Search results

Again, it is not a fallacy because it is not an argument. Robert quoted Scripture that proves his point.

You are the one who has not offered a credible alternative to explicit Scripture @ Rev 1:5 that states Jesus is THE Witness to God Jehovah. Can you understand how this could be interpreted as support for the organization that goes by that name?

Already provided. This is what you do in many threads; ask for evidence that was JUST provided. Although I was baptized as an infant in the RCC, I consider it a kind of joke as there is no Biblical support for infant baptism.

Yea, this along the lines of my thoughts. Jesus only has one glorified body. He may have appeared different but appearance does not mean an actual different body.

You are hopeless! I provided the definition of Jehovah, which is the English translation of YHWH. He provided the Scripture of Jesus being Jehovah's Witness. I posted that verse proving what he said is correct. What is your problem?

What a straw man argument. Jesus is a witness to God Jehovah, period. It doesn't matter the derivation. Talk about moving the goal posts.

Jehovah Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster Jehovah noun Save Word To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In Je·ho·vah | \ ji-ˈhō-və \ Definition of Jehovah : GOD sense 1a

It is the English name for God. Just like Yeshua, the name of our lord, is not Jesus in the original text. Jesus is the English name for our lord. For the record, I do not like such name changes but I recognize this is how people use language. Another example is the capital city of Italy, in...

BS. My question reveals insight into the foolishness of your statement. Robert was NOT saying Jesus was a JW corporate member. He proved Jesus was a witness to Jehovah using Scripture. All you got is this ridiculous claim, judging the proved argument invalid. Where is your response to Rev 1:5...

You are right; It's not an argument but a matter of fact. I recently read a book, Atheism on Trial. The author made the point that modern say atheists are basically making the same claim as atheists from 2300 years ago. If you adhere to School of X and another adheres to the School of Y, both...

No. You are quoting a verse that does not even apply to God’s Anointed. Even if it did, it only says what people will call him. No direct and simple ‘Jesus is God’ because it is not true.

Yet you imply these cultural norms rise to the level of Scriptural mandate. Not cool.

It’s just not true. What unitarian verse do you think says that AND leaves doubt about it? Scripture says Jesus is the son of God and leaves no doubt about it. MK 1:1 See the difference?

Are you aware that some people can read? This includes non-Catholics. I love how the Bible is a very figurative book. ‘Born of water’ or ‘not eyes to see’ or ‘as many descendants as grains of sand’ or ‘we are one’ are all non-literal expressions. Make a Blessed Day!

I already did. So did Nancy. That corresponds to the invention of the printing press, when people were finally able to read God's words for themselves. That's when they realized the load of man-made doctrines the RCC was pushing, like the mystical sacraments. Listen to me well. These are among...

Including JW, right?

Not an answer to my question! Also, there is NO reason one cannot realize the ancients held the same view you today. None. Agh, you are confusing common with proper nouns. @Robert Gwin never claimed Jeuss was a member of the organization formed in the 19th century known as 19th century...

Oy vey! Jesus is not God. We know this because he died and Scripture says Jesus is a man. John 1:1-2 refers to God and his voice, not another person/being. Hence the thread on Houtos. "This" (voice of God) was in the beginning with God. There was no "he" in the beginning with God per John...

Then it should be easy for you to give a concise answer.

Mary, that is not a POV but a conclusion coming from left field. It stands to reason that being born of water IS natural birth in the context of then being born of Spirit. Also, to deny our original birth was related to water begs the question what then is the reference for us to be born again...