- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Quote he aslo stated that if you were to know this rule there was no way you could deny the Trinity… thoughts anyone.
Hi A.There are Greek scholars who have degrees in their field and actually do know what they are talking about who are not JW's and who can accept “a god” as a possible translation. Whether they are right or not, they do exist.
So he was without question wrong if he is simply saying that there are no greek scholars who think that it could have been translated that way.
It is true that the vast majority of scholars favor translations with a trinitarian slant. But most scholars are trinitarians. Go figure.Also, you say that if someone understood that rule, there is no way they cold deny the trinity (as opposed to translating it “a god.”) This scripture in itself doesn't prove the trinity. No one scripture does. So simply understanding this rule to mean that it can't be translated “a god”, wouldn't or shouldn't in itself make someone believe in the trinity. Again, the way that question was worded seems to in itself show a trinitarian bias.
Let me say that the ones who translated the NWT knew what colwells rule stated. They did and do not feel that it applies.
Colwell's Rule is:
“A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb…A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun despite the absence of the article.”
Colwell wrote also:
“The following rules may be tentatively formulated….definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article..”-Journal of Biblical Literature,Vol.52,1933,p.20.
A Watchtower magazine said about this:
“Perhaps you noticed this scholar's wording that an anarthrous predicate noun that precedes the verb should be understood as definite “IF THE CONTEXT SUGGESTS” that. Further along in his arguement Colwell stressed that the predicate is indefinite in this position “only when the context demands it.” Nowhere did he state that ALL anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb in Greek are definite nouns. Not any inviolable rule of grammar, but CONTEXT must guide the translator in such cases.”-1975, p.703
Definitness is not proven by this rule, it is ASSUMED.
There are exceptions to this rule. It is not so much a rule, as it is a “general tendancy.”
I know I didn't really provide what you asked for in your PM. It's very late, and I need sleep.
What exactly do you want? All the statements that JW's have made on “cowell's rule”?Hi E,
You say
“Nick!! you still are obfuscating and denying what the Bible plainly says about Jesus, He is God, period”
Does the bible say
Jesus is God
or
Jesus is the Son of God
more frequently ?Quote (camrezaie @ Aug. 24 2006,18:42) “God created by Him and through Him” you just said god was created by god? what in the world…. ur crazy man
wow cam… you are so desperate to disagree with me, that you ended up disagreeing with the very scriptures themselves…Col 1:15-17 ESV He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (16) For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things were created through him and for him. (17) And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
so no… I am not crazy in the slightest…. but if you think this about the word of God… I have to wonder about you…
at any rate, this is not saying that God created God…. that is just silly… God the Son has always existed, He was never created… in fact, all 3 persons of the godhead were present at creation… at least, that is what the Scirptures say… at this point, given your opinion of what the scriptures do in fact say, I am not sure if that matters much to you or not…. hopefully it will some day…..
blessings
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 25 2006,08:02) Hi E,
You say
“Nick!! you still are obfuscating and denying what the Bible plainly says about Jesus, He is God, period”
Does the bible say
Jesus is God
or
Jesus is the Son of God
more frequently ?
ahhhh!! finally!! you admit that the Scriptures say that Jesus is God!!! well done Nick!Frankly, it doesn't matter to me which is said more, for me, the Bible is absolute and authoratative… if it says something once, that is enough for me… what about you Nick?
blessings
dude i dont know what ur talking about your the one who made a mistake in your words not me… you said god was created so therefore i am going to disagree with you because thats not what the bible says…
lol jesus is a theos yes thats correct…. stop being ignorant and figure out what theos means…. HERE IS THE CONCLUSION….
DOES IT SAY: Jesus is Jehovah???
Jehovah = REAL name of god…. Jehovah = most high over all of the earth (Psalm 83:18)
18 Let them know that you, whose name is the LORD—
that you alone are the Most High over all the earth.(if you dont know that LORD is where they took out Jehovahs name or the tetragrammaton JHVH and YHWH then you need to do some more research)
Where in the bible does it say that Jesus is Jehovah???
Let me ask you this question how manys times does it say satan is the devil, wildbeast, etc and how many times does it say hes God??? SAME CONCEPT, YET WE KNOW SATAN IS NOT GOD WHO IS MOST HIGH OVER ALL THE EARTH!! END OF STORY!!!! You cannot argue against this…. Jehovah is most high ALONE over all the earth, jesus is NOT jehovah…. the scriptures never say this… THEREFORE, you are wrong and you must admit it right now because of this lol….
if jehovah ALONE is most high over all the earth… and we know jesus is with Jehovah, Jehovah is not ALONE in heaven, he has Jesus and he has the Angels…. YET, the fact he out of EVERYONE in heaven, JEHOVAH, yes jehovah ONLY or jehovah ALONE, is most high over all the earth… NOT jesus and jehovah… JEHOVAH!!!!!!!!!!!!! good luck with ur arguement, chances are your probably just going to over look my post…. i can give you a billion more verses saying that Jehovah is god alone… if Jehovah is God alone, and we know that the name of the father is Jehovah, and we can both agree Jehovah is not Jesus because thats not what the trinity says, the trinity does not say the Son is the Father…. that would be incorrect, just look at those diagrams they made to explain the trinity that have an arrow between each one saying “is not”…. okay so if Jesus is not Jehovah, yet Jehovah is ALONE most high over all the earth… then why in the world are u arguing? you have absolutely nothing…. go ahead and compromise Jehovah by making 3 people most high over all of the earth…. just dont expect to gain the favor of God with your belief that compromises a million verses in the bible…
cam cam cam…. the sad silly man-made theories of the Jehovah's Witnesses are well known to me. In case you missed it, I already pointed out that I am well acquainted with the Witnesses, having studied with them for awhile, and after having concluded that they are a false organization founded by a false prophet, I still studied their methods and background as well, strictly in an objective sense as part of a class project in Anthropology, and another time in Sociology. In the process I became aware of their paganistic superstitious beliefs concerning the divine name. In this way, they are no different then the superstitious Jews who were afraid to speak aloud the name of God. Jesus on the other hand had no such problems, calling God Abba, and equating Himself with God by calling Himself the one of the divine names, ego eimi. And the fact that God is called by and calls Himself by many names is another point lost to the superficial an unscholarly treatises presented by the Witnesses. “For example, the expression “the God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob” serves to identify the true God as well as does the name “Jehovah.” More importantly, the New Testament does not use “Jehovah” once, but instead regularly uses “God” or “Lord” (“Lord” being the normal usage in quotations from the Old Testament). Thus the New Testament, at least as it stands, testifies by its lack of the name “Jehovah” that it is not essential to use it.
Because the evidence of the New Testament is obviously at odds with the JWs' teaching on the divine name, they have inserted the name Jehovah 237 times in their NWT New Testament. We need, then, to consider the arguments used by the JWs in defense of “restoring” the name Jehovah to the New Testament. *THE DIVINE NAME IN THE SEPTUAGINT*
The “Septuagint” (for which the abbreviation “LXX” is standard) was a translation of the Old Testament (“OT”) from Hebrew into Greek that was produced in the third century B.C., and from which the New Testament (“NT”) frequently quotes. In most versions of the LXX (which have come down to us through ancient manuscript copies), the word “Lord” (Greek _kurios_) is used in place of the divine name, and this practice is also followed in all the thousands of ancient NT Greek manuscripts that have survived.
In order to counter this evidence, JWs argue that “Jehovah” was used in the original LXX and NT manuscripts, and that the versions which used _kurios_ were produced after the first century by apostate scribes. They base this claim on some pre-NT manuscripts of the LXX containing the divine name which have been discovered in this century.
It is unnecessary here to discuss all the pros and cons of this theory. Several recent studies have been done which show that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the divine name was used in the original LXX, though everyone admits that _some_ (not many) copies of the LXX did use it. These studies point out that the manuscripts on which the theory is based all contain signs that they were not typical examples of the LXX. Furthermore, internal evidence from the LXX itself shows that from the beginning it must have used _kurios_ in place of the divine name.[8]
Even if it should turn out that the original LXX _did_ use the divine name, that would not necessitate that the NT writers used it when quoting from the OT, since they did not always follow the LXX exactly even when quoting from it.[9] The only way we can know what the NT writers did is by examining the NT itself.
*THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE DIVINE NAME*
Thousands of NT manuscripts (in either portions or its entirety) written in Greek, its original language, have been found. So far, none of these manuscripts, which date from the second century and later, have contained the divine name. This the JWs admit.[10] All the manuscripts have regularly used _kurios_ in places where the NT quotes from or alludes to an OT passage which in the original Hebrew used the divine name. Thus the NT, as it has actually been preserved in the manuscripts which have come down to us, definitely _does not_ contain the divine name.
Despite this evidence, JWs argue that, like the Septuagint, the NT must have _originally_ contained the divine name. They contend, for example, that Matthew wrote his gospel originally in Hebrew and would therefore have naturally employed the Hebrew name “Jehovah.”[11] Although it is _possible_ that Matthew wrote an earlier version of his gospel in Hebrew, this is not a certain fact; no copy of it has survived. Moreover, even if Matthew had used the divine name in a now-lost Hebrew gospel, this in no way proves that the rest of the NT writers did the same in their original Greek writings.
JWs also appeal to a large number of medieval translations of the NT into Hebrew which frequently used the divine name in place of _kurios._[12] However, since these manuscripts were translated from the Greek, and were produced over a thousand years after the NT was written, they cannot lend support to the theory that the NT originally contained the divine name.
Ultimately, the JW belief in this matter rests not on these textual considerations, but on their understanding of what the NT actually has to say about the divine name. JWs argue that the practice of using substitutes such as “Lord” and “God” for the divine name was a superstitious practice which developed among the Jews as a way of avoiding taking the name of Jehovah in vain. Jesus, they reason, would not “have followed such an unscriptural tradition,” given His forthright condemnation of the Pharisees for their traditions.[13] They maintain that Jesus showed His respect for God's name when He taught the disciples to pray, “Let your name be sanctified” (Matt. 6:9 NWT), and by His statement in prayer to the Father, “I have made your name manifest” (John 17:6 NWT). They argue on this basis that when Jesus read aloud in the synagogue from Isaiah 61:1-2, which contained the divine name in Hebrew, He must have spoken the divine name rather than a substitute.[14] The apostles are said to have continued Jesus' teaching in this regard by their referring to Christians as “a people for his name” (Acts 15:14-15 NWT).[15]
This line of reasoning is mistaken at every step. First, the practice of substituting “Lord” or “God” for the divine name can be traced _as far back as the OT._ For example, Psalm 53 is nearly identical word for word with Psalm 14, but four times substitutes “God” in place of “Jehovah” (Ps. 14:2,4,6,7; 53:2,4,5,6).[16] This one example proves that using substitutes for the divine name is not an “unscriptural practice.”
Second, Jesus evidently used various substitutes, as can be seen from passages where He was not quoting the OT (e.g., “Power,” Matt. 26:64; “Heaven,” Luke 15:21).[17]
Third, Jesus' references to God's “name” are striking in that in the immediate context, even in the NWT, neither the name “Jehovah” nor any substitute is used. Thus, the model prayer which Jesus taught to His disciples addresses God not as “Jehovah,” but as “our Father” (Matt. 6:9; _see_ also Luke 11:2). Not once in Jesus' long prayer in John 17 does He address God as Jehovah, but always as “Father” (John 17:1,11,21,24,25). In these passages God's “name” evidently stands for His _character_ and _reputation;_ while Christians are to honor these, there is no concern expressed that they _use_ the divine name.
In fact, even with the use of “Jehovah” in the NWT Jesus appears to have used the divine name very sparingly. In the NWT it occurs in 20 texts reporting the words of Jesus, most of which are quotations from the OT (e.g., Matt. 4:4; Mark 12:29-30; Luke 3:35; John 6:45). By contrast, Jesus used the word “God” over 180 times and “Father” roughly 175 times.
Fourth, if Jesus had used the divine name in His speech and when reading aloud from the OT, His doing so would have been harshly condemned by the Jews (since they
opposed doing so). Yet, we never read of any controversy over His use of the divine name.Fifth, the apostles' teaching likewise does not show any evidence of concern for the use of the name “Jehovah.” In Acts 15, when James speaks of a people for God's name, even in the NWT James does not use the name “Jehovah” except when quoting from the OT (Acts 15:17); elsewhere he speaks simply of “God” (15:14,19). James's point is not that Christians are a people who _use_ the name “Jehovah,” but a people who _identify_ themselves with the true God and _honor_ what His “name” represents.
As I have already explained, the essential significance of the name “Jehovah” (YHWH), whatever its original precise meaning, is that He is the Lord. Thus, however the practice of substituting “Lord” for the divine name arose, in God's sovereign purpose this practice reflected the true significance of His name.
Finally, the claim that the divine name was removed from the NT by apostate scribes and an unscriptural substitute put in its place, besides contradicting the Bible's own teaching and having no evidence to support it, contradicts one of the JWs' own teachings about the Bible. Repeatedly one finds in their publications strong affirmations that “the Bible has not been changed” through the process of copying and recopying over the centuries.[18] This affirmation is not only factually correct, it is necessarily true if the Bible is to be believed as God's unchanging Word (Isa. 40:8; 55:11; Matt. 5:18).
*JESUS IS JEHOVAH*
JWs deny that Jesus is Jehovah, maintaining instead that He is a created angel. Although the NT does not say in just so many words, “Jesus is Jehovah,” in more than one place it does say that “Jesus is Lord,” which is the clearest way the NT _could_ affirm that Jesus is Jehovah (Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11). Elsewhere the NT calls Jesus “Lord” in contexts where it is quoting or paraphrasing OT texts which in the Hebrew used the divine name (e.g., Heb. 1:10-12; 1 Pet. 2:3; 3:14-15). Moreover, when the apostle Paul uses the expression “one Lord” (e.g., 1 Cor. 8:6), it is clear from the context that he always has _Jesus_ in mind, even though “one Lord” in the OT means “one Jehovah” (Deut. 6:4).[19]
The JWs have attempted to turn this evidence on its head by arguing that the substitution of “Lord” for the divine name in the NT resulted in “confusion” between the Lord Jehovah and the Lord Jesus. They have recently found an ally in this claim in Bible scholar George Howard, who also supports their claim that the original Septuagint used the divine name.[20]
The evidence from the NT, however, contradicts the JWs' (and Howard's) theory. As already noted, the claim that the NT originally used the divine name contradicts the manuscript evidence and the teaching of the NT. Moreover, it can be shown that if “Jehovah” is substituted for “Lord” in the NT selectively in order to avoid Jesus being called Jehovah, the passages where this is done become incoherent. This is especially clear in Romans 10:9-13 where Paul's argument depends on the “Lord” of verse 13 (who must be _Jehovah,_ since it is a quotation from Joel 2:32) being the same as the “Lord” (_Jesus_) of verse 9.
*WHO IS ON JEHOVAH'S SIDE?*
JWs take great pride in their constant use of the name Jehovah, even to the point of calling themselves “Jehovah's Witnesses.” Ironically, the passage of Scripture on which this name is based indicates that they are not _faithful_ witnesses to Jehovah, since it states that the primary truth to which those witnesses were to testify was that Jehovah is the _only_ God and Savior (Isa. 43:10-11). By their teaching that Jesus was a created god and a divine savior _under_ Jehovah, the JWs prove themselves unfaithful witnesses.
A faithful witness of Jehovah would not systematically distort His Word, as this series has shown that JWs do. Nor would such a witness diminish His greatness and deny His incarnation in Christ. Though they mouth His name, JWs have demonstrated by their perversions of His Word, the Bible, that they are not truly “on Jehovah's side” (Ex. 32:26).
*NOTES*
1 _The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever_ (New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society [hereafter WTBTS], 1984), 6. 2 On Exodus 3:14, especially as it relates to John 8:58, see this author's _Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989), 121-29. 3 Charles R. Gianotti, “The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH,” _Bibliotheca Sacra_ 142 (Jan.-Mar. 1985):38-51. 4 _Reasoning from the Scriptures_ (WTBTS, 1985), 148-49, 425. 5 _Ibid.,_ 148-49. 6 On this and related points see Duane Magnani, _The Heavenly Weatherman_ (Clayton, CA: Witness Inc., 1987). 7 _Aid to Bible Understanding_ (WTBTS, 1971), 885-86. 8 See especially Albert Pietersma, “Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original LXX,” in _De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on His Sixty-fifth Birthday,_ ed. Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox (Mississauga, Ontario: Benben Publications, 1984), 85-101, and Doug Mason, _JEHOVAH in the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation_ (Manhattan Beach, CA: Bethel Ministries, 1987). 9 This may be verified by studying Gleason L. Archer and Gregory Chirichigno, _Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament_ (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983). 10 _Divine Name,_ 23. 11 _Ibid.,_ 24. 12 _Ibid.,_ 27. 13 _Ibid.,_ 14. 14 _Ibid.,_ 15. 15 _Ibid.,_ 16. 16 Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, _In Search of God: The Meaning and Message of the Everlasting Names,_ trans. Frederick H. Cryer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 15, 209 (n. 2). 17 _Ibid.,_ 17. 18 _Reasoning from the Scriptures,_ 63-64. 19 D. R. DeLacey, “'One Lord' in Pauline Christology,” in _Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie,_ ed. Harold H. Rowdon (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1982), 191-203. 20 George Howard, “The Tetragram and the New Testament,” _Journal of Biblical Literature_ 96 (1977):63-83.
————-
End of document, CRJ0031A.TXT (original CRI file name), “Jehovah's Witnesses and the Divine Name” release A, December 1, 1993 R. Poll, CRI””
Here is what you are also missing in regard to the difference between Satan and Jesus…. Satan is called a FALSE god…. is that your claim about Jesus as well cam? Is Jesus a god, just a false one? There… I just did the impossible according to you!! LOL…. I feel like I am a United States Marine again!!
We could always do the impossible, it just might take a little longer then usual 
…. However, in this case, it took no time and very little effort….. ROFLOL!!!
I have also read, with some amusement, your claim that the Witnesses are the only true church due to their agreement with one another. Once while standing around at the close of one of the theocratic missionary meetings I attended, another witness made this claim. However I asked him what would happen to him if he disagreed with the Watchtower organization, say…. on the matter of the celebration of birthdays, or blood transfusion, or any other teaching coming from Bethel? He had to admit that he would be disfellowshipped. So I pointed out to him that it is no special thing to me that an organization that enforces lockstep agreement with themselves by threatening anyone who dares to disagree with them with being ostracized is all in “unity” with one another. It is a false unity accomplished by psychological manipulation, a technique common to all cults. At this point in the conversation a rather embarrassed and pregnant silence was followed by someone changing the subject. 
So no… your post is not being overlooked, nor are your “arguments”, in fact they are so juvenile, rather it is hard NOT to notice them, they remind me of someone at a Mexican birthday party flailing away blindly at a piñata!! lol….
You continue to misrepresent and apparently misunderstand what Trinitarians believe, at least I* hope this is the case, otherwise you are being downright deceptive and intentionally misrepresenting us. I hope the former is the case, and not the latter. So, for the last time, we have no problem saying that there is only one God. Got it? Clear enough for you? In fact, it is only the Trinitarian perspective that can make sense of Jesus being called God, because if the Jehovah’s Witnesses were consistent they would have to admit that they are polytheists, or, at the very least, binatarians. But they can't even attain to this because there own reasoning goes like this:
there is only one true God
but Jesus is called God
therefore Jesus must be a false god!Once I was going door to door witnesses to others and came upon a lady who was a Jehovah’s Witness. I asked her the simple question: how many true Gods are there? She answered one, without hesitation. I then asked her to turn to John 1:1 in her New World Translation. There it says quite plainly that Jesus, the Logos, is “a” god. Well, I pointed out to her that if there was only one true God, and Jesus was not that God (in some sense or another) then it manifestly follows that Jesus must be a false god!! This was more then she could handle. I actually became afraid for her, that she was going to have a nervous breakdown… she started sputtering, tried to change the subject, and finally, when I would not leave the issue, she said she would have to get back with me when she talked to some elders at her Hall. I gave her my phone number, but she never called.
And thus the JWs are guilty of the vilest blasphemy against the Son of God, by calling him a god in their own bible! And yet, they do not admit He is the true God. It is only if we conceive of God as the Bible speaks of God in the great shema of the OT, as “achad” (and of course the other descriptions of God found throughout the Bible), as a plural unity, that we can make sense of the entire Bible's claims concerning the Christ. Jesus is God, and he is not a false God!!!! If He is God, and so is the Father, (and the Holy Spirit but lets not go there just yet), then in some profound sense, Jesus and the Father must be united in a way that preserves the truth that there is only 1 God, yet both Jesus and the Father are considered to be truly (true) God. This is what Trinitarians believe.
So I urge you, (and all others) for your own sake, to stop misrepresenting the beliefs of others now. You have been told the truth about what we believe. Future misrepresentations can only be construed as lying, and we know what the Bible says about liars, don’t we? This is not a matter of agreement cam, please do not misunderstand me. You are of course free to disagree all you like. America is quite lenient with people who hold any number of false cultic belief systems. But please do not misrepresent me or my beliefs in the future, ok? Don’t bring up such patently ridiculous “objections” that Jesus created Himself, the Jesus was His own father, and other such nonsense. Is actually embarrassing in that I am embarrassed for anyone so desperate to prove their point that they would stoop to such outright misrepresentations.
blessings
hey dude read it for your self
1 Corinthians 8:4-6
4 Now concerning the eating of foods offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.there are MANY lords and gods… there is only one true god, Jehovah… Jesus is not Jehovah… your most tragically mistaken…
in other words, you say “don't bother me the facts, I have already made up my mind contrary to them” LOL!!!
further, you prove this by not even reading what it is that I wrote… or wait… because I am apostate, you can't read those either!!!
but wait… why are you reading anyone's posts here… other than David's…? we are all apostate according to the Watchtower organization!!! Careful there cam… you may yet get disfellowshipped!!!!
I guess it needs to be pointed out that the fact that you will read some non or even anti Watchtower writing, and not others, is yet one more example of the shallow inconsistent traits found throughout the organization… so in that sense, I guess, you are a shingin example of what a Jehoavah's Witness should be…. !!! lol….
Quote (epistemaniac @ Aug. 25 2006,14:49) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 25 2006,08:02) Hi E,
You say
“Nick!! you still are obfuscating and denying what the Bible plainly says about Jesus, He is God, period”
Does the bible say
Jesus is God
or
Jesus is the Son of God
more frequently ?
ahhhh!! finally!! you admit that the Scriptures say that Jesus is God!!! well done Nick!Frankly, it doesn't matter to me which is said more, for me, the Bible is absolute and authoratative… if it says something once, that is enough for me… what about you Nick?
blessings
Hi E<
I have not denied the divine origins of the Son of God, the Word.
I believe what is written in Phil 2.5f
” 5(A)Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in (B)Christ Jesus,6who, although He Âexisted in the (D)form of God, (E)did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7but [a](F)emptied Himself, taking the form of a (G)bond-servant, and (H)being made in the likeness of men.”
Of what did the Son empty himself Ebefore coming?
Power?
Knowledge?
Glory?
All his advantages over us?im not even baptised yet i cant get disfellowshipped lol…. im sorry ive wasted my time reading all of that stuff, anything ive read from an anti jehovahs witness website is completely false why should i waste my time with the junk your copying and pasting? talk to me with your own words if you wish to get anywhere because i dont bother with apostasies any longer…
Hi cam,
“seek ye first the kingdom of God and everthing else will be added to you”-includes fellowship.Hi cam,
Then make sure they are part of the body of Christ.
Acts 4.9f
” 9if we are on trial today for (A)a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well,10let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that (B)by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom ÂGod raised from the dead–by this name this man stands here before you in good health.
11″(D)He is the (E)STONE WHICH WAS (F)REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone.
12″And there is salvation in (G)no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
