Total Posts:142|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Jehovah's idea of religion

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 9:08:25 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
In fact Jehovah's idea of religion is very simple.

It doesn't involve prescribed rituals, and actually only has two laws, which Jesus quoted from the Mosaic Law and stated that if we conscientiously kept those two then we would fulfill all of his father's demands.

When did he make this statement?

When he was challenged by a Pharisee to tell them which was the most important command in the law.

Interestingly he did not answer in the form expected of him (sound familiar Annanicole, lol). and he quoted two laws, one of which is found at Deuteronomy 6:5 and the other at the end of Leviticus 19:19.

Matthew 22:34-40
34 After the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they came together in one group. 35 And one of them, versed in the Law, tested him by asking: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 He said to him: ""You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind." 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: "You must love your neighbor as yourself." 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets."

Why did Jesus not simply give the answer he was asked for?

For the same reason I don't, it would not have been a complete answer.

Why?

Because you cannot truly fulfil the one without also fulfilling the other.

You cannot truly love Jehovah without showing your fellow many the same love that he does.

Those are the only two Laws Jehovah asks us to strive towards obeying. Everything else is principle, Jehovah's principle which guide us in his ways of fulfilling those two.

Is there any point in worshipping jehovah in any way other than how he requires?

Of course not.
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 9:20:00 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 9:08:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In fact Jehovah's idea of religion is very simple.

It doesn't involve prescribed rituals, and actually only has two laws, which Jesus quoted from the Mosaic Law and stated that if we conscientiously kept those two then we would fulfill all of his father's demands.

When did he make this statement?

When he was challenged by a Pharisee to tell them which was the most important command in the law.

Interestingly he did not answer in the form expected of him (sound familiar Annanicole, lol). and he quoted two laws, one of which is found at Deuteronomy 6:5 and the other at the end of Leviticus 19:19.

Matthew 22:34-40
34 After the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they came together in one group. 35 And one of them, versed in the Law, tested him by asking: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 He said to him: ""You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind." 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: "You must love your neighbor as yourself." 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets."

Why did Jesus not simply give the answer he was asked for?

For the same reason I don't, it would not have been a complete answer.

Why?

Because you cannot truly fulfil the one without also fulfilling the other.
If you fulfill one then you cannot fulfill the other.
Fulfill the first and there is no part of you available to fulfill the second.
Fulfill the second and you aren't fulfilling the first because a part of you at least is fulfilling the second.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 9:44:43 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 9:20:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/22/2016 9:08:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In fact Jehovah's idea of religion is very simple.

It doesn't involve prescribed rituals, and actually only has two laws, which Jesus quoted from the Mosaic Law and stated that if we conscientiously kept those two then we would fulfill all of his father's demands.

When did he make this statement?

When he was challenged by a Pharisee to tell them which was the most important command in the law.

Interestingly he did not answer in the form expected of him (sound familiar Annanicole, lol). and he quoted two laws, one of which is found at Deuteronomy 6:5 and the other at the end of Leviticus 19:19.

Matthew 22:34-40
34 After the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they came together in one group. 35 And one of them, versed in the Law, tested him by asking: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 He said to him: ""You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind." 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: "You must love your neighbor as yourself." 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets."

Why did Jesus not simply give the answer he was asked for?

For the same reason I don't, it would not have been a complete answer.

Why?

Because you cannot truly fulfil the one without also fulfilling the other.
If you fulfill one then you cannot fulfill the other.
Fulfill the first and there is no part of you available to fulfill the second.
Fulfill the second and you aren't fulfilling the first because a part of you at least is fulfilling the second.

Which just shows how little you understand.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 10:05:33 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 9:08:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In fact Jehovah's idea of religion is very simple.

It doesn't involve prescribed rituals, and actually only has two laws, which Jesus quoted from the Mosaic Law and stated that if we conscientiously kept those two then we would fulfill all of his father's demands.

When did he make this statement?

When he was challenged by a Pharisee to tell them which was the most important command in the law.

Interestingly he did not answer in the form expected of him (sound familiar Annanicole, lol). and he quoted two laws ....

Why, He answered in a very straight-forward and concise manner - and answered precisely the question that was asked. Hence, Jesus would have been a very poor representative of the modern-day Jehovah's Witness sect. He didn't redefine any words for them. He didn't ramble off into a dissertation on Armageddon speculations. He didn't even evade their question.
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
6/23/2016 3:25:21 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 10:05:33 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/22/2016 9:08:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In fact Jehovah's idea of religion is very simple.

It doesn't involve prescribed rituals, and actually only has two laws, which Jesus quoted from the Mosaic Law and stated that if we conscientiously kept those two then we would fulfill all of his father's demands.

When did he make this statement?

When he was challenged by a Pharisee to tell them which was the most important command in the law.

Interestingly he did not answer in the form expected of him (sound familiar Annanicole, lol). and he quoted two laws ....

Why, He answered in a very straight-forward and concise manner - and answered precisely the question that was asked. Hence, Jesus would have been a very poor representative of the modern-day Jehovah's Witness sect. He didn't redefine any words for them. He didn't ramble off into a dissertation on Armageddon speculations. He didn't even evade their question.

Oh so you call giving someone two scriptures plus an explanation when they ask for one straight-forward and concise .

Funny, when I do my best to do it you call it "rambling", lol.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 3:41:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 3:25:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/22/2016 10:05:33 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/22/2016 9:08:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In fact Jehovah's idea of religion is very simple.

It doesn't involve prescribed rituals, and actually only has two laws, which Jesus quoted from the Mosaic Law and stated that if we conscientiously kept those two then we would fulfill all of his father's demands.

When did he make this statement?

When he was challenged by a Pharisee to tell them which was the most important command in the law.

Interestingly he did not answer in the form expected of him (sound familiar Annanicole, lol). and he quoted two laws ....

Why, He answered in a very straight-forward and concise manner - and answered precisely the question that was asked. Hence, Jesus would have been a very poor representative of the modern-day Jehovah's Witness sect. He didn't redefine any words for them. He didn't ramble off into a dissertation on Armageddon speculations. He didn't even evade their question.

Oh so you call giving someone two scriptures plus an explanation when they ask for one straight-forward and concise .

Funny, when I do my best to do it you call it "rambling", lol.

Certainly I do, because your "best" usually isn't very good. Remember when I asked for ONE scripture in which the word "chrematizo" was used to mean "called" by anything other than God? What did you do? Better yet, what did you NOT do?
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
6/23/2016 4:15:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 3:41:11 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 3:25:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/22/2016 10:05:33 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/22/2016 9:08:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In fact Jehovah's idea of religion is very simple.

It doesn't involve prescribed rituals, and actually only has two laws, which Jesus quoted from the Mosaic Law and stated that if we conscientiously kept those two then we would fulfill all of his father's demands.

When did he make this statement?

When he was challenged by a Pharisee to tell them which was the most important command in the law.

Interestingly he did not answer in the form expected of him (sound familiar Annanicole, lol). and he quoted two laws ....

Why, He answered in a very straight-forward and concise manner - and answered precisely the question that was asked. Hence, Jesus would have been a very poor representative of the modern-day Jehovah's Witness sect. He didn't redefine any words for them. He didn't ramble off into a dissertation on Armageddon speculations. He didn't even evade their question.

Oh so you call giving someone two scriptures plus an explanation when they ask for one straight-forward and concise .

Funny, when I do my best to do it you call it "rambling", lol.

Certainly I do, because your "best" usually isn't very good. Remember when I asked for ONE scripture in which the word "chrematizo" was used to mean "called" by anything other than God? What did you do? Better yet, what did you NOT do?

Well I can't argue about how good my best is, but it is still in imitation of Christ which is what we are all supposed to do.

I have however already explained how it is impossible for the word in that context to mean God; god maybe, but not God.

After all Satan is god, as are all the Angels and demons, as is Jehovah's only begotten son, but only Jehovah is God.

In the overall context of scripture, gods were all created by God.

If you understand scripture that is nothing like as confusing as it sounds if you don't.

As always I rely on the context of scripture, and holy spirit, to tell me what something means, you rely on the works of apostate, and even atheistic humans.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 5:02:08 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 4:15:43 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 3:41:11 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 3:25:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/22/2016 10:05:33 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/22/2016 9:08:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In fact Jehovah's idea of religion is very simple.

It doesn't involve prescribed rituals, and actually only has two laws, which Jesus quoted from the Mosaic Law and stated that if we conscientiously kept those two then we would fulfill all of his father's demands.

When did he make this statement?

When he was challenged by a Pharisee to tell them which was the most important command in the law.

Interestingly he did not answer in the form expected of him (sound familiar Annanicole, lol). and he quoted two laws ....

Why, He answered in a very straight-forward and concise manner - and answered precisely the question that was asked. Hence, Jesus would have been a very poor representative of the modern-day Jehovah's Witness sect. He didn't redefine any words for them. He didn't ramble off into a dissertation on Armageddon speculations. He didn't even evade their question.

Oh so you call giving someone two scriptures plus an explanation when they ask for one straight-forward and concise .

Funny, when I do my best to do it you call it "rambling", lol.

Certainly I do, because your "best" usually isn't very good. Remember when I asked for ONE scripture in which the word "chrematizo" was used to mean "called" by anything other than God? What did you do? Better yet, what did you NOT do?

Well I can't argue about how good my best is, but it is still in imitation of Christ which is what we are all supposed to do.

I have however already explained how it is impossible for the word in that context to mean God; god maybe, but not God.

One simple scripture, as requested is better than ten thousand of your bogus "explanations". See what I mean by "not really answering the question." I asked for a scripture. The word is used quite a few times in the NT. Can't you find ONE example which is a plain reference to someone/something other than God?
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
6/23/2016 5:13:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 5:02:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 4:15:43 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 3:41:11 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 3:25:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/22/2016 10:05:33 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/22/2016 9:08:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In fact Jehovah's idea of religion is very simple.

It doesn't involve prescribed rituals, and actually only has two laws, which Jesus quoted from the Mosaic Law and stated that if we conscientiously kept those two then we would fulfill all of his father's demands.

When did he make this statement?

When he was challenged by a Pharisee to tell them which was the most important command in the law.

Interestingly he did not answer in the form expected of him (sound familiar Annanicole, lol). and he quoted two laws ....

Why, He answered in a very straight-forward and concise manner - and answered precisely the question that was asked. Hence, Jesus would have been a very poor representative of the modern-day Jehovah's Witness sect. He didn't redefine any words for them. He didn't ramble off into a dissertation on Armageddon speculations. He didn't even evade their question.

Oh so you call giving someone two scriptures plus an explanation when they ask for one straight-forward and concise .

Funny, when I do my best to do it you call it "rambling", lol.

Certainly I do, because your "best" usually isn't very good. Remember when I asked for ONE scripture in which the word "chrematizo" was used to mean "called" by anything other than God? What did you do? Better yet, what did you NOT do?

Well I can't argue about how good my best is, but it is still in imitation of Christ which is what we are all supposed to do.

I have however already explained how it is impossible for the word in that context to mean God; god maybe, but not God.

One simple scripture, as requested is better than ten thousand of your bogus "explanations". See what I mean by "not really answering the question." I asked for a scripture. The word is used quite a few times in the NT. Can't you find ONE example which is a plain reference to someone/something other than God?

That is true Anna which is why scripture is immeasurably more valuable than any of the explanations you put out, almost all of which are bogus.

In contrast not one of my explanations is remotely bogus, all are based entirely on scripture.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 5:17:33 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 5:13:40 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:02:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 4:15:43 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 3:41:11 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 3:25:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/22/2016 10:05:33 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/22/2016 9:08:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In fact Jehovah's idea of religion is very simple.

It doesn't involve prescribed rituals, and actually only has two laws, which Jesus quoted from the Mosaic Law and stated that if we conscientiously kept those two then we would fulfill all of his father's demands.

When did he make this statement?

When he was challenged by a Pharisee to tell them which was the most important command in the law.

Interestingly he did not answer in the form expected of him (sound familiar Annanicole, lol). and he quoted two laws ....

Why, He answered in a very straight-forward and concise manner - and answered precisely the question that was asked. Hence, Jesus would have been a very poor representative of the modern-day Jehovah's Witness sect. He didn't redefine any words for them. He didn't ramble off into a dissertation on Armageddon speculations. He didn't even evade their question.

Oh so you call giving someone two scriptures plus an explanation when they ask for one straight-forward and concise .

Funny, when I do my best to do it you call it "rambling", lol.

Certainly I do, because your "best" usually isn't very good. Remember when I asked for ONE scripture in which the word "chrematizo" was used to mean "called" by anything other than God? What did you do? Better yet, what did you NOT do?

Well I can't argue about how good my best is, but it is still in imitation of Christ which is what we are all supposed to do.

I have however already explained how it is impossible for the word in that context to mean God; god maybe, but not God.

One simple scripture, as requested is better than ten thousand of your bogus "explanations". See what I mean by "not really answering the question." I asked for a scripture. The word is used quite a few times in the NT. Can't you find ONE example which is a plain reference to someone/something other than God?

That is true Anna which is why scripture is immeasurably more valuable than any of the explanations you put out

Then why didn't you bother to GIVE us one instead of babbling around in circles?
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
6/23/2016 5:34:08 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 5:17:33 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:13:40 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:02:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 4:15:43 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 3:41:11 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 3:25:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/22/2016 10:05:33 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/22/2016 9:08:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In fact Jehovah's idea of religion is very simple.

It doesn't involve prescribed rituals, and actually only has two laws, which Jesus quoted from the Mosaic Law and stated that if we conscientiously kept those two then we would fulfill all of his father's demands.

When did he make this statement?

When he was challenged by a Pharisee to tell them which was the most important command in the law.

Interestingly he did not answer in the form expected of him (sound familiar Annanicole, lol). and he quoted two laws ....

Why, He answered in a very straight-forward and concise manner - and answered precisely the question that was asked. Hence, Jesus would have been a very poor representative of the modern-day Jehovah's Witness sect. He didn't redefine any words for them. He didn't ramble off into a dissertation on Armageddon speculations. He didn't even evade their question.

Oh so you call giving someone two scriptures plus an explanation when they ask for one straight-forward and concise .

Funny, when I do my best to do it you call it "rambling", lol.

Certainly I do, because your "best" usually isn't very good. Remember when I asked for ONE scripture in which the word "chrematizo" was used to mean "called" by anything other than God? What did you do? Better yet, what did you NOT do?

Well I can't argue about how good my best is, but it is still in imitation of Christ which is what we are all supposed to do.

I have however already explained how it is impossible for the word in that context to mean God; god maybe, but not God.

One simple scripture, as requested is better than ten thousand of your bogus "explanations". See what I mean by "not really answering the question." I asked for a scripture. The word is used quite a few times in the NT. Can't you find ONE example which is a plain reference to someone/something other than God?

That is true Anna which is why scripture is immeasurably more valuable than any of the explanations you put out

Then why didn't you bother to GIVE us one instead of babbling around in circles?

I have in the past given you the scriptures and the scriptural explanations which show that.

The fact that you are hung up on words only having the meaning you wish them to mean is your problem not mine.

The simple fact remains that had the name Christian come from the correct divine source the Apostles and Brothers and Sisters would have adopted it, and would not have been ashamed to preach God under it as scripture makes plain they were.

Why was the name not adopted until the Apostasy set in, after the death of the last of the Apostles? Scripture shows that it was not.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 5:45:07 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 9:08:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In fact Jehovah's idea of religion is very simple.

It doesn't involve prescribed rituals, and actually only has two laws, which Jesus quoted from the Mosaic Law and stated that if we conscientiously kept those two then we would fulfill all of his father's demands.

When did he make this statement?

When he was challenged by a Pharisee to tell them which was the most important command in the law.

Interestingly he did not answer in the form expected of him (sound familiar Annanicole, lol). and he quoted two laws, one of which is found at Deuteronomy 6:5 and the other at the end of Leviticus 19:19.

Matthew 22:34-40
34 After the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they came together in one group. 35 And one of them, versed in the Law, tested him by asking: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 He said to him: ""You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind." 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: "You must love your neighbor as yourself." 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets."

Why did Jesus not simply give the answer he was asked for?

For the same reason I don't, it would not have been a complete answer.

Why?

Because you cannot truly fulfil the one without also fulfilling the other.

You cannot truly love Jehovah without showing your fellow many the same love that he does.

Those are the only two Laws Jehovah asks us to strive towards obeying. Everything else is principle, Jehovah's principle which guide us in his ways of fulfilling those two.

Is there any point in worshipping jehovah in any way other than how he requires?

Of course not.

How do you know this? Mark the boxes below that apply:

_______ I know this because the voices in my head told me.

_______ I know this because I read it in a book that was written by people that never witnessed the events in question.

Is there a third option?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 6:20:26 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 5:45:07 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/22/2016 9:08:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In fact Jehovah's idea of religion is very simple.

It doesn't involve prescribed rituals, and actually only has two laws, which Jesus quoted from the Mosaic Law and stated that if we conscientiously kept those two then we would fulfill all of his father's demands.

When did he make this statement?

When he was challenged by a Pharisee to tell them which was the most important command in the law.

Interestingly he did not answer in the form expected of him (sound familiar Annanicole, lol). and he quoted two laws, one of which is found at Deuteronomy 6:5 and the other at the end of Leviticus 19:19.

Matthew 22:34-40
34 After the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they came together in one group. 35 And one of them, versed in the Law, tested him by asking: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 He said to him: ""You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind." 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: "You must love your neighbor as yourself." 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets."

Why did Jesus not simply give the answer he was asked for?

For the same reason I don't, it would not have been a complete answer.

Why?

Because you cannot truly fulfil the one without also fulfilling the other.

You cannot truly love Jehovah without showing your fellow many the same love that he does.

Those are the only two Laws Jehovah asks us to strive towards obeying. Everything else is principle, Jehovah's principle which guide us in his ways of fulfilling those two.

Is there any point in worshipping jehovah in any way other than how he requires?

Of course not.

How do you know this? Mark the boxes below that apply:

_______ I know this because the voices in my head told me.

_______ I know this because I read it in a book that was written by people that never witnessed the events in question.

Is there a third option?

Yes, Pure logic and reason.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 7:11:57 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 5:34:08 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:17:33 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:13:40 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:02:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 4:15:43 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 3:41:11 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 3:25:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/22/2016 10:05:33 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/22/2016 9:08:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In fact Jehovah's idea of religion is very simple.

It doesn't involve prescribed rituals, and actually only has two laws, which Jesus quoted from the Mosaic Law and stated that if we conscientiously kept those two then we would fulfill all of his father's demands.

When did he make this statement?

When he was challenged by a Pharisee to tell them which was the most important command in the law.

Interestingly he did not answer in the form expected of him (sound familiar Annanicole, lol). and he quoted two laws ....

Why, He answered in a very straight-forward and concise manner - and answered precisely the question that was asked. Hence, Jesus would have been a very poor representative of the modern-day Jehovah's Witness sect. He didn't redefine any words for them. He didn't ramble off into a dissertation on Armageddon speculations. He didn't even evade their question.

Oh so you call giving someone two scriptures plus an explanation when they ask for one straight-forward and concise .

Funny, when I do my best to do it you call it "rambling", lol.

Certainly I do, because your "best" usually isn't very good. Remember when I asked for ONE scripture in which the word "chrematizo" was used to mean "called" by anything other than God? What did you do? Better yet, what did you NOT do?

Well I can't argue about how good my best is, but it is still in imitation of Christ which is what we are all supposed to do.

I have however already explained how it is impossible for the word in that context to mean God; god maybe, but not God.

One simple scripture, as requested is better than ten thousand of your bogus "explanations". See what I mean by "not really answering the question." I asked for a scripture. The word is used quite a few times in the NT. Can't you find ONE example which is a plain reference to someone/something other than God?

That is true Anna which is why scripture is immeasurably more valuable than any of the explanations you put out

Then why didn't you bother to GIVE us one instead of babbling around in circles?

I have in the past given you the scriptures and the scriptural explanations which show that.

Well, give it again. I'd love to see it. You can leave off your so-called "scriptural explanations." Those don't count. But if you have ONE passage in which the word chrematizo plainly means called by someone other than God, then give it.

Here: I'll even provide you a blank: __________________________________________________

(Note: that blank will go unfilled)
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
6/23/2016 8:17:48 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 7:11:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:34:08 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


I have in the past given you the scriptures and the scriptural explanations which show that.

Well, give it again. I'd love to see it. You can leave off your so-called "scriptural explanations." Those don't count. But if you have ONE passage in which the word chrematizo plainly means called by someone other than God, then give it.

Here: I'll even provide you a blank: __________________________________________________

(Note: that blank will go unfilled)

Of course it will because you are so hung up on the words of Apostate men and atheists you are more than happy to ignore what scripture is clearly showing.

Have you ever wondered why not every translation even has a translation of chrematizo in that passage.

Interestingly enough, your favourite translation is one of the ones that doesn't give any credence to a divine origin, whicc does rather leave you looking stupid, as usual.

Acts 11:26 American Standard Version (ASV)

26 and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were gathered together [a]with the church, and taught much people; and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Acts 11:26King James Version (KJV)

26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Acts 11:26Revised Standard Version (RSV)

26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with[a] the church, and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians.

Just proves how specious your claim is and how accurate mine is.

As always you are simply cherry picking to support your ideas with no care about whether it may or may not be true.

Chrematizo means god, no problem, but which god?

The evidence I have give you proves that it was not The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Simple as.

If you don't want to accept that, then that is your problem.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 9:37:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 8:17:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 7:11:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:34:08 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


I have in the past given you the scriptures and the scriptural explanations which show that.

Well, give it again. I'd love to see it. You can leave off your so-called "scriptural explanations." Those don't count. But if you have ONE passage in which the word chrematizo plainly means called by someone other than God, then give it.

Here: I'll even provide you a blank: __________________________________________________

(Note: that blank will go unfilled)

Of course it will because you are so hung up on the words of Apostate men and atheists you are more than happy to ignore what scripture is clearly showing.

I didn't ask a thing relating the "words of apostate men". I asked for a scripture reference. I notice that you didn't give 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: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 9:52:57 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 8:17:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 7:11:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:34:08 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


I have in the past given you the scriptures and the scriptural explanations which show that.

Well, give it again. I'd love to see it. You can leave off your so-called "scriptural explanations." Those don't count. But if you have ONE passage in which the word chrematizo plainly means called by someone other than God, then give it.

Here: I'll even provide you a blank: __________________________________________________

(Note: that blank will go unfilled)

Of course it will because you are so hung up on the words of Apostate men and atheists you are more than happy to ignore what scripture is clearly showing.

Have you ever wondered why not every translation even has a translation of chrematizo in that passage.

Name one.

Interestingly enough, your favourite translation is one of the ones that doesn't give any credence to a divine origin, whicc does rather leave you looking stupid, as usual.

Acts 11:26 American Standard Version (ASV)

26 and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were gathered together [a]with the church, and taught much people; and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

You'd do much better if you provide one that indicates, plainly indicates, call by someone/something other than God.

Just proves how specious your claim is and how accurate mine is.

LMAO. You didn't provide a single passage, yet declare an "accurate claim". That's rich!

As always you are simply cherry picking to support your ideas with no care about whether it may or may not be true.

Chrematizo means god, no problem, but which god?

Chrematizo means "called", ya tard. It carries with it the idea of "called by God" or "called of God". You haven't provided a shred of evidence to the contrary.

Don't you want to reconsider giving us a passage that indicates called by someone/something other than God? You assertions count for naught, as usual.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 10:08:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 9:08:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In fact Jehovah's idea of religion is very simple.

It doesn't involve prescribed rituals, and actually only has two laws, which Jesus quoted from the Mosaic Law and stated that if we conscientiously kept those two then we would fulfill all of his father's demands.

When did he make this statement?

When he was challenged by a Pharisee to tell them which was the most important command in the law.

Interestingly he did not answer in the form expected of him (sound familiar Annanicole, lol). and he quoted two laws, one of which is found at Deuteronomy 6:5 and the other at the end of Leviticus 19:19.

Matthew 22:34-40
34 After the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they came together in one group. 35 And one of them, versed in the Law, tested him by asking: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 He said to him: ""You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind." 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: "You must love your neighbor as yourself." 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets."

Why did Jesus not simply give the answer he was asked for?

For the same reason I don't, it would not have been a complete answer.

Why?

Because you cannot truly fulfil the one without also fulfilling the other.

You cannot truly love Jehovah without showing your fellow many the same love that he does.

Those are the only two Laws Jehovah asks us to strive towards obeying. Everything else is principle, Jehovah's principle which guide us in his ways of fulfilling those two.

Is there any point in worshipping jehovah in any way other than how he requires?

Of course not.

i's too bad Jehovah, wasn't able to say those 2 laws to begin with, then moses and others wouldn't have had to come up with 600+ laws some of which are sadistic and barbaric.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 6:25:57 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 10:08:50 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 6/22/2016 9:08:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In fact Jehovah's idea of religion is very simple.

It doesn't involve prescribed rituals, and actually only has two laws, which Jesus quoted from the Mosaic Law and stated that if we conscientiously kept those two then we would fulfill all of his father's demands.

When did he make this statement?

When he was challenged by a Pharisee to tell them which was the most important command in the law.

Interestingly he did not answer in the form expected of him (sound familiar Annanicole, lol). and he quoted two laws, one of which is found at Deuteronomy 6:5 and the other at the end of Leviticus 19:19.

Matthew 22:34-40
34 After the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they came together in one group. 35 And one of them, versed in the Law, tested him by asking: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 He said to him: ""You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind." 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: "You must love your neighbor as yourself." 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets."

Why did Jesus not simply give the answer he was asked for?

For the same reason I don't, it would not have been a complete answer.

Why?

Because you cannot truly fulfil the one without also fulfilling the other.

You cannot truly love Jehovah without showing your fellow many the same love that he does.

Those are the only two Laws Jehovah asks us to strive towards obeying. Everything else is principle, Jehovah's principle which guide us in his ways of fulfilling those two.

Is there any point in worshipping jehovah in any way other than how he requires?

Of course not.

i's too bad Jehovah, wasn't able to say those 2 laws to begin with, then moses and others wouldn't have had to come up with 600+ laws some of which are sadistic and barbaric.

They are all he has ever asked of his people, even incorporating them in the Mosaic Law. Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 6:34:37 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 9:52:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 8:17:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 7:11:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:34:08 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


I have in the past given you the scriptures and the scriptural explanations which show that.

Well, give it again. I'd love to see it. You can leave off your so-called "scriptural explanations." Those don't count. But if you have ONE passage in which the word chrematizo plainly means called by someone other than God, then give it.

Here: I'll even provide you a blank: __________________________________________________

(Note: that blank will go unfilled)

Of course it will because you are so hung up on the words of Apostate men and atheists you are more than happy to ignore what scripture is clearly showing.

Have you ever wondered why not every translation even has a translation of chrematizo in that passage.

Name one.

See below for three of them.


Interestingly enough, your favourite translation is one of the ones that doesn't give any credence to a divine origin, whicc does rather leave you looking stupid, as usual.

Acts 11:26 American Standard Version (ASV)

26 and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were gathered together [a]with the church, and taught much people; and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

You'd do much better if you provide one that indicates, plainly indicates, call by someone/something other than God.

They do indicate it plainly, as I have explained to you over and again, but you refuse to accept because it doesn't suit you.

If it had come from God himself it would have said that clearly, and it would have come via Jerusalem and been adopted by the Apostles.

That's all you need to know.


Just proves how specious your claim is and how accurate mine is.

LMAO. You didn't provide a single passage, yet declare an "accurate claim". That's rich!

Oh I did, in three different translations.

It is your denial of the obvious that is rich, and simply proves that you are only interested in what you want to believe, not in what Jehovah and Christ want you to believe.


As always you are simply cherry picking to support your ideas with no care about whether it may or may not be true.

Chrematizo means god, no problem, but which god?

Chrematizo means "called", ya tard. It carries with it the idea of "called by God" or "called of God". You haven't provided a shred of evidence to the contrary.

Who says it carries that idea?

Only in your mind, certainly not in the minds of the Apostles.

Why is it said to carry that idea?

Only to prove a false teaching.

OK I didn't include the whole meaning but even so, it is claimed by Apostates and Atheistic translators to carry the meaning "called of God". but it doesn't say which god. That is simply your chosen understanding.

Again you prefer the words of Apostates and atheists to the word of God, which throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures fails to provide any official backing for the name Christian.


Don't you want to reconsider giving us a passage that indicates called by someone/something other than God? You assertions count for naught, as usual.

They count for more than yours because yours are only supported by that passage and an Apostate understanding.

Mine is supported by the whole of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

As Always scripture trumps you chosen belief.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 6:36:10 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 9:37:56 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 8:17:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 7:11:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:34:08 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


I have in the past given you the scriptures and the scriptural explanations which show that.

Well, give it again. I'd love to see it. You can leave off your so-called "scriptural explanations." Those don't count. But if you have ONE passage in which the word chrematizo plainly means called by someone other than God, then give it.

Here: I'll even provide you a blank: __________________________________________________

(Note: that blank will go unfilled)

Of course it will because you are so hung up on the words of Apostate men and atheists you are more than happy to ignore what scripture is clearly showing.

I didn't ask a thing relating the "words of apostate men". I asked for a scripture reference. I notice that you didn't give it.

Except that, as you know, I already have done.

You don;t get the understandings of Apostate men and Atheists from me, they are what you cling to.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 6:37:56 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 9:08:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In fact Jehovah's idea of religion is very simple.

It doesn't involve prescribed rituals, and actually only has two laws, which Jesus quoted from the Mosaic Law and stated that if we conscientiously kept those two then we would fulfill all of his father's demands.

When did he make this statement?

When he was challenged by a Pharisee to tell them which was the most important command in the law.

Interestingly he did not answer in the form expected of him (sound familiar Annanicole, lol). and he quoted two laws, one of which is found at Deuteronomy 6:5 and the other at the end of Leviticus 19:19.

Matthew 22:34-40
34 After the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they came together in one group. 35 And one of them, versed in the Law, tested him by asking: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 He said to him: ""You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind." 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: "You must love your neighbor as yourself." 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets."

Why did Jesus not simply give the answer he was asked for?

For the same reason I don't, it would not have been a complete answer.

Why?

Because you cannot truly fulfil the one without also fulfilling the other.

You cannot truly love Jehovah without showing your fellow many the same love that he does.

Those are the only two Laws Jehovah asks us to strive towards obeying. Everything else is principle, Jehovah's principle which guide us in his ways of fulfilling those two.

Is there any point in worshipping jehovah in any way other than how he requires?

Of course not.
Still can't grasp the whole idea that Jehovah is a guess. Well must be better to call a Bob a Paul just in case it may be right. Instead of just admitting God would suffice. If you don't recognize that calling God Jehovah separates you from being tolerant of other people I give up. There is no historical way to accurately know God is Jehovah, none.
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 6:52:21 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 6:25:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 10:08:50 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
i's too bad Jehovah, wasn't able to say those 2 laws to begin with, then moses and others wouldn't have had to come up with 600+ laws some of which are sadistic and barbaric.

They are all he has ever asked of his people, even incorporating them in the Mosaic Law. Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18

that is my point. how did you determine that your god was worth loving to begin with?
if the bible is an accurate representation of your god's character i couldn't love such an evil, sadistic, tyrant.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 9:18:29 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 6:52:21 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 6/24/2016 6:25:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 10:08:50 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
i's too bad Jehovah, wasn't able to say those 2 laws to begin with, then moses and others wouldn't have had to come up with 600+ laws some of which are sadistic and barbaric.

They are all he has ever asked of his people, even incorporating them in the Mosaic Law. Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18

that is my point. how did you determine that your god was worth loving to begin with?
if the bible is an accurate representation of your god's character i couldn't love such an evil, sadistic, tyrant.

The Bible is an accurate representation of Jehovah's character, however your understanding of it is far from accurate.

You are judging on surface appearances without looking to see what is behind it all.

I determined his worthiness of our live by learning to understand all he has done, and most importantly why he did it.
tarantula
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 9:26:02 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 9:18:29 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/24/2016 6:52:21 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 6/24/2016 6:25:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 10:08:50 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
i's too bad Jehovah, wasn't able to say those 2 laws to begin with, then moses and others wouldn't have had to come up with 600+ laws some of which are sadistic and barbaric.

They are all he has ever asked of his people, even incorporating them in the Mosaic Law. Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18

that is my point. how did you determine that your god was worth loving to begin with?
if the bible is an accurate representation of your god's character i couldn't love such an evil, sadistic, tyrant.

The Bible is an accurate representation of Jehovah's character, however your understanding of it is far from accurate.

You are judging on surface appearances without looking to see what is behind it all.

I determined his worthiness of our live by learning to understand all he has done, and most importantly why he did it.

That is such a lie, as you are stating it as a fact. You don't even know if god exists!
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 9:35:30 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 9:26:02 AM, tarantula wrote:
At 6/24/2016 9:18:29 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/24/2016 6:52:21 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 6/24/2016 6:25:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 10:08:50 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
i's too bad Jehovah, wasn't able to say those 2 laws to begin with, then moses and others wouldn't have had to come up with 600+ laws some of which are sadistic and barbaric.

They are all he has ever asked of his people, even incorporating them in the Mosaic Law. Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18

that is my point. how did you determine that your god was worth loving to begin with?
if the bible is an accurate representation of your god's character i couldn't love such an evil, sadistic, tyrant.

The Bible is an accurate representation of Jehovah's character, however your understanding of it is far from accurate.

You are judging on surface appearances without looking to see what is behind it all.

I determined his worthiness of our live by learning to understand all he has done, and most importantly why he did it.

That is such a lie, as you are stating it as a fact. You don't even know if god exists!

Of course I know he exists because I am not to scared to recognise the abundant evidence,
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 9:45:36 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 9:18:29 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/24/2016 6:52:21 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 6/24/2016 6:25:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 10:08:50 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
i's too bad Jehovah, wasn't able to say those 2 laws to begin with, then moses and others wouldn't have had to come up with 600+ laws some of which are sadistic and barbaric.

They are all he has ever asked of his people, even incorporating them in the Mosaic Law. Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18

that is my point. how did you determine that your god was worth loving to begin with?
if the bible is an accurate representation of your god's character i couldn't love such an evil, sadistic, tyrant.

The Bible is an accurate representation of Jehovah's character, however your understanding of it is far from accurate.

You are judging on surface appearances without looking to see what is behind it all.

I determined his worthiness of our live by learning to understand all he has done, and most importantly why he did it.

by all means, explain 1 samuel 15:1-4 where your god tells people to slaughter children and infants. that is clearly an evil and tyrannical command, did your god run out of magic tricks to kill people with?
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 10:02:53 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 6:34:37 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 9:52:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 8:17:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 7:11:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:34:08 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


I have in the past given you the scriptures and the scriptural explanations which show that.

Well, give it again. I'd love to see it. You can leave off your so-called "scriptural explanations." Those don't count. But if you have ONE passage in which the word chrematizo plainly means called by someone other than God, then give it.

Here: I'll even provide you a blank: __________________________________________________

(Note: that blank will go unfilled)

Of course it will because you are so hung up on the words of Apostate men and atheists you are more than happy to ignore what scripture is clearly showing.

Have you ever wondered why not every translation even has a translation of chrematizo in that passage.

Name one.

See below for three of them.


Interestingly enough, your favourite translation is one of the ones that doesn't give any credence to a divine origin, whicc does rather leave you looking stupid, as usual.

Acts 11:26 American Standard Version (ASV)

26 and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were gathered together [a]with the church, and taught much people; and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

You'd do much better if you provide one that indicates, plainly indicates, call by someone/something other than God.

They do indicate it plainly, as I have explained to you over and again, but you refuse to accept because it doesn't suit you.

If it had come from God himself it would have said that clearly, and it would have come via Jerusalem and been adopted by the Apostles.

That's all you need to know.

Thus, mark it down, Ye Olde Mad Clowne can't provide one single scripture in all of the New Testament in which chrematizo is used as he claims it is in Acts 11. Not one.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 10:05:01 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 6:36:10 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 9:37:56 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 8:17:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 7:11:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:34:08 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


I have in the past given you the scriptures and the scriptural explanations which show that.

Well, give it again. I'd love to see it. You can leave off your so-called "scriptural explanations." Those don't count. But if you have ONE passage in which the word chrematizo plainly means called by someone other than God, then give it.

Here: I'll even provide you a blank: __________________________________________________

(Note: that blank will go unfilled)

Of course it will because you are so hung up on the words of Apostate men and atheists you are more than happy to ignore what scripture is clearly showing.

I didn't ask a thing relating the "words of apostate men". I asked for a scripture reference. I notice that you didn't give it.

Except that, as you know, I already have done.

No, you didn't.


You don;t get the understandings of Apostate men and Atheists from me, they are what you cling to.

I didn't ask for an "understanding" from you at all. Nor did I ask for a scripture in which the word is merely translated "call". I asked for a scripture in which the word chrematizo is employed to indicate "call" or "called" by someone/something other than God. We notice that you didn't provide 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
6/24/2016 11:04:29 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 9:45:36 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 6/24/2016 9:18:29 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/24/2016 6:52:21 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 6/24/2016 6:25:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/23/2016 10:08:50 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
i's too bad Jehovah, wasn't able to say those 2 laws to begin with, then moses and others wouldn't have had to come up with 600+ laws some of which are sadistic and barbaric.

They are all he has ever asked of his people, even incorporating them in the Mosaic Law. Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18

that is my point. how did you determine that your god was worth loving to begin with?
if the bible is an accurate representation of your god's character i couldn't love such an evil, sadistic, tyrant.

The Bible is an accurate representation of Jehovah's character, however your understanding of it is far from accurate.

You are judging on surface appearances without looking to see what is behind it all.

I determined his worthiness of our live by learning to understand all he has done, and most importantly why he did it.

by all means, explain 1 samuel 15:1-4 where your god tells people to slaughter children and infants. that is clearly an evil and tyrannical command, did your god run out of magic tricks to kill people with?

On the surface it seems to be yes, but what is better to give them a quick death or leave them to starve?

Jehovah doesn't do magic and the only people who believe in such a thing are the ignorant and superstitious.