Quote But we are not surprised are we! Manipulate away.I for one, am not.

Quote Please show evidence with verses and find supporting scriptures to confirm as you taught us to do.T8 already did. I quoted him. Which verse to you disagree with? Have you even read the verses he commented on?Quote Hi david,Since not one scripture supports the JW dogma that Jesus is Michael why do you defend it?Although no verse…[Read more]

Quote Hi David,Yes it is replete with symbolism but that gives nobody the right to allegorise away the fire prepared for the devil and his angels………..If only the Bible told us what this symbolic lake of fire represented….Oh, wait…”the lake of fire.  THIS MEANS THE SECOND DEATH.” (REV 20:14)Anyway, off topic, and very few agree with you…[Read more]

Seeking, you opened this thread by saying:ASAPH desires that all know He alone is “Jehovah” the most high over all the earth -Psa 83:17-18 KJV Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame,and perish: That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH,art the most high over all the earth.I found the following…[Read more]

You are on your own here Nick. Hey, isn't the “lake of fire” mentioned in the extremely highly symbolic book of Revelation?Aren't we specifically told what the lake of fire is?Yes and yes.

Quote What in the world kind of statement is this -But Rom10 is NOT NECESSARILY A QUOTEBut the one in Acts, definitely without question is a quote from Joel.  And the question is of “Jehovah” in the NT.JOEL 2:30-32““And I will give portents in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke. The sun itself will be turned into…[Read more]

Quote (942767 @ Feb. 17 2009,14:28)Hi:David indicated:God's name has meaning—“he causes to become.” Quote Joe 2:32 And it shall come to pass, whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call “Whosoever…[Read more]

Quote The JW teachings are bizarre and founded on man and his carnal ideas.But the watchtower casts a fearsome controlling shadow over it's adherents.For someone who teaches the grand daddy of all “fearsome controlling” beliefs (hellfire) I wouldn't talk.

I'll comment on this, but don't have time now.

I'm guessing no one will read this, except maybe Seeking, but this concerns God's name in the NT.  I find this subject quite interesting.  The following is taken from a booklet entitled: “The Divine Name.” (It's also interesting how the removal of God's name from the Bible in general has really made the trinity doctrine easier to a…[Read more]

Quote What is the sacred mystery of this name JEHOVAH?While ancient Hebrew was an everyday spoken language, this presented no problem. The pronunciation of the Name was familiar to the Israelites and when they saw it in writing they supplied the vowels without thinking (just as, for an English reader, the abbreviation “Ltd.” represents “Li…[Read more]

“I am Jehovah. And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them.” (Ex 6:2, 3) Since the name Jehovah was used many times by those patriarchal ancestors of Moses, it is evident that God meant that he manifested himself to them in the capacity of Jehovah only in a…[Read more]

Quote I also disagree with the Jehovah Witnesses' Christology as the preexistence of Jesus is at contradiction with the idea he was conceived in Mary's womb since no one is created twice.–kerwin.Which scripture says he was “created” again in the womb?Which scripture says “no one is created twice”?Here is an actual scripture: “With men this is i…[Read more]

I have to wonder:If Nick is never going to respond to anything I say, why would I care to say anything to him?I don't think Nick wants to discuss this.

Quote (david @ Feb. 16 2009,05:13)Nick, you seem completely incompetent in the area of discussion.  If one can only ask questions, how far will any discussion go?  Nick, do you want to discuss this?  (Since you never answer questions, I'll have to “assume” (as you often do) that you don't want to discuss this.)Nick, looking at what T8 said, it is…[Read more]

Quote (david @ Feb. 16 2009,05:01)Nick, I think we should start this with your strongest argument.  If you don't want to start it there and DISCUSS THIS, fine…I have other places to be.I know you think T8 is wrong.  I know you can't answer my questions.Again, no response and Nick did not want do consider what is his main argument–that Jesus c…[Read more]

Quote (david @ Feb. 16 2009,04:59)Quote Hi david,Are you leading to the conclusion that the only begotten son was not distinct from the angels but one of them?–Nick, page 2.NICK, This is another false assumption.  Does being distinct mean you cannot be described by the same word.Nick, you are distinct from us in this forum in that you are a…[Read more]

Quote (david @ Feb. 16 2009,04:36)mal·’akh′ (Hb. messenger/angel)ag′ge·los (Gk. messenger/angel)If Jesus is a malakh, would he not be God's chief malakh–his “arch” (chief) malakh?Jesus was “sent forth” by God to deliver God's words, not his own. (The Bible says this in many places.)Jesus is therefore a “malakh” and not only that, he would see…[Read more]

Quote (david @ Feb. 16 2009,04:22)Nick, I'd rather discuss this here, in the main thread.  3 others have been started all exactly the same.  I prefer to have one large thread than several little threads all discussing the same thing.I though we could start with T8's point above.  Is T8 wrong?So, we have a better idea what he is saying, let's lo…[Read more]

Nick, the fact that Jesus was a malakh is definitely written. And the fact that he was God's chief/primary/main malakh is also certain. He was God's chief malakh (archmessenger/archangel) without a doubt.There are other threads where other people argue that Jesus is an malakh and rightly so. But you are not willing to disucss anything or answer…[Read more]