PrehistoricMan

But when he wrote it at the time, he was a believer was he not? So you think the words are invalid just because of that? That is not how the world works.

Um, politifact is a liberal run site. Of course they would lie about Candace.

Um, Frank.....The expo has been going on since october 1st ALLLLLLLL at a program rate you lying dog.

I hope GD and Engine come here to complain about this. I am dying to taste their salty tears.

Should Religion Be Involved in Politics? What Jesus Did, What Historians Report (jw.org) Throughout the world, many people who claim to follow Jesus Christ are deeply involved in politics. Some try to promote their religious and moral values by supporting particular candidates or political parties. In turn, politicians often use moral or social issues to win the support of religious people. It is not uncommon for religious leaders to run for political office. And in some countries, a “Christian” denomination may even occupy a special status as a state, or national, religion. What do you think? Should followers of Jesus Christ get involved in politics? You can find the answer by looking at Jesus’ example. He said: “I set the pattern for you, that just as I did to you, you should also do.” (John 13:15) When it comes to politics, what pattern did Jesus set? Did Jesus get involved in politics? No. Jesus did not get involved in the politics of the world. Jesus did not seek political power. He refused to accept control of human governments when Satan the Devil offered him “all the kingdoms of the world.” (Matthew 4:8-10) * On another occasion, people who recognized Jesus’ leadership qualities tried to push him into politics. The Bible reports: “Jesus, knowing that they were about to come and seize him to make him king, withdrew again to the mountain all alone.” (John 6:15) Jesus did not yield to the will of the people. Instead, he refused to get politically involved. Jesus did not take sides on political issues. For example, in Jesus’ day the Jews resented paying taxes to the Roman government and viewed these as an unjust burden. When they tried to get Jesus to take sides on the issue, he did not get into a political debate about whether such taxes were just. He told them: “Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.” (Mark 12:13-17) He remained neutral on the political issue but showed that the taxes demanded by the Roman civil authority, which represented Caesar, should be paid. At the same time, he showed that obedience to secular authority was limited. A person was not to give the State what was due to God, including devotion and worship.—Matthew 4:10; 22:37, 38. Jesus promoted a heavenly government, God’s Kingdom. (Luke 4:43) He did not get involved in politics because he knew that God’s Kingdom, not human governments, would achieve what God wants for the earth. (Matthew 6:10) He understood that God’s Kingdom would not operate through human governments but would replace them.—Daniel 2:44. Did first-century Christians get involved in politics? No. Jesus’ followers obeyed his command to be “no part of the world.” (John 15:19) They followed his example and remained separate from the world’s politics. (John 17:16; 18:36) Rather than get involved in political matters, they did the work Jesus commanded—preaching and teaching about God’s Kingdom.—Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 10:42. First-century Christians put obedience to God first in their lives, but they also knew that they had to respect secular authorities. (Acts 5:29; 1 Peter 2:13, 17) They obeyed the laws and paid taxes. (Romans 13:1, 7) While they did not get involved in politics, they did make use of legal protections and services that governments provided.—Acts 25:10, 11; Philippians 1:7. Early Christians and politics—what secular history reports “Christians refused to share certain duties of Roman citizens. . . . They would not hold political office.”—On the Road to Civilization—A World History, page 238. “There is not a shred of evidence which would allow us to think that Jesus had military/political ambitions, and . . . the same applies to the disciples.”—Jesus and Judaism, page 231. “To a Christian his religion was something apart from and superior to political society; his highest allegiance belonged not to Caesar but to Christ.”—Caesar and Christ, page 647. “[The apostle] Paul was willing to use his Roman citizenship to demand the protections of the judicial process due him, but he engaged in no lobbying on the public policy issues of the day. . . . Though they believed they were obligated to honor the governing authorities, the early Christians did not believe in participating in political affairs.”—Beyond Good Intentions—A Biblical View of Politics, pages 122-123. “There was a conviction widely held among Christians that none of their number should hold office under the state . . . As late as the beginning of the third century Hippolytus said that historic Christian custom required a civic magistrate to resign his office as a condition of joining the Church.”—A History of Christianity, Volume I, page 253. Christian neutrality today The Bible clearly shows that neither Jesus nor his early followers got involved in politics. For this reason, as Christians, Jehovah’s Witnesses around the world remain completely neutral. Like first-century Christians, they do the work that Jesus commanded—they preach “this good news of the Kingdom.”—Matthew 24:14

You dont see how your writings completely contradicts itself do ya? First he says God is NOT a human. Then you say God came as a human. LOL....you dont even know what you believe.

Ah....So YOU Get to copy and paste and um, NOT put a link whereas the rest of us peons have to put a link right? I know you didnt type out the above. Post the link like I have to do. Level playing field ya know.

Sure. Easily beat. When I was back in high school our school had pep rallies. To motivate the school into going to see the football game. They often called it School SPIRIT. Now did an actual spirit inhabit us to force us to the football game or was it rather good feelings etc? spiritsEUROPE - A Spirit of Tradition - Main spirit drinks Notice this. A spirit of tradition. Now according to you there are spirit creatures living inside of alcohol right? Again Markinsa YOU are a literalist. Not everything in the Bible is literal. I dont know how many times one has to teach you that....but it isnt sinking in.... Spirit of '76 (sentiment) - Wikipedia Notice it LITERALLY says sentiment. Yes SOME are spirit creatures but many times in the Bible, in fact ALL of the verses you list are SENTIMENTS. NOT real spirits.

Everything you just said, I repeat back to you. You dont have the holy spirit. You dont understand the bible at all really either. I go by what God says too. Isaiah 9:6 is easily defeated here.... Examining the Trinity: Isa. 9:6 "Mighty God, Eternal Father" Isa. 9:6 "Mighty God, Eternal Father" Isa. 9:6 (From the RDB Files) "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." All Christians, I believe, accept this son as being the Christ. Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words "Mighty God, Eternal Father," then Jesus is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father." But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles found within the name (e.g., "Mighty God") are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses. (2) The titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah. First, there is the possibility that the words (or titles) found in the literal meaning of the name apply directly to the Messiah all right but in a subordinate sense. In other words, Christ is "a mighty god" in the same sense that God's angels were called "gods" and the judges of Israel were called "gods" by God himself (also by Jesus - John 10:34, 35), and Moses was called "a god" by Jehovah himself. This is the interpretation of Is. 9:6 by the WT Society at this time (1986). Yes, men and angels were called gods (elohim - Hebrew; theos - Greek) in a proper, but subordinate, sense by Jehovah and his inspired Bible writers. Although they were given this elevated title in a proper sense (not false gods), it was obviously with the clear understanding that it in no way implied a comparison with the Most High, Only True God. (A bank employee calling his boss, the head of the bank, "the president" would certainly not imply an equality of position, power, etc. with "The President" [of the USA].) The word "god" as understood by those who used that term simply meant a "mighty one" - see Young's Concordance. In fact the word "Mighty" as found at Is. 9:6 (Gibbor in the original Hebrew) is also applied to the angels at Ps. 103:20 (see a modern concordance such as the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible). It is interesting that the ancient translation of the Old Testament that Jesus frequently quoted, the Septuagint Version, renders Is. 9:6: "and his [the Messiah's] name is called the Angel [aggeloV, messenger] of Great Counsel." The very early (ca. 160 A.D.) Christian Justin Martyr quoted Is. 9:6 also as "The Angel of mighty counsel" - "Dialogue With Trypho," ch. LXXVI. So, just as "Lord" was applied to anyone in authority: angels, masters over servants, husbands, etc., so, too, could "god" be applied to anyone (good or bad) who was considered a "mighty person." Of course only one person could be called the "Most High God," or the "Only True God," or the "Almighty God"! [See the sidebar: "God and gods"] In the same way, "Eternal Father" could mean that the Messiah is one who has been given eternal life and through him God has brought eternal life to many others. (We might make the comparison that the Heavenly Father has brought men to life in this world through their earthly fathers.) This would be intended in a clearly subordinate sense and not to take anything away from the ultimate honor, glory, worship, etc. due the Most High God and Father in heaven - Jehovah. At any rate, even trinitarians do not confuse the two separate persons of the Father and the Son. They do not say the Son is the Father. They say the Father and the Son are two separate individual persons who are equally "God"! Therefore, since we obviously cannot take "Eternal Father" in the literal sense to mean that Jesus is the Father, we cannot take the rest of that same name (esp. `Mighty God') in its literal highest sense and say that Jesus is Mighty God, etc., either. In addition to the distinct possibility of the use of the secondary subordinate meanings of the titles such as "God/god" as explained by Bible language scholars, we can see by the actual renderings of some trinitarian Bible translators at Is. 9:6 that they believe such subordinate meanings were intended by the inspired Bible writer. Instead of "Mighty God," Dr. James Moffatt translated this part of Is. 9:6 as "a divine hero;" Byington has "Divine Champion;" The New English Bible has "In Battle Godlike;" The Catholic New American Bible (1970 and 1991 revision) renders it "God-Hero;" and the REB says "Mighty Hero." Even that most-respected of Biblical Hebrew language experts, Gesenius, translated it "mighty hero" - p. 45, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon. Also, The NIV Study Bible, in a f.n. for Ps 45:6, tells us: "In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his `splendor and majesty' (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called `god' as a title of honor [cf. Isa 9:6]." (Bracketed information included in original footnote. Emphasis is mine) In addition, Rotherham has rendered "Eternal Father" as "father of progress," and the New English Bible translates it: "father of a wide realm." The above-mentioned Bible translations by trinitarian scholars which apply the words in the name at Is. 9:6 in a subordinate sense directly to Jesus clearly show that they do not believe this scripture implies an equality with Jehovah the Father. But, some may ask, if ‘a mighty god’ were intended in this name, why is “God” given a capital ‘G’ in most translations of this name? The answer is that in English translations of names we often find the major words within a name (or title) are capitalized. This is similar to the way book titles, names of buildings, ships, etc. are written in English. ‘The Lord of the Rings,’ ‘The World Trade Center,’ ‘The Empire State Building,’ ‘Allure of the Seas’ (cruise ship), etc., are modern examples. ........................ And second, another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites' personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah (as we have already seen with "Elijah," "Abijah," etc.) but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God. Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as "my," "is," "of," etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English. For instance, two of the best Bible concordances (Young's and Strong's) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today's Dictionary of the Bible) differ greatly on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those "minor" words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name "Elimelech" (which is literally just "God King") means "God of (the) King." Young's Analytical Concordance says it means "God is King." Today's Dictionary of the Bible says it means " God his king" - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982. And an online meaning is given as “My God is the King.” - http://www.kveller.com/jewish_names/display.php?n=Elimelech&k=840 And, “God is my King.” - http://www.jhom.com/calendar/sivan/symbolism.htm . I haven’t found any scholar/translator who says the name of Elimelech should be translated with its literal meaning of “God King.” Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference! - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name 'Abram' "means `Exalted Father,' probably in reference to God (i.e., `[God is] Exalted Father')."- Brackets in original. This is why another name the Messiah is to be called by at Jer. 23:6 is rendered, `The LORD [YHWH] is Our Righteousness' in the following Bibles: RSV; NRSV; NEB; NJB; JPS (Margolis, ed.); Tanakh; Byington; AT; and ASV (footnote). Of course other translations render it more literally by calling the Messiah "The LORD [YHWH] Our Righteousness" to help support a `Jesus is God' doctrine. Some of these (such as the NASB) actually render the very same name at Jer. 33:16 as "The LORD [or Jehovah] is Our Righteousness"! - [bracketed information is mine]. (Unfortunately for "Jesus is Jehovah" advocates, the very same name given to the Messiah at Jer. 23:16 is given to a city at Jer. 33:16.) But perhaps most instructive of all is the name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6. Is. 8:3 Maher-shalal-hash-baz: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes” or “swift booty speedy prey.” Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey” - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey” - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth” - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder” - - “There will soon be looting and stealing”- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey” - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy” - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey” - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker” - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!” - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.” And John Gill wrote: “‘hasten to seize the prey, and to take away the spoil.’ Some translate it, ‘in hastening the prey, the spoiler hastens’; perhaps it may be better rendered, ‘hasten to the spoil, hasten to the prey.’” Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated as: "And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah. ‘For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, ‘Wonderful, Counselor [IS] The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.’ The two letter word ‘is,’ is usually not stated in Hebrew. Rather, the ‘is’ is understood.” - https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2016/04/prophecy-about-jesus-mighty-god.html The Leeser Bible also translates it: “Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace” Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says: "Wonderful counselor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace." From the Is. 9:6 footnote in the trinity-supporting NET Bible: ".... some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow ['called'] refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, 'and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."'" And, ‘Wonderful in counsel is God the mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace’ (Hertz 1968). Of course it could also be honestly translated: "Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace." And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it: [a]"The Mighty God is planning grace; [b] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler." This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism ("Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" means [a]"quick to the plunder; [b] swift to the spoil" - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [a]"For unto us a child is born; [b] unto us a son is given." It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above. So it is clear, even to a number of trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.

I bet if you asked GL who is Hal jordon or John Stewart he wouldnt have a clue.

Your humble opinion hasnt amounted to much. You literally said this 10 days ago...¨ I believe that they are Article 8 complaint and they can RV / RI at anytime the cbi wants to!¨ How can you go from one extreme opinion to the complete opposite so quickly? Perhaps you shouldnt listen to people like Perry Stone that SELLS religion. The Bible tells us that if we receive free then give free. Anyone selling stuff is a charlatan.

I guess the auctions ending today were a total lie...

They are on franks site. Everyone makes fun of Frank but have no qualms about stealing his info.

Not to mention the reinstatement has NOTHING to do with a government. It is strictly CBI.

Aritech made the same prediction.

No, when John 1:1 it says THE Word. Not Mouth, not words...THE Word. Can you show me where a being called THE WORD spoke to anyone in the hebrew scriptures? You keep posting scriptures that have nothing to do with what we are talking about....I wonder why you fill up the page with them? Why dont you post Jeremiah 5:8. It would make about as much sense.

Try to wait until I have responded before doing another post please. Search For Bible Truths: In John 10:30, does Jesus say that he and his Father are one person? "In John 10:30, does Jesus say that he and his Father are one person?" No. Jesus, at John 10:30, said: "I and the Father are one.” Many Bible Greek experts tell us that Bible writers consistently described groups of individuals as “one” figuratively in the sense of their being “united in will and purpose." Even the very TRINITARIAN New Testament Greek scholar W. E. Vine when discussing the Greek word for “one” says: “(b) metaphorically [figuratively], union and concord, e.g., John 10:30; 11:52; 17:11, 21, 22....” - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 809. Jesus said at John 17:22: “The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as we are one.” - NASB. (Compare John 17:11. - A footnote for John 17:11 in the very trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985 says: “the unity is to be like that between the Father and the Son.”) Not only is it obvious that these Christians are not equally Christ with Jesus, nor equally God with the Father, nor are they all one person, but that they are all figuratively united in “will” and “purpose” with God. That is, they agree with and carry out the Father's will. Also important is that the word “one” at John 10:30 and 17:22 is the neuter form hen. The two other forms for “one” are mia, which is the feminine form, and heis, the masculine form. Those who insist that John 10:30 means “the Father and I are one God” are clearly wrong as shown by New Testament Greek grammar alone. “God” in New Testament Greek is always masculine and must take masculine forms of adjectives, pronouns, etc. in agreement (see Mark 12:29, 32; 1 Cor. 8:4; Eph. 4:4-6 in interlinear Bibles). Or, as Dr. Marshall puts it in one of his basic NT Greek grammar rules: “Adjectives must agree with the nouns they modify in number, gender,...and case”. - p. 25, Rule 7, New Testament Greek Primer, Alfred Marshall, Zondervan Publishing, 1978 printing. (Compare 1 Cor. 3:8 in interlinear Bible [esp. note footnote in The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English] with NIV; NAB; LB; and CBW.) Therefore, the use of the neuter “one” (hen) at John 10:30 shows “one God” could not have been intended by Jesus but instead shows “metaphorically, union and concord”! It is possible to have gender irregularities when someone is described figuratively (“metaphorically”) such as “he is a Rock” or “Jesus is the Lamb,” but when he is being literally described we must have gender agreement. If we insist on supplying an “understood” ‘God,’ it must be at a place which uses the masculine form of “one” (heis) in gender agreement (cf. Mark 10:18; Ro. 3:30). Trinitarian scholar Robert Young commented on this knowledge of the word “one” at John 10:30 in his Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary: “The particle en [hen] being of the neuter gender, can hardly signify ‘one being, i.e. one God,’ but rather ‘one in will, purpose, counsel...” - p. 62, Baker Book House, 1977. The very trinitarian Bible study reference book, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, agrees with trinitarian Young (above) in its discussion of John 10:30. Truly, then, there is absolutely no evidence for a “trinitarian” interpretation at John 10:30. In fact, the real meaning shows Jesus is not God.

Why? Are you sick or something? Oh sorry...Edit. I see you are saying haha. So not sick.

Fleming saying there cannot be an rv aaannnddd meanwhile, he has called it numerous times.

Aritech said the auctions were ending then.

Well, you surely are saying Jesus is God. So if you believe Jesus is God because of John 1:1 then you have to believe Satan is God at 2 Corinthians 4:4 How does that wordplay taste? So since we know that Satan isnt God then we also know that Jesus isnt God either. You cannot have it both ways. By the way....John 1:1 Jesus is called the word. WHAT does it mean to be called the Word?

Wise words Mr. Spicoli

Wow. This is the most positive post I have ever seen you write!

You are 100% correct about hell being translated into grave. That is all it will ever mean. Thanks for your post.

Much like when the unfaithful israelites complained and bellyached about not having the foods of Egypt anymore....God gave them what they deserved for their attitudes. DEATH. Greedy and others like him, in reality, you dont deserve it when it comes. In fact I hope it doesnt come, just so you suffer about it. I really wish there was a block button for trolls like this.