Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation

[shmogie]

You had me until your last clause.

Sanctification can never be perfectly achieved. Nevertheless, one can grow in understanding and and and in right behavior.

Do you disagree with that?

 

[sojourner]

Sanctification can never be perfectly achieved. Nevertheless, one can grow in understanding and and and in right behavior.

Do you disagree with that?

WE “achieve” nothing. We are given grace as a gift.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, all religions and sects have truth, but many are mutually exclusive, so if their view of being exclusive is true then God favours them and all the others aren't true

True for them — but not true for anyone else.

It is an issue of truth. And the truth or falsehoods determines whether a viewpoint is right or wrong

No, it only determines what is true for the group in question. What may be right for one may not be right for another.

 

[Samael_Khan]

True for them — but not true for anyone else.

And if what they think is true is actually true then everybody else but them has a problem. Therefore what they think is true is either true or false.

No, it only determines what is true for the group in question. What may be right for one may not be right for another.

Are we or are we not talking about what is actually true verses what people think is true? Trinitarians and Unitarians cannot both be true at the same time.

 

[shmogie]

Yeah, but do you know why Paul says that? You see, it’s not just the words themselves, it’s what’s meant by them that counts. From your posts, I just don’t see evidence that you have a good grasp of Paul.


[edit]
Sorry for being so curt. I just got home from church with a lot on my mind. I’m not picking at you just to pick. But I’ve studied the crap out of Paul in seminary. And I just don’t read in Paul what you’re saying, although what you’re saying is an extremely popular and oft-repeated viewpoint. Perhaps you’ve had some bad “pseudo-Paul” shoved down your throat by unscrupulous “experts.” I don’t know. I just don’t see Paul that way, and felt I had to respond.

I agree. Paul has become a whipping boy for those who want to do what they choose, because of "love'.

Most forget, or never knew that Christ used the word repent more than the word love.

They will say Christ hung out with terrible sinners and prostitutes out of love. They conceive of Him having a few beers with these folk and just loving them.

Partially true, Christ loves all of us with unbelievable power. Yet Christ was with them to tell them to repent and turn away from their sin. He said to the Apostles that if one refused to hear, then move on down the road.

Christ wants to save us from our sin, not wallowing in our sin.

Paul deals with Gods love for us, the way He has provided salvation for us, and the admonitions to repent that we all need. He will forgive, and help us to overcome what is wrong in our life. This is what God wants.

Though He loves all, He cannot save those who do not love enough to repent and accept his plan of salvation.

God is justice as well mercy. Justice will come, to those who have repented and are saved by the blood of Christ, by faith, and to those who choose not to accept the gift of salvation, and what that entails.

Paul makes it crystal clear.

Some want to accept part of Christ's/Paul's message, but not the part that restricts what sins they cherish and joyfully commit.

One cannot be right with God in this way.

 

[shmogie]

WE “achieve” nothing. We are given grace as a gift.

Well of course Grace is a gift ! Nevertheless, being saved by Gods grace means the Spirit resides in us, guides us, and helps us to be able to more and more overcome sin in our life.

Saved totally by faith, nothing else, we will live a better, more generous, more patient, less sinful life as a result of that salvation.

I can't imagine that you believe a person saved by Grace, has no change in thoughts and behavior because of that salvation.

 

[sojourner]

I agree. Paul has become a whipping boy for those who want to do what they choose, because of "love'.

Most forget, or never knew that Christ used the word repent more than the word love.

They will say Christ hung out with terrible sinners and prostitutes out of love. They conceive of Him having a few beers with these folk and just loving them.

Partially true, Christ loves all of us with unbelievable power. Yet Christ was with them to tell them to repent and turn away from their sin. He said to the Apostles that if one refused to hear, then move on down the road.

Christ wants to save us from our sin, not wallowing in our sin.

Paul deals with Gods love for us, the way He has provided salvation for us, and the admonitions to repent that we all need. He will forgive, and help us to overcome what is wrong in our life. This is what God wants.

Though He loves all, He cannot save those who do not love enough to repent and accept his plan of salvation.

God is justice as well mercy. Justice will come, to those who have repented and are saved by the blood of Christ, by faith, and to those who choose not to accept the gift of salvation, and what that entails.

Paul makes it crystal clear.

Some want to accept part of Christ's/Paul's message, but not the part that restricts what sins they cherish and joyfully commit.

One cannot be right with God in this way.

Love and sin are the same concept. One is either in love, or one is in sin.

 

[sojourner]

helps us to be able to more and more overcome sin in our life

Sin isn’t overcome, it’s forgiven.

 

[sojourner]

And if what they think is true is actually true then everybody else but them has a problem

How so? What is true for someone else is true for them.

Trinitarians and Unitarians cannot both be true at the same time

Sure they can! No one has “all truth.” We each have one facet of truth. One facet is a true as the next.

 

[shmogie]

Sin isn’t overcome, it’s forgiven.

When you don't do it anymore you have overcome it by the Power of God.

 

[shmogie]

Love and sin are the same concept. One is either in love, or one is in sin.

I agree, in love with Christ and through him, agape love for all.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yeah, but do you know why Paul says that? You see, it’s not just the words themselves, it’s what’s meant by them that counts. From your posts, I just don’t see evidence that you have a good grasp of Paul.


[edit]
Sorry for being so curt. I just got home from church with a lot on my mind. I’m not picking at you just to pick. But I’ve studied the crap out of Paul in seminary. And I just don’t read in Paul what you’re saying, although what you’re saying is an extremely popular and oft-repeated viewpoint. Perhaps you’ve had some bad “pseudo-Paul” shoved down your throat by unscrupulous “experts.” I don’t know. I just don’t see Paul that way, and felt I had to respond.

It was nothing provided to me and things I brought up even as a Christian. My understanding comes from literally what is there in print. Like Paul saying, basically, it's best for a man to disregard what god commanded and not reproduce

 

[3rdAngel]

Hi EH nice to see you. Some comments provided below...

3rdAngel said: ↑ If you believe JESUS existed why do you believe JESUS existed and your belief is based on what?

Your response...

I did not say that either, did I? I merely allowed for the possibility.

Sure, that is why I asked you what you believe and why. It seems you did not want to answer the question. It is ok you do not have to if you do not want to just say so.

The one writer in the Bible that you can be fairly sure of is Paul. Paul met and spoke with the other disciples, including Jesus's supposed brother James (which puts to rest the possibility the Catholics like that Mary ascended into heaven still a virgin).

Indeed but keep in mind that Mary ascending into Heaven is not in the bible to begin with so is not in the biblical record. Paul meeting with the other Apostles in the biblical records mean he spoke to the other Apostles who were eyewitnesses of JESUS. Paul had first hand contact with those who walked and talked with JESUS. These as agreed to by most scholars as posted earlier along with the other Historical sources from the JEWS and the ROMANS verifiy the life of JESUS.[/QUOTE]

And Paul's letters PRE-DATE the Gospels, please remember this. And Paul, in his own letters (ignoring the obviously spurious ones like Hebrews and 1 Timothy), knows and cares to know very little about Jesus as a human. He preaches Christ crucified, but doesn't mention Pilate or any of the other trappings around the tomb, or post-mortem appearances, or miracles, or pretty much anything else. That should be of great interest, since these are truly the very first "Christian Writings."

For me when the Gospels were written is not a problem as they were all written in the lifetime of the Apostles. Also there is no consensus on exact dates they were written by scholars (only estimations). There is also no consensus among scholars as to who wrote which Gospel this is simply an argument of silence. This being said the manuscrpts all give names (The Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). The arguments between the scholars of course is which Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The traditional view is that the gospel of Matthew is from Matthew the tax collector, Mark the attendant of Peter, Luke (the physician) the attendant of Paul, and the Apostle John the son of Zebedee. This was the view of the early church.

To say this is the case today and we do not have proof one way or the other but it seems to me IMO that the early Church's information would be more accurate then conjecture that is going on among scholars today, 2000 years latter. If the early church's accounts are correct then it only increases direct eyewitness accounts in reference to the Apostle John being the writer of the Gospel of John, 1 John's epistle and the book of Revelations and Matthew.

2000 years latter today many scholars say we just do not know although this is an argument in silence to that of the early church. Although there seems to be some consensus that Luke (the Physician) who was a companion of Paul wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts, even if we just rely on the writings of Paul and Luke, they had contact with first hand eyewitnesses (Apostles) that directly spoke and talked and walked with JESUS. So what we have here in essence is first hand records of eyewitness events in the biblical records, outside sources from JEWISH and ROMAN historical records outside the biblical records which only support the authenticity of what is written in these Gospels about the life of JESUS porving that he indeed existed IMO.

 

[3rdAngel]

It was nothing provided to me and things I brought up even as a Christian. My understanding comes from literally what is there in print. Like Paul saying, basically, it's best for a man to disregard what god commanded and not reproduce

Hi SW, nice to see you. Some interesting points you make here and in your earlier post. Hope you do not mind me sharing an alternative view with you that I believe. Reading here of when the scriptures say "be fruitful and multiply" is from GENESIS 1 after God created Adam and Eve before sin entered the world. 4000 years latter we see the earth and man has been fruitful and multiplied and now covers the whole world. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:1 is not saying a man should not have sex with a woman he is only saying that it is also good for a man not to touch a women. Then it goes on to say if anyone cannot accept the saying then they should marry to avoid fornication. Also the bible says no where that sex is only for procreation. This is something made up by some Churches that is not biblical. If God did not make sex to be enjoyable for mankind he would not have created it this way IMO.

 

[sojourner]

It was nothing provided to me and things I brought up even as a Christian. My understanding comes from literally what is there in print. Like Paul saying, basically, it's best for a man to disregard what god commanded and not reproduce

Paul demands digging beneath the surface. For example, taking your issue here about marriage and such, Paul believed that the Parousia would happen in his lifetime. So, better to not expend energy populating a planet that wasn’t going to be around that much longer, and spend one’s energy in working out one’s salvation toward that eventuality.

 

[shmogie]

It was nothing provided to me and things I brought up even as a Christian. My understanding comes from literally what is there in print. Like Paul saying, basically, it's best for a man to disregard what god commanded and not reproduce

No, Paul was about spreading the Gospel, and that to him was easier for an unmarried man. He of course did say that if one chose marriage, that was fine too.

God spoke in Genesis for one purpose. God spoke through Paul for a different purpose.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

be fruitful and multiply" is from GENESIS 1 after God created Adam and Eve before sin entered the world.

Its said about a dozen times, several of those instances occurring throughout Genesis.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

God spoke in Genesis for one purpose.

It wasn't just said in Genesis. Leviticus even mentions it at least once. And again in Jeremiah.

 

[3rdAngel]

Its said about a dozen times, several of those instances occurring throughout Genesis.

Actually nearly all of the references to "be fruitful and multiply" are from Genesis. The only other I know outside of Genesis would be from Jeremiah 23:3. Do you know of any others? They still do not contradict what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 7 though when you read the context that I can see as Paul is not saying to not get married or not be fruitful and not multiply.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, it the most accurate translation when we compare it to the Tanakh.

It is an interesting question as to what version of the Bible we use and why. I tend to use the King James Version or the New International Version. I personally don’t trust the New World Translation and am aware its not well regarded amongst Christians. Then again the JWs are not well regarded by your fellow Christians. So I will be avoiding using the NWT and would prefer you used another translation in our discussions. Up to you, but if you do use NWT I’ll simply use KJV instead unless there’s a good reason not to.

Jesus told us that we must search for the truth, and that requires that we judge the beliefs of those who espouse belief in the God of the Bible or any other belief system. Its got nothing to do with judging people....that is Jesus' job. Christians have to know if what we believe lines up with what Jesus taught. We then decide what and who to believe based on our own research. We are then judged by Jesus on those decisions.

Here is the deal. Christians already know that what you teach doesn’t line up at all. So while you can quote scriptures with multiple references to this verse and that, most Christians are clear the JWs don’t represent Christianity. So while you present yourself as ‘true’ Christianity most Christians who have studied the JWs have little hesitation in rejecting your claims. In that respect I am in agreement with your fellow Christians. That is of course my personal view based on research and study of the Bible and interacting with Christians. I don’t say that to offend. Its just what I’ve concluded.

Indeed...and the storm is coming according to scripture.....ready or not. It is not man's war with man...it is God's war with satan and all who side with him. Each has their army, but God's army in this instance are not human...they are angels as Jesus clearly states. (Matthew 25:31-34; 41;46) This powerful army will dispose of all opposers of God's Kingdom, which is "coming" with no effort whatsoever from human beings. These are the reapers that Jesus spoke of in his parable of the wheat and the weeds. (Matthew 13:30; 36-43)The Kingdom will come and "crush" all worldly kingdoms out of existence. (Daniel 2:44)

Specifically, how JWs view the future based on Prophecy is one of the biggest points of disagreement you will have with your fellow Christians as well as Baha’is.

There is nothing in our teachings that disagrees with the Bible or Christ's teachings in any way. What harm can there be in telling the truth?...in being an honest law abiding citizen?....in being no part of the world as Jesus instructed? God's Kingdom is no part of this world.....(John 18:36)

Obviously I disagree. I’m not quite ready to make a list of the core differences between the JWs and more mainstream Christianity which is closer to what I believe in. If we talk for long enough it will come. Once again, not to be offensive but just to state the core differences and also where I personally would stand as a Bible believing Baha’i.

And what does that indicate...? That satan is very influential with our youth as much as he is with any others. There is a lot of distraction for young ones in today's world that did not exist in times past. Its pay back for all of satan's children who perished in the flood. He has adopted the role of the Pied Piper. Our children are as free willed as any others. Their choice to serve God is theirs to make. God does not force anyone to worship him. Thankfully, a good many of them stay faithful to God and many that stray, return to the fold, chastened.

I disagree of course. First I don’t believe in Satan. It is remarkable that you are retaining only one third of your children and the rates are significantly lower than practically every other faith. The reason is simply the JWs are more out of touch with reality and modernity than every other religion or denomination of Christianity. Whether its science, logic, social reality, the JWs are unconvincing not only to others but to your children too.

As far as our level of education, that is a bit of a joke really. I don't know what its like where you live, but all those kids who go to uni for years and gain their degrees, don't always find a job in the field for which they trained. Many of them are working as waiters and barristers because they are overqualified for the kind of employment that is available.

I don’t think its a joke at all. The JWs fare far worse than any other religious group in regards income levels.

How income varies among U.S. religious groups

So the idea that JW are making the best decisions in avoiding education because they won’t get jobs is not true. Your church actively discourages higher education in part because of fears about being exposed to the supposed immorality of campus environments. I would also propose if you believe the world will end soon there’s another major disincentive.

Our kids will work to support themselves in whatever jobs are available. They are actually sought after because they are honest, they aren't into alcohol or drugs, and they are reliable. We also have many who are in professions like your own...doctors, scientists, dentists, and many other professions that they trained in before learning the Bible's truth. We have many tradesmen in our ranks who are also sought after because of their high standards of work and their honesty. The other perk is that we will work holidays because we don't celebrate them. Is there a downside to this? We are not encouraged by Jesus to become rich or famous...just the opposite in fact. (1 Timothy 6:7-8)

The objective data tells us that only 1/3 of JW children will to continue being JWs and those who choose to continue perform poorly on average compared to their peers. I have no doubt some JWs do go to University and have professional careers. However the proportions doing so are significantly less than other groups. The evidence is undeniable.

You know we don't believe in hell...but do you? What kind of loving God would even think up such a place?

God is Loving but He is also just. Do you seriously need me to provide you with all the verses about heaven or hell, Eternal life or punishment? Admittedly both Judaism and Christianity have diverse and contradictory beliefs held by their followers.

Baha'i try to squeeze God into a mold made by men. He conveniently accepts all religions....yet that is not what the Bible says at all. You can't have a foot in all these camps because all but one is created by God's enemy to gain worship for himself from those gullible enough to fall for his tricks.
He presents himself as "an angel of light" so as not to frighten people away.....or conversely he convinces people that he doesn't exist. Same outcome.....he's gotcha.

Whenever you start talking about the Baha’i Faith you seem at a complete loss. You sound as if you are spouting the JW party line about other religions. You need to learn to think for yourself. Ironically you are calling me gullible. Seriously!?

My husband fought me on my decision to become a JW for 20 years.....he refused to meet them or to get to know them because of his own ingrained bigotry. But when our son got engaged to a lovely Witness girl, he had to attend the engagement party as the father of the groom.....and guess what? He thought they were the nicest people he had ever met. 20 years of refusing to budge on his own ideas about JW's until he was pushed. He lamented that for a long time. But he welcomed them into our home from that time onwards. Witnesses presided at his funeral because, although he was not a Christian, and he didn't want a church funeral.....nor did he want the service carried out by people who didn't even know him.

Its interesting that you became a JW when married. Baha’i Teachings emphasise associating with all people of all faiths in a spirit of love and fellowship. So Baha’is wouldn’t shun JWs. I agree your husband was wrong not to associate with people from your church. I can understand if he didn’t have any religion how that could be difficult for him. Is your son still married and a JW?

By what stretch of whose imagination? Just from what you have posted, the Baha'i faith appears to be a mish-mash of many different beliefs thrown together by a man who claimed to be Jesus Christ returned. It tries to be all things to all people but does not remain faithful to any IMO.

Have you ever listened to someone who tries to sound knowledgeable about something yet isn’t?

Who told you that? Jesus will resurrect all the dead.....including the unrighteous ones. (John 5:28-29) He calls them all from the same place...their graves.
We have no belief in an immortal soul because the Bible does not teach that we survive death in another form. It teaches resurrection...a return to this life, on this earth for the majority, in a world cleansed of all wickedness, pain, suffering and death. (Revelation 21:2-4) We will get back the paradise that Adam and Eve lost. Jesus' death guarantees it.

There are diverse views about the afterlife within Christianity and about the nature of heaven and hell. Many Christians do believe in an immortal soul, Eternal life or punishment, heaven and hell.

Does this link provide a fair and reasonable commentary about JW views in regards life after death?

Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation - Wikipedia

That statement is a little hypocritical don't you think? You criticize JW's with what reliable information?
All my comments about Baha'i come from what is posted by you and your members on these boards. I have also checked out your website for more information. I like to get my information first hand.....not distorted second hand reports from opposers

You have yet to demonstrate any understanding of the Baha’i Faith. Whenever you mention it, it’s superficial negative comments . You appear to have no genuine interest in religions other than Christianity so I’m not really surprised
.