Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

jehovahs witness

Posted on 12/21/2009 12:08:37 PM PST by annieup

FIRST OF ALL THE WITNESSES ARE NOT A CULT. THAT OPINION WAS FORMED BY SOMEONE THAT OBVIOUSLY FEELS THREATNED BY THE TRUTH.IT AMAZES ME THAT WHENEVER A WITNESS DOES SOMETHING WRONG IT MAKES THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NEWS! IF A BABTIST OR PROTESTANT DOES SOMETHING WRONG IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR RELIGION. AND THIS BIG COVER UP GARBAGE IS A JOKE. ADMITTEDLY THEY ARE NOT PERFECT NOR CLAIM TO BE. MATT 24:9 SAYS THAT WE WOULD BE OBJECTS OF HATRED ON ACCOUNT OF HIS NAME. WHAT OTHER RELIGION IS HATED ON ACCOUNT OF HIS NAME? ONLY 1 THAT I CAN THINK OF THE WITNESSES PROUDLY GLORIFY JEHOVAHS NAME. ALSO WE ARE NOT PROGRAMMED. WE HAVE FREE WILL,GOD DOES NOT WANT ROBOTS, THAT IS WHY HE GAVE ADAM AND EVE FREE WILL. AND WE DO BELIEVE IN JESUS. HE IS GODS SON AND HE DID GIVE HIS LIFE FOR OUR SINS. I ALSO GET A KICK OUT OF THOSE WHO TELL US WHAT WE BELIEVE, ESPECIALLY IF IT ISN'T TRUE. PEOPLE JUST MAKE UP WHAT THEY WANT ABOUT THE WITNESSES AND THE NAIVE ONES BELIEVE IT. IF IT IS TRUE THEN LOOK INTO WHY WE BELIEVE WHAT WE DO. DONT JUST ASSUME TO KNOW EVERYTHING THAT THEY TEACH OR BELLIEVE BASED ON SOMEONE ELSE'S OPINION. TALK ABOUT HAVING A MIND OF YOUR OWN!!


TOPICS: Religion
KEYWORDS: blasphemer; ibtz; nutjob; ohnoes; screamer; sniff; suiciden00b; victorkilo; vikingkitties; zot; zuluoscartango
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 661-674 next last
To: NoGrayZone

My brother married when my son was little. By the time my son married, the S-i-L was gone. And they lived in 2 different states. Unbelievable that you’d even go there.


481 posted on 12/22/2009 7:59:39 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

Possibly so


482 posted on 12/22/2009 8:01:00 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

I have family in Ohio, Florida, New Jersey and New York. My daughter didn’t meet one set of grandparents until she was 15. In this day and age, family separation is part of life. Some people just don’t get it.


483 posted on 12/22/2009 8:02:20 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Unbelievable that you’d even go there.

Cult members are like that. Part of their game to get in your head.

484 posted on 12/22/2009 8:02:30 PM PST by ejonesie22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22
Cult members are like that. Part of their game to get in your head.

It used to be called being a busybody. And that was the polite descripter. ;-)

485 posted on 12/22/2009 8:05:33 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Indeed...


486 posted on 12/22/2009 8:08:02 PM PST by ejonesie22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies]

To: annieup; ejonesie22
no the witnesses do not try to control anyone.

Oh yes they do! My friend who was a JW was told to quit hanging out with me or she'd be shunned because I was attending an Assemblies of God. They sure as heck DO control!

487 posted on 12/22/2009 8:22:16 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: NoGrayZone
OK, you still don't "get it."

The following paragraph was NOT, I repeat, was NOT original with me: It's a quote, as I said last post, from Watchtower.org -- which is the official Web site of Jehovah's Witnesses:

"This scripture therefore suggests that Jesus himself is the archangel Michael...the Bible speaks of both Michael and “his angels” and Jesus and “his angels.” (Matthew 13:41) Since God’s Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven—one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus—it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role."

I don't know if you are purposefully leaving scripture out to suit your own needs, but lets take a look at what the Bible states PRIOR to your little "quote"....

Hey, I didn't write the Watchtower quote -- the Watchtower did...and the source Watchtower article didn't mention anything about Matthew 13:36, 37, 38, 39, 40, or 42 -- you are absolutely clueless in your loose-cannon accusations, impugning my motives with wild accusations. What's worse is I gave you the link so you could check out the original source. And instead of doing the simple thing by clicking, you chose the lazy thing to do & toss out more accusations.

So, no, nothing about Matthew 13 was either purposefully (or not) left out of the quote. (If you feel the quote was misrepresenting the Biblical position, blame the Watchtower, not me.)

Where on EARTH do you come up with Michael the Arch Angel out of that????

OK, you still don't "get it." I'm not the one who claims Jesus was the archangel Michael. (The Watchtower did...and as you said, they took a verse -- Matt. 13:42 out of context -- and came up with a false conclusion). What I don't understand is that you & I seem to agree on that -- against the JWs' Watchtower's findings -- and yet you take me to task?

(Now you've got several apologies in order, including calling a "false witness")

Go back to post 454...if you disagree with anything in that quote, read it in context...see how the Watchtower is presenting the info, and then take them to task. BTW, that's many other writings where the Watchtower claims that Jesus was the archangel Michael...and state it much stronger than that article.

Just because you're ignorant of that doesn't mean you get to flail all about like a fish out of water & start tossing out "liar, liar" like your pants were on fire.

488 posted on 12/22/2009 8:24:38 PM PST by Colofornian (If you're not going to drink the coffee, at least wake up and smell it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: NoGrayZone
Typo correction to my post -- I said Matt. 13:42 out of context & I meant Matt. 13:41
489 posted on 12/22/2009 8:27:50 PM PST by Colofornian (If you're not going to drink the coffee, at least wake up and smell it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

I was raised a JW until I left home when I was 16 and this religion has screwed up my entire life and of which I also hold accountable to the suicide of my younger sister and the death of my nephew.

Muslims could learn a finer art of subjugating people from this “cult”, they have it down to an art. Its very difficult to object to them with their honest sincerity, openness and quite frank fully their views but they only offer a quasi-fantasyland of a shelter that so many people in our society require.

They will not accept people with opinions easily if at all, I know because I became one to start questioning them in my teens. My only request to any JWs here is to get your guns, get learned on how to use them and organize your districts into areas of refuge, I know you can do it as I attended many circuit and district assemblies including the biggest one I ever went to in 1969 at Dodger stadium in LA, over 100,000 witnesses were there including myself as a young earnest dedicated volunteer that happily slept on tables to be ready to help with the days events, and also where I would search for the love of my life a Sandra Marie Mason that lived in Northern California, sadly when I left the JW I lost her as well, perhaps by fate she may be reading this, who knows, and who cares?

Anyhow I am suggesting this thread to be locked, attacking JWs is like setting up a minefield for the Amway people, they will just send more.


490 posted on 12/22/2009 8:41:56 PM PST by Eye of Unk (Phobos, kerdos, and doxa, said the Time Traveler. “Fear, self-interest, and honor.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
1st point - You want me to leave my religion, what's wrong with me wanting you to leave yours?

2nd point - The 1983 yearbook reference is untrue. The relevant section: "From Chile's report we read: “A special pioneer making a return visit asked the lady what book teaches us the will of God. ‘The Watchtower, of course,’ she said. Our sister proceeded to explain that it was, rather, the Bible. ‘Yes, but what would I do with my recently obtained Bible if I did not use The Watchtower to understand it?’—Acts 8:31.”" It was not one of Jehovah's Witnesses that said that. This was under the subheading "MAGAZINES APPRECIATED."

3rd reference - Doesn't even mention The Watchtower. It is talking about the "faithful and discreet slave" who is giving (spiritual) food at the proper time., then refers to Acts 8:30-40, where people can gain understanding by having scriptures explained to them.

4th reference - 8/15/81 WT - It is talking about SOME who have said that personal Bible reading or reading in small groups is enough. These have gone back to Christendom's doctrines.

I'm out of time to post tonight. My wireless connection went down, but I finally got it going again.
All I can say for now is don't believe everything you read at some website, or a book written by someone with an ax to grind.
491 posted on 12/22/2009 8:51:12 PM PST by FreedomOfExpression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

Here is the killer rabbit.
492 posted on 12/22/2009 8:54:29 PM PST by wjcsux ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: wjcsux
Vicious little bugger...
493 posted on 12/22/2009 8:58:34 PM PST by ejonesie22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: FreedomOfExpression; Elsie; NoGrayZone; ejonesie22
Basically, I was asking where does the Bible say that Christ is the same person as God, part of a trinity.

John 10:30-34

30 I and the Father are one."

31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Even the Jews knew that Jesus said He was God.

494 posted on 12/22/2009 9:00:13 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

Why lock the thread. Why not debunk their false and blasphemous religion.


495 posted on 12/22/2009 9:03:30 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Counting down to when you will be told you are either reading the wrong translation, taking it out of context or not reading it correctly and without the proper “assistance”...


496 posted on 12/22/2009 9:05:55 PM PST by ejonesie22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: FreedomOfExpression; aMorePerfectUnion
John 1:1-3 - The King James Bible says that the word was God. However other translations render the verse as "a god" or "divine." A godlike spirit person.

Come on out and say it, the only current 'translation' is the New World Translation and that has been refuted over and over again. You will not find a 'godlike spirit person' ANYWHERE in the Greek.

John 20:28 - The above could have been the reason Jesus was addressed as "my God" by Thomas.

Again, you are offering a scripted argument. Context, context, context FOE. Jesus rebuked many others for false worship during His earthly ministry - He was a Jew - and a monotheist. There is no hint of rebuke to Thomas for the worship. Re:vs. 30, the TITLE - Son of God - is synonymous with God the Son.

As for Phil 2:6-11, what is meant at verse 5,

You need to expand the CONTEXT further FOE - go back and read verses 1-4, they set up vs 5. He sets before them a most perfect example of all modesty and sweet conduct, Christ Jesus, whom we ought to follow with all our might: who abased himself so much for our sakes, although he is above all, that he took upon himself the form of a servant, that is, our flesh, willingly subject to all weaknesses, even to the death of the cross.(Geneva)

The Expositor's Greek Testament says: “We cannot find any passage where [har·pa′zo] or any of its derivatives [including har·pag·mon′] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’.

Come on FOE, canned arguments still. Are you ashamed of your sources? You question comes verbatum from Should you believe the Trinity?, Watchtower publication, John 10:30; p 416-423). Please, if you are going to cite EGT, please include the full text. Here's what you left out -

Ver. 6. The discussions as to whether this refers to the pre-existing or historical Christ seem scarcely relevant to Paul's thought. For him his Lord's career was one and undivided. To suggest that he did not conceive a preexistence in heaven is to ignore the very foundations of his thinking. Probably he never speculated minutely on the nature of Christ's pre-existent state, just as he refrains from doing so on the nature of the future life. He contents himself with general lines. The interpretation of the passage depends on the meaning assigned to (2) denotes the form, appearance, look or likeness of soifie-one, that by which those beno ding him would indulge him. See job iv. 16, Dan. v. 6 an three other places, Wisd. xviii. 1, 4 Macc. xv. 4. Plainly, from the context of these passages, the word had come, in later Greek, to receive a vague, general meaning, far removed from the accurate, metaphysical content which belotiged to it in writers like Plato and Aristotle. It seems, therefore, to us of little value, %vith Lft. and Gifford (ot. cit.), to discuss the relation of to terms such as Otg-(&, +40'Ls and ti8os in their philosophical refinements. It is far more Probable that Paul uses ilop+. here in a loose, popular sense, as we use I nature ' " (Guardian, Jan. 1, 1896). He means, of course, in the strictest sense that the pre-existing Christ was Divine. For IL. always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it. But in trying to reach a conception of the pre-existing nature of his Lord, he is content to think of Him as the ELK4)V -rofo e'00 (COI- i- 15), as sharing in that 86tcL (on the close relation of tL. and 86tcL see Nestle, SK., 1893, PP- 173, j74) which is the manifestation of the Divine nature (cf. John xvii- 5, Heb. i- 3), as possessing, that is to say, the same kind of existence as God possesses, without indulging in speculations on the metaphysical relationship of the Son to the father. So in 2 Cor. viii. 9 (the closest parallel in thought to this) he describes the same condition by the words wkov'o-tos wv. And this reminds us of the point of emphasis, the unspeakable contrast between the heavenly and earthly states the p. E)eoi and the it. 8o4,\ov. The Apostle's mind is overpowered by the profound ethical meaning and value of the Humiliation. -,&w4pXwv. Probably = " being constitutionally " (Evans on i Cor. xi. 7), ,being by nature ". Cf. Liturgy of S. _7ames (Hariimond, Litt., P. 45, quoted by Giff.), irCLLBLOV YKYOVIEV 6 7rPactt,;vwv,~wC'Lpxwvecasilk&v. At the same time, in later Greek, it is often a mere copula. Cf. Gildersleeve on Justin M-,:APOI.,i.,2. This participle represents the imperfect as well as the present tense. So probably here. ApircLyIL6v. In the absence of relevant evidence for this word, its precise significance must largely be determined by the context. Accordingly it must be discussed in close connection with T'o eiv. ~tua e. It Did not consider ra c. L. e. as an &p7rcLyIL6s.11 What is the relation of ra c. t. e. to fLop(H ? The words mean "the being on an equality with God " (R.V.). It is surely needless to make any fine distinctions here, as giff. does (Op. Cit., P. 242), between elvat twos as = equality of nature and elvclt torel as pointing to 11 the state and circumstances which are separable from the essence and therefore variable or accidental," or, with Lft., to say that twos would refer to the person. while lacl has in view the attributes. As a matter of fact the adverb l~we (neuter plural) is use.& in the most general sense, without any metaphysical subtleties, e.g., job. xi. 12, IvOpwiras 81 ilkxws viXtrCLL \6yoLS Ppo,r6s 8a ytvv-qr6s YVVCLLR~S 'Laft SV(p apliFL(TV; xxx. 19, iy-qwclk 86' FLe torcl Vn ~, IV Yi K&I WWO4 FLOV i ILEP(S. Cf. Thuc., iii., 14, two KCLI LKITCLL l(r iv; S h., Oed. R., 1188, 16AaS TWCL K,.r r6 709a t4ocLs 4vcLp OlLre, and elsewhere.

Thus no theological speculations can be based upon the word. Is r6 c. L. e. equivalent to lv IL. in spite of some Comm. there is absolutely nothing in the text to justify, the supposition. Plainly &Lop4~i has reference to nature . r6 4EIvcLL twcl Ge~ to a relation. In fact it is only a particular rendering of ApwcLyIL69 which suggested their equivalence. A more important question is Whether r6 c. L. e. was possessed by Christ in virtue of His being ly FLop. Gio~D. This will depend on the sense of &p*cL-yIL69. It is generally admitted now that &p7rcLyIL6s may be regarded as = ip7rcLylLcL. (See esp. Zahn, Luthardt's Zeitschr., 1885, pp. 244-249-) Cf. OemiLds, lit. = "the laying down," 46 ordaining " of a thing, which comes to mean "the thing laid down," the ordinance or statute; LXCLWFLds, lit. =a propitiating, appeasing, but usuallythe propitiatory offering, that by which propitiation is made (see Hatz., Einl., p. 18o). Myr., Hfm., Beet and others wish to keep the active meaning, and translate, " Did not consider the being on an equality with God as a means of robbing". But it seems impossible to acc-e-pt this sense when we have no hint of what is to be robbed. Lft., Hpt., Vinc. and others, regarding &ptrayix6s as = ip-irclylta, translate, "Did not look upon His equality with God as a prize to be clutched". That is to say, r'o c. E. 0. is something which He already possessed and resolved not to cling to. But will ApwaylA6s admit of this meaning? We cannot find any passage where Aprr4itw or any of its derivatives has the sense of "holding in possession," "retaining ". It seems invariably to mean "seize," "snatch violently ". Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense "grasp at " into one which is totally different, "hold fast ". Are we not obliged, then, to think of the &p7rQyl46s QpireLylLcL) as something still future, a res rafiienda? Cf. Catena on Mark X. 41 ff(quoted by Zahn), Jesus' answer to the sons of Zebedee, obic lo-rlv &pwayIL6s i 'rLILi, ,the honour is not one to be snatched ". Observe how aptly this view fits the context. In ver. iio, which is the climax of the whole passage, we read that God gave Jesus Christ as a gift (lXcLpi. o-cL,ro) the name above every name, i.e., the name (including position, dignity and authority) of Kv'pLos, Lord, the name which represents the O.T. Jehovah. But this is the highest place Christ has reached. He has always (in Paul's view) shared in the Divine nature (A. ecoz). But it is only as the result of His Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection and Exaltation that He appears to men as on an equality with God, that He is worshipped by them in the way in which Jehovah is worshipped. This position of K16PLOS is the reward and crowning-point of the whole process of His voluntary Humiliation. It is the equivalent of that ,rckeiwwts of which the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks. This perfection " He acquired as He successively seized the occasions which His vocation as author of salvation presented to Him, a process moving on the lines of His relations to mortal, sinful men " (Davidson, Hebrews, P. 208). Along the same lines He was raised to the dignity of Kv'PLOS, which is a relation to mankind. (See on the rela. tion of Christ as KV'PLOS to God, Somerville, op. cit., pp. 140-142.) This equality with God, therefore, consists in the KUPL6"s, the Lordship to which He has been exalted. " He did not regard the being on an equality with God as a thing to be seized, violently snatched." Cf. Hetiodor., Ethiofi., vii., 2of o'vX u'piraylLcL ob8i gpilatov iyclrCLL r6 wpayllct. He might have used the miraculous powers inherent in His Divine nature in such a way as to compel men, without further ado, to worship Him as God. Instead of that He was willing to attain this high' dignity by the path of humiliation, suffering and death. Is not this interpretation strongly corroborated by the narrative of the Temptation ? In that mysterious experience our Lord was tempted to reach Tb CIVQL torcl ea~ in the way of &pire'LCLV, forcing men out of sheer amazement to accept His claim and exalt Him as Lord. [Perhaps the curious negative expression OOX &pWCLYI~. K.,r.k. has been suggested by a comparison with the first Adam who sought to reach 11 equality with God 11 by means of &pwc'LEELY.] It is to be noted that the increased glory which Paul and all the N.T. writers regard as pertaining to Christ after His Resurrection has only to do with His dignity, His " theocratic position," not with His essential personality. (Cf. M6n6goz, Le Picki et la Redemption, p. 164.) He has simply become IV 8VV4fL4EL, that which He already was substantially. Cf. Rom. i- 4, ro-~P(ZV, 'I'QWOZ XpLo-roZ -ro; Kvp(ov ip,7)v. Also Luke XXIV. 26.-&U* C'CLVT6V t'ICIVW7e. Instead of appearing among men in the Divine iLop+4 and thus compelling them to render Him the homage which was His due, He 11 emptied Himself " of that Divine ILop+i and took the FL. of a bondservant. The Apostle does not specify that of which He emptied Himself, as the stress is laid upon the emptying," but with ILop. 8o4kov XcLpw'v added to explain what licivwte means, we are bound to conclude that he has in view its antithesis, IA. O*oZ. (So also Myr., Hfm., Alf., Weiffenb., Hpt., Bruce, Gore, etc. Fairbairn, Christ in Mod. Theol., pp. 476-477, tries to show that Christ emptied Himself of the "physical attributes" of Deity while retaining the "ethical ". But does this lead us any nearer a solution of the mystery in the depths of the Son's personality ?)

There is more, but please, don't waste my time citing watchtower literature that deceptively attempts to prove your point, while the whole passage does quite the opposite.

Hebrews 1:1-5

I generally use the KJV out of habit of discussing things with mormons, but have at my fingertips nine other english versions, many more recent than your list. However, I resource back to the underlying Greek were necessary. To the passage also add verse 8.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: “Rom. 9:5

Please note, your citation goes on " Rom. 9:5 is disputed. . . . It would be The . . . represent material skipped from the TNIDNTT. However, your citation is precisely as written in Should Christianity Abandon the Doctrine of the Trinity? by Michael A. Barber. This is another canned argument. It has already been shown that canned JW arguments do not fully or accurately present the views of the various 'proof texts' used. Here is another case.

2 Peter 1:1 - There is no problem distinguishing God and Christ as two individuals because of this verse. Matthew 21:12 uses the same construction when speaking of Jesus casting out those "selling and buying." Were the same persons buying and selling? These were two distinct groups mentioned here.

Please break it out into Greek for us. Please grace us with the verse that says "selling and buying", then we will compare construction

I do not have sufficient tome to make a full reply. It takes much longer to discuss the scriptures as I have done, than simply writing a list of scriptures. I know I asked the question, but I am explaining why it has taken me a lot of time to reply. (Besides having other things that need tending to).

You have been parroting watchtower related materials, not providing original arguments from scripture. I will be surprised if you are able to go deeper than what you have already posted, but please try.

497 posted on 12/22/2009 9:08:45 PM PST by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22
They could try to tell me that the translation is wrong but it won't fly. Charles Taze Russell couldn't read Greek on the witness stand and he sure as heck had no clue on translation. He took the Bible and rewrote it. He had NO idea what the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic said.

There's a reason that only the JW's use his translation. Because he twisted Scripture. You know it and I know it.

498 posted on 12/22/2009 9:11:19 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: FreedomOfExpression
I was asking where does the Bible say that Christ is the same person as God...

Your question does not make sense because it is based on a category error. If you asked where does the Bible teach that Christ is the same NATURE (or essence) as God at least your question would make sense. As it is, though, your use of the word "person" here is incoherent because you are confusing the Divine Persons and dividing the indivisible nature of Deity.

The Greek word theotetos, used of Christ in Colossians 2:9 is one of many, many places in Holy Scripture that teach the absolute Deity of Christ. The word means, "the state of being God". In other words, the verse is saying that whatever it is that makes God God, in all its completeness, Christ is in human form.

There are so many other irrefutable proofs of Christ's Deity in Scripture that one has to twist Scripture beyond recognition to deny this truth.

Cordially,

499 posted on 12/22/2009 9:16:39 PM PST by Diamond (He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Fortunately far more than your or I know it.

The similarities between the LDS cult and the LW cult are striking.

It is amazing that they have the temerity to turn their backs on on 2000 years of study by thousands of scholars that totally disprove anything that the cults can produce.

500 posted on 12/22/2009 9:17:19 PM PST by ejonesie22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 661-674 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson