kcnalp
Well-Known Member
JW's TWIST nearly every Scripture to mean something different!He must have a very small bible judging by everything that gets cut out or rewritten if he is using the JW Bible. I think that is the explanation.
.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
JW's TWIST nearly every Scripture to mean something different!He must have a very small bible judging by everything that gets cut out or rewritten if he is using the JW Bible. I think that is the explanation.
.
So, they call themselves Christians, while denying the pre-incarnate Jesus who humbled himself and became one of us, is the creator of the world. Instead they chose to worship the god of the Pharisees, the deceiver and destroyer.JW's TWIST nearly every Scripture to mean something different!
It is an absolute Biblical fact. The trinity is not in the Bible - not the word and not the doctrine.
There simply is no verse that reads something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the F, S, & HS who are co-substantial, co-equal and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this you cannot be saved but are damned forever.
He must have a very small bible judging by everything that gets cut out or rewritten if he is using the JW Bible. I think that is the explanation.
Then tell us Who God was in the flesh?
this seems to be your fall back defense when you are shown you are wrong! "Just the Book of Acts" "Just the book of Acts" Never mind what teh rest of the bible says!
31 He has fixed a day of accountability, when the whole world will be justly evaluated by a new, higher standard: not by a statue, but by a living man. God selected this man and made Him credible to all by raising Him from the dead.
Acts 17:31
The Voice
Irrelevant what he WOULD do. Acts informs us that it was actually God who raised Jesus.
Trinitarians want to ignore 20:31 and pretend it means Jesus is God. An interpretation consistent with LANGUAGE USAGE is that they are 2 beings.
- Even though Wrangler WOULD eat by himself, he actually ate with Ronald.
- Even though Wrangler WOULD shovel his own drive way, Ronald actually shoveled Wrangler’s driveway.
- When God is said to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, it was actually angels who did the deed.
The Bible is filled with this sort of thing; Being X does things through Being Y. Yet, when it comes to Jesus, there is no way he would raise himself through God, who is a separate being from himself - even though they are on the same page, ‘at one’ as we are one with God. 17:22
Untrue. It's just that this thread is about the books of Acts. I'll be happy to tear apart the false doctrine in any thread from verses in other books.
v30 Stretch out your hand to heal and to do signs and miracles through the name of your holy servant Yeshua!” (God, in his unitarian nature, does signs and miracles in the name of his servant, Yeshua. Logic. Definition. Language Usage. God is not his own servant.)
I know you do not understand how and why God came to his own as promised in Isaiah, and until you do, there is no point talking to you.@kcnalp , @Cooper , @Ronald Nolette Can you acknowledge above?
I'm not JW.
God is Spirit not flesh.
Untrue. It's just that this thread is about the books of Acts. I'll be happy to tear apart the false doctrine in any thread from verses in other books.
@kcnalp , @Cooper , @Ronald Nolette From the above verse of Acts 17:31:
Can you acknowledge the answers from the questions about Acts 17:31? Hopefully, your reading comprehension skills can handle this AND more importantly, your intellectual honesty can put aside your doctrine for the sake of this thread's pursuit of truth as God told us in Acts (no diverting attention to other verses in other books).
- Q. Who was raised from the dead? (A. A living man.)
- Q. Who was selected? (A. This man.)
- Q. Who raised the living man from the dead? (A. God, in his unitarian nature).
- Q. Who selected this man? (A. God, in his unitarian nature).
No, the 7 Spirits of God spoken of in Revelations has nothing to do with 7 entities. So what's your point?Revelations talks about the 7 Spirits of God. 7 entities?
No, the 7 Spirits of God spoken of in Revelations has nothing to do with 7 entities. So what's your point?
My point is likewise; there is only one monotheist God whose Spirit is an attribute, not a separate entity.
Jesus is a man whose resurrection is our proof of God’s promise as Acts 17:31 explains. Like us, Jesus is selected or adopted by God to be his sons and daughters.
Acts 17:31 does not emphasize that Jesus is a man twice to be contradicted in other Scriptural verses. (And of course, I reject out of hand all appeals to dualism and mysticism.) That is the point.
Your whole argument is irrelevant. Jesus did not say would or could:
We have, you just do not wish to acknowledge it.
Father is called God, Jesus is called God, Holy Spirit is called God.
If the book of acts was the only testimony then
I know you do not understand how and why God came to his own as promised in Isaiah, and until you do, there is no point talking to you.
.
(John 3:13 ESV)
Mat_12:8
Mat_13:41
Mat_25:31
Mat_26:64
Although Jesus spoke of himself as the "Son of Man" he was no ordinary man.
I thought you might be sincere, but no longer, except in the negative.You know this thread is only about the Book of Acts, right?
Agreed. Still, man is man. Man is no kind of God.
Jesus was/is a man. He was not God in the form of a man. Jesus was a man who died, which is not an attribute of a deity.
You didn't answer my question. Who was God in the flesh?God is Spirit not flesh.
Scripture please.Baal is called God. Does that make him God?
LOL. A statement of future action does not mean that action was actually taken. Also, just ignore the point about how the Bible is filled with many things being done through others. Language usage still employed, e.g., Hitler killed 4M Jews. He actually killed no one. For some reason, trinitarians dismiss the possibility that Jesus is speaking this way in this instance. He is claiming he will do it when God actually did it.
Common language usage. Totally relevant - but it does destroy a desperate attempt by trinitarians to impose their doctrine onto unitarian text.