations like everyone else did at the time. You said that when Jesus said "all the nations", that's exactly what He meant, including the nations of the Americas. You assured us of that because, after all, He was there during creation and thus knew better! You then advised us that we better get to know "Jehovah and His Son" as well as you do so that we might also have such insight!

I do not need to back up on that at all.

The point is context. Whenever Jesus speaks of the future preaching of his word he means literally the whole inhabited earth.

We aren't too interested in your BotchTower assertions. You also informed us that since the Son was back there during creation, He would never have used "all nations" in the same manner that His peers did. To have done so would have been dishonest, you informed us - because the Son knew better!

Neither am I interested to that extent in what the WTBTS puts out. My interest is ion scripture.

Yes, that is completely true, he would only use it literally in places where it would have applied literally.


Now it turns out that even you admit that, yes, He did use the phrase just as his peers did. And Paul used it that way, too.

No, I do not. Yes I mis-identified the context of Luke 21, I freely admit that, for all the help I get I am still human, I can still make mistakes.


You are at the point of saying, "Well, in Mark 13 when Jesus employed the phrase "all nations", He used it differently than everybody else ever used it, including HIMSELF. You see how this works: if oikemene and all nations were found 100 times in the NT, and 99 of those times it obviously meant the Roman Empire, when you got to the 100th time, you'd claim it included the Americas if you needed to in order to fit it with BotchTower doctrines.

We have never, as far as I am aware discussed Mark 13, but this time I shall look at it before I answer.

Nope. Christ uses it in the same literal sense there as in the other two instances.

When you used the phrase "Olivet discourse" my mind went to the Sermon on the Mount, I don't know why. I have never used the phrase "Olivet discourse", except in reply to you, since I have no desire to appear clever, I just call it what it is, Christ answering questions from his disciples.

I suppose it was in fact a discourse, but I never think of it as one, it was simply a conversation.
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 1:12:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 12:34:08 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

When you used the phrase "Olivet discourse" my mind went to the Sermon on the Mount, I don't know why. I have never used the phrase "Olivet discourse", except in reply to you, since I have no desire to appear clever, I just call it what it is, Christ answering questions from his disciples.

I suppose it was in fact a discourse, but I never think of it as one, it was simply a conversation.

Our resident genius doesn't know that a discourse is a conversation and can't even be bothered finding out what he is arguing about.
Google is your enemy mad, cos you might actually learn something.
Do you understand the term "pig ignorant"?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 3:06:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 11:54:19 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 10:43:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

When he speaks of the Diaspora, he also means it literally, and by the time the Times of the Gentiles ran out if 1914, they had certainly been spread all round the globe.

That's another of your cop-outs.

No Anna it is not a cop out it is a scriptural and historical truth.


"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive into all the nations." (Luke 24: 21)

When were any Jews led captive into the United States? Into Vatican City? Into Uganda? Into Tibet? Into Monaco? Who captured them? Who led them into these places? C'mon.

They have continually been driven by prejudice and anti-Semitism from one place to another. As you well know they have not known freedom until just after the war years, that is why when they were able they migrated en masse back to what they still considered their homeland.

Generation after generation had wanted to return but had been unable to, hence they were captive , certainly as far as they were concerned.

So you think "they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive into all the nations" actually means "driven by prejudice and anti-Semitism from one place to another." LMAO!

MadClown, consider the following:

(1) "Led captive into all nations" does not mean "being forced OUT of a country - but not led anywhere."

(2) "Led captive into all nations" does not mean "voluntarily leaving for economic reasons."

(3) "Led captive into all nations" does not mean "wanted to return to Palestine."

(4) "Led captive into all nations" does not mean "leave voluntarily became people don't like us."

(5) "Led captive into all nations" does not mean "not really led captive."

You were asked the following question up there:

"When were any Jews led captive into the United States? Into Vatican City? Into Uganda? Into Tibet? Into Monaco? Who captured them? Who led them into these places?"

Instead of answering, you rambled about "what they considered" and "as far as they were concerned." It's a JW oddity here that a Jew could be "led captive" without being captured and without being led. That's pretty tricky, isn't 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: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 3:12:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 11:54:19 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 10:43:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

You say that "will be preach in all nations" includes these, so 'tis difficult to see why "led captive into all nations" does not - unless you must force a different meaning to accommodate your little theories.

It does include these, as I have shown. Christ didn't say it would happen all at once, simply that it would happen, and it was only actually achieved over the centuries by Jews being driven from pillar to post, as the saying goes.

Again, "being driven pillar to post" does not mean "led captive into all nations."


You forget Anna, deliberately I am sure, that since scripture tells us, through the long range fulfilment of Daniel 4

I am not concerned with your goofy speculations and calculations on Dan 4 at the moment.

I suggest that you learn a little more of Jewish history, not just the bits you want to know. Living in one of the many countries that persecuted the Jews for centuries I have reason to know about such things.

"Persecution" does not mean "led away captive", either. It seems to me that you have a hard time defining words.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 3:17:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 12:10:28 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 9:44:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

It is rather like you dishonestly say that the JWs altered John 1:1 when there were numerous skilled translators long before them who came out with versions that fit into the overall picture of scripture immeasurably better than you preferred version does.

Ummm ... I didn't say that the JW's altered John 1: 1. Not recently, anyhow. It looks like your extra special, one-on-one "holy spirit guidance" would enable you to refrain from these errors.

Actually Anna you have done, more than once. I would have thought that you claim to Christianity would prevent you from deliberate lies like it does me.


HOWEVER, since you've claimed that a group of "skilled translators" came up with this "a god" business in John 1: 1, I'd like to see an example of it. All I've ever seen are a few one-man wonders with no system of checks and balances at all. Exactly who was in this group of "skilled translators" who produced whatever version you are talking about?

No Anna That has never been my claim. I have never claimed that they were all skilled translators, and you know it.

You also know that I have no idea who is currently on the Translation Committee so I could not possibly make such a claim if I wanted to.

I didn't ask you anything about the BotchTower's little "translation committee", and I never implied that this committee had any "skilled translators" at all. THIS is what you said:

"It is rather like you dishonestly say that the JWs altered John 1:1 when there were numerous skilled translators long before them who came out with versions that fit into the overall picture of scripture immeasurably better than you preferred version does."

I replied,

"You've claimed that a group of "skilled translators" came up with this "a god" business in John 1: 1, I'd like to see an example of it. All I've ever seen are a few one-man wonders with no system of checks and balances at all. Exactly who was in this group of "skilled translators" who produced whatever version you are talking about?"

You rambled instead of answering.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 3:23:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 3:17:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/2/2015 12:10:28 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 9:44:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

It is rather like you dishonestly say that the JWs altered John 1:1 when there were numerous skilled translators long before them who came out with versions that fit into the overall picture of scripture immeasurably better than you preferred version does.

Ummm ... I didn't say that the JW's altered John 1: 1. Not recently, anyhow. It looks like your extra special, one-on-one "holy spirit guidance" would enable you to refrain from these errors.

Actually Anna you have done, more than once. I would have thought that you claim to Christianity would prevent you from deliberate lies like it does me.


HOWEVER, since you've claimed that a group of "skilled translators" came up with this "a god" business in John 1: 1, I'd like to see an example of it. All I've ever seen are a few one-man wonders with no system of checks and balances at all. Exactly who was in this group of "skilled translators" who produced whatever version you are talking about?

No Anna That has never been my claim. I have never claimed that they were all skilled translators, and you know it.

You also know that I have no idea who is currently on the Translation Committee so I could not possibly make such a claim if I wanted to.

I didn't ask you anything about the BotchTower's little "translation committee", and I never implied that this committee had any "skilled translators" at all. THIS is what you said:

"It is rather like you dishonestly say that the JWs altered John 1:1 when there were numerous skilled translators long before them who came out with versions that fit into the overall picture of scripture immeasurably better than you preferred version does."

I replied,

"You've claimed that a group of "skilled translators" came up with this "a god" business in John 1: 1, I'd like to see an example of it. All I've ever seen are a few one-man wonders with no system of checks and balances at all. Exactly who was in this group of "skilled translators" who produced whatever version you are talking about?"

You rambled instead of answering.

Poor old mad only has lies, don't be too harsh Annie.
He doesn't know any better, he's been indoctrinated by the liars who prophesied, with god's help, har har magedon in 1914 and many other years.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 3:23:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 12:27:35 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 9:40:12 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

So, when you look at that, where can you find room for a Trinity in there?

Hopefully you will fare better on this subject than you did with your bungling of the prophesies in Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 24. Like a monkey from the Jungle Book, when you climb out on a rotten limb with your absurd claims and silly "interpretations", you conveniently slide off right before it breaks.

You need to back up and justify that downright stupid claim you made that Jesus would have NEVER used the word oikemene or the phrase all nations like everyone else did at the time. You said that when Jesus said "all the nations", that's exactly what He meant, including the nations of the Americas. You assured us of that because, after all, He was there during creation and thus knew better! You then advised us that we better get to know "Jehovah and His Son" as well as you do so that we might also have such insight!

I do not need to back up on that at all.

The point is context. Whenever Jesus speaks of the future preaching of his word he means literally the whole inhabited earth.

When he speaks of the Diaspora, he also means it literally, and by the time the Times of the Gentiles ran out if 1914, they had certainly been spread all round the globe.

"Spread all around the globe" isn't what the passage says, is it?

(Luke 21: 20) "But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand."

As is so often the case with this sort of prophecy it has a dual meaning, as does "Jeruslaem".

In it's initial fulfilment Jerusalem is indeed a physical, geographical location.

In the second fulfilment, the one currently happening, "Jerusalem" is wherever Jehovah's true worship is being carried out.

So the prophesy was REALLY fulfilled back in AD 67-70, but such a fulfillment doesn't accommodate your little theories so well, so you come up with this "dual fulfillment" nonsense.

Hence, the kicker is that, according to you, "this generation shall not pass" was also literally fulfilled - but that doesn't suit you either.

There is no such thing as a "dual fulfillment", dude. If a prophesy is fulfilled, then that's it as far as that prophesy is concerned. Why, according to your nonsense, what prevents a triple fulfillment, a ten-fold fulfillment, or a hundred-fold fulfillment? Answer: not a thing.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 3:30:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 3:23:37 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/2/2015 3:17:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/2/2015 12:10:28 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 9:44:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

It is rather like you dishonestly say that the JWs altered John 1:1 when there were numerous skilled translators long before them who came out with versions that fit into the overall picture of scripture immeasurably better than you preferred version does.

Ummm ... I didn't say that the JW's altered John 1: 1. Not recently, anyhow. It looks like your extra special, one-on-one "holy spirit guidance" would enable you to refrain from these errors.

Actually Anna you have done, more than once. I would have thought that you claim to Christianity would prevent you from deliberate lies like it does me.


HOWEVER, since you've claimed that a group of "skilled translators" came up with this "a god" business in John 1: 1, I'd like to see an example of it. All I've ever seen are a few one-man wonders with no system of checks and balances at all. Exactly who was in this group of "skilled translators" who produced whatever version you are talking about?

No Anna That has never been my claim. I have never claimed that they were all skilled translators, and you know it.

You also know that I have no idea who is currently on the Translation Committee so I could not possibly make such a claim if I wanted to.

I didn't ask you anything about the BotchTower's little "translation committee", and I never implied that this committee had any "skilled translators" at all. THIS is what you said:

"It is rather like you dishonestly say that the JWs altered John 1:1 when there were numerous skilled translators long before them who came out with versions that fit into the overall picture of scripture immeasurably better than you preferred version does."

I replied,

"You've claimed that a group of "skilled translators" came up with this "a god" business in John 1: 1, I'd like to see an example of it. All I've ever seen are a few one-man wonders with no system of checks and balances at all. Exactly who was in this group of "skilled translators" who produced whatever version you are talking about?"

You rambled instead of answering.

Poor old mad only has lies, don't be too harsh Annie.
He doesn't know any better, he's been indoctrinated by the liars who prophesied, with god's help, har har magedon in 1914 and many other years.

I'm beginning to think he has "Old-Timers" (Alzheimer's). He can't remember what he or anybody else said from one post to the next. And when he reads a question, he'll talk around it in circles, then launch into threats about Armageddon.

He wakes up thinking about Armageddon, eats thinking about Armageddon, and pillows his head at night thinking about Armageddon - knowing full well that his favorite seers at Brooklyn all unite in saying that he's not gonna survive it anyhow. I bet those folks in the Phillippines get sick of 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: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 3:35:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 12:34:08 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 9:32:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I suppose it was in fact a discourse, but I never think of it as one, it was simply a conversation.

LMAO @ that. A discourse is a conversation, ya old dimwit. And again, you have me confused with PGA who frequently calls it "the Olivet discourse". I do not, although that's what it was.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 3:40:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 3:30:53 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/2/2015 3:23:37 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/2/2015 3:17:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/2/2015 12:10:28 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 9:44:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

It is rather like you dishonestly say that the JWs altered John 1:1 when there were numerous skilled translators long before them who came out with versions that fit into the overall picture of scripture immeasurably better than you preferred version does.

Ummm ... I didn't say that the JW's altered John 1: 1. Not recently, anyhow. It looks like your extra special, one-on-one "holy spirit guidance" would enable you to refrain from these errors.

Actually Anna you have done, more than once. I would have thought that you claim to Christianity would prevent you from deliberate lies like it does me.


HOWEVER, since you've claimed that a group of "skilled translators" came up with this "a god" business in John 1: 1, I'd like to see an example of it. All I've ever seen are a few one-man wonders with no system of checks and balances at all. Exactly who was in this group of "skilled translators" who produced whatever version you are talking about?

No Anna That has never been my claim. I have never claimed that they were all skilled translators, and you know it.

You also know that I have no idea who is currently on the Translation Committee so I could not possibly make such a claim if I wanted to.

I didn't ask you anything about the BotchTower's little "translation committee", and I never implied that this committee had any "skilled translators" at all. THIS is what you said:

"It is rather like you dishonestly say that the JWs altered John 1:1 when there were numerous skilled translators long before them who came out with versions that fit into the overall picture of scripture immeasurably better than you preferred version does."

I replied,

"You've claimed that a group of "skilled translators" came up with this "a god" business in John 1: 1, I'd like to see an example of it. All I've ever seen are a few one-man wonders with no system of checks and balances at all. Exactly who was in this group of "skilled translators" who produced whatever version you are talking about?"

You rambled instead of answering.

Poor old mad only has lies, don't be too harsh Annie.
He doesn't know any better, he's been indoctrinated by the liars who prophesied, with god's help, har har magedon in 1914 and many other years.

I'm beginning to think he has "Old-Timers" (Alzheimer's). He can't remember what he or anybody else said from one post to the next. And when he reads a question, he'll talk around it in circles, then launch into threats about Armageddon.

He wakes up thinking about Armageddon, eats thinking about Armageddon, and pillows his head at night thinking about Armageddon - knowing full well that his favorite seers at Brooklyn all unite in saying that he's not gonna survive it anyhow. I bet those folks in the Phillippines get sick of it.

Ooh no, he hasn't dared tell those catholics they're doomed.
LOL
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 3:49:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 3:40:16 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/2/2015 3:30:53 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/2/2015 3:23:37 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/2/2015 3:17:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/2/2015 12:10:28 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 9:44:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

He wakes up thinking about Armageddon, eats thinking about Armageddon, and pillows his head at night thinking about Armageddon - knowing full well that his favorite seers at Brooklyn all unite in saying that he's not gonna survive it anyhow. I bet those folks in the Phillippines get sick of it.

Ooh no, he hasn't dared tell those catholics they're doomed.
LOL

Ummm ... I'd say his threats of Armageddon at a given time are inversely proportional to his level of horniness.
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
10/2/2015 4:16:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 3:40:16 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/2/2015 3:30:53 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/2/2015 3:23:37 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/2/2015 3:17:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/2/2015 12:10:28 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 9:44:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

It is rather like you dishonestly say that the JWs altered John 1:1 when there were numerous skilled translators long before them who came out with versions that fit into the overall picture of scripture immeasurably better than you preferred version does.

Ummm ... I didn't say that the JW's altered John 1: 1. Not recently, anyhow. It looks like your extra special, one-on-one "holy spirit guidance" would enable you to refrain from these errors.

Actually Anna you have done, more than once. I would have thought that you claim to Christianity would prevent you from deliberate lies like it does me.


HOWEVER, since you've claimed that a group of "skilled translators" came up with this "a god" business in John 1: 1, I'd like to see an example of it. All I've ever seen are a few one-man wonders with no system of checks and balances at all. Exactly who was in this group of "skilled translators" who produced whatever version you are talking about?

No Anna That has never been my claim. I have never claimed that they were all skilled translators, and you know it.

You also know that I have no idea who is currently on the Translation Committee so I could not possibly make such a claim if I wanted to.

I didn't ask you anything about the BotchTower's little "translation committee", and I never implied that this committee had any "skilled translators" at all. THIS is what you said:

"It is rather like you dishonestly say that the JWs altered John 1:1 when there were numerous skilled translators long before them who came out with versions that fit into the overall picture of scripture immeasurably better than you preferred version does."

I replied,

"You've claimed that a group of "skilled translators" came up with this "a god" business in John 1: 1, I'd like to see an example of it. All I've ever seen are a few one-man wonders with no system of checks and balances at all. Exactly who was in this group of "skilled translators" who produced whatever version you are talking about?"

You rambled instead of answering.

Poor old mad only has lies, don't be too harsh Annie.
He doesn't know any better, he's been indoctrinated by the liars who prophesied, with god's help, har har magedon in 1914 and many other years.

I'm beginning to think he has "Old-Timers" (Alzheimer's). He can't remember what he or anybody else said from one post to the next. And when he reads a question, he'll talk around it in circles, then launch into threats about Armageddon.

He wakes up thinking about Armageddon, eats thinking about Armageddon, and pillows his head at night thinking about Armageddon - knowing full well that his favorite seers at Brooklyn all unite in saying that he's not gonna survive it anyhow. I bet those folks in the Phillippines get sick of it.

Why don't you ask them?


Ooh no, he hasn't dared tell those catholics they're doomed.
LOL

Haven't I? They know what I think. At least Imelda and some of her cousins do.

However they aren't particularly religious, any of them, for them it is "birth marriage and death" religion.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 4:22:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 3:23:54 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/2/2015 12:27:35 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 9:40:12 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

So, when you look at that, where can you find room for a Trinity in there?

Hopefully you will fare better on this subject than you did with your bungling of the prophesies in Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 24. Like a monkey from the Jungle Book, when you climb out on a rotten limb with your absurd claims and silly "interpretations", you conveniently slide off right before it breaks.

You need to back up and justify that downright stupid claim you made that Jesus would have NEVER used the word oikemene or the phrase all nations like everyone else did at the time. You said that when Jesus said "all the nations", that's exactly what He meant, including the nations of the Americas. You assured us of that because, after all, He was there during creation and thus knew better! You then advised us that we better get to know "Jehovah and His Son" as well as you do so that we might also have such insight!

I do not need to back up on that at all.

The point is context. Whenever Jesus speaks of the future preaching of his word he means literally the whole inhabited earth.

When he speaks of the Diaspora, he also means it literally, and by the time the Times of the Gentiles ran out if 1914, they had certainly been spread all round the globe.

"Spread all around the globe" isn't what the passage says, is it?

(Luke 21: 20) "But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand."

As is so often the case with this sort of prophecy it has a dual meaning, as does "Jeruslaem".

In it's initial fulfilment Jerusalem is indeed a physical, geographical location.

In the second fulfilment, the one currently happening, "Jerusalem" is wherever Jehovah's true worship is being carried out.

So the prophesy was REALLY fulfilled back in AD 67-70, but such a fulfillment doesn't accommodate your little theories so well, so you come up with this "dual fulfillment" nonsense.

No Anna it wasn't, only parts of it were.

I come up up with it because scripture does, it is far from nonsense, and it fits the historical evidence as well as the scriptural evidence.

You call it nonsense because you are so tied to your false doctrine you can't see past it.


Hence, the kicker is that, according to you, "this generation shall not pass" was also literally fulfilled - but that doesn't suit you either.

There is no such thing as a "dual fulfillment", dude. If a prophesy is fulfilled, then that's it as far as that prophesy is concerned. Why, according to your nonsense, what prevents a triple fulfillment, a ten-fold fulfillment, or a hundred-fold fulfillment? Answer: not a thing.

Now you are just getting plainridiculous. A dual fulfilment is not unusual in scripture, as you would know if you had any real understanding.

It is easy for you to mock from a position of scriptural ignorance, but you'll learn one day.
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 4:47:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 4:22:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/2/2015 3:23:54 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/2/2015 12:27:35 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 9:40:12 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

So, when you look at that, where can you find room for a Trinity in there?

Hopefully you will fare better on this subject than you did with your bungling of the prophesies in Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 24. Like a monkey from the Jungle Book, when you climb out on a rotten limb with your absurd claims and silly "interpretations", you conveniently slide off right before it breaks.

You need to back up and justify that downright stupid claim you made that Jesus would have NEVER used the word oikemene or the phrase all nations like everyone else did at the time. You said that when Jesus said "all the nations", that's exactly what He meant, including the nations of the Americas. You assured us of that because, after all, He was there during creation and thus knew better! You then advised us that we better get to know "Jehovah and His Son" as well as you do so that we might also have such insight!

I do not need to back up on that at all.

The point is context. Whenever Jesus speaks of the future preaching of his word he means literally the whole inhabited earth.

When he speaks of the Diaspora, he also means it literally, and by the time the Times of the Gentiles ran out if 1914, they had certainly been spread all round the globe.

"Spread all around the globe" isn't what the passage says, is it?

(Luke 21: 20) "But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand."

As is so often the case with this sort of prophecy it has a dual meaning, as does "Jeruslaem".

In it's initial fulfilment Jerusalem is indeed a physical, geographical location.

In the second fulfilment, the one currently happening, "Jerusalem" is wherever Jehovah's true worship is being carried out.

So the prophesy was REALLY fulfilled back in AD 67-70, but such a fulfillment doesn't accommodate your little theories so well, so you come up with this "dual fulfillment" nonsense.

No Anna it wasn't, only parts of it were.

I come up up with it because scripture does, it is far from nonsense, and it fits the historical evidence as well as the scriptural evidence.

You call it nonsense because you are so tied to your false doctrine you can't see past it.


Hence, the kicker is that, according to you, "this generation shall not pass" was also literally fulfilled - but that doesn't suit you either.

There is no such thing as a "dual fulfillment", dude. If a prophesy is fulfilled, then that's it as far as that prophesy is concerned. Why, according to your nonsense, what prevents a triple fulfillment, a ten-fold fulfillment, or a hundred-fold fulfillment? Answer: not a thing.

Now you are just getting plainridiculous. A dual fulfilment is not unusual in scripture, as you would know if you had any real understanding.

It is easy for you to mock from a position of scriptural ignorance, but you'll learn one day.

Why, your assertions count for naught. All you'd have to find is (1) such a prophesy, (2) an inspired writer stating, "This event fulfills that prophesy", then another inspired writer saying, later, that another event fulfills the same prophesy. That should be easy for you - if there is such a thing as a "dual fulfillment." Of course, if there isn't, you won't be able to find it.
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
10/2/2015 7:31:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 4:47:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/2/2015 4:22:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/2/2015 3:23:54 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/2/2015 12:27:35 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 9:40:12 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

So, when you look at that, where can you find room for a Trinity in there?

Hopefully you will fare better on this subject than you did with your bungling of the prophesies in Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 24. Like a monkey from the Jungle Book, when you climb out on a rotten limb with your absurd claims and silly "interpretations", you conveniently slide off right before it breaks.

You need to back up and justify that downright stupid claim you made that Jesus would have NEVER used the word oikemene or the phrase all nations like everyone else did at the time. You said that when Jesus said "all the nations", that's exactly what He meant, including the nations of the Americas. You assured us of that because, after all, He was there during creation and thus knew better! You then advised us that we better get to know "Jehovah and His Son" as well as you do so that we might also have such insight!

I do not need to back up on that at all.

The point is context. Whenever Jesus speaks of the future preaching of his word he means literally the whole inhabited earth.

When he speaks of the Diaspora, he also means it literally, and by the time the Times of the Gentiles ran out if 1914, they had certainly been spread all round the globe.

"Spread all around the globe" isn't what the passage says, is it?

(Luke 21: 20) "But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand."

As is so often the case with this sort of prophecy it has a dual meaning, as does "Jeruslaem".

In it's initial fulfilment Jerusalem is indeed a physical, geographical location.

In the second fulfilment, the one currently happening, "Jerusalem" is wherever Jehovah's true worship is being carried out.

So the prophesy was REALLY fulfilled back in AD 67-70, but such a fulfillment doesn't accommodate your little theories so well, so you come up with this "dual fulfillment" nonsense.

No Anna it wasn't, only parts of it were.

I come up up with it because scripture does, it is far from nonsense, and it fits the historical evidence as well as the scriptural evidence.

You call it nonsense because you are so tied to your false doctrine you can't see past it.


Hence, the kicker is that, according to you, "this generation shall not pass" was also literally fulfilled - but that doesn't suit you either.

There is no such thing as a "dual fulfillment", dude. If a prophesy is fulfilled, then that's it as far as that prophesy is concerned. Why, according to your nonsense, what prevents a triple fulfillment, a ten-fold fulfillment, or a hundred-fold fulfillment? Answer: not a thing.

Now you are just getting plainridiculous. A dual fulfilment is not unusual in scripture, as you would know if you had any real understanding.

It is easy for you to mock from a position of scriptural ignorance, but you'll learn one day.

Why, your assertions count for naught. All you'd have to find is (1) such a prophesy, (2) an inspired writer stating, "This event fulfills that prophesy", then another inspired writer saying, later, that another event fulfills the same prophesy. That should be easy for you - if there is such a thing as a "dual fulfillment." Of course, if there isn't, you won't be able to find it.

Would you actually believe me if I do?

Of course you wouldn't.

However there is one such beast, which I know you will deny, because it doesn't suit you to admit it.

Isaiah 7:14-15
ASV(i) 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

Think about it.

That was to be a sign for Ahaz, showing him that Jehovah was with his, so it must have happened precisely as Isaiah foretold, or was Isaiah a false prophet in your view?

The virgin birth of Christ was a second fulfilment centuries later, with the simple difference that Jesus was never called Immanuel, and there is no record of him ever eating butter and honey.

I know you will bleat on about it only being a prophecy of Christ, but the differences prove that it wasn't. The trouble is that if it didn't happen precisely when Isaiah said it would, so Ahaz could see it, then Isaiah was, by your definition, a false prophet.

Think carefully Anna, as usual you skate on very thin ice.

So there you have it, one prophecy with dual fulfilments.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 7:34:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 4:47:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/2/2015 4:22:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Why, your assertions count for naught.

P. S, Of course my assertions count for nought. That is why I never make them without knowing there is a scripture somewhere to back them up.

True I confuse myself sometimes by not checking the scripture properly, but that's my human side coming through.

At least I am prepared to admit my errors and correct them.

When are you going to face yours? They are so much greater than mine.
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 7:38:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 7:31:04 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/2/2015 4:47:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/2/2015 4:22:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/2/2015 3:23:54 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/2/2015 12:27:35 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 9:40:12 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 8:29:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/1/2015 7:02:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/1/2015 6:46:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

So, when you look at that, where can you find room for a Trinity in there?

Hopefully you will fare better on this subject than you did with your bungling of the prophesies in Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 24. Like a monkey from the Jungle Book, when you climb out on a rotten limb with your absurd claims and silly "interpretations", you conveniently slide off right before it breaks.

You need to back up and justify that downright stupid claim you made that Jesus would have NEVER used the word oikemene or the phrase all nations like everyone else did at the time. You said that when Jesus said "all the nations", that's exactly what He meant, including the nations of the Americas. You assured us of that because, after all, He was there during creation and thus knew better! You then advised us that we better get to know "Jehovah and His Son" as well as you do so that we might also have such insight!

I do not need to back up on that at all.

The point is context. Whenever Jesus speaks of the future preaching of his word he means literally the whole inhabited earth.

When he speaks of the Diaspora, he also means it literally, and by the time the Times of the Gentiles ran out if 1914, they had certainly been spread all round the globe.

"Spread all around the globe" isn't what the passage says, is it?

(Luke 21: 20) "But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand."

As is so often the case with this sort of prophecy it has a dual meaning, as does "Jeruslaem".

In it's initial fulfilment Jerusalem is indeed a physical, geographical location.

In the second fulfilment, the one currently happening, "Jerusalem" is wherever Jehovah's true worship is being carried out.

So the prophesy was REALLY fulfilled back in AD 67-70, but such a fulfillment doesn't accommodate your little theories so well, so you come up with this "dual fulfillment" nonsense.

No Anna it wasn't, only parts of it were.

I come up up with it because scripture does, it is far from nonsense, and it fits the historical evidence as well as the scriptural evidence.

You call it nonsense because you are so tied to your false doctrine you can't see past it.


Hence, the kicker is that, according to you, "this generation shall not pass" was also literally fulfilled - but that doesn't suit you either.

There is no such thing as a "dual fulfillment", dude. If a prophesy is fulfilled, then that's it as far as that prophesy is concerned. Why, according to your nonsense, what prevents a triple fulfillment, a ten-fold fulfillment, or a hundred-fold fulfillment? Answer: not a thing.

Now you are just getting plainridiculous. A dual fulfilment is not unusual in scripture, as you would know if you had any real understanding.

It is easy for you to mock from a position of scriptural ignorance, but you'll learn one day.

Why, your assertions count for naught. All you'd have to find is (1) such a prophesy, (2) an inspired writer stating, "This event fulfills that prophesy", then another inspired writer saying, later, that another event fulfills the same prophesy. That should be easy for you - if there is such a thing as a "dual fulfillment." Of course, if there isn't, you won't be able to find it.

Would you actually believe me if I do?

Of course you wouldn't.

However there is one such beast, which I know you will deny, because it doesn't suit you to admit it.

Isaiah 7:14-15
ASV(i) 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

Think about it.

There is no "think about it". You've cited a prophesy. That was only step one. I didn't ask for your BS "explanations". Go on and do the other two steps, and you'll be home free.

"(1) such a prophesy, (2) an inspired writer stating, "This event fulfills that prophesy", then another inspired writer saying, later, that another event fulfills the same prophesy. That should be easy for you - if there is such a thing as a "dual fulfillment." Of course, if there isn't, you won't be able to find it."

You've done step 1. Now do the other 2, or pick another prophesy.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 7:41:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 7:34:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/2/2015 4:47:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/2/2015 4:22:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Why, your assertions count for naught.

P. S, Of course my assertions count for nought. That is why I never make them without knowing there is a scripture somewhere to back them up.

Then you are cordially invited to cite the scriptures. That's what you were told to do in the first place, and you didn't do it. You merely cited a prophesy and said, "Think about it." I didn't ask for a "think about it." I asked for (1) a prophesy, (2) an inspired man saying/writing, "This is that" or "This fulfills that", THEN - and here is the important part - ANOTHER inspired writer stating, later, that ANOTHER event also fulfills the same prophesy. It looks to me like you could cite one example.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."