Is Donnie and Ken just a Jehovah's Witness in Disguise?

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

February 20th, 2017, 6:29 pm #101

Perhaps if people spent LESS time agonizing over translations, this particular word, that particular word, various word groupings, and spent LESS time taking notes in the worship assembly to write negative critiques about their church on the Internet...

Perhaps if those same people spent MORE time caring for the destitute, orphans, widows, and others in need, and if they found a suitable church where they could worship and serve in righteousness...

Perhaps they would be far less likely to expose themselves as religious frauds on Internet message boards.
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Bill, I didn't mean to keep you in agony. Evidently, you are agonizing -- you keep participating. [/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Scripture
Scripture

February 20th, 2017, 7:07 pm #102

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Scripture,

I got the same impression from Bill as you did -- that he now has that new zeal (unbeknownst to him that he is still participating in the discussion). I, too, would like an update on how's he doing with his stated mission [as though it were the first time we've heard of it ]>[/color]
No, this is not a new idea to me. In fact, I've also been concerned for some time about that.

I really thought that maybe you were now doing it but not before. I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but just for information, since I would be very pleased if you do have a new leaf, but if you have been doing that all along, this is also good.

I readily admit that I could do more per the judgments of Matthew 25:31-46.

How is your addiction about posting on CM doing?
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

February 20th, 2017, 7:09 pm #103

Are you implying that you've primarily (if not exclusively) participated in endless arguments on message boards, whereas caring for the sick and needy is now something of a "new" idea to you? Just wondering.
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Bill, no. Just needing an update from you, so others can emulate you.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Dave
Dave

February 20th, 2017, 7:33 pm #104

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Dave,

John did not write to accommodate Trinitarians and the papal Trinity Creed, which the "bishops" of Rome and the Emperor Constantine approved and made official. The approval of the dogma near the end of the 4th century is not a cloak of Scripture-following believers -- it is HISTORY that you obviously wish were not revealed. But it's there -- it cannot be ignored by you and the public. It is only proof that even in the Old Testament dispensation, the papal Trinity was non-existent. It was not an issue either in the 1st century of Christianity.

John wrote as it was written:
[/color]<ol>[*]The article "the" was present in "the word" 3 times in the 3 clauses.
</li>[*]<b>The article "the" as in "the god" was also present in the 2nd clause in the original text: "the word was with the god."
</b></li>[*]<b><b>Your "scholar" should be explaining why the article "the" was removed by Trinitarian translators from the clause: "the word was with the god."
</b></b></li>[*]<b><b><b>John's 3rd clause was stated in a truthful manner: "the word was with god" -- the article "the" did not belong there.
</b></b></b></li>[*]<b><b><b><b>In biblical writings, "the god" is a definite expression in reference to the Supreme Being, as in "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob."
</b></b></b></b></li>[*]<b><b><b><b><b>It would not make scriptural sense to refer to Jesus as being "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob."</b></b></b></b></b></li>[/list]<b><b><b><b></b></b></b></b>

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Your scholar is making an issue of the 3rd clause not containing the definite article "the" -- the original text does not contain "the." What he needs to explain is why Trinitarian translators removed "the" from the clause: "the word was with THE god."

Isn't obvious to you that Trinity-biased translators wanted THEIR 2nd clause "the word was with God" to match "the word was God."

If the above has been stated too fast for you, then slow down and study the objective of YOUR DIVINE TRANSLATORS.

One of the remarks I'd like to ask you:

Since you believe that John 1:1 clearly identifies "the Word" as "God," why did John not say, when he could have very easily said it to avoid confusion among Christians, <b>"And God became flesh...." in John 1:14? Why, Dave?</b> [/color]
Donnie said "Since you believe that John 1:1 clearly identifies "the Word" as "God," why did John not say, when he could have very easily said it to avoid confusion among Christians, "And God became flesh...." in John 1:14? Why, Dave?"

I BELIEVE what the Word of God says, and GOD'S WORD says that THE WORD WAS/IS GOD. It has nothing to do with what I or anyone else believes. IT IS the TRUTH. If the WORD WAS GOD, then God manifest Himself in the flesh

1 Timothy 3
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

MANIFEST--clear or obvious to the eye or mind, display or show (a quality or feeling) by one's acts or appearance; demonstrate.

Donnie, is that a good enough WHY, or do you need a one on one from God Himself?

You mentioned the downfall of the scholar that I used. Are you a Greek scholar? Neither am I, but I did use one. The scholar explained why the THE was omitted. You would rather trust your opinion than take hold of the truth.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

February 20th, 2017, 8:02 pm #105

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Dave,

(1) This is apparent: your unwillingness to actually study the contrast between the original text and what Trinity leaders (like the Pope) and your "divine" authority -- your scholars and translators -- are telling you. I can't help you with that. You must do that on your own.

(2) Your biggest problem for not having a clear and an open mind is also apparent in your definition of the word "manifest." You are unequivocally substituting the word "is" (the reality") for the word "manifest" (an appearance"). God's truth would not allow that.

(3) John 1:14 is correct: It was "the Word" (the LOGOS OF GOD) that became flesh. But Dave wants to change that to "God became flesh." Let your Greek "scholar" help you.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Dave
Dave

February 20th, 2017, 8:22 pm #106

Donnie said " John 1:14 is correct: It was "the Word" (the LOGOS OF GOD) that became flesh. But Dave wants to change that to "God became flesh." Let your Greek "scholar" help you."

John 1
John 1King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The Word was/IS God.
The Word became flesh. (Jesus)
The Word (God) became flesh

1 Timothy 3
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Donnie wants to add the The to John 1 verse 1, make Jesus just a god and then question the truthfulness of the Scriptures in Timothy. When the author tells me that "God was manifest in the flesh" and I know that since the author tried to convey his thought of WHO was manifest in the flesh, who else could he compare Jesus with?
ANSWER: ONLY GOD! Did the author say that Abraham was manifested here? Was David whom was being manifested? IT WAS GOD.

I really believe you DO NEED that one on one with God Donnie. It is the only way you will believe.

Oh, and at least I used someone (the greek scholar) that knew what they were talking about instead of relying on you.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

February 20th, 2017, 9:21 pm #107

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Dave,

Your reliance on one biased "Greek professor" is ludicrous. Consult as many scholars as you possibly can: it wouldn't be a waste of your time.

Your Greek professor is being dishonest for not taking the original New Testament Greek text of John 1:1 in its entirety. Ask your ONE of hundreds of scholars out there this one important question: Why is the definite article "the" omitted by biased Trinity translators from the 2nd clause, "and the word was with THE god"?

Dave, your ignorance of the original text is showing. And I see that you have no intention of correcting that mishap. Here's the 2nd clause in its original text (word for word):

καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν

and the word was toward the god
[/color]

It clearly follows in the 3rd clause that "the word" is NOT "the god."

In I Timothy 3, you are still confusing the reality (IS) with the appearance (MANIFEST). Your fallacious human logic says: If Bill MANIFESTS himself as Dave, therefore, Bill IS Dave.

No, Dave, there is a colossal difference between: (1) IS and (2) MANIFESTS.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 11th, 2016, 11:16 pm

February 20th, 2017, 10:49 pm #108

Does the word manifest used in this scripture mean all of these definition? If some words have different meanings depending on the context, then the context of how this word is used should be explained that way. If you think of it this way;

God was demonstrated in the flesh
God was clear or obvious in the flesh
God was displayed or shown in the flesh
God appeared in the flesh
God was felt by acts in the flesh


MANIFEST--clear or obvious to the eye or mind, display or show (a quality or feeling) by one's acts or appearance;

1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

February 20th, 2017, 11:55 pm #109

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]The examples listed are good. They do NOT indicate conveyance of:

(1) That God "became" flesh;
(2) That God "was made" flesh;
(3) That God "is" flesh.

Just like "in the form {morphe} of God" does NOT mean "is God."

Just like "in the image of God" does NOT mean "is God."[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 11th, 2016, 11:16 pm

February 21st, 2017, 12:58 am #110

Ken made a statement to the effect, God was reflected in the face of Jesus. We should work toward having similar qualities that can be reflected to others by the words we speak.
Quote
Like
Share