Originally posted by robbie carrobie 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.
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".
Originally posted by robbie carrobie 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.
That's way too narrow. A nominal Christian is a person whose Christianity differs from yours.
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]
Command you. Command you.
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?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie 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
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?"
Originally posted by LemonJello 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?"
It 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, for one, am not going to dance for him.
As I said, I'd rather hear him answer my question.
Originally posted by Suzianne 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.
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.
Originally posted by LemonJello 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 dont think he was out of order either, but man he could have at least tried to engage
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.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie 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]
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.
Originally posted by Agerg 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.
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.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie 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.
I am sure they do, but in either case, they have supplanted the pure waters of truth So you keep saying, and so you keep failing to convince anyone.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie 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.
What part of "where it wasn't there before" do you not get?
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 Agerg 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.
I don't know for sure, but I'm thinking this isn't your fight.
Robbie is looking for a throwdown between Christians here, and if a fight is what he wants, he may yet get one.
26 Apr '11 15:19
Question for nominal Christians
Back to Top