Jehovah

[sandy whitelinger]

You're such a narrow-minded Biblist.

Not to mention dedicated to Calvinisms.

 

[savagewind]

Nah, you are not on ignore. Well, I don't ignore you. Nor do I use the ignore option on RF. Does RF even have an ignore option? Idk.

I have been wondering if Horrorble's picture was of Scarlett-ji. So, I wanted to confirm. I didn't mean to hijack your thread.

I noticed your thread was getting pretty heated. So, I wanted to deflect that tension with a little cooling off.

But, please do tell me if you were offended by my sidetracking. I will be more than happy to delete my recent posts on this thread.

I was not offended by you. I was offended by the first highjacker. Actually I was also wondering about Horrorble's picture.

We might compete shall we? The woman in the picture is gorgeous. My husband calls me that and finally I said please, I do not consider it a compliment as I am far from gorgeous. We looked it up in the dictionary and I had to apologize as it's informal meaning is wonderful or delightful and that I am. I'm average looking on the outside.

Now we have all gone off topic which is fine with me.

Jay said he put me on ignore and I say I should be on his ignore not on your ignore.

 

[savagewind]

To be God approved one must submit one's self to God

To be God approved one must submit one's self to Jesus.

See how the first nine words are the same?

While both statements are true I doubt this is a valid argument for the deity of Christ nor is it a valid argument for your position regarding the JWs.

You are right. There is only one son so it is alright to submit to him. It is also alright as he is the way to know YHVH. It would not be possible without him.

I am not arguing FOR JWs. They are taking Jesus place. How is that fine, according to you please?

 

[Poeticus]

Not to mention dedicated to Calvinisms.

Long live Calvinism!

[spoiler="for awesomeness]

[/spoiler]

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You are right. There is only one son so it is alright to submit to him. It is also alright as he is the way to know YHVH. It would not be possible without him.

I am not arguing FOR JWs. They are taking Jesus place. How is that fine, according to you please?

I don't agree with the form of your argument, I think it's faulty. I do not believe that the JWs are taking anyone's place. But then again I'm not a JW.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Long live Calvinism!

Calvinisms!

 

[savagewind]

I don't agree with the form of your argument, I think it's faulty. I do not believe that the JWs are taking anyone's place. But then again I'm not a JW.

If you do not know then how is it you are saying you know?

I will be glad to hear what is faulty about my argument.

JWs say you and I must be one with them for God to save us. How is that not taking the place of Jesus Christ?

 

[Poeticus]

Calvinisms!

Sorry,

Love live Calvinisms!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

If you do not know then how is it you are saying you know?

I will be glad to hear what is faulty about my argument.

JWs say you and I must be one with them for God to save us. How is that not taking the place of Jesus Christ?

I'm familiar with the JWs beliefs and think that they are unique to themselves. I can see why they think that if you reject them as an organization you are rejecting God because of non-belief yet that in itself is not enough to say that the organization equates itself as God. It's like saying I am baseball because I might play on a specific team.

 

[Poeticus]

We looked it up in the dictionary and I had to apologize as it's informal meaning is wonderful or delightful and that I am. I'm average looking on the outside.

I never *knew that gorgeous also meant wonderful or delightful. That is a very cool application. Thanks for sharing that with me.

 

[savagewind]

I'm familiar with the JWs beliefs and think that they are unique to themselves. I can see why they think that if you reject them as an organization you are rejecting God because of non-belief yet that in itself is not enough to say that the organization equates itself as God. It's like saying I am baseball because I might play on a specific team.

Huh? Non belief in them is equated with non belief in God by them.

I left. I still believe in YHVH and in Yehoshua and in good works but to them I am judged unfit for life.

Why are you arguing about something you do not know? It is irritating.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Huh? Non belief in them is equated with non belief in God by them. Why are you arguing about something you do not know? It is irritating.

Yet you are concluding that the organization is equating itself as God. Your argument, as presented does not support this. I think you are getting into area of Corporate vs. Individual Salvation and even the Biblical argument for Corporate Salvation in no way equates this as substitution of the corporate body for God.

You have only offered your own interpretation of this situation. Could you offer something from the JW organization to back your position?

 

[savagewind]

Yet you are concluding that the organization is equating itself as God. Your argument, as presented does not support this. I think you are getting into area of Corporate vs. Individual Salvation and even the Biblical argument for Corporate Salvation in no way equates this as substitution of the corporate body for God.

You have only offered your own interpretation of this situation. Could you offer something from the JW organization to back your position?

If perhaps you are paying attention to the Jehovah's Witnesses on forum you will see plenty of evidence they think that to believe in God the correct way you must believe in them. Believing in God is not good enough. You must believe God has given authority to them over all God's possessions.

I understand what you are saying. But.... Nobody else claims to know the way of salvation IN GOD'S NAME. They are the only ones in history to do it. Is that incorrect? Who else has said "I have made your name known"? That is what they say. If you will not accept their version of The God you will die. That is what they teach. Do you know?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You must believe God has given authority to them over all God's possessions.

I still fail to see that this equates them as God. It seems similar to the Catholics belief that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ not Christ Himself.

 

[InChrist]

If perhaps you are paying attention to the Jehovah's Witnesses on forum you will see plenty of evidence they think that to believe in God the correct way you must believe in them. Believing in God is not good enough. You must believe God has given authority to them over all God's possessions.

I understand what you are saying. But.... Nobody else claims to know the way of salvation IN GOD'S NAME. They are the only ones in history to do it. Is that incorrect? Who else has said "I have made your name known"? That is what they say. If you will not accept their version of The God you will die. That is what they teach. Do you know?

I think your assessment of the Watchtower is correct, but I don't think it is only the Jehovah's Witnesses who make this claim. Any group or organization which claims to be the sole representative of God or way of salvation falls into the category of a cult and is teaching a false gospel, in my view. Besides the Watchtower the LDS Church claims to be the only true church with the only living prophet speaking for God on the earth today and then there is the Catholic church claiming to be the true church with the pope who claims the title of Vicar of Christ, meaning he claims to be vicariously serving in place of Christ.

 

[InChrist]

I still fail to see that this equates them as God. It seems similar to the Catholics belief that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ not Christ Himself.

Since the scriptures clearly indicate that one is to relate directly to Christ for salvation and spiritual life then anyone putting themselves in place of Christ is attempting to take Christ's place and equate themselves with His position, power, and authority, don't you think?

 

[savagewind]

I still fail to see that this equates them as God. It seems similar to the Catholics belief that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ not Christ Himself.

The Catholic Church does not use God's Name does it? No other church does, do they? Did you notice the title of the thread?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The Catholic Church does not use God's Name does it? No other church does, do they? Did you notice the title of the thread?

Ever hear of, "The Church of God in Christ?"

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Since the scriptures clearly indicate that one is to relate directly to Christ for salvation and spiritual life then anyone putting themselves in place of Christ is attempting to take Christ's place and equate themselves with His position, power, and authority, don't you think?

I personally believe in individual salvation but those who believe in corporate salvation point to Acts 11:14, 16:32 which point towards households being saved through one persons beliefs and I Corinthians 7:14 which points to a families salvation through a believing member.

 

[savagewind]

Does the Catholic Church teach that to leave them is to leave God? Do the Mormons? Does anyone? I don't know. I know the Jehovah's Witnesses do it. I have read posts by them or by JW apologetics which read what I am saying, that when they say Jehovah or their organization, each can be the other.

Nevermind. InChrist, thank you for getting it. And I already thanked my lovely friend Horrorble.

So, it's not a sin, according to the majority, to be setting up a house in the name of YHVH.