✴Jesus ✴

Originally posted by Pudgenik
In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Gospel of John. Chapter 1

That sums it up 🙂


Manny

Originally posted by Rajk999
God's will is that everyone be obedient to the commandments of Christ and follow after righteousness.

What you teach is something totally alien to the teachings of Christ.

God's will is that everyone be obedient to the commandments of Christ and follow after righteousness.

]

Quote me where I taught that a Christian should not be obedient to the commandments of Christ or should not follow after righteousnes.

Where did I teach disobedience to Christ's commandments?
Where did I teach not following after righteousness?

What you teach is something totally alien to the teachings of Christ.

Quote me on ONE SINGLE LINE of posting where I taught something "totally alien" to the teachings of Christ.

Use this very thread first.

If you have no quotations to prove your accusation, then you should retract it.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I don't care about 'love'. I am interested in whether we follow Jesus because it makes us better people, or we follow Jesus because we are part of a cult of personality.

I heard what you said, but you are wrong not to care about 'love'. It is the very nature of Jesus - God.

To answer your question, it is neither for me. I love Jesus. But I love and know the Father more. ok that sounds strange, but it is true. Jesus lead me to the Father years ago. We talk all the time. Is this strange for you too? It shouldn't be. The Father speaks to us all the time, our problem is not knowing how to listen.

But back to Jesus. I walk with Jesus, or should i say Jesus walks in me. Jesus is in my heart.

It isn't that we should follow Jesus, we should be vessels for Jesus in us.

Originally posted by Pudgenik
I heard what you said, but you are wrong not to care about 'love'. It is the very nature of Jesus - God.

To answer your question, it is neither for me. I love Jesus. But I love and know the Father more. ok that sounds strange, but it is true. Jesus lead me to the Father years ago. We talk all the time. Is this strange for you too? It shouldn't be. The F ...[text shortened]... is in my heart.

It isn't that we should follow Jesus, we should be vessels for Jesus in us.

Why should we be vessels? What is it that makes us want to be that?

Originally posted by SwissGambit

Why should we be vessels? What is it that makes us want to be that?

You should ask yourself that question the next time you feel "empty".

"Why is this not enough to FILL me ? Why am I still feeling empty as if there must be something MORE to life?"

Originally posted by menace71
That sums it up 🙂


Manny

Wow still unable to tell us why the text translated as 'the word was God' is not actually what the underling Greek text upon which it is based states, yup that sums it up alright, Christian religious bias imposing itself onto scripture. I doubt Jesus would approve.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Wow still unable to tell us why the text translated as 'the word was God' is not actually what the underling Greek text upon which it is based states, yup that sums it up alright, Christian religious bias imposing itself onto scripture. I doubt Jesus would approve.

So tell us what do you think it means?

Originally posted by Pudgenik
So tell us what do you think it means?

why dont you look up the original text and tell us why its translated as it is?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why dont you look up the original text and tell us why its translated as it is?

Robbie, the people who followed Korah in the book of Numbers - their original Hebrew language reading and writing skills were probably up to par.

It didn't stop them from wanting to stone Moses and return to Egyptian slavery, did it ?

I would imagine that King Saul had decent Hebrew reading and writing skills. It didn't stop him from wanting to kill David or prevent him from slaughtering the priests of Jehovah.

Paul had co-workers - fellow on his apostolic team who I bet could read and write Koine Greek fluently.

In spite of their skills some of them made shipwreck of their faith.

"Holding faith and a good conscience, concerning which some, thrusting these away, have become shipwrecked regarding the faith; Of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may be disciplined not to blaspheme." (1 Timothy 1:19,20)

"For Demas has abandoned me, having loved the present age ..." (2 Tim. 4:10).

" But avoid profane and vain babblings, for they will advance to more ungodliness, and their word will spread like gangrene, of whom are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who concerning the truth have misaimed, saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and overthrow the faith of some." (2 Timothy 2:16-18)

I am pretty sure that some of these colleagues of the Apostle Paul had ancient Greek reading and writing skills. In spite of this they became heretics trying to tear down God's economy. Or like Demas they just kind of dropped out of their ministry.

The Original Language card can only be played so far.

Originally posted by sonship
Robbie, the people who followed [b]Korah in the book of Numbers - their original Hebrew language reading and writing skills were probably up to par.

It didn't stop them from wanting to stone Moses and return to Egyptian slavery, did it ?

I would imagine that King Saul had decent Hebrew reading and writing skills. It didn't stop him from w ...[text shortened]... ind of dropped out of their ministry.

The Original Language card can only be played so far.[/b]

'your word is truth' - remember those words Jaywill, spoken by none other than the Christ himself, he also warned against letting the traditions of men make that word 'invalid'. In the interests of truth therefore it becomes rather imperative for the Christian to ask himself, what does the inspired word actually say? to dismiss it in terms of playing a hypothetical card is to diminish the words of the Christ, 'your word is truth', on no, for the truth seeking Christian, those words, 'your word is truth', take on a gravity that cannot nor will not be made subject to church traditions and the teaching of men who have more prominence often than the Christ himself, men like Calvin and Luther. So you can relegate it, dismiss it, circumvent it with carefully contrived arguments all you like, but you cannot ignore it for Gods word is truth and those who desire to drink freely from these live giving waters are doing so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
'your word is truth' - remember those words Jaywill, spoken by none other than the Christ himself, he also warned against letting the traditions of men make that word 'invalid'. In the interests of truth therefore it becomes rather imperative for the Christian to ask himself, what does the inspired word actually say? to dismiss it in terms of playi ...[text shortened]... is truth and those who desire to drink freely from these live giving waters are doing so.

, 'your word is truth', take on a gravity that cannot nor will not be made subject to church traditions and the teaching of men who have more prominence often than the Christ himself, men like Calvin and Luther.

Don't forget men like Arius, Charles T. Russell and Judge Rutherford.

So you can relegate it, dismiss it, circumvent it with carefully contrived arguments all you like, but you cannot ignore it for Gods word is truth and those who desire to drink freely from these live giving waters are doing so.

The life giving waters that proceed from the throne [one throne] of God and the Lamb (Rev. 22:1) .

And the living waters which proceed out of the believer's innermost being, which Holy Spirit your teachers say is just a force and not God Himself. (John 7:39) .

Originally posted by sonship

, 'your word is truth', take on a gravity that cannot nor will not be made subject to church traditions and the teaching of men who have more prominence often than the Christ himself, men like Calvin and Luther.

Don't forget men like Arius, Charles T. Russell and Judge Rutherford.

[quote]
So you can relegate it, dismiss it, circumv ...[text shortened]... , which Holy Spirit your teachers say is just a force and not God Himself. [b](John 7:39) .[/b]

Aruis, Rutherford and Russell dont have entire churches named after them, do they, epic fail, nor have they murdered anyone who opposes their doctrines, another epic fail.

The live giving waters are the nourishing words of Biblical truth, they dont proceed out of anywhere but the pages of Gods word and no amount of hocus pocus can negate the fact.

I remember I posted extensive material on the Holy spirit, you refused to read it and yet here you are rather hypocritically telling me what it is and expect me to stomach it, hard to respect that.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

Aruis, Rutherford and Russell dont have entire churches named after them, do they, epic fail, not have they murdered anyone who opposes their doctrines, another epic fail.

Calvin named no church after Calvin and most certainly would have objected to it being done.

Luther named no church after himself and certainly would have objected to it having been done.

Yes, naming churches after teachers is an offense to the truth and wrong.
But this does not mean everything taught by said teacher was wrong.

So I agree with you that there should NOT be a Lutheran Church or Wesleyan Church, absolutely. But that does not mean:

1.) Those teachers DESIRED churches to be named after them.

2.) They did not teach some vital truths.

The live giving waters are the nourishing words of Biblical truth, they dont proceed out of anywhere but the pages of Gods word and no amount of hocus pocus can negate the fact.

No amount of hocus pocus that Jesus is Michael the Angel will save your Jehovah's Witnesses from the charge of abject heresy. And I have seen the trumpet of God, voice of the archangel argument, so no need to repeat it.

You have a stark loyalty to your teachers. And I think you hold to that loyalty though your assembly hall does not carry his name officially. And I think you hold to that loyalty in spite of your realization that the teaching of an indwelling Michael the archangle as the indwelling Lord and Savior is totally against the New Testament.

While you may boast that your "church" doesn't carry his name, your loyalty to Russell and Rutherford are every bit as obsessive as the denominational name makers to Luther and Calvin.

But they (Russell and Rutherford) were wrong. And if I press you about the alleged indwelling of an archangel I think you will react with evasion.

Originally posted by sonship

[b]Aruis, Rutherford and Russell dont have entire churches named after them, do they, epic fail, not have they murdered anyone who opposes their doctrines, another epic fail.

Calvin named no church after Calvin and most certainly would have objected to it being done.

Luther named no church after himself and certainly would hav ...[text shortened]... if I press you about the alleged indwelling of an archangel I think you will react with evasion.[/b]

Ok I am going to cut to the chase Jaywill, what is it you want?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ok I am going to cut to the chase Jaywill, what is it you want?

Ok I am going to cut to the chase Jaywill, what is it you want?

To play a game of chess !!

Everything else we have already been through over the last few years.
I no longer expect you to listen to me on the matter of Jesus.