@RJHinds

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well thank goodness for that and just for the record, these are biblical verses, not
watchtower passages. what an embarrassment you are RJH.

hehehe HalleluYah !!!

Isa 9:6 how come the child is called Eternal father? if the child had a beginning then how can the child rightly be called eternal anything?




Manny

6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.



www.biblegateway.com

Manny

Originally posted by menace71
Isa 9:6 how come the child is called Eternal father? if the child had a beginning then how can the child rightly be called eternal anything?




Manny

already answered, you did not accept it then, i see no reason why you will accept it
now. So lets get this, the passage does not state that Jesus is Almighty God, then why
are you trying to portray something that is not explicit in the text. Why dont you have
a go, Jaywill could not bring himself to answer it honestly, neither could RJH, lets see if
you can do any better than your fellow 'integrity keepers'.

Again, why are you trying to portray something that is not explicit in the text.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh i knew it, i just wanted you to say it, so there are other 'gods', then in the Biblical
cannon, other than Jehovah. Have you any idea what the Hebrew term is and its
Greek equivalent, if you had it might give you a better understanding of why the term
is used.

Satan was the god of this world, which is why you and everyone else needs
to make sure when your refering to God you do so with a "G" not a "g" since
they mean two different things.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Satan was the god of this world, which is why you and everyone else needs
to make sure when your refering to God you do so with a "G" not a "g" since
they mean two different things.
Kelly

If there is a textual basis then the translators should take this into consideration when
rendering the verse either with a lower case g or a capital G, I think this is a far more
valid basis that on distinguishing Christ from Satan, dont you? after all, were not
children.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If there is a textual basis then the translators should take this into consideration when
rendering the verse either with a lower case g or a capital G, I think this is a far more
valid basis that on distinguishing Christ from Satan, dont you? after all, were not
children.

You understanding is still that of a child, IMO.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You understanding is still that of a child, IMO.

I am interested what the Biblical text states, why do you continually portray elements
that are not explicitly stated in the Biblical text?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am interested what the Biblical text states, why do you continually portray elements
that are not explicitly stated in the Biblical text?

Did not God provide you with a brain for you to reason with? Yes. Why don't
you use it to reason out what is true from what is written rather than deny
the truth because of a lack of an explicit statement that you wish to see?
The text says "Mighty God" along with "Everlasting Father" by any ones
reason this should indicate this child to be incarnated is the only true God.
The fact that he is called many things and all of them are not included here
should not be a reason for you to deny the truth of the scriptures. You
know that God has many names that He is called and Isaiah only mentions
a few here. The fact that the Mighty God and Everlasting Father is not
also called Almighty does not mean God is not "almighty" does it?

Something to consider for all those on either side of the debate.

Is this an inetllect problem or spiritual blindness?

If spiritual blindness then may I suggest merely using logic is not the answer?

It reminds me of a debate I got into with someone who was prochoice. I was in rare form that day and landed punch after punch without much of a rebuttal. Then at the end of the debate I could tell they were about to capitulate. In fact, she began by saying that she knew I was right!!!!! But...(longest pause in the history of man).....she said she still thought that women should have the right to abortions anyway and walked away.

So there ya go!! If you ask me, logic is only half the battle, if that. Also, I think we have all been at the other end of the debate all bloody and beaten. However, as we all know just because you lose a debate does not mean you are wrong. In the end, you go with your gut.

Originally posted by whodey
Something to consider for all those on either side of the debate.

Is this an inetllect problem or spiritual blindness?

If spiritual blindness then may I suggest merely using logic is not the answer?

It reminds me of a debate I got into with someone who was prochoice. I was in rare form that day and landed punch after punch without much of a rebut ...[text shortened]... w just because you lose a debate does not mean you are wrong. In the end, you go with your gut.

Well, robbie has not even gotten to the point of using logic.
He will not even admit he has a logic problem, so the spiritual
blindness could be a part of his problem, but I think we should
at least try to get past the logic problem. Then, of course, he
is still free to believe as he wishes. He at least accepts the
Holy Bible, at least one translation, as being truth, which is
more than the atheists will do. So there is no reasoning from
the scriptures at all with the atheists becasue of their complete
blindness.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, robbie has not even gotten to the point of using logic.
He will not even admit he has a logic problem, so the spiritual
blindness could be a part of his problem, but I think we should
at least try to get past the logic problem. Then, of course, he
is still free to believe as he wishes. He at least accepts the
Holy Bible, at least one translation ...[text shortened]... no reasoning from
the scriptures at all with the atheists becasue of their complete
blindness.

why are you portraying elements that are not explicitly stated in the Biblical text? This
has nothing to do with me personally and its a sad reflection of your integrity that you
are trying to make it personal, again, why are you continually portraying elements that
are not explicitly stated in the Biblical text.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why are you portraying elements that are not explicitly stated in the Biblical text? This
has nothing to do with me personally and its a sad reflection of your integrity that you
are trying to make it personal, again, why are you continually portraying elements that
are not explicitly stated in the Biblical text.

How many times do you want me to answer this question? It is in the
Biblical text, by the way.

Did not God provide you with a brain for you to reason with? Yes. Why don't
you use it to reason out what is true from what is written rather than deny
the truth because of a lack of an explicit statement that you wish to see?
The text says "Mighty God" along with "Everlasting Father" by any ones
reason this should indicate this child to be incarnated is the only true God.
The fact that he is called many things and all of them are not included here
should not be a reason for you to deny the truth of the scriptures. You
know that God has many names that He is called and Isaiah only mentions
a few here. The fact that the Mighty God and Everlasting Father is not
also called Almighty does not mean God is not "almighty" does it?

Originally posted by RJHinds
How many times do you want me to answer this question? It is in the
Biblical text, by the way.

Did not God provide you with a brain for you to reason with? Yes. Why don't
you use it to reason out what is true from what is written rather than deny
the truth because of a lack of an explicit statement that you wish to see?
The text says "Mighty God" ...[text shortened]... lasting Father is not
also called Almighty does not mean God is not "almighty" does it?

this should indicate this child to be incarnated is the only true God - RJH,

no its doesn't, there is nothing in the text to state that Jesus is the Almighty nor God
incarnate, infact the Bible states that mere human judges are also refered to as gods,
angels as god-like ones, you are therefore making it up,

I shall ask again, why are you portraying elements that are not in the Biblical text.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this should indicate this child to be incarnated is the only true God - RJH,

no its doesn't, there is nothing in the text to state that Jesus is the Almighty nor God
incarnate, infact the Bible states that mere human judges are also refered to as gods,
angels as god-like ones, you are therefore making it up,

I shall ask again, why are you portraying elements that are not in the Biblical text.

Your Watchtower Society says God the Father created Jesus, the Word and
the Son of God, and then Jesus created everything else. Then who do you
think is the life giving Spirit that gives life to all the created creatures?