Your quote from an unknown author quoting an unknown source (Luke 1:1-3) lacks standing. As for the reference to "Scripture", that is to be fulfilled, that is a quote from Hosea 6:2, which is in reference to "Ephraim", and "Judah", which comprise "Israel", and has yet to be fulfilled. As for the required "repentance", that would be turning from sin, which is defined as transgression of the Law. As for "forgiveness of sin", that would follow "repentance", and in the case of the Gentiles, they remain in their sin by dismissing the Law, per decree of the unknown author of Hebrews, and they carry with them the "plagues" of their mother church (Revelation 18:4). As to the judgments against Judah and Ephraim (Hosea 5), they have remained in affect through the 2nd World War, with the loss of around 6 million Jews out of around 15 million total, which is over 1 in 3 died by the hands of Germany and their collaborators. The final judgment of the nations/Gentiles, and the gathering out of the lost 10 tribes of the house of Israel, remains in the future (Ezekiel 36)(Joel 2 & 3), Your timelines and references are built on a foundation of sand.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!
- Thread starter Oeste
- Start date
Your quote from an unknown author quoting an unknown source (Luke 1:1-3) lacks standing. As for the reference to "Scripture", that is to be fulfilled, that is a quote from Hosea 6:2, which is in reference to "Ephraim", and "Judah", which comprise "Israel", and has yet to be fulfilled. As for the required "repentance", that would be turning from sin, which is defined as transgression of the Law. As for "forgiveness of sin", that would follow "repentance", and in the case of the Gentiles, they remain in their sin by dismissing the Law, per decree of the unknown author of Hebrews, and they carry with them the "plagues" of their mother church (Revelation 18:4). As to the judgments against Judah and Ephraim (Hosea 5), they have remained in affect through the 2nd World War, with the loss of around 6 million Jews out of around 15 million total, which is over 1 in 3 died by the hands of Germany and their collaborators. The final judgment of the nations/Gentiles, and the gathering out of the lost 10 tribes of the house of Israel, remains in the future (Ezekiel 36)(Joel 2 & 3), Your timelines and references are built on a foundation of sand.
The message of the "kingdom", is that there will be a final judgment (Har-Magedon), whereas the nations/Gentiles will be judged (Joel 3:1-2), and then you will have Ephraim and Judah combined under the leadership of David, to live on the land given to Jacob (Ezekiel 36 & 37), "forever". That is a message for Israel, in which the "whole world" will hear, just prior to the "end" (Matthew 24:14) Those who "escape"/"survive", will be those "in Jerusalem", and on "Mount Zion"/the mountain of God (Joel 2:32). To be on the "mountain of God"/Mount Zion, one must keep the commandments and keep the Sabbath holy (Isaiah 56:6). Your ghost "salvation", based on the unknown writers of Luke, Acts, and Hebrews, along with the writings of the false prophet Paul, and his side kicks, can be measured by the cost of your health care. If you are also referring to Matthew 28:19, that is not in early versions of Matthew, and most probably an addition.
JerryMyers
Active Member
In Luke 24:44-47, Jesus was recalling to the time he told his disciples, “that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled” and that time was BEFORE his supposed crucifixion and his supposed resurrection NOT AFTER!! Again, your screw-up logic is exposing your inability to understand your own scripture and that’s why ONLY NONSENSE is coming out of you!
And what must be fulfilled?? His death and resurrection?? Then, show me which Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms that mentioned his supposed death and resurrection??
And in Luke 24:47 (which you quoted above), Jesus also said “and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed”, Jesus DID NOT SAY his death for the forgiveness of sins will be proclaimed, now did he???
So, who preached to you that Jesus must die for your sins???! Certainly NOT Jesus!!
Brian2
Veteran Member
The Jews unfortunately are deaf and blind to the truth because they do not turn to Jesus. You seem to be in the same boat.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Prov 27:3 Stone is heavy and sand a burden,
but a fool’s provocation is heavier than both.
Hi @Dogknox20
Clear said : "1) Regarding the Justification for Dogknox20 posting incorrect and inauthentic text of John 1:18 as though it was authentic scripture
Dogknox20 said : “I post scripture.. I have never claimed to be a scripture scholar; I rely on the experts!” (post #1495)
No, you are NOT posting “scripture”.
There is no Greek source text of the bible that says : 1 John 18 No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side—he has revealed him." (Dogknox, in post #1407).
Of THOUSANDS of Greek papyri and codices, NOT ONE says this.
IF ANY READER ON THE FORUM CAN FIND A GREEK SOURCE TEXT THAT ACTUALLY READS ACCORDING TO DOGKNOX20s QUOTE, TELL US WHICH OF THE THOUSANDS OF CODICES READS THIS WAY - ANY SOURCE TEXT WILL DO.
You are posting a paraphrased commentary masquerading as scripture.
There are readers who notice this dishonest tactic.
Also, you are not "relying on experts" since there are expert translators who render this text correctly but you didn't use them.
You seem to be choosing between texts based on textual bias, not based on which translators are more “expert”.
The problem with your offering readers a false text is that This is much worse than you complain the Jehovahs Witnesses are doing.
1)You are offering readers scriptural commentary as though it was authentic scripture.
2)While you complain the grammatically correct rendering adds a single letter in the Jehovahs Witness translation, your paraphrase adds more than 50 letters that do not exist in the source text.
The questions you were asked still remain unanswered :
1) How do you justify offering readers a falsely rendered, inauthentic commentary as scripture while complaining that the Jehovahs Witnesses offer a perfectly correct rendering of John 1:1c?
2) How does the fact that you are offering fake biblical text prove a grammatically correct sentence incorrect?
If you claim ignorance of scripture, then this disqualifies your judgment regarding what is and what is not authentic scripture
If you claim you are ignorant of what constitutes authentic scripture and what does not, then I will accept this. However, IF this is you are admitting that you cannot distinguish authentic from false scriptures in what YOU are offering readers, then you have no right to complain that the Jehovahs Witness translation of John 1:1c is incorrect. (post #1501 and 1502)
Dogknox20 replied : “The scripture scholars tell us Jesus is God!” (post #1511)
I also think the early Christian believed Jesus was the God of the Old testament and I think they are correct on this point.
However,
My questions to you was never about whether Jesus was divine, or whether he was the God of the Old Testament.
My question to you was about how one justifies lying for God, how one justifies offering fake scriptures, how one justifies murder and oppression by a church while complaining about far lessor offenses in others.
How does our agreement on Jesus being the God of the Old testament justify your having complained that the Jehovahs Witnesses offered a grammatically correct translation while you offer readers fake and erroneous text as “scripture”? How do you justify doing much worse than those you complain about?
How would our agreement on Jesus point justify you lying about Jehovah Witnesses and misrepresenting their texts regarding blood transfusions?
How does our agreement on this point justify your complaint about Jehovah Witnesses dying by adhering to their faith while the Catholic Church murdered thousands and thousands of individuals including children and oppressed entire populations, and enslaved children and adults and murdered Jews and sought for power and authority and riches?
I will assume that your constant deflection from these specific questions and your unwillingness to answer the actual questions, mean that these issues are an embarrassment because they are NOT justifiable and are therefore, things that ought not to be done.
Clear
φυσεσινετζω
Clear said : "1) Regarding the Justification for Dogknox20 posting incorrect and inauthentic text of John 1:18 as though it was authentic scripture
Dogknox20 said : “I post scripture.. I have never claimed to be a scripture scholar; I rely on the experts!” (post #1495)
No, you are NOT posting “scripture”.
There is no Greek source text of the bible that says : 1 John 18 No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side—he has revealed him." (Dogknox, in post #1407).
Of THOUSANDS of Greek papyri and codices, NOT ONE says this.
IF ANY READER ON THE FORUM CAN FIND A GREEK SOURCE TEXT THAT ACTUALLY READS ACCORDING TO DOGKNOX20s QUOTE, TELL US WHICH OF THE THOUSANDS OF CODICES READS THIS WAY - ANY SOURCE TEXT WILL DO.
You are posting a paraphrased commentary masquerading as scripture.
There are readers who notice this dishonest tactic.
Also, you are not "relying on experts" since there are expert translators who render this text correctly but you didn't use them.
You seem to be choosing between texts based on textual bias, not based on which translators are more “expert”.
The problem with your offering readers a false text is that This is much worse than you complain the Jehovahs Witnesses are doing.
1)You are offering readers scriptural commentary as though it was authentic scripture.
2)While you complain the grammatically correct rendering adds a single letter in the Jehovahs Witness translation, your paraphrase adds more than 50 letters that do not exist in the source text.
The questions you were asked still remain unanswered :
1) How do you justify offering readers a falsely rendered, inauthentic commentary as scripture while complaining that the Jehovahs Witnesses offer a perfectly correct rendering of John 1:1c?
2) How does the fact that you are offering fake biblical text prove a grammatically correct sentence incorrect?
If you claim ignorance of scripture, then this disqualifies your judgment regarding what is and what is not authentic scripture
If you claim you are ignorant of what constitutes authentic scripture and what does not, then I will accept this. However, IF this is you are admitting that you cannot distinguish authentic from false scriptures in what YOU are offering readers, then you have no right to complain that the Jehovahs Witness translation of John 1:1c is incorrect. (post #1501 and 1502)
Dogknox20 replied : “The scripture scholars tell us Jesus is God!” (post #1511)
I also think the early Christian believed Jesus was the God of the Old testament and I think they are correct on this point.
However,
My questions to you was never about whether Jesus was divine, or whether he was the God of the Old Testament.
My question to you was about how one justifies lying for God, how one justifies offering fake scriptures, how one justifies murder and oppression by a church while complaining about far lessor offenses in others.
How does our agreement on Jesus being the God of the Old testament justify your having complained that the Jehovahs Witnesses offered a grammatically correct translation while you offer readers fake and erroneous text as “scripture”? How do you justify doing much worse than those you complain about?
How would our agreement on Jesus point justify you lying about Jehovah Witnesses and misrepresenting their texts regarding blood transfusions?
How does our agreement on this point justify your complaint about Jehovah Witnesses dying by adhering to their faith while the Catholic Church murdered thousands and thousands of individuals including children and oppressed entire populations, and enslaved children and adults and murdered Jews and sought for power and authority and riches?
I will assume that your constant deflection from these specific questions and your unwillingness to answer the actual questions, mean that these issues are an embarrassment because they are NOT justifiable and are therefore, things that ought not to be done.
Clear
φυσεσινετζω
Last edited:
Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
.
Christians teach and believe "Jesus is God"! Always have believed Jesus is God! You take one verse out of context then base your faith on it!
The word is God.. The word became man and lived with us!
Clear If you say Jesus is NOT God you cannot be Christian!
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
John 1 The word is God.. The word became man and lived with us!
Matthew 1:23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).
God became flesh and lived among Man!
Luke 1:43 Why should this happen to me, to have the mother of my Lord visit me?
God became flesh and lived among Man! Immanuel” (which means “God with us”)
John 20:28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” God became flesh and lived among Man! Immanuel” (which means “God with us”)
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
Matthew 14:33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
Matthew 4:10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”
Hi @Dogknox20
REGARDING HOW DOGKNOW20 JUSTIFIES THE HORRORS COMMITTED BY HIS ORGANISATION
Dogknox20 said : "Clear If you say Jesus is NOT God you cannot be Christian!"
I agree that the early Christian believed Jesus was Jehovah the Old Testament and I think they are correct on this point.
This was never the issue I disagreed with.
1) I asked how you justified lying for Jesus in offering fake text to forum members as though it was scripture.
2) I asked how you justified complaining about the Jehovahs Witnesses offering a grammatically correct translation of a text while you offer readers a completely inauthentic and false version of scripture.
3) I asked how you justified mischaracterizing and lying about the jehovahs Witness and the results of their belief in not accepting blood transfusions when your own Church actually murdered thousands and thousands.
4) I asked how you justified claiming your church and it’s policies were the church and policies of Christ when the policies engaged in slavery and oppression and in murder and sought the accumulation of wealth and power when the original church did not seek slaves and oppression and did not murder.
For examples of policies and actions your political / religious organisation has promulgated :
In Paris, a.d. 557 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 1 No one may hold that church property changes political denominations : no one can claim that church property ever passes under another ruler “since the dominion of God knows no geographical bounderies.” No one may claim that he holds as a gift from the king property that once belonged to the church. All property given by King Chlodwig of blessed memory and handed down as an inheritance must now be given back to the church.
I asked regarding the justification of taking property from individuals who have owned it legally by your organization and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Toledo, a.d. 589 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 20 Many bishops burden their clerics with intolerable compulsory services and contributions. Clerics thus cruelly oppressed may complain to the metropolitan.
I asked regarding the justification of burdening clerics with “compulsory services” (a euphemism for slavery?) and taking their money and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Nabonne, a.d. 589 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 13 Subdeacons must hold curtains and doors open for superior clergy. If they refuse to do so they must pay a fine; lower clergy who refuse must be beaten.
I asked regarding the justification of oppression and physical beatings of lower clergy by your organization is morally wrong and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Reims, a.d. 624-625 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 13 No one, not even a bishop, may ever sell the property or slaves of the church.(such a rule would mean that the church can only continue to gain property and financial value but it can never decrease it’s holdings.)
I asked regarding the justification of prohibition from release of slaves or the contribution of property to others by your organization and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Toledo, a.d. 633 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 67 Bishops may not free slaves of the church unless they reimburse the church out of their private fortunes, and the bishop’s successors can reclaim any thus freed.
Canon 68 A bishop who frees a slave of the church without reserving the patrocinium [financial holdings] for the church must give the church two slaves in his place. If the person freed makes any complaint about the way he was treated while he was a slave, he must again become a church slave
I asked regarding the justification of prohibition from release of church slaves or the contribution of property to others by your organization and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Toledo a.d. 638 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 3 Thank God for the edict of King Chintila banishing all Jews from Spain, with the order that “only Catholics may live in the land…Resolved that any future king before mounting the throne should swear an oath not to tolerate the Jewish Unglauben [unbelief]…If he breaks this oath, let him be anathema and maranatha [excommunicated] before God and food for the eternal fire.”
I asked regarding the justification of the banishment of Jews from their lifelong homes and the loss of their properties (much of which would fall under the influence of your church) is morally wrong and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Toledo a.d. 656 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 6 Children over ten years of age may dedicate themselves to the religious life without consenting their parents. When smaller children are tonsured or given the religious garment, unless their parents lodge immediate protest, they are bound to the religious discipline for life.
I asked regarding the justification of allowing a mere child to agree to life-long servitude and slavery is morally wrong and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Emerita a.d. 666 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 15 It often happens that priests who fall sick blame church slaves for their condition and torture them out of revenge. This must cease.
Canon 16 Bishops must stop taking more than their third. They must not take from the church’s third for their private use.
I asked regarding the justification of stealing from the offerings of your followers for private use by your organization and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
Toledo a.d. 694 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 8 Jews must be denied all religious practice. Their children must be taken from them at seven years and must marry Christians.
I asked regarding the justification of taking children away from their mothers and fathers and forcing them into marriage to a person of your organization is morally wrong and and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Boniface a.d. 745 your church created a policy as follows :
Statute 13 Pasquil [jokes about the authorities] must be severely punished, even with exile.
I asked regarding the justification of the severe punishment failing to respect an authority of your organization with exile and it’s associated loss of association with family and loss of property and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Paderborn a.d. 785 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 21 anyone engaging in pagan rites must pay a heavy fine. If he cannot pay, no matter what his station, he becomes a slave of the church until he has paid up.
I asked regarding the justification of making a slave out of a person who is simply engaging in a religious practice different from yours and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
Canon 23 Soothsayers and fortune-tellers shall be given to churches and priests as slaves.
I asked regarding the justification of making a slave out of a person who is simply engaging in a religious practice different from yours and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
At the Lateran IV, a.d. 1215 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 3 All condemned heretics must be turned over to the secular authorities for punishment…Their property must be confiscated by the church. Those who have not been able to clear themselves of charges of heresy are excommunicated and must be avoided by all. If they remain a year under the ban, they must be condemned as heretics. All civic officers must take a public oath to defend the faith and expel from their territories all heretics. Whoever, when ordered to do so by the church, does not purify his district or domain of heretics will be put under the ban. If he does not give satisfaction within a year, he must be reported to the pope, who will absolve his vassals from all duty to him and declare his lands open to legitimate conquest by Catholics : those who participate in the attack will receive the same privileges as regular crusaders. …. Anyone who preaches without the authorization of a bishop is excommunicated…A bishop must inspect his diocese. His officers are authorized to have all inhabitants swear an oath to expose to the bishop all sectarians that can be discovered…anyone who refuses to take the oath automatically makes himself a traitor. ….
I asked regarding the justification of making a slave out of a person and the stealing of their property when they decide they no longer believe in or want to be part of your organisation and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
THESE ARE THE ACTUAL QUESTIONS YOU WERE ASKED AND WHICH, SO FAR, YOU HAVE REFUSED TO DEAL WITH BUT FREQUENTLY, YOUR ONLY RESPONSE HAS BEEN TO RETREAT TO THE BUNKER OF OFFERING A DIVERSION BY REPEATING A STOCK PHRASE LIKE "JESUS IS GOD" OR "THERE IS NO "A" IN JOHN 1:1C.
Whether Jesus was the God of the Old Testament was never the issue.
The issue is how you justify terrible, terrible crimes in your own political / religious organization while complaining about what others have done.
Clear
φυσεακδρσιω
REGARDING HOW DOGKNOW20 JUSTIFIES THE HORRORS COMMITTED BY HIS ORGANISATION
Dogknox20 said : "Clear If you say Jesus is NOT God you cannot be Christian!"
I agree that the early Christian believed Jesus was Jehovah the Old Testament and I think they are correct on this point.
This was never the issue I disagreed with.
1) I asked how you justified lying for Jesus in offering fake text to forum members as though it was scripture.
2) I asked how you justified complaining about the Jehovahs Witnesses offering a grammatically correct translation of a text while you offer readers a completely inauthentic and false version of scripture.
3) I asked how you justified mischaracterizing and lying about the jehovahs Witness and the results of their belief in not accepting blood transfusions when your own Church actually murdered thousands and thousands.
4) I asked how you justified claiming your church and it’s policies were the church and policies of Christ when the policies engaged in slavery and oppression and in murder and sought the accumulation of wealth and power when the original church did not seek slaves and oppression and did not murder.
For examples of policies and actions your political / religious organisation has promulgated :
In Paris, a.d. 557 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 1 No one may hold that church property changes political denominations : no one can claim that church property ever passes under another ruler “since the dominion of God knows no geographical bounderies.” No one may claim that he holds as a gift from the king property that once belonged to the church. All property given by King Chlodwig of blessed memory and handed down as an inheritance must now be given back to the church.
I asked regarding the justification of taking property from individuals who have owned it legally by your organization and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Toledo, a.d. 589 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 20 Many bishops burden their clerics with intolerable compulsory services and contributions. Clerics thus cruelly oppressed may complain to the metropolitan.
I asked regarding the justification of burdening clerics with “compulsory services” (a euphemism for slavery?) and taking their money and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Nabonne, a.d. 589 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 13 Subdeacons must hold curtains and doors open for superior clergy. If they refuse to do so they must pay a fine; lower clergy who refuse must be beaten.
I asked regarding the justification of oppression and physical beatings of lower clergy by your organization is morally wrong and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Reims, a.d. 624-625 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 13 No one, not even a bishop, may ever sell the property or slaves of the church.(such a rule would mean that the church can only continue to gain property and financial value but it can never decrease it’s holdings.)
I asked regarding the justification of prohibition from release of slaves or the contribution of property to others by your organization and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Toledo, a.d. 633 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 67 Bishops may not free slaves of the church unless they reimburse the church out of their private fortunes, and the bishop’s successors can reclaim any thus freed.
Canon 68 A bishop who frees a slave of the church without reserving the patrocinium [financial holdings] for the church must give the church two slaves in his place. If the person freed makes any complaint about the way he was treated while he was a slave, he must again become a church slave
I asked regarding the justification of prohibition from release of church slaves or the contribution of property to others by your organization and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Toledo a.d. 638 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 3 Thank God for the edict of King Chintila banishing all Jews from Spain, with the order that “only Catholics may live in the land…Resolved that any future king before mounting the throne should swear an oath not to tolerate the Jewish Unglauben [unbelief]…If he breaks this oath, let him be anathema and maranatha [excommunicated] before God and food for the eternal fire.”
I asked regarding the justification of the banishment of Jews from their lifelong homes and the loss of their properties (much of which would fall under the influence of your church) is morally wrong and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Toledo a.d. 656 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 6 Children over ten years of age may dedicate themselves to the religious life without consenting their parents. When smaller children are tonsured or given the religious garment, unless their parents lodge immediate protest, they are bound to the religious discipline for life.
I asked regarding the justification of allowing a mere child to agree to life-long servitude and slavery is morally wrong and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Emerita a.d. 666 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 15 It often happens that priests who fall sick blame church slaves for their condition and torture them out of revenge. This must cease.
Canon 16 Bishops must stop taking more than their third. They must not take from the church’s third for their private use.
I asked regarding the justification of stealing from the offerings of your followers for private use by your organization and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
Toledo a.d. 694 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 8 Jews must be denied all religious practice. Their children must be taken from them at seven years and must marry Christians.
I asked regarding the justification of taking children away from their mothers and fathers and forcing them into marriage to a person of your organization is morally wrong and and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Boniface a.d. 745 your church created a policy as follows :
Statute 13 Pasquil [jokes about the authorities] must be severely punished, even with exile.
I asked regarding the justification of the severe punishment failing to respect an authority of your organization with exile and it’s associated loss of association with family and loss of property and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Paderborn a.d. 785 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 21 anyone engaging in pagan rites must pay a heavy fine. If he cannot pay, no matter what his station, he becomes a slave of the church until he has paid up.
I asked regarding the justification of making a slave out of a person who is simply engaging in a religious practice different from yours and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
Canon 23 Soothsayers and fortune-tellers shall be given to churches and priests as slaves.
I asked regarding the justification of making a slave out of a person who is simply engaging in a religious practice different from yours and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
At the Lateran IV, a.d. 1215 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 3 All condemned heretics must be turned over to the secular authorities for punishment…Their property must be confiscated by the church. Those who have not been able to clear themselves of charges of heresy are excommunicated and must be avoided by all. If they remain a year under the ban, they must be condemned as heretics. All civic officers must take a public oath to defend the faith and expel from their territories all heretics. Whoever, when ordered to do so by the church, does not purify his district or domain of heretics will be put under the ban. If he does not give satisfaction within a year, he must be reported to the pope, who will absolve his vassals from all duty to him and declare his lands open to legitimate conquest by Catholics : those who participate in the attack will receive the same privileges as regular crusaders. …. Anyone who preaches without the authorization of a bishop is excommunicated…A bishop must inspect his diocese. His officers are authorized to have all inhabitants swear an oath to expose to the bishop all sectarians that can be discovered…anyone who refuses to take the oath automatically makes himself a traitor. ….
I asked regarding the justification of making a slave out of a person and the stealing of their property when they decide they no longer believe in or want to be part of your organisation and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
THESE ARE THE ACTUAL QUESTIONS YOU WERE ASKED AND WHICH, SO FAR, YOU HAVE REFUSED TO DEAL WITH BUT FREQUENTLY, YOUR ONLY RESPONSE HAS BEEN TO RETREAT TO THE BUNKER OF OFFERING A DIVERSION BY REPEATING A STOCK PHRASE LIKE "JESUS IS GOD" OR "THERE IS NO "A" IN JOHN 1:1C.
Whether Jesus was the God of the Old Testament was never the issue.
The issue is how you justify terrible, terrible crimes in your own political / religious organization while complaining about what others have done.
Clear
φυσεακδρσιω
Last edited:
Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
I quote the scriptures. I do not write them!
I quote the works of EXPERT scripture scholars!
I quote the scriptures from over sixty (60) bibles.. NOT one has the letter "A" in John 1!
Historical documented FACT: The JW's added the letter "A" to John 1 long after it was established the verse John 1 was interpreted correctly by EXPERTS!
Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
Christian = Christ Follower! There were NO Christians in the Old Testament!
Christians believe and teach Jesus is God! If you reject Jesus is God then you are NOT Christian; it is just this simple!
Christians are sinners that is why we need Jesus to be saved! You reject Jesus!
Clear it is easy to see you do NOT need Jesus, thus you reject Jesus, you do not need saving because you are sinless!
JerryMyers
Active Member
Say WHAT??! I asked you a simple and logical question and you gave me Prov 27:3???!!
All I am asking you is, if you are implying Jesus was referring to his supposed death and resurrection when he told his disciples “ …everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled”, then, show me which Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms that mentioned his supposed death and resurrection”.
If you cannot even show me what you are implying, then, DON’T makes a fool of yourself by quoting words of Jesus when you DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THEM!!
Last edited:
According to Hosea 3:5 and Hosea 5:15-6:2, both Judah and Ephraim (Israel) will return and "acknowledge their guilt". On the other hand, the son of man, in the form of Hosea, will only stay with the "adulteress", the Gentile church, for "many days" (Hosea 3:3). "Many days" implies an end.
TiggerII
Active Member
Posted much earlier in response to your frequent statements like that above about John 1:1c.
"If you should actually examine my study, you will see that all the 18 truly parallel examples to John 1:1c found in John’s writings are translated into the major Bible translations as indefinite: ‘a prophet’; ‘a man’; ‘a ‘manslayer’; ‘a thief’; etc."
And, again, here is my list of all the writings in John which are truly parallel to John 1:1c.
H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”')
H,W 2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”)
H,W 3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”)
H,W 4. John 8:44 - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”)
H,W 5. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”)
H,W 6. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”)
H,W 7. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”)l
H,W 8. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”)
H,W 9. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”)
H,W 10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”)
[H,W 11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]
………………………………................................
H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - a liar (he) is.
H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - a beggar (he) was.
H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - a prophet (he) is.
H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - a sinner (he) is.
H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - a hireling (he) is.
H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - a thief (he) was.
18. 1 Jn 4:20 - a liar (he) is.
And, possibly,
H,W 19. 1 John 2:4 - a liar (he) is.
For the love of God, truth, and your life, look up these scriptures in your 60+ Bibles and tell us how many of each do not use "a" as shown above!!
Nearly all will use "a" even though there is no such word used there in the Greek texts, because it is proper English usage to do so when translating. The same usage should apply to the parallel John 1:1c !!
...................................
Trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word”. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.
The following trinitarian NT Greek experts agree that this is the literal grammatical translation of John 1:1c, but refuse to accept it as the intended meaning (for obvious reasons).
Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:
“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.
Rev. J. W. Wenham wrote in his The Elements of New Testament Greek: “Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god [God]’.” - p. 35, Cambridge University Press, 1965. (However, the word for 'the' (ho) is not in the Greek text!)
"In John i.1 (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος), the article could not have been omitted if John had wished to designate the λόγος as ὁ θεὸς, because in such a connexion θεὸς without the article would be ambiguous." - A treatise on the grammar of New Testament Greek : regarded as a sure basis for New Testament exegesis, p. 151, G. B. Winer.
Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism” will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992. However, his acknowledgment of the use of “god” for men at John 10:34-36 and the use of “god/gods” for angels, judges, and other men in the Hebrew OT Scriptures contradicts his excuse for not accepting the literal translation. - p. 202, Jesus as God.
And Dr. J. D. BeDuhn in his Truth in Translation states about John 1:1c:
“ ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar… supports this translation.” - p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003.
Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is “and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word” - p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.
And highly respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote: “You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong.” - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.
Most trinitarians refuse to accept the literal translation of John 1:1c for various invalid reasons, because this is the very best of the "Jesus is God" proofs. They would lose their stature, their salaries (publications, university positions, speaking engagements, book audiences, etc.) in a hugely malority trinitarian world.
That makes those above (excluding, apparently, Dr. BeDuhn) who venture to tell the grammatical, literal truth about John 1:1c in a minority.
Last edited by a moderator:
Soapy
Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
So you are saying that Jesus BECAME MAN… no longer GOD….
So he, Jesus the man, had to trust in what he was not… Not God!
Jesus is MAN.
That’s great, Brian2. Now you are speaking truth…
Jesus is MAN!!!
- ‘And from now on you will see the son of man coming with the clouds!’
Point of fact: Jewish boys were named after an ancestor in the family line. There was no one named ‘Jesus’ in the family line of either Joseph or Mary - therefore the name ‘Jesus’ would have been questioned…. It was not!!! Therefore it must have been a name familiar to the family lineage: ‘Joshua’!
And guess what the name ‘Joshua’ means….
And guess what the name ‘Jesus’ means….
Yes, exactly the same thing!!!!
So we distinguish the two by using the epithet: ‘Christ’, as in ‘Jesus Christ’.
And guess what ‘Christ’ means?
Was ‘Joshua’ of the time of Moses, ANOINTED? No!
Yet they both carried or will carry out the same salvation of leading the people of God into the promised land (Canaan, Paradise)
Brisn2, when are you going to wake up…? Yet I see you in your other posts slowly wiring your way towards the truth… keep it up / but get there fast because half truths are still lies - ultimately!!!
Soapy
Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Hi Tigger,
I must say that all this research into ‘a God’ or not ‘A God’ It’s all well and good for heated debate and ideological beliefs but it’s an absolute distraction - a pointless and worthless effort and waste BECAUSE:
- The word, and term, ‘GOD’, is not DEFINED
The thing is this: ‘God’ MEANS…. Look to that … look to:
- What does ‘GOD’, mean?
Ok, cut to the chase: ‘God’ means:
- Greatest
- Most majestic
- Most powerful
- Lawmaker
- Ultimate leader
- Ultimate ruler
- Hero
- Most powerful
- All powerful
- Reverted
- … (you should get the idea by now…!)
It is BOTH… and is well fitting to the DEITY that we worship!
In fact, it fits with EVERY DEITY THAT IS WORSHIPPED. And I don’t mean that we should BELIEVE IN other deities other than OUR DEITY… I’m saying that the DEFINITION FITS THEM ALL.
It fits them all because IT IS WHAT THE FOLLOWERS believe!!!!!!!!!!
WE BELIEVE IN YHWH as OUR DEITY…. So we say that YHWH is our God (fit the superlatives to that!)
Now see that we do not go around speaking and writing in superlatives… so we use the TITLE, ‘GOD’.
Tigger, the TITLE, ‘God’ is NOT EXCLUSIVE TO THE JEWISH or THE CHRISTIAN DEITY. Virtually ALL RELIGIONS BELIEVE IN A GOD and GODS!!!!
So here is a pointer to the answer of John 1:1 (I have no idea why people keep adding a ‘c’ in they’d text… explain please!!)
So now you see (I want you to see) that there are the TWO USES OF THE TERM ‘GOD’ in John 1:1 and applying the common sense ruling to it solves the age old mystery of it!
Which is this (I’ll use ‘TITLE’, and ‘SUPERLATIVE’ in place of ‘God’)
- ‘In the begging was the word [of the TITLE]’
- ‘And the word [of TITLE] was with [SUPERLATIVE]’
- ‘The word [of TITLE] was [SUPERLATIVE]
CREATION….!!!
In this then, there is no requirement for dispute over ‘God’ or ‘a God’ because the distinction is of TITLE or SUPERLATIVE.
Think of the name, ‘Peter’, which means, ‘Stone’.
Ask this: What does it mean that:
- ‘The stone that followed the children of Israel in the wilderness, was Christ’???
And what does ‘Christ’, mean? Certainly, it meant, ‘SALVATION’. Was Simon Peter the Israelite children’s salvation… CLEARLY NOT SO! Or should we say that THE ROCK was ‘A’ CHRIST?
But the word of God was more than just creation… it was also all that God spoke … such as the words that would lead to fallen man’s salvation:
That salvation would come from the SEED OF A WOMAN!!!
AND WHAT GOD SPEAKS…HIS WORD… MUST BE FULFILLED!
Therefore, after seeing that no direct offspring of Adam would fulfil the terms of salvation, God put into place THE WORD HE PROMISED and:
- In the fullness of time … GOD “PUT FLESH TO THE BONES OF HIS WORD”
Adam was so… a true Son of God, true image of God… UNTIL sin was found in him!!!
Jesus was his replacement… true Son of God, image of God, but resisted sin and REMAINS Son of Fod… so he is truly the ONLY SON OF GOD.
But further, ‘ONLY HUMAN SON OF GOD’… because angels, holy angels, are ALSO SONS OF GOD.
Tigger, DEFINITIONS (AND USAGE OF SUCH) COUNT FOR EVERYTHING…
‘Son of God’ Definition:
- “He who is led by the SPIRIT OF GOD”
- “He who carries out the works of THE FATHER”
Who else is wholly being led by the Spirit of God?
We, humanity, are all in failure to these requirements… all but Jesus Christ… therefore Jesus is the only true Son of God, led by the spirit of God, doing the works of God, his Father!
And in one place he say:
- “Father, IT IS FINISHED! I have given them THE WORD YOU GAVE ME TO GIVE to THEM (Rev 1:1) and they have received it….’
Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
tigger2 Jesus is God... Christians have always believed Jesus is God!
NOT ONE of the 60 plus scripture scholars; bible interpreters say the letter "A" should be in John 1! NOT ONE
The New World Translation is chock full with errors!
Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
Luke 12:9
But whoever disowns me before others will be disowned before the angels of God.
Rev 22:6
The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God who inspires the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.”
Rev 22:16
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”
Jesus is God... God sends Angels!
TiggerII
Active Member
Dogknox continues to repeat his same old diatribe, but refuses to do any actual research as I have requested:
"tigger2 Jesus is God... Christians have always believed Jesus is God!
NOT ONE of the 60 plus scripture scholars; bible interpreters say the letter "A" should be in John 1! NOT ONE"
I’ll assume you are just posting in ignorance and are willing to know the truth of this John 1:1c matter.
Here, I’ll give you a start:
John 4:19
propheetees ei su
PROPHET ARE YOU.
ASV
The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
AMP The woman said to Him, “Sir, I see that You are a prophet.
BRG The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
CSB “Sir,” the woman replied, “I see that you are a prophet.
CEB The woman said, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet.
CJB Sir, I can see that you are a prophet,” the woman replied.
CEV The woman said, “Sir, I can see that you are a prophet.
DARBY The woman says to him, Sir, I see that thou art a prophet.
DRA The woman saith to him: Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
EHV “Sir,” the woman replied, “I see that you are a prophet.
ERV The woman said, “Sir, I can see that you are a prophet.
ESV The woman said to him, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.
EXB The woman said to him, “Sir, I can see that you are a prophet.
GNT “I see you are a prophet, sir,” the woman said.
GNV The woman said unto him, Sir, I see that thou art a Prophet.
GW The woman said to Jesus, “I see that you’re a prophet!
HCSB “Sir,” the woman replied, “I see that You are a prophet.
ICB The woman said, “Sir, I can see that you are a prophet.
ISV The woman told him, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet!
PHILLIPS “Sir,” said the woman again, “I can see that you are a prophet!
JB “I see you are a prophet, sir.”
JUB The woman said unto him, Lord, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
KJV The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
KJ21 The woman said unto Him, “Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
LEB The woman said to him, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet.
MSG “Oh, so you’re a prophet!
MEV The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.
MOUNCE The woman said to him, “Sir, I can see that you are a prophet.
NABRE The woman said to him, “Sir, I can see that you are a prophet.
NASB The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.
NCB The woman said to him, “Sir, I can see that you are a prophet.
NCV The woman said, “Sir, I can see that you are a prophet.
NEB I can see that you are a prophet.
NET The woman said to him, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet.
NIV “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet.
NJB ‘I see you are a prophet, sir,’
NKJV The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.
NLT “Sir,” the woman said, “you must be a prophet.
NMB The woman said to him, Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.
NRSV The woman said to him, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet.
NTE ‘Well, sir,’ replied the woman, ‘I can see you’re a prophet . . .
REB ‘I can see you are a prophet.
RGT The woman said to Him, “Sir, I see that You are a Prophet.
RSV The woman said to him, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.
TLB “Sir,” the woman said, “you must be a prophet.
TLV “Sir,” the woman tells Him, “I see that You are a prophet!
TPT The woman changed the subject. “You must be a prophet!
VOICE Woman: Sir, it is obvious to me that You are a prophet.
WEB The woman said to him, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.
There is no Greek word for "a" or "an" in the entire Greek NT Text! They are added by all translators when the Greek has a construction like that of John 1:1c. Now please check your Bibles for the other 18 parallel constructions I have listed for you. Notice they all use "a."
At least admit this easily proved fact.
"tigger2 Jesus is God... Christians have always believed Jesus is God!
NOT ONE of the 60 plus scripture scholars; bible interpreters say the letter "A" should be in John 1! NOT ONE"
I’ll assume you are just posting in ignorance and are willing to know the truth of this John 1:1c matter.
Here, I’ll give you a start:
John 4:19
propheetees ei su
PROPHET ARE YOU.
ASV
The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
AMP The woman said to Him, “Sir, I see that You are a prophet.
BRG The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
CSB “Sir,” the woman replied, “I see that you are a prophet.
CEB The woman said, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet.
CJB Sir, I can see that you are a prophet,” the woman replied.
CEV The woman said, “Sir, I can see that you are a prophet.
DARBY The woman says to him, Sir, I see that thou art a prophet.
DRA The woman saith to him: Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
EHV “Sir,” the woman replied, “I see that you are a prophet.
ERV The woman said, “Sir, I can see that you are a prophet.
ESV The woman said to him, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.
EXB The woman said to him, “Sir, I can see that you are a prophet.
GNT “I see you are a prophet, sir,” the woman said.
GNV The woman said unto him, Sir, I see that thou art a Prophet.
GW The woman said to Jesus, “I see that you’re a prophet!
HCSB “Sir,” the woman replied, “I see that You are a prophet.
ICB The woman said, “Sir, I can see that you are a prophet.
ISV The woman told him, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet!
PHILLIPS “Sir,” said the woman again, “I can see that you are a prophet!
JB “I see you are a prophet, sir.”
JUB The woman said unto him, Lord, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
KJV The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
KJ21 The woman said unto Him, “Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
LEB The woman said to him, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet.
MSG “Oh, so you’re a prophet!
MEV The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.
MOUNCE The woman said to him, “Sir, I can see that you are a prophet.
NABRE The woman said to him, “Sir, I can see that you are a prophet.
NASB The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.
NCB The woman said to him, “Sir, I can see that you are a prophet.
NCV The woman said, “Sir, I can see that you are a prophet.
NEB I can see that you are a prophet.
NET The woman said to him, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet.
NIV “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet.
NJB ‘I see you are a prophet, sir,’
NKJV The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.
NLT “Sir,” the woman said, “you must be a prophet.
NMB The woman said to him, Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.
NRSV The woman said to him, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet.
NTE ‘Well, sir,’ replied the woman, ‘I can see you’re a prophet . . .
REB ‘I can see you are a prophet.
RGT The woman said to Him, “Sir, I see that You are a Prophet.
RSV The woman said to him, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.
TLB “Sir,” the woman said, “you must be a prophet.
TLV “Sir,” the woman tells Him, “I see that You are a prophet!
TPT The woman changed the subject. “You must be a prophet!
VOICE Woman: Sir, it is obvious to me that You are a prophet.
WEB The woman said to him, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.
There is no Greek word for "a" or "an" in the entire Greek NT Text! They are added by all translators when the Greek has a construction like that of John 1:1c. Now please check your Bibles for the other 18 parallel constructions I have listed for you. Notice they all use "a."
At least admit this easily proved fact.
Soapy
Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Is God, the root and offspring of David?
Is God, the bright and morning star?
At the announcement to Mary that she would conceive a child by means of the Holy Spirit OF GOD, the Angel OF GOD told Mary that because the child will be conceived in this way, he, Jesus, would be called, ‘The Son of the God, Most High’.
Dogknox, is the son of the God most high, the God most high?
Also, the quotes given are not pertaining to the same thing.
Moreover, GOD GAVE Jesus those angels that Jesus requires for his work.
Hi Dogknox20
CLEAR SAID
REGARDING HOW DOGKNOW20 JUSTIFIES THE HORRORS COMMITTED BY HIS ORGANISATION
Dogknox20 said : "Clear If you say Jesus is NOT God you cannot be Christian!"
I agree that the early Christian believed Jesus was Jehovah of the Old Testament and I think they are correct on this point.
This was never the issue I disagreed with.
1) I asked how you justified lying for Jesus in offering fake text to forum members as though it was scripture.
2) I asked how you justified complaining about the Jehovahs Witnesses offering a grammatically correct translation of a text while you offer readers a completely inauthentic and false version of scripture.
3) I asked how you justified mischaracterizing and lying about the jehovahs Witness and the results of their belief in not accepting blood transfusions when your own Church actually murdered thousands and thousands.
4) I asked how you justified claiming your church and it’s policies were the church and policies of Christ when the policies engaged in slavery and oppression and in murder and sought the accumulation of wealth and power when the original church did not seek slaves and oppression and did not murder.
For examples of policies and actions your political / religious organisation has promulgated :
In Paris, a.d. 557 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 1 No one may hold that church property changes political denominations : no one can claim that church property ever passes under another ruler “since the dominion of God knows no geographical bounderies.” No one may claim that he holds as a gift from the king property that once belonged to the church. All property given by King Chlodwig of blessed memory and handed down as an inheritance must now be given back to the church.
I asked regarding the justification of taking property from individuals who have owned it legally by your organization and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Toledo, a.d. 589 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 20 Many bishops burden their clerics with intolerable compulsory services and contributions. Clerics thus cruelly oppressed may complain to the metropolitan.
I asked regarding the justification of burdening clerics with “compulsory services” (a euphemism for slavery?) and taking their money and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Nabonne, a.d. 589 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 13 Subdeacons must hold curtains and doors open for superior clergy. If they refuse to do so they must pay a fine; lower clergy who refuse must be beaten.
I asked regarding the justification of oppression and physical beatings of lower clergy by your organization is morally wrong and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Reims, a.d. 624-625 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 13 No one, not even a bishop, may ever sell the property or slaves of the church.(such a rule would mean that the church can only continue to gain property and financial value but it can never decrease it’s holdings.)
I asked regarding the justification of prohibition from release of slaves or the contribution of property to others by your organization and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Toledo, a.d. 633 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 67 Bishops may not free slaves of the church unless they reimburse the church out of their private fortunes, and the bishop’s successors can reclaim any thus freed.
Canon 68 A bishop who frees a slave of the church without reserving the patrocinium [financial holdings] for the church must give the church two slaves in his place. If the person freed makes any complaint about the way he was treated while he was a slave, he must again become a church slave
I asked regarding the justification of prohibition from release of church slaves or the contribution of property to others by your organization and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Toledo a.d. 638 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 3 Thank God for the edict of King Chintila banishing all Jews from Spain, with the order that “only Catholics may live in the land…Resolved that any future king before mounting the throne should swear an oath not to tolerate the Jewish Unglauben [unbelief]…If he breaks this oath, let him be anathema and maranatha [excommunicated] before God and food for the eternal fire.”
I asked regarding the justification of the banishment of Jews from their lifelong homes and the loss of their properties (much of which would fall under the influence of your church) is morally wrong and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Toledo a.d. 656 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 6 Children over ten years of age may dedicate themselves to the religious life without consenting their parents. When smaller children are tonsured or given the religious garment, unless their parents lodge immediate protest, they are bound to the religious discipline for life.
I asked regarding the justification of allowing a mere child to agree to life-long servitude and slavery is morally wrong and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Emerita a.d. 666 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 15 It often happens that priests who fall sick blame church slaves for their condition and torture them out of revenge. This must cease.
Canon 16 Bishops must stop taking more than their third. They must not take from the church’s third for their private use.
I asked regarding the justification of stealing from the offerings of your followers for private use by your organization and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
Toledo a.d. 694 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 8 Jews must be denied all religious practice. Their children must be taken from them at seven years and must marry Christians.
I asked regarding the justification of taking children away from their mothers and fathers and forcing them into marriage to a person of your organization is morally wrong and and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
CLEAR SAID
REGARDING HOW DOGKNOW20 JUSTIFIES THE HORRORS COMMITTED BY HIS ORGANISATION
Dogknox20 said : "Clear If you say Jesus is NOT God you cannot be Christian!"
I agree that the early Christian believed Jesus was Jehovah of the Old Testament and I think they are correct on this point.
This was never the issue I disagreed with.
1) I asked how you justified lying for Jesus in offering fake text to forum members as though it was scripture.
2) I asked how you justified complaining about the Jehovahs Witnesses offering a grammatically correct translation of a text while you offer readers a completely inauthentic and false version of scripture.
3) I asked how you justified mischaracterizing and lying about the jehovahs Witness and the results of their belief in not accepting blood transfusions when your own Church actually murdered thousands and thousands.
4) I asked how you justified claiming your church and it’s policies were the church and policies of Christ when the policies engaged in slavery and oppression and in murder and sought the accumulation of wealth and power when the original church did not seek slaves and oppression and did not murder.
For examples of policies and actions your political / religious organisation has promulgated :
In Paris, a.d. 557 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 1 No one may hold that church property changes political denominations : no one can claim that church property ever passes under another ruler “since the dominion of God knows no geographical bounderies.” No one may claim that he holds as a gift from the king property that once belonged to the church. All property given by King Chlodwig of blessed memory and handed down as an inheritance must now be given back to the church.
I asked regarding the justification of taking property from individuals who have owned it legally by your organization and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Toledo, a.d. 589 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 20 Many bishops burden their clerics with intolerable compulsory services and contributions. Clerics thus cruelly oppressed may complain to the metropolitan.
I asked regarding the justification of burdening clerics with “compulsory services” (a euphemism for slavery?) and taking their money and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Nabonne, a.d. 589 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 13 Subdeacons must hold curtains and doors open for superior clergy. If they refuse to do so they must pay a fine; lower clergy who refuse must be beaten.
I asked regarding the justification of oppression and physical beatings of lower clergy by your organization is morally wrong and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Reims, a.d. 624-625 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 13 No one, not even a bishop, may ever sell the property or slaves of the church.(such a rule would mean that the church can only continue to gain property and financial value but it can never decrease it’s holdings.)
I asked regarding the justification of prohibition from release of slaves or the contribution of property to others by your organization and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Toledo, a.d. 633 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 67 Bishops may not free slaves of the church unless they reimburse the church out of their private fortunes, and the bishop’s successors can reclaim any thus freed.
Canon 68 A bishop who frees a slave of the church without reserving the patrocinium [financial holdings] for the church must give the church two slaves in his place. If the person freed makes any complaint about the way he was treated while he was a slave, he must again become a church slave
I asked regarding the justification of prohibition from release of church slaves or the contribution of property to others by your organization and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Toledo a.d. 638 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 3 Thank God for the edict of King Chintila banishing all Jews from Spain, with the order that “only Catholics may live in the land…Resolved that any future king before mounting the throne should swear an oath not to tolerate the Jewish Unglauben [unbelief]…If he breaks this oath, let him be anathema and maranatha [excommunicated] before God and food for the eternal fire.”
I asked regarding the justification of the banishment of Jews from their lifelong homes and the loss of their properties (much of which would fall under the influence of your church) is morally wrong and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Toledo a.d. 656 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 6 Children over ten years of age may dedicate themselves to the religious life without consenting their parents. When smaller children are tonsured or given the religious garment, unless their parents lodge immediate protest, they are bound to the religious discipline for life.
I asked regarding the justification of allowing a mere child to agree to life-long servitude and slavery is morally wrong and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Emerita a.d. 666 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 15 It often happens that priests who fall sick blame church slaves for their condition and torture them out of revenge. This must cease.
Canon 16 Bishops must stop taking more than their third. They must not take from the church’s third for their private use.
I asked regarding the justification of stealing from the offerings of your followers for private use by your organization and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
Toledo a.d. 694 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 8 Jews must be denied all religious practice. Their children must be taken from them at seven years and must marry Christians.
I asked regarding the justification of taking children away from their mothers and fathers and forcing them into marriage to a person of your organization is morally wrong and and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS