T
Tao_Equus
Guest
It also continues until people get over their prejudices and/or make serious inquiry into the truth of things, and not simply spout propaganda.
Thomas
tao
It also continues until people get over their prejudices and/or make serious inquiry into the truth of things, and not simply spout propaganda.
Thomas
No, that's your made-up definition, a local and recent man-made tradition. The term 'Christian' refers to those who follow Christ as God.The worldwide CHRISTIAN Society of people who actively bear witness regarding Jehovah God and his purposes affecting mankind.
To be accurate, they base their beliefs solely on what they have been taught their own man-made version of the Bible means by their leaders.They base their beliefs solely on the Bible.
Then they have misunderstood the Bible, because the Bible states explicitly that He was before anything was created, in fact everything that is created is created throught him — cf eg. Colossians.he is the Son of God, the first of God’s creations;
Again an erroneous interpretation of the Bible. His life was not transferred from heaven, He joined His own nature to human nature....that he had a prehuman existence and that his life was transferred from heaven to the womb of a virgin, Mary;
Your reasoning seems hypocritical and self defeating....
Oh this man has wronged me!! what an awful man he is, who does he think he is? He -thinks- he is a christian with behaviour like that! What a joke! what a terrible man!! Ok... I am now going to wrong him back....
interesting that you say that ,and they produced it specifically to distort the message to support the position they had taken.
Thomas
very true indeed , thats the way to do itThe term 'Christian' refers to those who follow Christ
Thomas
getting back to what the bible REALLY teaches is what it is all about.To be accurate, they base their beliefs solely on what they have been taught their own man-made version of the Bible means by their leaders.
Thomas
So it's not Q's belief system that in question, it's the belief that anyone can declare he or she has the individual right to determine what Christianity is.
No, that's your made-up definition, a local and recent man-made tradition. The term 'Christian' refers to those who follow Christ as God.
They've also misunderstood simply biology. If Jesus is the Son of God, then He inherits the same nature as His Father.
Yet to all who received him, to all who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. John 1:12-13
There are "Christians" who go to church within the big denominations who are called "Chrstians" but some are "bad Christians" and believe in heretical stuff but would never admit it! There are loads!
yes and its allowed in my church, I dont expect to agree with everything that is preached at my Church and I dont.
just to elaborate I think as we long as we agree on core christian doctrines of christianity, then its ok, I think we can disagree on the details, but not the fundamentals.
getting back to what the bible REALLY teaches...
very trueMee:
1: Your version of the Bible is a translation,
Thomas
Check out the facts ... it's all there.interesting that you say that ,![]()
No, I don't think so. I think it was to cloud the word of God with their own traditions.i think you will find that the reason they printed the
NEW WORLD TRANSLATION was because it was the aim of them to get back to the pure words of the original inspired God , without any traditions of man to cloud the thought.
Well ... yes and no ... they've done a good job of producing a piece of self-confirming work, but there's not one independent scholar of Hebrew or Greek who thinks the NWT is in any way 'good' or 'accurate'.and i am glad to say that they have certainly done a good job of doing that.
so what would you say are the fundamentals?
would it be a sound understanding of the fundamentals of the Scriptures, or on something else
I would say it starts with being born again, accepting Christ into our lives. knowledge and understanding of scripture comes afterward.
Who knows, there might be some hellfire preachers in a congregation. quote]
not in the worldwide congregations of Jehovahs witnesses.
we focus on what the bible REALLY teaches, and its not hellfire
Exactly, tis another thing I find interesting. Seems a group that has been discriminated against for so long would have a tendency to be a little discriminating as to how they put down others for their varied beliefs.Nice run on the Catholic Christian take on faith. However, we don't believe in praying to Mary, the saints, or anyone else but God.
And I have directly responded to Mee's points, but so conveniently have been ignored by the same...no matter.
I'm sorry to say I believe the evidence suggests your committee was hiding its lack of scholarship behind its anonymity. When asked the reason for this in a Scottish courtroom, Frederick Franz, then Vice President of the Jehovah's Witness movement, replied, "Because the committee of translation wanted it to remain anonymous and not seek glory or honour at the making of a translation, and having any names attached thereto." The attorney who asked the question then commented, "Writers of books and translators do not always get glory and honour for their efforts, do they?"The English edition of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses, was prepared directly from the original languages by an anonymous committee.
So someone interpreted the text might mean when they translated it, which has been my point all along. Your text is your interpretation of the text, a man-made interpretation, one which is without precedent.The New World Translation aims for a literal rendering of the original-language text whenever such a rendering would not hide its meaning.
Maybe that's what they thought, but in reality they had no idea who understood what in those days (other than in the tradition come down from those days, which you have denied), and all the evidence of archaeology today tells us that any assumptions they made were most likely wrong.The translators seek to make the Bible as understandable to readers today as the original text was to readers in Bible times.
Yes ... but he disagreed with the use of the term Jehovah, didn't he ...Some linguists have examined modern Bible translations—including the New World Translation—for examples of inaccuracy and bias. One such scholar is Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States. In 2003 he published a 200-page study of nine of "the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world."
His study examined several passages of Scripture that are controversial, for that is where "bias is most likely to interfere with translation." For each passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and he looked for biased attempts to change the meaning.
What is his assessment?
BeDuhn points out that the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation (NW) are due to religious bias on the part of its translators. However, he states: "Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation."
While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that this version "emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared." He calls it a "remarkably good" translation.
No, because christianity does not teach polytheism, it teaches one God in three persons.Are jehovah's witnesses Christians ?
jehovah's witnesses seem to share some teachings with Christianity but much of their teaching is heretical and not Christian.
Are they Christian ?