what was so great about Jesus?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Christian doctrine declares that their is ONE God in THREE Persons.
The three persons are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is
a mystery about God that has not yet been fully revealed. The JW's
deny the Christian doctrine of the Triune Godhead in favor of One true
God, the Father and a lesser god. This lesser god they claim was once
an ...[text shortened]... ngel that became a man, Jesus. Jesus, after the resurrection was
raise to the level of a god.

The father and the son as one? Whoa, there's some kind of timing paradox in this one....

-m.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Christian doctrine declares that their is ONE God in THREE Persons.
The three persons are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is
a mystery about God that has not yet been fully revealed. The JW's
deny the Christian doctrine of the Triune Godhead in favor of One true
God, the Father and a lesser god. This lesser god they claim was once
an ...[text shortened]... ngel that became a man, Jesus. Jesus, after the resurrection was
raise to the level of a god.

Now you are getting it. Just as the Bible explains. If the trinity were true you'd think the word trinity would be in the Bible at least once. But it aint....as well as any teaching of it.

Originally posted by galveston75
Now you are getting it. Just as the Bible explains. If the trinity were true you'd think the word trinity would be in the Bible at least once. But it aint....as well as any teaching of it.

The fact that a particular word is not in the Holy Bible has nothing
to do with the validity of the doctrine. The doctrine is validated
by what the Holy Bible teaches. The word "theocracy" is not in the
Holy Bible either, yet the Watchtower Society claims it operates
as a theocracy.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The fact that a particular word is not in the Holy Bible has nothing
to do with the validity of the doctrine. The doctrine is validated
by what the Holy Bible teaches. The word "theocracy" is not in the
Holy Bible either, yet the Watchtower Society claims it operates
as a theocracy.

floccinaucinihilipilification

not in the bible

but strangely apt regarding your posts

Originally posted by RJHinds
The fact that a particular word is not in the Holy Bible has nothing
to do with the validity of the doctrine. The doctrine is validated
by what the Holy Bible teaches. The word "theocracy" is not in the
Holy Bible either, yet the Watchtower Society claims it operates
as a theocracy.

What the term means: The government of God is, in structure and function, a pure theocracy (from Gr. theos, god, and kratos, a rule), a rule by God. The term “theocracy” is attributed to Jewish historian Josephus of the first century C.E., who evidently coined it in his writing Against Apion (II, 164, 165 [16]). Of the government established over Israel in Sinai, Josephus wrote: “Some peoples have entrusted the supreme political power to monarchies, others to oligarchies, yet others to the masses. Our lawgiver, however, was attracted by none of these forms of polity, but gave to his constitution the form of what—if a forced expression be permitted—may be termed a ‘theocracy [Gr., theokratian],’ placing all sovereignty and authority in the hands of God.” To be a pure theocracy, of course, the government could not be ordained by any human legislator, such as the man Moses, but must be ordained and established by God. The Scriptural record shows this was the case.

This is the only Government that we recognize that has the right to rule the earth and the life on it. And it's the only government that will solve earths problems.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
floccinaucinihilipilification

not in the bible

but strangely apt regarding your posts

Your post is certainly of no value to the subject of this thread.
So your criticism is useless.

Originally posted by galveston75
What the term means: The government of God is, in structure and function, a pure theocracy (from Gr. theos, god, and kratos, a rule), a rule by God. The term “theocracy” is attributed to Jewish historian Josephus of the first century C.E., who evidently coined it in his writing Against Apion (II, 164, 165 [16]). Of the government established over Isra ...[text shortened]... ule the earth and the life on it. And it's the only government that will solve earths problems.

In like manner the term "Trinity" is attributed to Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons.
He is believed to have been born about 125 CE and wrote his Against
Heresies c. 175-185 CE. He used the term to stand for the relationship
described in the Holy Bible of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
as one God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
In like manner the term "Trinity" is attributed to Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons.
He is believed to have been born about 125 CE and wrote his Against
Heresies c. 175-185 CE. He used the term to stand for the relationship
described in the Holy Bible of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
as one God.

Not a Bible teaching though.

I caught this little fact about his thoughts: " Irenaeus believes that Christ would always have been sent, even if humanity had never sinned; but the fact that they did sin determines his role as a saviour. http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/people/irenaeus.htm

I think when one comes up with a thought such as this very stupid one, it would not lend to any true Christian thoughts such as the trinity.

Originally posted by galveston75
Not a Bible teaching though.

I caught this little fact about his thoughts: " Irenaeus believes that Christ would always have been sent, even if humanity had never sinned; but the fact that they did sin determines his role as a saviour. http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/people/irenaeus.htm

I think when one comes up with a thought such as this very stupid one, it would not lend to any true Christian thoughts such as the trinity.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. An unusual opinion by someone
does not mean we should just disreguard all his opinions. I am sure
you must have had some unusual thoughts at times and just probably
don't remember or don't consider them unusual like the rest of us.
Anyway, the point was that the term "Trinity" is a valid term.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Everyone has a right to an opinion. An unusual opinion by someone
does not mean we should just disreguard all his opinions. I am sure
you must have had some unusual thoughts at times and just probably
don't remember or don't consider them unusual like the rest of us.
Anyway, the point was that the term "Trinity" is a valid term.

Yes a term that was this dudes "Opinion". Not a Bible teaching, EVER!!!!!

Originally posted by galveston75
Yes a term that was this dudes "Opinion". Not a Bible teaching, EVER!!!!!

This dude has more credential about what the disciples of Christ
believed than you. Not only was He a Chistian bishop, he was also a
disciple of Polycarp, who himself was a disciple of John the Evangelist,
who was one of Christ's original twelve apostles and writer of the Gospel
of John.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This dude has more credential about what the disciples of Christ
believed than you. Not only was He a Chistian bishop, he was also a
disciple of Polycarp, who himself was a disciple of John the Evangelist,
who was one of Christ's original twelve apostles and writer of the Gospel
of John.

Did not Jesus tell his deciples that after he would be gone that false doctrines would begin to be brought into the congregations?
So it would appear that ones such as this DUDE would qualify as such as he didn't even get the full meaning why Jesus came to earth.
If he didn't get that then he obviously didn't know all there was to know and as a result could have easily fallen into other ideas such as the trinity.

Originally posted by galveston75
Did not Jesus tell his deciples that after he would be gone that false doctrines would begin to be brought into the congregations?
So it would appear that ones such as this DUDE would qualify as such as he didn't even get the full meaning why Jesus came to earth.
If he didn't get that then he obviously didn't know all there was to know and as a result could have easily fallen into other ideas such as the trinity.

It is you that did not get the meaning of what that "Dude" said for
he clearly stated the reason for the Christ's coming. He was merely
speculating on what he thought would have occurred if Adam and
Eve had not sinned. We can declare his thoughts on the subject
unusual, but there is no way to know if his idea is correct or not
because man did sin and the Holy Bible does not clearly say what
would have happened if they had not. It never says anything
about what the Son had planned on doing if they had not sinned.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is you that did not get the meaning of what that "Dude" said for
he clearly stated the reason for the Christ's coming. He was merely
speculating on what he thought would have occurred if Adam and
Eve had not sinned. We can declare his thoughts on the subject
unusual, but there is no way to know if his idea is correct or not
because man did sin and ...[text shortened]... not. It never says anything
about what the Son had planned on doing if they had not sinned.

If he knew the truth he would not be speculating about it.

Originally posted by galveston75
If he knew the truth he would not be speculating about it.

No man knows the truth on everything that could possibly occur.
Not even the men that make up your Watchtower Society. You
are ignorant if you think otherwise.