2 edits
Originally posted by jaywilli wouldn't dare, there's no way i could in a good conscience claim anything like that for the protestant churches, not given their record of involvement in warfare that is. I shall leave the apologetics to you and the other victims.
[b]========================
Jaywill may claim that it is some protestant church, how are we to know? well it should be evident in those who are
=========================
If I want to write something about that I will.
Don't try to assume to write it for me.[/b]
Originally posted by FabianFnasIt's not my mother tongue either, it's just that you had this 'mistake' several times in a row in several posts, so I thought I'd correct... ;-)
And renars - If I get a penny of any misspelling I see here at RHP, I would be rich very quickly. Even if I get it from those having English as there mother tounge. (But of course you're right.) Btw: A sentence should always start with a capital letter, like in 'Hey Rajk999, no need to ...' 🙂
Originally posted by FabianFnasBut the Bible is not interpretable as you say. If God is behind the Bible as most religious people contend, why would he make it so confusing, if it is?
My purpous to ask you these questions is to learn, not about the text of the bible, I can read for myself, but the interpreation by the christians, in this case, a representant of the JW interpretation.
A quote from the bible doesn't say anything about your opinion in the matter. The bible is interpretable, because if it wasn't then the christians woul ...[text shortened]... our beliefs, and therefore also JW's beliefs, and where they differs from other churches.
2Pet 1:20, 21.
So this is the catch 22. Is the bible only one truth that man is trying to find or is there multiple and varying truths?
Originally posted by galveston75But the Bible is not interpretable as you say
But the Bible is not interpretable as you say. If God is behind the Bible as most religious people contend, why would he make it so confusing, if it is?
2Pet 1:20, 21.
So this is the catch 22. Is the bible only one truth that man is trying to find or is there multiple and varying truths?
There are around 38,000 demoninations of Christianity, i would say that's pretty good evidence that in can be interpreted which ever way someone likes.
If God is behind the Bible as most religious people contend why would he make it so confusing, if it is
That doesn't make it true though. You know as well as me the Bible was authored by many different people over a long period of time. Men not God. I know the Bible is often referred to as either the 'inspired' or 'revealed' word of God, but the facts of the matter remain it was written by men.
I could write a book about, lets say Bret Favre, i have never met him or spoke to him. If i then cliamed that this book was the 'inspired' or 'revealed' word of Bret Favre people might think i was a touch daft, and rightly so.
Originally posted by galveston75A proof that the bible is interpretable is that there are numerous bible translations, of which noone is like another. The translators interprete the bible differently.
But the Bible is not interpretable as you say. If God is behind the Bible as most religious people contend, why would he make it so confusing, if it is?
2Pet 1:20, 21.
So this is the catch 22. Is the bible only one truth that man is trying to find or is there multiple and varying truths?
If the bible was uninterpretable, there would only be one translation.
So of course there are different ways to interprete the bible. I thought this was obvious.
Originally posted by FabianFnasBut these are all mans interpretations, not Gods. The original writings were written one way, one writting and one meaning. It is man that has changed words and meanings. And as much as most of you will disagree, it has influanced false teachings, myths and certianly opinions that have not always been for the advancement of the truth. And even more is the influance that Satan has had on the thousands of opinions that come from ones who use the Bible to promote their ideals such as the Trinity. It is not taught in the Bible anywhere but they take a couple scriptures that they've been able to twist into something that there not and totally ignor the rest of the multitude of scriptues that do not teach the Trinity in anyway..
A proof that the bible is interpretable is that there are numerous bible translations, of which noone is like another. The translators interprete the bible differently.
If the bible was uninterpretable, there would only be one translation.
So of course there are different ways to interprete the bible. I thought this was obvious.
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobThere are around 38,000 demoninations of Christianity, i would say that's pretty good evidence that in can be interpreted which ever way someone likes.
[b]But the Bible is not interpretable as you say
There are around 38,000 demoninations of Christianity, i would say that's pretty good evidence that in can be interpreted which ever way someone likes.
If God is behind the Bible as most religious people contend why would he make it so confusing, if it is
That doesn't make it true thoug r 'revealed' word of Bret Favre people might think i was a touch daft, and rightly so.[/b]
Denominational divisions however are due to other factors. Amongst Protestant divisions, the major reason would be nationality. German Calvinists migrate to America, find American Calvinism to their disliking, and establish their own ministry. So we end up with a proliferation of related but separate denominations, German Lutheran or Church of Scotland or Presbyterian to name a few prominent examples in my city. Another factor is politics too. An issue for all churches is where authority resides, who appoints ministers and who is responsible for property. Some churches split because it makes more logistical sense. It might give them greater control over their church property or more power in pastoral appointments. The reasons can be complex.
Furthermore, the major divisions of Christianity (Catholic vs Orthodox vs Protestant) are not because of different interpretations of the Bible but because of philosophical differences about the nature of revelation. Catholics believe that revelation is always safeguarded by the Church who authored the Bible and makes definitive statements about it; Orthodox generally agree but do not accept papal primacy to the same extent; Protestants in contrast argue that the Scripture is the sole authority and reject the authority of any church. The three divisions are not interpreting the Bible differently but putting forward different views of the relationship between revelation, the Bible and church.
Originally posted by galveston75The Trinity is taught by Scripture even if the term itself is not used. The statement 'Jesus was the archangel Michael' -- that, if anything, is the influence of Satan.
But these are all mans interpretations, not Gods. The original writings were written one way, one writting and one meaning. It is man that has changed words and meanings. And as much as most of you will disagree, it has influanced false teachings, myths and certianly opinions that have not always been for the advancement of the truth. And even more is th ...[text shortened]... totally ignor the rest of the multitude of scriptues that do not teach the Trinity in anyway..
Originally posted by Conrau Krubbish, all you Noobs can state is that it is inferred, nothing else and in order to do so, you need to ignore the entire Hebrew scriptures and close your eyes to a healthy portion of the Christian Greek scriptures as well.
The Trinity is taught by Scripture even if the term itself is not used. The statement 'Jesus was the archangel Michael' -- that, if anything, is the influence of Satan.
Originally posted by Conrau KInteresting.
[b]There are around 38,000 demoninations of Christianity, i would say that's pretty good evidence that in can be interpreted which ever way someone likes.
Denominational divisions however are due to other factors. Amongst Protestant divisions, the major reason would be nationality. German Calvinists migrate to America, find American Calvinism to the ...[text shortened]... t putting forward different views of the relationship between revelation, the Bible and church.[/b]
Thanks for the information.
Originally posted by menace71here is the verse, Conrau in his attempt to negate the idea, stated that the voice of the Archangel does not actually emanate from Christ, but from 'around' him, the basis for which he gave a rather weak illustration which one could flick away as one does a bothersome fly from ones lapel and a dodgy translation that he 'preferred', mmm, i wonder why?
The statement Jesus was the archangel Michael
Where does it say that in the bible? I don't think it does.
Manny
(1 Thessalonians 4:13-16) . . .Moreover, brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant concerning those who are sleeping [in death]; that you may not sorrow just as the rest also do who have no hope. For if our faith is that Jesus died and rose again, so, too, those who have fallen asleep in death through Jesus God will bring with him. For this is what we tell you by Jehovahs word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet. . .
you will of course note that the reference is to Christ himself.
2 edits
Originally posted by menace71why does he have an archangels voice if he is not an archangel? Lions have lions voices, humans have human voices, dont archangels have archangels voices? if not, why does it suddenly change in this verse? this i have found with trinitarians, in almost every occasion, when presented with a precedent, it suddenly changes when it comes to Christ, for example, he is not really first born of all creation as in progeny, but pre eminent, why the sudden change, every other instance refers to progeny? he is begotten, but without the begetting , as in progeny, why the sudden change? he has an archangels voice without actually being an archangel, why the change?
with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet. . .
It also says with God's trumpet?? I think this is metaphorical language.
I think it's not conclusive because it can be argued either way.
Manny