Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think maybe it has something to do with the NWT adding the name "Jehovah" 237 times to the New Testament, where it wasn't there before.
ok, sietse, you must be commended for your bravery, although i am not entirely sure
how relevant these citations are, you may need to spell it out for me.
Maybe something about you not being qualified to cast any "first stones".
I don't know, just a guess.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat's way too narrow. A nominal Christian is a person whose Christianity differs from yours.
I say anyone who does not actively share in teaching and preaching others after the
manner of the Christ through a public ministry is a nominal Christian, that would
include you.
Originally posted by SeitseCommand you. Command you.
2Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.[/b]
Didn't do much for the 'exorcist' did it?
http://www.strangemag.com/exorcistpage1.html
There is NO devil, apart from the dis-illusioned within you.
Who should command me, apart from my own knowledge of unhurting to others, and bettering that?
-m.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI do not think KJ was out of line for asking what you mean by 'nominal' Christian. Given that this is what you mean, isn't your question kind of loaded? "Hey nominal Christian, why aren't you a real Christian?"
anything that is nominal is in name only, for example in accountancy there may be a
nominal account, the value of which is simply there as a matter of procedure, like
depreciation, which cannot be realised in any real terms, although its measured in
monetary value. Was it so difficult for you to look up the definition of nominal?
Of, rese ...[text shortened]... son's name: nominal shares.
Existing in name only.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nominal
Originally posted by LemonJelloIt goes beyond this. Calling one a "nominal" Christian is insulting. He's trying to goad the non-JW Christians here into defending ourselves against his rather narrow and self-serving definition of a Christian.
I do not think KJ was out of line for asking what you mean by 'nominal' Christian. Given that this is what you mean, isn't your question kind of loaded? "Hey nominal Christian, why aren't you a real Christian?"
I, for one, am not going to dance for him.
As I said, I'd rather hear him answer my question.
1 edit
Originally posted by Suziannenothing but excuses, oh dear. Point proven.
You say. Your ministry is public, is it?
Not rising to your bait, sorry.
I'd much rather hear you explain exactly why you do not believe in Grace, and how your unbelief qualifies you as a Christian.
Go ahead, we're waiting.
Originally posted by Suzianneconsidering there are over two hundred direct quotations from The Hebrew portion of
I think maybe it has something to do with the NWT adding the name "Jehovah" 237 times to the New Testament, where it wasn't there before.
Maybe something about you not being qualified to cast any "first stones".
I don't know, just a guess.
the Bible, in the so called New testament i think its rather appropriative we restore the
divine name which the translators of Christendom have systematically removed and
subjected their flocks to insipid renderings producing lukewarm Christians.
Originally posted by LemonJelloI dont think he was out of order either, but man he could have at least tried to engage
I do not think KJ was out of line for asking what you mean by 'nominal' Christian. Given that this is what you mean, isn't your question kind of loaded? "Hey nominal Christian, why aren't you a real Christian?"
his own mind and deduce a definition. How hard can it be? Instead he was
dumbfounded as if a piano had fell from the sky and landed inches away from his nose.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePerhaps some Christians have a more sophisticated interpretation of the Bible such that they need not slavishly adhere to the commands of its ancient human writers.
why dont you teach and preach in obedience to Christ's command at Matthew 28:19,20
and in view of Pauls example at Acts 20:20? dont you believe the Christ's words?
(Luke 11:23) . . .He that is not on my side is against me, and [b]he that does not gather with me scatters.[/b]
Even if, hypothetically speaking, the Bible is representative of a god that exists, that doesn't mean the Bible (as a means via which humans approximate the nature of this entity in this sense) should be taken to be an accurate description of the ways and wills of some god.
Originally posted by AgergI am sure they do, but in either case, they have supplanted the pure waters of truth,
Perhaps some Christians have a more sophisticated interpretation of the Bible such that they need not slavishly adhere to the commands of its ancient human writers.
Even if, hypothetically speaking, the Bible is representative of a god that exists, that doesn't mean the Bible, as a means via which humans approximate the nature of this entity in this sense, should be taken to be an accurate description of the ways and wills of some god.
with something else. It is not slavish as you erroneously assert, for we are all
governed by some principles, indeed, its refreshing to be a Christian.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am sure they do, but in either case, they have supplanted the pure waters of truth
I am sure they do, but in either case, they have supplanted the pure waters of truth,
with something else. It is not slavish as you erroneously assert, for we are all
governed by some principles, indeed, its refreshing to be a Christian.
So you keep saying, and so you keep failing to convince anyone.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat part of "where it wasn't there before" do you not get?
considering there are over two hundred direct quotations from The Hebrew portion of
the Bible, in the so called New testament i think its rather appropriative we restore the
divine name which the translators of Christendom have systematically removed and
subjected their flocks to insipid renderings producing lukewarm Christians.
They didn't "restore" the name "Jehovah" 237 times to the New Testament. It simply wasn't in the Greek (not Hebrew, I think you're confusing the Old and New there). They systematically added it.
I'd cite references, but you'd probably call them bogus, too.
Originally posted by AgergI don't know for sure, but I'm thinking this isn't your fight.
Perhaps some Christians have a more sophisticated interpretation of the Bible such that they need not slavishly adhere to the commands of its ancient human writers.
Even if, hypothetically speaking, the Bible is representative of a god that exists, that doesn't mean the Bible (as a means via which humans approximate the nature of this entity in this sense) should be taken to be an accurate description of the ways and wills of some god.
Robbie is looking for a throwdown between Christians here, and if a fight is what he wants, he may yet get one.