Originally posted by divegeester I can give you an example: the Jehovah's Witness church.
Do you know what the correct procedure for reporting child sex abuse is?
What has this got to do with John 1:1
Do you really think that attacking others in this way is a compensation for your own ignorance regarding spiritual matters. Seriously? Do you plan to continue attacking others in an attempt to compensate for your own chronic ignorance of spiritual matters? Do you realise what a dull and tedious contributor it makes you?
Originally posted by Eladar As long as you say it as well as I would, I will repeat your words.
Face it, your position is without scriptural support.
If you have anything to contribute to our understanding of John 1:1 then let it be heard, if not, then why are you here? Perhaps this is not the thread for you?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie What has this got to do with John 1:1
Do you really think that attacking others in this way is a compensation for your own ignorance regarding spiritual matters. Seriously? Do you plan to continue attacking others in an attempt to compensate for your own chronic ignorance of spiritual matters? Do you realise what a dull and tedious contributor it makes you?
Do you regard "attacking" as calling people:
- Devoid of reason
- Ignorant
- Tedious
- Progeny of daemons
- Odious
- Balloon head
-
Etc.
Besides I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your religious cult which has a sordid track record of covering up child sex abuse among its leaders; I'm doing this in this thread as a contrast to you, a self proclaimed JW and minister of God, insulting people in your usual style.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie If you have anything to contribute to our understanding of John 1:1 then let it be heard, if not, then why are you here? Perhaps this is not the thread for you?
I thought this thread was about John 1:1 not about the JW Bible's version of John 1:1.
Originally posted by leunammi Why would I refute the Bible, why would I want to?
Wouldn't you agree that telling a lie is tying to refute the Bible?
So why would you cling to a false teaching like the trinity?
If you go to a good Greek Interlinear you can easily see that the same exact Greek word, theos, is used at John 1:1 and 2 Co 4:4. So if you say that makes Jesus a part of a trinity doesn't that make Satan a part of the trinity too.
It's logic, not emotion.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie No he is telling you that there are other powerful spiritual entities that are termed gods and that to assume that when an entity is termed god it means that its a reference to the Almighty cannot be logically nor rationally substantiated. How this simply fact could evade you is nothing more than a testimony to your dimness, give it up you are out of your depth here.
Why don't you allow roigam to fight his own battles. Are you concerned that he lacks the ability to do so and therefore feel compelled to interject of his behalf. You seem to do this a lot.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie You have not enough knowledge. You don't know anything about translation,. You are in effect Biblically illiterate. Please don't flatter yourself that you went head to head, all you have is your dogmas and prejudices which often or not translates to religious bigotry, lets be realistic. Have you an idea what a predicate noun is? Can you tell us wh ...[text shortened]... is translated they way it is leading us to the inevitable conclusion that you really don't know.
We've been over this depth before and I showed you expert objective opinion which demonstrated that your claims the use of the "predicate noun" are off target as the NWT does not use them consistently. You ignored the evidence then and you would ignore it now with you usual head-in-the-sand attitude.
Originally posted by roigam Do your own homework.
You will benefit more.
What is noticeable about you roigam is your propensity to start threads and then disappear once the battle starts, usually under the pretence of going to bed. Galveston75 used to do this frequently as well I.e. Find excuses to avoid returning to his threads.
It seems to be motivated by a need to enter the fray, but compromised by the inability of you (and Galveston75) to adequately defend your position. Even Robbie Carrobie notices this behaviour by you which is why, despite his recent lack of forum engagement, he keeps jumping into vociferously defend you.
31 Dec '16 11:382 edits
John 1:1
Back to Top