Luke 23:43-----A Case of the Misplaced Comma

[James]

*Luke 23:43 in the King James Bible reads, "And Jesus said unto him,
Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."

Since no punctuation was used in the original Greek text, the
punctuation marks were placed there by the translators' understanding
of Jesus' words.

Notice the same punctuation from the popular NIV Bible,

"Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me
in paradise."" (NIV)

In this case, the comma is after "truth", thus making the reader think
that TODAY (that very same day), that criminal would be with Jesus in
Heaven. But this can't be so. Why?

The Bible says Jesus was dead and in his tomb for 3 days. Acts 10:40,
"but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to
be seen." (NIV)

Jesus HAD to be in the ground for 3 days in order to fulfill
scripture. He couldn't possibly have gone to Heaven that very same
day. Mt 12:40,

"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge
fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the
heart of the earth." (NIV)

The Bible plainly tell us that Jesus did not ascend to heaven until 40
days later. (see John 20:17 and Acts 1:1-3,9)

Thus a correct translation of Luke 23:43 would place the comma after
the word "today". Lu 23:43,

"And he said to him: "Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in
Paradise."" (NWT)

Now, a correct placement of the comma does not contradict with any
other scriptures and more closely reflects the original intention of
the writer.

So now Jesus was not telling the time when the criminal would be in
paradise, but rather Jesus was calling our attention to the time that
the promise was being made. This was a day when Jesus was ridiculed
and scorned but the criminal showed a good heart attitude despite what
others were saying. For that, Jesus made the promise.


James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org

[vince garcia]

James wrote:
>
> *Luke 23:43 in the King James Bible reads, "And Jesus said unto him,
> Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."
>
> Since no punctuation was used in the original Greek text, the
> punctuation marks were placed there by the translators' understanding
> of Jesus' words.
>
> Notice the same punctuation from the popular NIV Bible,
>
> "Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me
> in paradise."" (NIV)
>
> In this case, the comma is after "truth", thus making the reader think
> that TODAY (that very same day), that criminal would be with Jesus in
> Heaven. But this can't be so. Why?

Beceuase Jesus didn't mention heaven here. No one is teaching Jesus
ascended to heaven THAT day.

Why are you try to deceive people?

The issue, which has been proved to you without contradiction because
you ran when confronted with it, is that the SPIRIT of the thief would
be with Jesus in abraham's bosom that day because the dead have spirits,
and your attempt to make the english word word "vision" mean Moses and
Elijah were only in the heads of the apostles and really weren't there
mark you as one who clearly can't even perceive the simplest verse of
scripture

Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be
here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee,
and one for Moses, and one for Elias.


I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I
cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
such an one caught up to the third
heaven

[James]

vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>

>James wrote:
>>
>> *Luke 23:43 in the King James Bible reads, "And Jesus said unto him,
>> Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."
>>
>> Since no punctuation was used in the original Greek text, the
>> punctuation marks were placed there by the translators' understanding
>> of Jesus' words.
>>
>> Notice the same punctuation from the popular NIV Bible,
>>
>> "Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me
>> in paradise."" (NIV)
>>
>> In this case, the comma is after "truth", thus making the reader think
>> that TODAY (that very same day), that criminal would be with Jesus in
>> Heaven. But this can't be so. Why?
>
>Beceuase Jesus didn't mention heaven here. No one is teaching Jesus
>ascended to heaven THAT day.
>
>Why are you try to deceive people?
>
>The issue, which has been proved to you without contradiction because
>you ran when confronted with it, is that the SPIRIT of the thief would
>be with Jesus in abraham's bosom that day because the dead have spirits,

Speaking of running away, you snipped the Scripture that said Jesus
gave the sign of Jonah, just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish 3
days, Jesus had to be in the grave 3 days.

The thing with "abraham's bosom" had to do with a parable, and the
parable was directed towards the Pharasees.

>and your attempt to make the english word word "vision" mean Moses and
>Elijah were only in the heads of the apostles and really weren't there
>mark you as one who clearly can't even perceive the simplest verse of
>scripture
>
>Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be
>here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee,
>and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

Jesus is the one that called it a vision. If it all happened in
reality, why did Jesus call it a "vision"?

>
>
>I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I
>cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
>such an one caught up to the third
>heaven

"Third Heaven.

At 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 the apostle Paul describes one who was "caught
away . . . to the third heaven" and "into paradise." Since there is no
mention in the Scriptures of any other person having had such an
experience, it seems likely that this was the apostle's own
experience. Whereas some have endeavored to relate Paul's reference to
the third heaven to the early rabbinic view that there were stages of
heaven, even a total of "seven heavens," this view finds no support in
the Scriptures. As we have seen, the heavens are not referred to
specifically as if divided into platforms or stages, but, rather, the
context must be relied upon to determine whether reference is to the
heavens within earth's atmospheric expanse, the heavens of outer
space, the spiritual heavens, or something else. It therefore appears
that the reference to "the third heaven" indicates the superlative
degree of the rapture in which this vision was seen. Note the way
words and expressions are repeated three times at Isaiah 6:3; Ezekiel
21:27; John 21:15-17; Revelation 4:8, evidently for the purpose of
expressing an intensification of the quality or idea." (Insight On The
Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 1065)

[vince garcia]

James wrote:
>
> vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> >James wrote:
> >>
> >> *Luke 23:43 in the King James Bible reads, "And Jesus said unto him,
> >> Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."
> >>
> >> Since no punctuation was used in the original Greek text, the
> >> punctuation marks were placed there by the translators' understanding
> >> of Jesus' words.
> >>
> >> Notice the same punctuation from the popular NIV Bible,
> >>
> >> "Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me
> >> in paradise."" (NIV)
> >>
> >> In this case, the comma is after "truth", thus making the reader think
> >> that TODAY (that very same day), that criminal would be with Jesus in
> >> Heaven. But this can't be so. Why?
> >
> >Beceuase Jesus didn't mention heaven here. No one is teaching Jesus
> >ascended to heaven THAT day.
> >
> >Why are you try to deceive people?
> >
> >The issue, which has been proved to you without contradiction because
> >you ran when confronted with it, is that the SPIRIT of the thief would
> >be with Jesus in abraham's bosom that day because the dead have spirits,
>
> Speaking of running away, you snipped the Scripture that said Jesus
> gave the sign of Jonah, just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish 3
> days, Jesus had to be in the grave 3 days.

If i snipped it it was not to run away.

That has nothing to do with anything. In judaism, ANY part of a day = 1
day.

Jesus DOES NOT have to be in the grave 72 hrs to qualify if that is your
reasoning. If you think that, you are thinkling like a PAGAN, not a
hebrew

>
> The thing with "abraham's bosom" had to do with a parable, and the
> parable was directed towards the Pharasees.

No. Abraham's Bosom was a REAL PLACE known and beklieved in by the Jews,
where Jesus DESCENDED TO that day with the thief

>
> >and your attempt to make the english word word "vision" mean Moses and
> >Elijah were only in the heads of the apostles and really weren't there
> >mark you as one who clearly can't even perceive the simplest verse of
> >scripture
> >
> >Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be
> >here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee,
> >and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
>
> Jesus is the one that called it a vision. If it all happened in
> reality, why did Jesus call it a "vision"?

Because you are forcing YOUR defintion of an english word onto a GREEK
word that DOES NOT require the definitin YOU are imposing on it as
evidenced by what the people speaking clearly said.

Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be
here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee,
and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

This is not what a guy IMAGINING a mental picture that is not
real--especially if he holds your false soul sleep doctrine--says

>
> >
> >
> >I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I
> >cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
> >such an one caught up to the third
> >heaven
>
> "Third Heaven.
>
> At 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 the apostle Paul describes one who was "caught
> away . . . to the third heaven" and "into paradise." Since there is no
> mention in the Scriptures of any other person having had such an
> experience, it seems likely that this was the apostle's own
> experience.

SO WHAT?????????????????????? You think only paul had a spirt he thought
could leave his body? Ever hear of STEVEN?

Whereas some have endeavored to relate Paul's reference to
> the third heaven to the early rabbinic view that there were stages of
> heaven, even a total of "seven heavens," this view finds no support in
> the Scriptures.

Wrong as I showed you. But the number is irrelevant

[James]

I am thinking like a person reasoning on the Bible.

Rgardless of the length of time (72 hours or less), Jesus had to be in
the grave for 3 days. That still meant that Jesus would not be in
Heaven THAT DAY.

>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> The thing with "abraham's bosom" had to do with a parable, and the
>> parable was directed towards the Pharasees.
>
>
>No. Abraham's Bosom was a REAL PLACE known and beklieved in by the Jews,
>where Jesus DESCENDED TO that day with the thief

When you take a parable and make it literal, some odd ideas came come
out.

Check the comma out at Lu 23:43. Remember the ancient Greek had no
punctuation. So the comma you see there was placed there by the
translators. Place it at another place, and you get a whole different
concept.

>
>
>>
>> >and your attempt to make the english word word "vision" mean Moses and
>> >Elijah were only in the heads of the apostles and really weren't there
>> >mark you as one who clearly can't even perceive the simplest verse of
>> >scripture
>> >
>> >Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be
>> >here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee,
>> >and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
>>
>> Jesus is the one that called it a vision. If it all happened in
>> reality, why did Jesus call it a "vision"?
>
>Because you are forcing YOUR defintion of an english word onto a GREEK
>word that DOES NOT require the definitin YOU are imposing on it as
>evidenced by what the people speaking clearly said.
>
> Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be
>here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee,
>and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
>
>This is not what a guy IMAGINING a mental picture that is not
>real--especially if he holds your false soul sleep doctrine--says

Alright let's look of the Greek word for "vision" there. According to
Strong's:

Strong's Ref. # 3705

Romanized horama
Pronounced hor'-am-ah

from GSN3708; something gazed at, i.e. a spectacle (especially
supernatural):

Thus a SUPERNATURAL spectacle is a definition. Yes, it was a "vision",
a non-literal event. Whether or not the vision was just in their
heads, or manifested itself in the air, we don't know. Since Jesus was
involved, it could have been either way.

>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I
>> >cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
>> >such an one caught up to the third
>> >heaven
>>
>> "Third Heaven.
>>
>> At 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 the apostle Paul describes one who was "caught
>> away . . . to the third heaven" and "into paradise." Since there is no
>> mention in the Scriptures of any other person having had such an
>> experience, it seems likely that this was the apostle's own
>> experience.
>
>SO WHAT?????????????????????? You think only paul had a spirt he thought
>could leave his body? Ever hear of STEVEN?

The spirit is the life force in an animal or person. When an animal or
person dies, they give the life forece within them. Notice that
animals also have a "spirit".

When Stephen died, yes his life force (spirit) went out. THEN NOTICE
WHAT HAPPENED. Acts 7:60,

"Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin
against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep." (NIV)

Yes, he did not continue to live somewhere else, but just as Ec 9:5,10
and Ps 146:3,4 and Jesus' words at John 11:11, he was in a sleep-like
state. (dead)

Also, it seems this question keeps getting snipped. When Moses and
Abraham died, where did they go?

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org

>
>
>
>
>
>

[vince garcia]

which contradicts 2000 years orthodoxy in favor of heresy

I don't follow heresy by moving commas

No

That is you AGAIN imposing YOUR understanding on it

It was literal as peter's words show

Your understanding and your wrong doctrine do not outweigh the clear
record of the event and peter's own words

Sorry

Whether or not the vision was just in their
> heads, or manifested itself in the air, we don't know. Since Jesus was
> involved, it could have been either way.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I
> >> >cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
> >> >such an one caught up to the third
> >> >heaven
> >>
> >> "Third Heaven.
> >>
> >> At 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 the apostle Paul describes one who was "caught
> >> away . . . to the third heaven" and "into paradise." Since there is no
> >> mention in the Scriptures of any other person having had such an
> >> experience, it seems likely that this was the apostle's own
> >> experience.
> >
> >SO WHAT?????????????????????? You think only paul had a spirt he thought
> >could leave his body? Ever hear of STEVEN?
>
> The spirit is the life force in an animal or person.

No, as shown, it is the "ghost," if you will, as clearly shown by paul's
wqords quoted to you, in the mount of transfiguaration and in steven's
words

Your understanding and your wrong doctrine do not outweigh the clear
words of scripture

You can repeat and assert as long as you like, but you will always be
wrong and always be refuted by paul's own words you don't like and try
to skirt around by a lame appeal of it being an event "unique to paul"

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body,
I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
such an one caught up to the third
heaven

You will never overcome those words by argung about the word "vision,"
argung your underststanding about solomon's words, trying to use the
word "asleep" to prove it, or asserting the same bull about life force.

Those words will forever hang you out to dry and you will NEVER get
around them...

(whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I
cannot tell: God knoweth;)

When an animal or
> person dies, they give the life forece within them. Notice that
> animals also have a "spirit".
>
> When Stephen died, yes his life force (spirit) went out. THEN NOTICE
> WHAT HAPPENED. Acts 7:60,
>
> "Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin
> against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep." (NIV)

You will never overcome those words by argung about the word "vision,"
argung your underststanding about solomon's words, trying to use the
word "asleep" to prove it, or asserting the same bull about life force.

These words will forever hang you out to dry and you will NEVER get
around them...

(whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I
cannot tell: God knoweth;)


>

> Yes, he did not continue to live somewhere else, but just as Ec 9:5,10
> and Ps 146:3,4 and Jesus' words at John 11:11, he was in a sleep-like
> state. (dead)
>
> Also, it seems this question keeps getting snipped. When Moses and
> Abraham died, where did they go?

I answered it. Again: the answer is simple: abraham's bosom in their
SPIRITS, awaiting Christ IN HIS SPIRIT to come after death

Now I am going to throw out some speculation not so much to a JW who
doesn't believe in any normal theology but to fellow Christians...

Remember I mentioned the Jews beleived the garden of eden was taken up
to heaven before the flood? What if they were partially wrong? Assume
this verse is LITERALLY true, as we should anyway

(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into
the lower parts of the earth

What if the Garden of Eden were actually taken DOWN inside the earth,
rather than taken up to heaven before the flood, and the righteous dead
were sent THERE prior to the cross?

Which is why He said...

Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Then, once Christ went down there...

Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity
captive, and gave gifts unto men.

And when He ascended to heaven with the righteous dead, He went up not
only with them, He took the Garden of Eden (Paradise) WITH Him too, and
so accounts for Paul's saying years later...

And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I

cannot tell: God knoweth;)

How that he was caught up into PARADISE, and heard unspeakable words,
which it is not lawful for a man to utter.


And Paul could say that, because the Garden was now taken up to heaven.

Anyway, that is speculation for Christians, not JWs

[James]

vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
>James wrote:

All your negative opinions about the Scriptures I quoted to you, are
noted. You have your own personal ideas (such as Abraham's bosom is a
literal place), and I have the Bible to go by. You can criticize me
till the cows come home, but it doesn't change the Scriptures. Someday
soon we will find out who is correct.

[vince garcia]

James wrote:
>
> vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> >James wrote:
>
> All your negative opinions about the Scriptures I quoted to you, are
> noted. You have your own personal ideas

No sir it is never that.
IT IS NEVER YOU VS ME EVER!
It is always your church vs Christian orthodoxy.

Please remember that

(such as Abraham's bosom is a
> literal place), and I have the Bible to go by. You can criticize me
> till the cows come home, but it doesn't change the Scriptures. Someday
> soon we will find out who is correct.

Fair enough. So let's think about putting to the test how one could know
whether you or I/your church or mine could be correct.

My particlur denomination (it doesn't matter what it is because it is a
fundamentalist denomination that makes no claim to exclusivity of being
the only true denomination on earth, so it accepts there are many fine
churches and denominations preaching the eternal Gospel and essential
teachings of the faith).

Yours is different. YOURS claims it is the ONLY legitimate denomination
out there, and the rest of us our deceiving people, right?

OK. Since YOU claim that high a standard of perfection, as an outsider
looking in, I should expect to see the real fruit of truth out of the
JWS.



Instead, I see an original claim that only 144000 JWs would be saved,
then Christ would return. Then, when over 144k JWs came into the church,
and the church had to explain why Christ wasn't back yetand had so many
more members, and what would happen to the extra JWs they hadn't planned
on, the doctrine was changed to where 144k would serve God in a special
capacity in heaven or some sort of thing, and the rest would live on
earth?

Is that right?

Then there was a prophecy that Jesus would return in 1914, then when He
did not, the claim was that He returned INVISIBLY.

is that correct?

Then there was a prophecy Abraham Isaac and Jacob would rise from the
dead in 1929 and live in San Diego.

Am I right about that?


Seriously--would you expect any sane person to look at a church teaching
those doctrines, with a record like that, and believe that church was
God's true church on earth, with God's stamp of approval to teach the
scriptures accurately?

[James]

vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
>James wrote:
>>
>> vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
>> >James wrote:
>>
>> All your negative opinions about the Scriptures I quoted to you, are
>> noted. You have your own personal ideas
>
>No sir it is never that.
>IT IS NEVER YOU VS ME EVER!
>It is always your church vs Christian orthodoxy.
>
>Please remember that
>
>
>(such as Abraham's bosom is a
>> literal place), and I have the Bible to go by. You can criticize me
>> till the cows come home, but it doesn't change the Scriptures. Someday
>> soon we will find out who is correct.
>
>Fair enough. So let's think about putting to the test how one could know
>whether you or I/your church or mine could be correct.
>
>My particlur denomination (it doesn't matter what it is because it is a
>fundamentalist denomination that makes no claim to exclusivity of being
>the only true denomination on earth, so it accepts there are many fine
>churches and denominations preaching the eternal Gospel and essential
>teachings of the faith).

Yet the Bible says there is only one true religion. Eph 4:5,

"one Lord, one faith, one baptism;" (NIV)

Since many of your "fine churches" have disputes with one another on
doctrines etc, that would make the "one faith' religion divided. But
it is not. 1 Co 1:10,

"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions
among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought."
(NIV)

Are your churches "perfectly united in mind and thought."?

If not, then you need to find a religion that is. The Christ does not
'exist divided'. (1 Co 1:13)

>
>Yours is different. YOURS claims it is the ONLY legitimate denomination
>out there,

Don't you believe you are in the true religion? If not, you need to do
some searching.

>and the rest of us our deceiving people, right?

If those churches do not go by ALL the Bible, correct. For example,
Jesus told his true followers at Mt 5:44,

"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute
you," (NASB)

Yet did not MOST of the common churches DISOBEY Jesus' command by
warring with other nations, and even themselves? For example,
Catholics Germans killed Amercan Catholics, and vica versa?

>
>OK. Since YOU claim that high a standard of perfection, as an outsider
>looking in, I should expect to see the real fruit of truth out of the
>JWS.

And you do. For example, Jesus said that in the last days you MUST
find his true disciples preaching about the KINGODM of God. The end
won't even come until that preaching work has been satisfied. Mt
24:14,

"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as
a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." (NIV)

Now look around and see who is preaching about the KINGDOM of God.
Thaat is a specific message. Just pick up any Watchtower mag and read
the cover.

It is also spoken about in what is called the "Lord's Prayer: "your
kingdom come" (Mt 6:10)

Do you know what that kingdom is?

>
>
>
>Instead, I see an original claim that only 144000 JWs would be saved,
>then Christ would return. Then, when over 144k JWs came into the church,
>and the church had to explain why Christ wasn't back yetand had so many
>more members, and what would happen to the extra JWs they hadn't planned
>on, the doctrine was changed to where 144k would serve God in a special
>capacity in heaven or some sort of thing, and the rest would live on
>earth?

Your living in the past. The true religion is going to make mistakes,
but they will CORRECT THEM. Pr 4:18,

"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day." (NIV)

Has your religion ever made a mistake? If it is perfect, I would like
to know it.

>
>Is that right?
>
>Then there was a prophecy that Jesus would return in 1914, then when He
>did not, the claim was that He returned INVISIBLY.
>
>is that correct?

The invisible return is based on Scripture. The majority of the
teachings concerning Christ's return say it will be visible; "every
eye will see him", is one of the scriptures quoted. (Re 1:7) If we
take into consideration all the scriptures on this matter, what do we
find? Notice Joh 14:19,

"Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me.
Because I live, you also will live." (NIV)

The "you" here is his faithful apostles. They would eventually get to
Heaven and see Jesus. But the "world" will not see Jesus again. This
wouldn't be true if he was going to return visibly would it? However
if Jesus returned invisibly, then it would agree with Jesus'
statement.

Acts 1:9-11 talks about Jesus return. "After he said this, he was
taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when
suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 "Men of
Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This
same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in
the same way you have seen him go into heaven." (NIV)

Notice it says that Jesus will come back in "the same way" . It didn't
say in the same body. But what did they mean by "the same way" or "in
like manner"? (KJV) In verse 9 only the disciples saw him go up until
he disappeared from view by a cloud. The rest of the world did not see
what happened. Neither will they see him when he returns, it will be
"the same way".

>
>Then there was a prophecy Abraham Isaac and Jacob would rise from the
>dead in 1929 and live in San Diego.
>
>Am I right about that?

I have no idea. Again you are living in past if indeed that is true.
What counts for Christian today is the doctrines of the present. (Pr
4:18)

>
>
>Seriously--would you expect any sane person to look at a church teaching
>those doctrines, with a record like that, and believe that church was
>God's true church on earth, with God's stamp of approval to teach the
>scriptures accurately?

See above about how the true religion will refine its teachings until
they are perfect.

[vince garcia]

James wrote:
>
> vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> >James wrote:
> >>
> >> vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> >> >James wrote:
> >>
> >> All your negative opinions about the Scriptures I quoted to you, are
> >> noted. You have your own personal ideas
> >
> >No sir it is never that.
> >IT IS NEVER YOU VS ME EVER!
> >It is always your church vs Christian orthodoxy.
> >
> >Please remember that
> >
> >
> >(such as Abraham's bosom is a
> >> literal place), and I have the Bible to go by. You can criticize me
> >> till the cows come home, but it doesn't change the Scriptures. Someday
> >> soon we will find out who is correct.
> >
> >Fair enough. So let's think about putting to the test how one could know
> >whether you or I/your church or mine could be correct.
> >
> >My particlur denomination (it doesn't matter what it is because it is a
> >fundamentalist denomination that makes no claim to exclusivity of being
> >the only true denomination on earth, so it accepts there are many fine
> >churches and denominations preaching the eternal Gospel and essential
> >teachings of the faith).
>
> Yet the Bible says there is only one true religion. Eph 4:5,
>
> "one Lord, one faith, one baptism;" (NIV)

Again, you are imposing your own undertanding on the passage. In effect,
you are being a bit "catholic" here, and seeming to claim "all
Christians must have identical theology on all issues, and only one
group (the JWs) have the authority to set that theology."

If you think that, want me to prove FROM SCRIPTURE you are wrong?

Here it is

For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak,
eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him
which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he
standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make
him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day
alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that
regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that
eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth
not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

There you are--affirmation Christians DO NOT have to have identical
theology on nonessential issues, even on something like the sabbath

>
> Since many of your "fine churches" have disputes with one another on
> doctrines etc, that would make the "one faith' religion divided.

I just showed your conclusion is refuted by Paul. You can argue, but
your contention has just been soundly refuted, and the history of the
church shows the church met for centuries on saturdays, sundays, or even
saturdays AND sudays, and only in later centuries did it formalize
SUNDAY worship.

The notion that the church MUST have identical doctrine on nonessentials
or it is "divided" and not "one faith" is not borne up by scripture or
historical precedent. Sorry. That is only your conclusion, a conclusion
not affirmed by scripture, but refuted by scripture as you were just
shown


In fact, we can go further: In the first decades of the church, the
jewish believers remained fully torah observant, while the gentiles were
not. The first 13 bishops of jeruslaem, for instance, were recorded as
being fully jewish and torah observant, according to eusebius. That's
totally contradictory to the way YOU think the system worked, and
contradictory to what you just claimed the Bible teaches

again, your group did not and does not understnd either the bible or the
history of the church

But
> it is not. 1 Co 1:10,
>
> "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
> all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions
> among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought."
> (NIV)
>
> Are your churches "perfectly united in mind and thought."?
>
> If not, then you need to find a religion that is. The Christ does not
> 'exist divided'. (1 Co 1:13)

Your conclusions have already been refuted by bible and history of the
very church that gave birth to the verses you quote without
understanding

>
> >
> >Yours is different. YOURS claims it is the ONLY legitimate denomination
> >out there,
>
> Don't you believe you are in the true religion? If not, you need to do
> some searching.
>
> >and the rest of us our deceiving people, right?
>
> If those churches do not go by ALL the Bible, correct. For example,
> Jesus told his true followers at Mt 5:44,
>
> "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute
> you," (NASB)
>
> Yet did not MOST of the common churches DISOBEY Jesus' command by
> warring with other nations, and even themselves? For example,
> Catholics Germans killed Amercan Catholics, and vica versa?
>
> >
> >OK. Since YOU claim that high a standard of perfection, as an outsider
> >looking in, I should expect to see the real fruit of truth out of the
> >JWS.
>
> And you do.

I don't. I see repeated bad teaching and false prophecy.

For example, Jesus said that in the last days you MUST
> find his true disciples preaching about the KINGODM of God. The end
> won't even come until that preaching work has been satisfied. Mt
> 24:14,
>
> "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as
> a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." (NIV)
>
> Now look around and see who is preaching about the KINGDOM of God.
> Thaat is a specific message. Just pick up any Watchtower mag and read
> the cover.
>
> It is also spoken about in what is called the "Lord's Prayer: "your
> kingdom come" (Mt 6:10)
>
> Do you know what that kingdom is?

Onviously not what you are teaching here as I have just shown

>
> >
> >
> >
> >Instead, I see an original claim that only 144000 JWs would be saved,
> >then Christ would return. Then, when over 144k JWs came into the church,
> >and the church had to explain why Christ wasn't back yetand had so many
> >more members, and what would happen to the extra JWs they hadn't planned
> >on, the doctrine was changed to where 144k would serve God in a special
> >capacity in heaven or some sort of thing, and the rest would live on
> >earth?
>
> Your living in the past. The true religion is going to make mistakes,
> but they will CORRECT THEM. Pr 4:18,

I'm sorry, I must disagree. The APOSTLES, who DID have a divine right to
interpret scripture, MADE NO MISTAKES when they interpreted scripture
for the sheep.

If you, the catholics, or anyone else, claim to have a divine right to
interpret scripture, and that the body of Christ must submit to your
authority, then the stamp of divine approval will be on you, and YOU
WILL MAKE __NO__ MISTAKES.

You DO make mistakes. That proves you are not what you claim to be.

BTW, when I test some catholic theology against scripture, I see IT
makes mistakes as well, proving IT does not have a divine right to
interpret scripture as well, so I cannot accept it is what it claims to
be on that issue either, so that tells me NO one denomination has a
divine right to interpret scripture

Certainly between it and yours, I'd go with it otherwise.

>
> "The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
> ever brighter till the full light of day." (NIV)
>
> Has your religion ever made a mistake? If it is perfect, I would like
> to know it.

No denomination is. That's my point. That's why ther IS no one
denomination God approves of to the exclusion of any others

>
> >
> >Is that right?
> >
> >Then there was a prophecy that Jesus would return in 1914, then when He
> >did not, the claim was that He returned INVISIBLY.
> >
> >is that correct?
>
> The invisible return is based on Scripture.

A MISUSE of it. Anyone who would believe Jesus returned invisibly in
1914 will believe anything.

I suppose if the WS said Jesus was a space alien, and THAT'S how He was
created, you'd believe that too

The majority of the
> teachings concerning Christ's return say it will be visible; "every
> eye will see him", is one of the scriptures quoted. (Re 1:7) If we
> take into consideration all the scriptures on this matter, what do we
> find? Notice Joh 14:19,
>
> "Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me.
> Because I live, you also will live." (NIV)
>
> The "you" here is his faithful apostles. They would eventually get to
> Heaven and see Jesus. But the "world" will not see Jesus again. This
> wouldn't be true if he was going to return visibly would it? However
> if Jesus returned invisibly, then it would agree with Jesus'
> statement.

I can'e beleive you can say that with a strraight face. Look uo the word
ISEGESIS

>
> Acts 1:9-11 talks about Jesus return. "After he said this, he was
> taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
> 10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when
> suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 "Men of
> Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This
> same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in
> the same way you have seen him go into heaven." (NIV)
>
> Notice it says that Jesus will come back in "the same way" . It didn't
> say in the same body. But what did they mean by "the same way" or "in
> like manner"? (KJV) In verse 9 only the disciples saw him go up until
> he disappeared from view by a cloud. The rest of the world did not see
> what happened. Neither will they see him when he returns, it will be
> "the same way".
>
> >
> >Then there was a prophecy Abraham Isaac and Jacob would rise from the
> >dead in 1929 and live in San Diego.
> >
> >Am I right about that?
>
> I have no idea.

You might want to investigate the real record of the church you belong
to. You are staking your eternity on what it teaches, and it is saying
only what IT teaches will get you into eternal life, and everyone else
is leading people to hell.

[James]

You used the right word, "nonessential". Don't confuse conflicting
doctrines with personal likes and dislikes. For example, you have
Catholic doctrine of Purgatory and Limbo etc. Yet all other churches
refute such a teaching. That makes the Christ divided.

Here is a question for you. When Moses died, where did he go?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Since many of your "fine churches" have disputes with one another on
>> doctrines etc, that would make the "one faith' religion divided.
>
>I just showed your conclusion is refuted by Paul. You can argue, but
>your contention has just been soundly refuted, and the history of the
>church shows the church met for centuries on saturdays, sundays, or even
>saturdays AND sudays, and only in later centuries did it formalize
>SUNDAY worship.
>
>The notion that the church MUST have identical doctrine on nonessentials
>or it is "divided" and not "one faith" is not borne up by scripture or
>historical precedent. Sorry. That is only your conclusion, a conclusion
>not affirmed by scripture, but refuted by scripture as you were just
>shown
>
>
>In fact, we can go further: In the first decades of the church, the
>jewish believers remained fully torah observant, while the gentiles were
>not. The first 13 bishops of jeruslaem, for instance, were recorded as
>being fully jewish and torah observant, according to eusebius. That's
>totally contradictory to the way YOU think the system worked, and
>contradictory to what you just claimed the Bible teaches
>
>again, your group did not and does not understnd either the bible or the
>history of the church

see above where conflicting doctrines does not include personal tastes
on things.

In the beginning of the 'church', once the apostles died off then
conflict and division was to set in. Acts 20:29,30,

"29. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you
and will not spare the flock.
30. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth
in order to draw away disciples after them." (NIV)

So how can we tell the true Christian religion? Jesus said by their
"fruit".

How many churches during WWII supported the country they lived in and
participated in that war. Jesus said to "Love you enemies", not spread
their intestines all over the ground. (Mt 5:44)

JW's OBEYED Jesus' command during WWII, and were punished severely for
it by being tossed into jails etc.

>
>
>
>
>But
>> it is not. 1 Co 1:10,
>>
>> "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
>> all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions
>> among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought."
>> (NIV)
>>
>> Are your churches "perfectly united in mind and thought."?
>>
>> If not, then you need to find a religion that is. The Christ does not
>> 'exist divided'. (1 Co 1:13)
>
>Your conclusions have already been refuted by bible and history of the
>very church that gave birth to the verses you quote without
>understanding

You personal opinion is noted.

>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Yours is different. YOURS claims it is the ONLY legitimate denomination
>> >out there,
>>
>> Don't you believe you are in the true religion? If not, you need to do
>> some searching.
>>
>> >and the rest of us our deceiving people, right?
>>
>> If those churches do not go by ALL the Bible, correct. For example,
>> Jesus told his true followers at Mt 5:44,
>>
>> "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute
>> you," (NASB)
>>
>> Yet did not MOST of the common churches DISOBEY Jesus' command by
>> warring with other nations, and even themselves? For example,
>> Catholics Germans killed Amercan Catholics, and vica versa?
>>
>> >
>> >OK. Since YOU claim that high a standard of perfection, as an outsider
>> >looking in, I should expect to see the real fruit of truth out of the
>> >JWS.
>>
>> And you do.
>
>I don't. I see repeated bad teaching and false prophecy.

That is your right for a personal opinion.

>
>
>
>
>For example, Jesus said that in the last days you MUST
>> find his true disciples preaching about the KINGODM of God. The end
>> won't even come until that preaching work has been satisfied. Mt
>> 24:14,
>>
>> "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as
>> a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." (NIV)
>>
>> Now look around and see who is preaching about the KINGDOM of God.
>> Thaat is a specific message. Just pick up any Watchtower mag and read
>> the cover.
>>
>> It is also spoken about in what is called the "Lord's Prayer: "your
>> kingdom come" (Mt 6:10)
>>
>> Do you know what that kingdom is?
>
>Onviously not what you are teaching here as I have just shown

Do you know what God's kingdom is as spoken about at Mt 24:14?

>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Instead, I see an original claim that only 144000 JWs would be saved,
>> >then Christ would return. Then, when over 144k JWs came into the church,
>> >and the church had to explain why Christ wasn't back yetand had so many
>> >more members, and what would happen to the extra JWs they hadn't planned
>> >on, the doctrine was changed to where 144k would serve God in a special
>> >capacity in heaven or some sort of thing, and the rest would live on
>> >earth?
>>
>> Your living in the past. The true religion is going to make mistakes,
>> but they will CORRECT THEM. Pr 4:18,
>
>I'm sorry, I must disagree. The APOSTLES, who DID have a divine right to
>interpret scripture, MADE NO MISTAKES when they interpreted scripture
>for the sheep.
>
>If you, the catholics, or anyone else, claim to have a divine right to
>interpret scripture, and that the body of Christ must submit to your
>authority, then the stamp of divine approval will be on you, and YOU
>WILL MAKE __NO__ MISTAKES.

>
>You DO make mistakes. That proves you are not what you claim to be.
>
>BTW, when I test some catholic theology against scripture, I see IT
>makes mistakes as well, proving IT does not have a divine right to
>interpret scripture as well, so I cannot accept it is what it claims to
>be on that issue either, so that tells me NO one denomination has a
>divine right to interpret scripture
>
>Certainly between it and yours, I'd go with it otherwise.

Even the apostles etc, did not understand EVERYTHING right from the
start. Acts 1:6,7,

" 6. So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at
this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"
7. He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates
the Father has set by his own authority. " (NIV)

Acts 18:24-26,

" 24. Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to
Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the
Scriptures.
25. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with
great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only
the baptism of John.
26. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and
Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him
the way of God more adequately. " (NIV)

>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> "The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
>> ever brighter till the full light of day." (NIV)
>>
>> Has your religion ever made a mistake? If it is perfect, I would like
>> to know it.
>
>No denomination is. That's my point. That's why ther IS no one
>denomination God approves of to the exclusion of any others

Yet the Bible constantly talks about a true religion among the many
false ones. (Eph 4:5) For example, Jesus wouldn't say this unless
there was a need for it. Mt 7:15,16,

"15. "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
16. By their fruit you will recognize them. "'

Again, now think back to the many wars the churches have been involved
in. Their rotten FRUIT exposes them for what they are.

>
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Is that right?
>> >
>> >Then there was a prophecy that Jesus would return in 1914, then when He
>> >did not, the claim was that He returned INVISIBLY.
>> >
>> >is that correct?
>>
>> The invisible return is based on Scripture.
>
>A MISUSE of it. Anyone who would believe Jesus returned invisibly in
>1914 will believe anything.
>
>I suppose if the WS said Jesus was a space alien, and THAT'S how He was
>created, you'd believe that too

You have it wrong. If the BIBLE taught that, yes I would believe it.

>
>
>The majority of the
>> teachings concerning Christ's return say it will be visible; "every
>> eye will see him", is one of the scriptures quoted. (Re 1:7) If we
>> take into consideration all the scriptures on this matter, what do we
>> find? Notice Joh 14:19,
>>
>> "Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me.
>> Because I live, you also will live." (NIV)
>>
>> The "you" here is his faithful apostles. They would eventually get to
>> Heaven and see Jesus. But the "world" will not see Jesus again. This
>> wouldn't be true if he was going to return visibly would it? However
>> if Jesus returned invisibly, then it would agree with Jesus'
>> statement.
>
>I can'e beleive you can say that with a strraight face. Look uo the word
>ISEGESIS

How do you explain then, Jesus' words at John 14:19 where he said the
world would not see him anymore. According to your beliefs, that would
make Jesus a liar!

>
>
>>
>> Acts 1:9-11 talks about Jesus return. "After he said this, he was
>> taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
>> 10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when
>> suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 "Men of
>> Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This
>> same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in
>> the same way you have seen him go into heaven." (NIV)
>>
>> Notice it says that Jesus will come back in "the same way" . It didn't
>> say in the same body. But what did they mean by "the same way" or "in
>> like manner"? (KJV) In verse 9 only the disciples saw him go up until
>> he disappeared from view by a cloud. The rest of the world did not see
>> what happened. Neither will they see him when he returns, it will be
>> "the same way".
>>
>> >
>> >Then there was a prophecy Abraham Isaac and Jacob would rise from the
>> >dead in 1929 and live in San Diego.
>> >
>> >Am I right about that?
>>
>> I have no idea.
>
>You might want to investigate the real record of the church you belong
>to. You are staking your eternity on what it teaches, and it is saying
>only what IT teaches will get you into eternal life, and everyone else
>is leading people to hell.

Alright, prove to me from JW literature that Abraham Isaac and Jacob
would rise from the dead and live in San Diego, since I never heard of
that. And don't just quote JW hate sites for your proof, unless it is
from a JW publication. My library of JW literature doesn't go back
that far.

[vince garcia]

That's not the same as going out and teaching ERROR to the church.

See, james, that's an example of how your church misuses scripture to
cover itself.

>
> " 24. Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to
> Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the
> Scriptures.
> 25. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with
> great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only
> the baptism of John.
> 26. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and
> Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him
> the way of God more adequately. " (NIV)

JAMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This guy wasn't even a christian yet!!!!!!!!!

See? This is how you are totally misusing scripture to defend the fact
your group, claiming to have a divine mandate, teaches error to the
people, then apparently defends that as ok because a guy who hadn't even
heard of Christ yet wasn't teaching the full gospel.

Shame

>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> "The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
> >> ever brighter till the full light of day." (NIV)
> >>
> >> Has your religion ever made a mistake? If it is perfect, I would like
> >> to know it.
> >
> >No denomination is. That's my point. That's why ther IS no one
> >denomination God approves of to the exclusion of any others
>
> Yet the Bible constantly talks about a true religion among the many
> false ones. (Eph 4:5) For example, Jesus wouldn't say this unless
> there was a need for it. Mt 7:15,16,
>
> "15. "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's
> clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
> 16. By their fruit you will recognize them. "'

James...that nails you guys.

>
> Again, now think back to the many wars the churches have been involved
> in. Their rotten FRUIT exposes them for what they are.

As yours does you

wish you could see that.

Seriously, it goes over your head that he's saying only the disciples
will see Him after the resurrection, and before the ascension?

That you think that means an invisible coming in 1914 is beyond human
comprehension

ok


"Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly
those named by the Apostle in Hebrews chapter eleven, to the condition
of human perfection" (Joseph Rutherford, Millions Now Living Will Never
Die, pp. 89-90).

w e van armburgh THE WAY TO PARADISE(Brooklyn Iternational Bible
STudents Assn. 1924) page 224:

Question: Will the Princes return to jerusalem when resurrected?

Yes: we should therefore expect to see shortly after 1925 to see the
awakening of Abel Enoch Noah Abrham Isaac and Jacob....These will form a
nucleus of the new kingsom on earth. One of the first things necessary
will be to put Jerusalem in condition to be theh capoital opf the world.


Story here:

74.6.116.71/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=jw+publication+patriarchs+would+arise+in+1929&fr=moz35&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=jw+publication+patriarchs+would+arise+in+1929&d=4987072183665075&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=4eRpqjBgNzfb24woMySP_UHy2l_FLW0L&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=QXLjp0ZngZ8YNVoC_NreJQ--



Comments?

[James]

Just what defines a "Christian"?

"a person who believes in Christ and follows His teachings;" (The 1999
World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary)

Let's see if he qualifies. Did he believe in Christ and followed his
teachings?

"He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with

great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately". (vs 25)

Yes, he qualifies. Just as today, many people need help in getting
their Bible teachings more accurate, Priscilla and Aquila helped him
to get more accurate. He was nothing like many Jews back then who
didn't even accept Jesus.

>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
>> >> ever brighter till the full light of day." (NIV)
>> >>
>> >> Has your religion ever made a mistake? If it is perfect, I would like
>> >> to know it.
>> >
>> >No denomination is. That's my point. That's why ther IS no one
>> >denomination God approves of to the exclusion of any others
>>
>> Yet the Bible constantly talks about a true religion among the many
>> false ones. (Eph 4:5) For example, Jesus wouldn't say this unless
>> there was a need for it. Mt 7:15,16,
>>
>> "15. "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's
>> clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
>> 16. By their fruit you will recognize them. "'
>
>James...that nails you guys.

Your opinion is noted.

>
>
>>
>> Again, now think back to the many wars the churches have been involved
>> in. Their rotten FRUIT exposes them for what they are.
>
>As yours does you
>
>wish you could see that.

What about all the churches involved in all the world's wars, isn't
that significant. Shouldn't that raise of flag that something isn't
right with them?

Today they have been shown the truth. They have seen Mt 5:44, yet
still insist on warring. Unless they change like Pr 4:18 says the true
religion will, they will remain in a darkened spiritual condition.

Your opinion again is noted.

>
>
>
>
>According to your beliefs, that would
>> make Jesus a liar!

No response? Jesus said the world would not see him anymore. (Joh
14:19) Yet if you believe they will, then that makes Jesus a liar.
Your comment please?

Yes, If what you wrote is correct (and I don't doubt it) he,
Rutherford, was clearly wrong. It sounds like he was expecting the
resurrection to happen around that date. But please, come on, that was
88 years ago!! Was your church perfect at that time? Was ANY church
perfect at that time? If so let me know.

Remember the true religion of today, must continually improve until it
is perfect. Pr 4:18,

"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day." (NIV)

As you say; comment?

[James]

Just what defines a "Christian"?

"a person who believes in Christ and follows His teachings;" (The 1999
World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary)

Let's see if he qualifies. Did he believe in Christ and followed his
teachings?

"He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with

great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately". (vs 25)

Yes, he qualifies. Just as today, many people need help in getting
their Bible teachings more accurate, Priscilla and Aquila helped him
to get more accurate. He was nothing like many Jews back then who
didn't even accept Jesus.


>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>

>> >> "The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
>> >> ever brighter till the full light of day." (NIV)
>> >>
>> >> Has your religion ever made a mistake? If it is perfect, I would like
>> >> to know it.
>> >
>> >No denomination is. That's my point. That's why ther IS no one
>> >denomination God approves of to the exclusion of any others
>>
>> Yet the Bible constantly talks about a true religion among the many
>> false ones. (Eph 4:5) For example, Jesus wouldn't say this unless
>> there was a need for it. Mt 7:15,16,
>>
>> "15. "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's
>> clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
>> 16. By their fruit you will recognize them. "'
>
>James...that nails you guys.

Your opinion is noted.

>
>
>>
>> Again, now think back to the many wars the churches have been involved
>> in. Their rotten FRUIT exposes them for what they are.
>
>As yours does you
>
>wish you could see that.

What about all the churches involved in all the world's wars, isn't
that significant. Shouldn't that raise of flag that something isn't
right with them?

Today they have been shown the truth. They have seen Mt 5:44, yet
still insist on warring. Unless they change like Pr 4:18 says the true
religion will, they will remain in a darkened spiritual condition.

>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >

Your opinion again is noted.

>
>
>
>

>According to your beliefs, that would
>> make Jesus a liar!

No response? Jesus said the world would not see him anymore. (Joh
14:19) Yet if you believe they will, then that makes Jesus a liar.
Your comment please?

>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>

Yes, If what you wrote is correct (and I don't doubt it) he,
Rutherford, was clearly wrong. It sounds like he was expecting the
resurrection to happen around that date. But please, come on, that was
88 years ago!! Was your church perfect at that time? Was ANY church
perfect at that time? If so let me know.

Remember the true religion of today, must continually improve until it
is perfect. Pr 4:18,

"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day." (NIV)

[vince garcia]

no. If it does, my denomination hasn't ever been involved in a war. Does
that make it the "real" one then?

Church of the Brethren, and the Amish haven't ever been involved in
wars either. Does that make THEM the "real" ones too then?

The argument is a red herring

You should read your Bible: JTB told soldiers to STAY in the army. Peter
didn't tell Cornelius to LEAVE the army

>
> Today they have been shown the truth. They have seen Mt 5:44, yet
> still insist on warring. Unless they change like Pr 4:18 says the true
> religion will, they will remain in a darkened spiritual condition.

Your doctrine contradicts the words of JTB and Peter's refusal to tell a
Roman centurion to leave the military.

I'll go w/them over the WS's view on this

> >> >>
> >> >> "Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me.
> >> >> Because I live, you also will live." (NIV)
> >> >>
> >> >> The "you" here is his faithful apostles. They would eventually get to
> >> >> Heaven and see Jesus. But the "world" will not see Jesus again. This
> >> >> wouldn't be true if he was going to return visibly would it? However
> >> >> if Jesus returned invisibly, then it would agree with Jesus'
> >> >> statement.
> >> >
> >> >I can'e beleive you can say that with a strraight face. Look uo the word
> >> >ISEGESIS
> >>
> >> How do you explain then, Jesus' words at John 14:19 where he said the
> >> world would not see him anymore.
> >
> >
> >Seriously, it goes over your head that he's saying only the disciples
> >will see Him after the resurrection, and before the ascension?
> >
> >That you think that means an invisible coming in 1914 is beyond human
> >comprehension
> >
>
> Your opinion again is noted.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >According to your beliefs, that would
> >> make Jesus a liar!
>
> No response? Jesus said the world would not see him anymore. (Joh
> 14:19) Yet if you believe they will, then that makes Jesus a liar.
> Your comment please?

I did comment; i said that obviously meant only the disciples would see
Him before the ascension, which happened

> http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=jw+publication+patriarchs+would+arise+in+1929&d=4987072183665075&mkt

> >
> >
> >
> >Comments?
>
> Yes, If what you wrote is correct (and I don't doubt it) he,
> Rutherford, was clearly wrong. It sounds like he was expecting the
> resurrection to happen around that date. But please, come on, that was
> 88 years ago!! Was your church perfect at that time? Was ANY church
> perfect at that time? If so let me know.

No church is perfect--NO CHURCH has a divine stamp of approval to the
exclusion of all others, NO CHURCH has a divine mandate to interpret
scripture for the body of Christ to the exclusion of all others.

Only the appstles had that, and when they used it, THEY WERE INFALLIBLE.

Now I will agree that they had the ability to NOT be infallible in,
perhaps, orally preaching a given sermon somewhere, but when they WROTE
to edify the entire body, they were always infallible. They never made
errors. they were always infallible.

When it came to writing prophecy, they never made errors

That was the proof of divine mandate

So when you, the RCC, the LDS, or anyone else claims the same divine
mandate, the result must be ERROR FREE, and I should be able to see that

If not, you prove you do not have that mandate

The apostles prove they did. The Watchtower Society, Harold Camping, the
RCC, Obves, and Joseph Smith, prove they do not have that mandate

>
> Remember the true religion of today, must continually improve until it
> is perfect. Pr 4:18,
>
> "The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
> ever brighter till the full light of day." (NIV)
>
> As you say; comment?

You keep misunderstanding/misusing/misapplying verses like the one
above, and making it mean something it doesn't mean at all

Example:

"Remember, the true religion must destroy its enemies in other
denominations (like the JWs) and the people who believe its doctrines!"

Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the
rocks!
Psalm 137:9

[James]

What denomination is that?

>
>Church of the Brethren, and the Amish haven't ever been involved in
>wars either. Does that make THEM the "real" ones too then?

I didn't say not going to war was the ONLY characteristic of the true
religion. But it is a start.

>
>The argument is a red herring
>
>You should read your Bible: JTB told soldiers to STAY in the army. Peter
>didn't tell Cornelius to LEAVE the army

Well then, how did the early Christians interpret the Bible on this
matter:

The second century writer, Justin Martyr (155-160 A.D.) also knew
Christians' views then on carnal warfare. In "Dialogue with Trypho, a
Jew", CXX, he wrote,

"We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every
wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike
weapons,-our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements
of tillage."

Professor Robert L.Wilken in "The Christians as the Romans Saw Them"
wrote, "Christians not only refused [Roman] military service but they
would not accept public office nor assume any responsibility for the
governing of the cities".

Edward Gibbon in "History of Christianity" wrote concerning
Christians, "refused to take any active part in the civil
administration or the military defence of the empire,..it was
impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty,
could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of
princes.".

Regardless of how religious leaders of today justify professed
Christians engaging in warfare, the early Christians' view of the
military is on record.

>
>
>
>
>>
>> Today they have been shown the truth. They have seen Mt 5:44, yet
>> still insist on warring. Unless they change like Pr 4:18 says the true
>> religion will, they will remain in a darkened spiritual condition.
>
>Your doctrine contradicts the words of JTB and Peter's refusal to tell a
>Roman centurion to leave the military.

For the record, he was an Italian centurion. (Acts 10:1) Jesus didn't
tell the Scribes and Pharisees to resign their positions either. He
gave them the truth, and let them decide on what to do.

Cornelius was told the truth, thus he could make his own mind up on
what to do about his situation. If he remained in where he was, he
would have to not engage in wars (Mt 5:44) and not use war weapons.
(Mt 26:52) I don't think he would last long as a centurion.

>
>I'll go w/them over the WS's view on this
>
>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me.
>> >> >> Because I live, you also will live." (NIV)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The "you" here is his faithful apostles. They would eventually get to
>> >> >> Heaven and see Jesus. But the "world" will not see Jesus again. This
>> >> >> wouldn't be true if he was going to return visibly would it? However
>> >> >> if Jesus returned invisibly, then it would agree with Jesus'
>> >> >> statement.
>> >> >
>> >> >I can'e beleive you can say that with a strraight face. Look uo the word
>> >> >ISEGESIS
>> >>
>> >> How do you explain then, Jesus' words at John 14:19 where he said the
>> >> world would not see him anymore.
>> >
>> >
>> >Seriously, it goes over your head that he's saying only the disciples
>> >will see Him after the resurrection, and before the ascension?
>> >
>> >That you think that means an invisible coming in 1914 is beyond human
>> >comprehension
>> >
>>
>> Your opinion again is noted.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >According to your beliefs, that would
>> >> make Jesus a liar!
>>
>> No response? Jesus said the world would not see him anymore. (Joh
>> 14:19) Yet if you believe they will, then that makes Jesus a liar.
>> Your comment please?
>
>I did comment; i said that obviously meant only the disciples would see
>Him before the ascension, which happened

Actually, many people saw Jesus before his ascension, esp when he was
hanging there nailed to his torture stake. (cross)

Jesus put no limit in it on his statement. Thus the world would NEVER
visibly see him again. Jesus knew his return would be invisible to
human eyes.

You mean like when Peter denied Jesus three times?

>
>Now I will agree that they had the ability to NOT be infallible in,
>perhaps, orally preaching a given sermon somewhere, but when they WROTE
>to edify the entire body, they were always infallible. They never made
>errors. they were always infallible.
>
>When it came to writing prophecy, they never made errors
>
>That was the proof of divine mandate
>
>So when you, the RCC, the LDS, or anyone else claims the same divine
>mandate,

Where in the JW literature does it say that they have the same divine
mandate as the apostles?

>the result must be ERROR FREE, and I should be able to see that
>
>If not, you prove you do not have that mandate

They never claimed they did that I know of.

>
>The apostles prove they did. The Watchtower Society, Harold Camping, the
>RCC, Obves, and Joseph Smith, prove they do not have that mandate

see above

>
>
>
>>
>> Remember the true religion of today, must continually improve until it
>> is perfect. Pr 4:18,
>>
>> "The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
>> ever brighter till the full light of day." (NIV)
>>
>> As you say; comment?
>
>You keep misunderstanding/misusing/misapplying verses like the one
>above, and making it mean something it doesn't mean at all

Your opinion is noted. So what in your opinion does Pr 4:18 mean?

>
>Example:
>
>"Remember, the true religion must destroy its enemies in other
>denominations (like the JWs) and the people who believe its doctrines!"

???

>
>Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the
>rocks!
>Psalm 137:9

???

[vince garcia]

James wrote:

> >
> >no. If it does, my denomination hasn't ever been involved in a war. Does
> >that make it the "real" one then?
>
> What denomination is that?

desn't matter. The issue is whether if a denomination hasn't been
involved in awar, does it make it the "real" denomination of God?

No

>
> >
> >Church of the Brethren, and the Amish haven't ever been involved in
> >wars either. Does that make THEM the "real" ones too then?
>
> I didn't say not going to war was the ONLY characteristic of the true
> religion. But it is a start.

But it isn't. It has nothing to do with it.

>
> >
> >The argument is a red herring
> >
> >You should read your Bible: JTB told soldiers to STAY in the army. Peter
> >didn't tell Cornelius to LEAVE the army
>
> Well then, how did the early Christians interpret the Bible on this
> matter:
>
> The second century writer, Justin Martyr (155-160 A.D.) also knew
> Christians' views then on carnal warfare. In "Dialogue with Trypho, a
> Jew", CXX, he wrote,
>
> "We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every
> wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike
> weapons,-our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements
> of tillage."

First, his writings are not scripture, and not binding on us. But past
that, he's making a distinction between the attitude of warlike conquest
of the roman armies, and Christians who sought to live in peace.

Again, JTB told soldiers to STAY in the military

And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do?
And he said unto them, Do violence* to no man, neither accuse any
falsely; and be content with your wages.

NOTE THAT

* The word doesn't mean kill in war, but means not to use extortion or
heavy-handedness


, and Peter didn't tell Cornelius to LEAVE it, nor did JESUS tell the
centurion to leave it.

You're stuck with that, and can't get around it.

>
> Professor Robert L.Wilken in "The Christians as the Romans Saw Them"
> wrote, "Christians not only refused [Roman] military service but they
> would not accept public office nor assume any responsibility for the
> governing of the cities".

This guy shows what an illiterate fellow he is, and why you should not
quote him:

Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. ERASTUS THE
CHAMBERLAIN OF THE CITY SALUTETH YOU, and Quartus a brother.

Right there, we see he doesn't even know his bible

>
> Edward Gibbon in "History of Christianity" wrote concerning
> Christians, "refused to take any active part in the civil
> administration or the military defence of the empire,..it was
> impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty,
> could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of
> princes.".

Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. ERASTUS THE
CHAMBERLAIN OF THE CITY SALUTETH YOU, and Quartus a brother.

Right there, we see he doesn't even know his bible



Are these guys JWs?

They sure are biblically illiterate in any event.

>
> Regardless of how religious leaders of today justify professed
> Christians engaging in warfare, the early Christians' view of the
> military is on record.

Obviously that is untrue since the sources you quoted are directly
refuted BY THE BIBLE which shows a Chrtistian brother who was a city
chamberlain when your illiterate sources say "they
would not accept public office"!!!!!

Clearly, you are quoting illiterate, incompetant sources who do not know
what they are talking about.

I don't care how you try to now defend what they say--I just showed you
the Bible refuting what they just said on all levels.

You can believe the claims of illiterate men who were just refuted by
scripture, and try to claim that scripture doesn't count or means what
it does not.

I'll go by scripture, not a so-called "scholar" who can't even read the
Bible

>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Today they have been shown the truth. They have seen Mt 5:44, yet
> >> still insist on warring. Unless they change like Pr 4:18 says the true
> >> religion will, they will remain in a darkened spiritual condition.
> >
> >Your doctrine contradicts the words of JTB and Peter's refusal to tell a
> >Roman centurion to leave the military.
>
> For the record, he was an Italian centurion. (Acts 10:1) Jesus didn't
> tell the Scribes and Pharisees to resign their positions either. He
> gave them the truth, and let them decide on what to do.
>

> Cornelius was told the truth,]

Nowhere was he told he was in sin/error for being in the military.

In fact, WHILE HE WAS IN THE MILITARY, his prayers and alms were
received.

thus he could make his own mind up on
> what to do about his situation. If he remained in where he was, he
> would have to not engage in wars (Mt 5:44)

THERE is an example of what I mean about you: taking a verse totally out
of context that has nothing to do about serving or not serving in the
military, and has nothing to do about whether it is right/wrong to fight
in a war, and then imposing it into a discussion or situation in the
bible.

So no, he had NO decison to make on the issue

> and not use war weapons.

luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let
him take it, and likewise his scrip: AND HE THAT HATH NO SWORD, LET HIM
SELL HIS GARMENT, AND BUY ONE.


JESUS tells me to go BUY a sword. YOU tell me NOT to; I'll do what JESUS
says to do.

Deal with it

CROSS. And the non-believing world did not see Him after the
resurreection; only some of the community did

>
> Jesus put no limit in it on his statement. Thus the world would NEVER
> visibly see him again.

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM, and they
also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because
of him. Even so, Amen.

you vs scripture as always

Jesus knew his return would be invisible to
> human eyes.
>

> >Now I will agree that they had the ability to NOT be infallible in,
> >perhaps, orally preaching a given sermon somewhere, but when they WROTE
> >to edify the entire body, they were always infallible. They never made
> >errors. they were always infallible.
> >
> >When it came to writing prophecy, they never made errors
> >
> >That was the proof of divine mandate
> >
> >So when you, the RCC, the LDS, or anyone else claims the same divine
> >mandate,
>
> Where in the JW literature does it say that they have the same divine
> mandate as the apostles?

Do they not believe they are the only body on earth with the right to
interpret scripture for the body of Christ? That is a claim of divine
mandate

>
> >the result must be ERROR FREE, and I should be able to see that
> >
> >If not, you prove you do not have that mandate
>
> They never claimed they did that I know of.

If they claim to be the ONLY group with a right by God to interpret
scripture, God's anointing of truth comes with that.

Now if they DON'T claim that right, then they need not be perfect in
their teachings

>
> >
> >The apostles prove they did. The Watchtower Society, Harold Camping, the
> >RCC, Obves, and Joseph Smith, prove they do not have that mandate
>
> see above
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Remember the true religion of today, must continually improve until it
> >> is perfect. Pr 4:18,
> >>
> >> "The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
> >> ever brighter till the full light of day." (NIV)
> >>
> >> As you say; comment?
> >
> >You keep misunderstanding/misusing/misapplying verses like the one
> >above, and making it mean something it doesn't mean at all
>
> Your opinion is noted. So what in your opinion does Pr 4:18 mean?

I'm concerened more with what it DOES NOT mean, which is that there is
one denomination with a divine right to interpret scripture, which when
it is caught in error, still gets to claim it has a divine right to
inperpret scripture for the body of Christ, and all other groups do not

>
> >
> >Example:
> >
> >"Remember, the true religion must destroy its enemies in other
> >denominations (like the JWs) and the people who believe its doctrines!"
>
> ???
>
> >
> >Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the
> >rocks!
> >Psalm 137:9
>
> ???

I mean that as an example of misusing verses and inventing doctrines out
of them at the drop of a hat to fit one's agenda

[vince garcia]

Obves teaches the resurrected will have sex in eternity. I doubt the JWs
teach this. Can you confirm JWs deny this teaching? thx

[James]

vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>

>James wrote:
>
>> >
>> >no. If it does, my denomination hasn't ever been involved in a war. Does
>> >that make it the "real" one then?
>>
>> What denomination is that?
>
>desn't matter. The issue is whether if a denomination hasn't been
>involved in awar, does it make it the "real" denomination of God?
>
>No
>

As said below, that is one part of the true religion. see below.

>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Church of the Brethren, and the Amish haven't ever been involved in
>> >wars either. Does that make THEM the "real" ones too then?
>>
>> I didn't say not going to war was the ONLY characteristic of the true
>> religion. But it is a start.
>
>But it isn't. It has nothing to do with it.
>

Respectfully, yes it has everything to do with it. Notice Jesus' words

at Mt 5:44,

"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute
you," (NASB)

Going to war and killing your "enemies" is a direct violation of
Jesus' command. Thus any religion not going to war, is obeying Jesus'
command here. And even as you have shown, there are not to many of
them. Thus pick of the true religion is limited.

Like I said before, a pacifist centurion wouldn't last long in his
service.

>
>
>
>>
>> Professor Robert L.Wilken in "The Christians as the Romans Saw Them"
>> wrote, "Christians not only refused [Roman] military service but they
>> would not accept public office nor assume any responsibility for the
>> governing of the cities".
>
>This guy shows what an illiterate fellow he is, and why you should not
>quote him:
>
>Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. ERASTUS THE
>CHAMBERLAIN OF THE CITY SALUTETH YOU, and Quartus a brother.
>
>Right there, we see he doesn't even know his bible
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Edward Gibbon in "History of Christianity" wrote concerning
>> Christians, "refused to take any active part in the civil
>> administration or the military defence of the empire,..it was
>> impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty,
>> could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of
>> princes.".
>
>Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. ERASTUS THE
>CHAMBERLAIN OF THE CITY SALUTETH YOU, and Quartus a brother.
>
>Right there, we see he doesn't even know his bible
>
>
>
>Are these guys JWs?
>
>They sure are biblically illiterate in any event.

If you don't like them, then what about these:

Heckel and Sigman in "-On the Road to Civilization, A World History"
wrote, "Early Christianity was little understood and was regarded with
little favor by those who ruled the pagan world. . . .Christians
refused to share certain duties of Roman citizens. . . . They would
not hold political office."

Arnold Toynbee in "An Historian's Approach to Religion" talks about a
third century martyr named Maximilianus, who refused induction into
the Roman military. He cites Maximilianus as saying, "I have a
conscientious objection to military service: I am a Christian. . . . I
can't serve; I can't sin against my conscience... I won't serve. You
may behead me, but I won't serve the powers of This World; I will
serve my God."

H. Ingli James in "Treasury of the Christian World" wrote, "Origen
[who lived in the second and third centuries of the Common Era] . . .
remarks that 'the Christian Church cannot engage in war against any
nation. They have learned from their Leader that they are children of
peace.' In that
period many Christians were martyred for refusing military service."

The historian Will Durant in "Caesar and Christ" wrote, ""To a
Christian his religion was something apart from and superior to
political society; his highest allegiance belonged not to Caesar but
to Christ. . . . The detachment of the Christian from earthly affairs
seemed to the pagan a flight from civic duty, a weakening of the
national fiber and will. Tertullian advised Christians to refuse
military service;"

A Swiss Catholic publication "Orientierung" wrote about the patron
saint of France, Saint Martin (316-397) It said, ""That this highly
renowned saint of Western Christianity resigned from military
service out of Christian conviction, considering being a soldier and a
Christian at the same time incompatible, has always been embarrassing
to Catholic theology. This fact-either deliberately or
undeliberately-has simply been kept quiet."

The religious magazine "The Christian Century" stated, "The earliest
Christians did not serve in the armed forces. Roland Bainton notes
that 'from the end of the New Testament period to the decade A.D.
170-180 there is no evidence whatever of Christians in the army.' . .
. Only gradually did Christians abandon their opposition to military
service . . . Once Augustine endorsed 'just war' as authorizing
Christians' participation in military activities, 'just war' soon
became whatever war their government engaged in."

Philip Schaff in "History of the Christian Church" wrote, "The
conscientious refusal of the Christians to pay divine honors to the
emperor and his statue, and to take part in any idolatrous ceremonies
at public festivities, their aversion to the imperial military
service, their disregard for politics and depreciation of all civil
and temporal affairs as compared with the spiritual and eternal
interests of man, their close brotherly union and frequent meetings,
drew upon them the suspicion
of hostility to the Caesars and the Roman people."

The historian Ernest William Barnes in "The Rise of Christianity"
wrote, "A careful review of all the information available goes to show
that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [emperor from 161 to 180
C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a
Christian, remained in military service."

Notice that last one, no soldier, after becoming a Christian,
remained in military service." Thus Jesus and others didn't have to
tell them to resign, but rather each person made that decision for
themselves after taking in Christian teachings.

THUS THE BOTTOM LINE. EARLY CHRISTIANS DID NOT ENGAGE IN WARS. Later
Christians did, but it was prophesied that bad people would infiltrate
the Christian congregations, And they did.

>
>
>
>>
>> Regardless of how religious leaders of today justify professed
>> Christians engaging in warfare, the early Christians' view of the
>> military is on record.
>
>
>Obviously that is untrue since the sources you quoted are directly
>refuted BY THE BIBLE which shows a Chrtistian brother who was a city
>chamberlain when your illiterate sources say "they
>would not accept public office"!!!!!
>
>Clearly, you are quoting illiterate, incompetant sources who do not know
>what they are talking about.
>
>I don't care how you try to now defend what they say--I just showed you
>the Bible refuting what they just said on all levels.
>
>You can believe the claims of illiterate men who were just refuted by
>scripture, and try to claim that scripture doesn't count or means what
>it does not.
>
>I'll go by scripture, not a so-called "scholar" who can't even read the
>Bible

see above the other added references.

You didn't read onward. When Jesus was confronted by his enemies, he
showed his enemies that even though they had weapons (not enough to
ward off a mob) Jesus said to put the sword back in its place. That
those who use the sword, die by the sword. (Mt 26:52)

After Jesus resurrection to Heaven, the world did not see Jesus again.

>
>
>
>
>>
>> Jesus put no limit in it on his statement. Thus the world would NEVER
>> visibly see him again.
>
>Behold, he cometh with clouds; and EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM, and they
>also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because
>of him. Even so, Amen.
>
>you vs scripture as always

Oh, then Jesus lied at Joh 14:19? I don't accept that. So let's look
at your scripture about every eye seeing him. Re 1:7,

"Behold, he cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall see him, and
they that pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn
over him. Even so, Amen." (ASV)

Notice he comes "with the clouds". Another verse gets more specific:
Lu 21:27,

"At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with
power and great glory." (NIV)

Notice Jesus is now "in a cloud". Thus people can know he is present
because of the things Jesus does, but they visibly can't see him.

Now back to Re 1:7, the "eyes" then of the highly symbolic book of
Revelation cannot mean literal eyes, otherwise Jesus' statement at
John 14:19 would be false. And we both know that would not be
possible. Thus they are AWARE OF Jesus return when Jesus takes over
the earth.

>
>
>
>
> Jesus knew his return would be invisible to
>> human eyes.
>>
>> >Now I will agree that they had the ability to NOT be infallible in,
>> >perhaps, orally preaching a given sermon somewhere, but when they WROTE
>> >to edify the entire body, they were always infallible. They never made
>> >errors. they were always infallible.
>> >
>> >When it came to writing prophecy, they never made errors
>> >
>> >That was the proof of divine mandate
>> >
>> >So when you, the RCC, the LDS, or anyone else claims the same divine
>> >mandate,
>>
>> Where in the JW literature does it say that they have the same divine
>> mandate as the apostles?
>
>
>Do they not believe they are the only body on earth with the right to
>interpret scripture for the body of Christ? That is a claim of divine
>mandate

Yes they believe they are the true religion (don't you believe yours
is?), but they know they are not perfect, and rely prayerfully upon
God to continually direct them on spiritual matters. (again Pr 4:18)

>
>>
>> >the result must be ERROR FREE, and I should be able to see that
>> >
>> >If not, you prove you do not have that mandate
>>
>> They never claimed they did that I know of.
>
>If they claim to be the ONLY group with a right by God to interpret
>scripture, God's anointing of truth comes with that.
>
>Now if they DON'T claim that right, then they need not be perfect in
>their teachings

Where does JW literature say they are perfect in their teachings? I
have already told you that they admit mistakes made in the past (just
like all religions have made mistakes) but they correct them and move
on according to Pr 4:18. Many of the popular churches made mistakes
such as the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, and didn't correct it when
it was pointed out to them that the Bible does not teach that
doctrine. Thus they are spiritually stagnant.

>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >The apostles prove they did. The Watchtower Society, Harold Camping, the
>> >RCC, Obves, and Joseph Smith, prove they do not have that mandate
>>
>> see above
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Remember the true religion of today, must continually improve until it
>> >> is perfect. Pr 4:18,
>> >>
>> >> "The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
>> >> ever brighter till the full light of day." (NIV)
>> >>
>> >> As you say; comment?
>> >
>> >You keep misunderstanding/misusing/misapplying verses like the one
>> >above, and making it mean something it doesn't mean at all
>>
>> Your opinion is noted. So what in your opinion does Pr 4:18 mean?
>
>I'm concerened more with what it DOES NOT mean, which is that there is
>one denomination with a divine right to interpret scripture, which when
>it is caught in error, still gets to claim it has a divine right to
>inperpret scripture for the body of Christ, and all other groups do not

I know that is your opinion. But what then does Pr 4:18 really mean?

>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Example:
>> >
>> >"Remember, the true religion must destroy its enemies in other
>> >denominations (like the JWs) and the people who believe its doctrines!"
>>
>> ???
>>
>> >
>> >Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the
>> >rocks!
>> >Psalm 137:9
>>
>> ???
>
>I mean that as an example of misusing verses and inventing doctrines out
>of them at the drop of a hat to fit one's agenda

JW's base all their present day doctrines on the Bible. They are
researched and Greek and Hebrews words are examined and context and
other related scriptures. You can't get more accurate that the present
JW teachings. Does your denomination (nameless) claim the same?

[vince garcia]

James wrote:
>
> vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> >James wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >no. If it does, my denomination hasn't ever been involved in a war. Does
> >> >that make it the "real" one then?
> >>
> >> What denomination is that?
> >
> >desn't matter. The issue is whether if a denomination hasn't been
> >involved in awar, does it make it the "real" denomination of God?
> >
> >No
> >
>
> As said below, that is one part of the true religion. see below.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Church of the Brethren, and the Amish haven't ever been involved in
> >> >wars either. Does that make THEM the "real" ones too then?
> >>
> >> I didn't say not going to war was the ONLY characteristic of the true
> >> religion. But it is a start.
> >
> >But it isn't. It has nothing to do with it.
> >
>
> Respectfully, yes it has everything to do with it. Notice Jesus' words
> at Mt 5:44,
>
> "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute
> you," (NASB)

And the context is a personal one. Not a national one.

>
> Going to war and killing your "enemies" is a direct violation of
> Jesus' command.

That is your wrong, out of context conclusion. Were that true, God would
be guilty of leading His servants, like Moses/David into sin.

Thus any religion not going to war, is obeying Jesus'
> command here.

That is your wrong, out of context conclusion.

That's the problem with a vast host of WS theology: You see a verse,
take it out of context, make a wrong doctrine out of it, then make a
wrong conclusion out of it, and make a statement like:

"Thus any religion not going to war, is obeying Jesus' command here"

I'm sorry, but your whole line of thinking is not biblical, and does not
stand up to biblical scrutiny. It goes way beyond explicit scripture and
takes principles spoken to individuals on how to relate to each other in
the community, or on an individual basis, and imposes that paradigm on
nations with a conclusion that it is a sin to fight in a war, which
makes GOD a sinner for leading HIS servants to fight in wars in the Old
Testament.

Even solomon, who had vast armies, said to do good to your enemies and
heap coals of fire on his head.

And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we

do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any

falsely; and be content with your wages.

Sorry, but your contention is easily refuted by looking at what the
WHOLE COUNCIL OF GOD, and not isolating certain verses, misunderstanding
and misuisng them as you do.

THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH PACIFISM!!!!!!!!!!

Aren't these "Christians" nothing but pagans at this point in time by
your church's reasoning? Why are you appealing to them?

I don't care how many historians you qute. The BIBLE refutes your
conclusion on this issue.

And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do?

And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any

falsely; and be content with your wages.

NOWHERE DOES THE BIBLE TEACH A CHRISTIAN IS FORBIDDEN TO BE IN THE
MILITARY OR CIVIL SERVICE. QUITE THE CONTRARY.

Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what
shall we do?
And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.


Your doctrine is flat out false. The Bible refutes it. That's your
problem. Not mine. You ignore tax collectors, Erastus the Chamberlain,
the ethiopian Eunuch, Nicodemus, and two centurions, not one of which
was told to resign

I can also show, not some historian WRITING about the early church, but
an INSCRIPTION from the early chruch (125 AD) of the early church
praying to the saints.

Want to become catholic in imitation of the early church, or would you
prefer to go by SCRIPTURE?

>
> THUS THE BOTTOM LINE. EARLY CHRISTIANS DID NOT ENGAGE IN WARS.

OH, YOU'RE DEAD FREAKIN' WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MANY Christian
Jews fought in the Bar Kochba revolt until he declared himself to be the
messiah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



You don't know your history, or else your incompetant scholars don't
know their JEWISH history

So Jesus lied? Intended to deceive the apostles? HE SAID TO BUY A SWORD!

And that message was to US, not just them! Everything was closed for the
festival. You could not go buy one right then. That was a continuing
command for the church. I'm sorry, but that uncomfortable verse is one
that nails you

Your doctrine SOUNDS nice until it is confronted with the uncomfortable
verses that bring it down in flames, and here it is

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let
him take it, and likewise his scrip: AND HE THAT HATH NO SWORD, LET HIM
SELL HIS GARMENT, AND BUY ONE

THAT'S NOT PACIFISM, james

it will when He returns

This inviisble return thing is crap

>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Jesus put no limit in it on his statement. Thus the world would NEVER
> >> visibly see him again.
> >
> >Behold, he cometh with clouds; and EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM, and they
> >also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because
> >of him. Even so, Amen.
> >
> >you vs scripture as always
>
> Oh, then Jesus lied at Joh 14:19? I don't accept that. So let's look
> at your scripture about every eye seeing him. Re 1:7,
>
> "Behold, he cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall see him, and
> they that pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn
> over him. Even so, Amen." (ASV)
>
> Notice he comes "with the clouds". Another verse gets more specific:
> Lu 21:27,
>
> "At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with
> power and great glory." (NIV)
>
> Notice Jesus is now "in a cloud". Thus people can know he is present
> because of the things Jesus does, but they visibly can't see him.

ridiculous

>
> Now back to Re 1:7, the "eyes" then of the highly symbolic book of
> Revelation cannot mean literal eyes, otherwise Jesus' statement at
> John 14:19 would be false. And we both know that would not be
> possible. Thus they are AWARE OF Jesus return when Jesus takes over
> the earth.

that is so ridiculous I can't believe you can say that with a straight
face

>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jesus knew his return would be invisible to
> >> human eyes.
> >>
> >> >Now I will agree that they had the ability to NOT be infallible in,
> >> >perhaps, orally preaching a given sermon somewhere, but when they WROTE
> >> >to edify the entire body, they were always infallible. They never made
> >> >errors. they were always infallible.
> >> >
> >> >When it came to writing prophecy, they never made errors
> >> >
> >> >That was the proof of divine mandate
> >> >
> >> >So when you, the RCC, the LDS, or anyone else claims the same divine
> >> >mandate,
> >>
> >> Where in the JW literature does it say that they have the same divine
> >> mandate as the apostles?
> >
> >
> >Do they not believe they are the only body on earth with the right to
> >interpret scripture for the body of Christ? That is a claim of divine
> >mandate
>
> Yes they believe they are the true religion (don't you believe yours
> is?)

No. My denomination thinks it is one of many preaching the essentials of
the faith, and does not believe it alone has the truth, or that it alone
has the right to interpret scripture

, but they know they are not perfect, and rely prayerfully upon
> God to continually direct them on spiritual matters. (again Pr 4:18)

They do a really bad job then. And the mormons would say they do the
same.

If you start out with the wrong Christ, you're beaten from the start...

>
> >
> >>
> >> >the result must be ERROR FREE, and I should be able to see that
> >> >
> >> >If not, you prove you do not have that mandate
> >>
> >> They never claimed they did that I know of.
> >
> >If they claim to be the ONLY group with a right by God to interpret
> >scripture, God's anointing of truth comes with that.
> >
> >Now if they DON'T claim that right, then they need not be perfect in
> >their teachings
>
> Where does JW literature say they are perfect in their teachings? I
> have already told you that they admit mistakes made in the past (just
> like all religions have made mistakes) but they correct them and move
> on according to Pr 4:18. Many of the popular churches made mistakes
> such as the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, and didn't correct it when
> it was pointed out to them that the Bible does not teach that
> doctrine. Thus they are spiritually stagnant.

Thus they prove they do not have a divine mandate to interpret scripture
is my point, or they WOULD not make mistakes as the aostles who DID have
a divine mandate to interpret scripture did not make msitakes in
interpreting and writing interpretations of it

[James]

Your talking OT vs NT. God was personally leading and judging people
in the OT. He is their creator and He has the right to judge. God will
also judge people in the NT, but that "day" mentioned in the
Scripture, hasn't arrived yet. Ac 17:31,

"For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the
man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising
him from the dead." (NIV)

>
>
>
> Thus any religion not going to war, is obeying Jesus'
>> command here.
>
>That is your wrong, out of context conclusion.
>
>That's the problem with a vast host of WS theology: You see a verse,
>take it out of context, make a wrong doctrine out of it, then make a
>wrong conclusion out of it, and make a statement like:
>
>"Thus any religion not going to war, is obeying Jesus' command here"

That is exactly the type of thinking that the churches like. Thus it
gives them a reason (a very weak one) to disobey Jesus' command to
love their enemies. As Jesus put it Lu 6:46,

"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (NIV)

>
>I'm sorry, but your whole line of thinking is not biblical, and does not
>stand up to biblical scrutiny. It goes way beyond explicit scripture and
>takes principles spoken to individuals on how to relate to each other in
>the community, or on an individual basis, and imposes that paradigm on
>nations with a conclusion that it is a sin to fight in a war, which
>makes GOD a sinner for leading HIS servants to fight in wars in the Old
>Testament.
>
>Even solomon, who had vast armies, said to do good to your enemies and
>heap coals of fire on his head.
>
> And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we
>do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any
>falsely; and be content with your wages.
>
>Sorry, but your contention is easily refuted by looking at what the
>WHOLE COUNCIL OF GOD, and not isolating certain verses, misunderstanding
>and misuisng them as you do.

Again you going back to the OT Mosaic Laws to justify breaking Jesus'
command at Mt 5:44. Jesus' death ended all of those Mosaic Laws. Here
is the Bible proof: Col 2:14,

"having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was
against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it
to the cross." (NIV)

True. I should have said a pacifist-like centurion. A centurion that
had to put away his sword and learn to love his enemies. (Mt 26:52;
5:44)

Historical documents are there for all to see, regardless of the
morality of those.

Then you must not be after the truth. I thought you like the truth,
but apparently not. The Bible says to PROVE our points. 1 Th 5:21,

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (KJV)

So what am I doing here if you will not accept historical truths, let
alone Scriptural truths. If we can't reason on the data being
exchanged, then I need to spend my time elsewhere.

Thanks for your discussions nevertheless. I will read the rest of your
comments below, but will not comment anymore. Take care.

[vince garcia]

MORAL sin is ALWAYS sin in either covenant. Murder is thus still sin in
both covenants.

If war is murder, then it was murder in both covenants. Ergo, war was
never murder then or now, and if it IS murder now, then God was leading
His people to murder and sin in OT times.

> >
> >
> >
> > Thus any religion not going to war, is obeying Jesus'
> >> command here.
> >
> >That is your wrong, out of context conclusion.
> >
> >That's the problem with a vast host of WS theology: You see a verse,
> >take it out of context, make a wrong doctrine out of it, then make a
> >wrong conclusion out of it, and make a statement like:
> >
> >"Thus any religion not going to war, is obeying Jesus' command here"
>
> That is exactly the type of thinking that the churches like.

Because it's true. The abberation (WS) is what's false.

This idea some people here seem to love--that the mainstream is who's
deceived and the cult abberation has the truth is shown by the fruit of
their teachings (like terry's that Moses was a false prophet, or yours
above)

Thus it
> gives them a reason (a very weak one) to disobey Jesus' command to
> love their enemies. As Jesus put it Lu 6:46,

That's your spin. No one here says to NOT love your enemies. Your out of
balance implementation of that command is the issue

And pacifism only works when you have someone else to defend you while
you practice it.

If Jesus taught pacifism, He would be commanding Chrisians to always be
slaves, because everyone would enslave you, take your goods, take your
daughters, and so on, as you passivly went along with it, because you
are forbidden to fight back.

>
> "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (NIV)

Nice try. Throwing out that verse to justify false doctrine does not fly

>
> >
> >I'm sorry, but your whole line of thinking is not biblical, and does not
> >stand up to biblical scrutiny. It goes way beyond explicit scripture and
> >takes principles spoken to individuals on how to relate to each other in
> >the community, or on an individual basis, and imposes that paradigm on
> >nations with a conclusion that it is a sin to fight in a war, which
> >makes GOD a sinner for leading HIS servants to fight in wars in the Old
> >Testament.
> >
> >Even solomon, who had vast armies, said to do good to your enemies and
> >heap coals of fire on his head.
> >
> > And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we
> >do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any
> >falsely; and be content with your wages.
> >
> >Sorry, but your contention is easily refuted by looking at what the
> >WHOLE COUNCIL OF GOD, and not isolating certain verses, misunderstanding
> >and misuisng them as you do.
>
> Again you going back to the OT Mosaic Laws to justify breaking Jesus'
> command at Mt 5:44. Jesus' death ended all of those Mosaic Laws. Here
> is the Bible proof: Col 2:14,
>
> "having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was
> against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it
> to the cross." (NIV)

What are you talking about? Who's quoting Torah laws to you to refute
Jesus? Not me! And who keeps quoting the OLD TESTAMENT to
ME????????????????????


I'm quoting the NEW TESTAMENT to YOU

> >>
> >> Like I said before, a pacifist centurion wouldn't last long in his
> >> service.
> >
> >
> >THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH PACIFISM!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> >
>
> True. I should have said a pacifist-like centurion. A centurion that
> had to put away his sword and learn to love his enemies. (Mt 26:52;
> 5:44)

that's better

You're not proving your point because I'm refuting your point with
SCRPTURE and your refutation is based on historians making claims I'm
showing are false based on THE BIBLE

If a hundred so-called historians claim Christians never held public
office, those hundred are wrong because I've showed you SCRIPTURE
showing they did, and even if they were "right" to the extent that there
became a general pracice, let's say, of not holding a public office,
that general practice does not equate to a biblical command!

You have elevated your doctrine to a comamndment, and I have shown clear
scripture absolutely refuting it, and you claim _I_ don't care about the
truth?

You have indicted yourself.

So run away if you want.

You're the one who is rejecting BIBLE truth in favor of historians and
your own false doctrine

[vince garcia]

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Christians in the Roman Army: Countering the Pacifist Narrative
http://riversfromeden.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/christians-in-the-roman-army-countering-the-pacifist-narrative/

Christian pacifism has raised its profile in recent years, likely
prompted by dissatisfaction with increasing political polarization,
and promoted by some influential writers. Ideas promoted in the past
century by Cecil John Cadoux and John Howard Yoder with little headway
have found a modern defender in Stanley Hauerwas and a popularizer in
Shane Claiborne, whose books, speaking tours and radical lifestyle
have attracted many admirers if few followers.

Central to all of these authors’ ideas is the concept of the “fall of
the church.” They hold that early Christianity was pacifist and
anarchist in character, and rejected the ideas of military service and
loyalty to the state. As Christianity came to be accepted by the Roman
government at around the time of Constantine, the church became
corrupted by its relationship with state power. After Constantine the
church became willing to acquiesce to state power and wage war,
execute people in the name of the state, force conversions, and
recognize the authority of rulers other than Jesus. According to
Yoder, the behavior of the early church is important because the early
Christians “read the Bible in a first-century context. They read the
New Testament in the same world in which it was written, in the same
language in which it was written. They probably read it, therefore,
with more understanding than we do. Hence, how they read the New
Testament is helpful to us in our reading of the New Testament,
whatever the limits of their faithfulness.”[1]

While the emperors and soldiers of the late Empire clearly used
Christian symbolism, what about the army before Constantine?

I shall leave the theological portion of this debate for other
websites. What I will do is examine the central historical claim of
the “fall of the church” thesis: That Christians before the era of
Constantine were pacifists who did not enlist in the Roman military.
Unfortunately, none of the pacifist authors who have tackled this
question have much experience in ancient history and it has led them
to make certain errors which have led to erroneous conclusions.

First, to cover some basics of the Roman Army from Augustus to
Constantine. The Roman army during this period was an all-volunteer
force. No one was in the army who didn’t want to join. The Army was
made up of two groups: The Legions and the Auxilia. Recruitment for
the legions was open only to Roman citizens, who served for 20 years
unless they were injured and medically discharged or were kicked out.
On the other hand, the auxilia were recruited from the peregrini, the
non-citizens of the provinces. Their term of service was 25 years,
after which they received Roman citizenship as well as conubium, the
right to marry a non-Roman wife but still pass on Roman citizenship to
their children. The navy was smaller and accepted more non-citizens,
but the model was essentially the same. As a result, service in the
auxilia was a common route for social and economic advancement for
those who were not Roman citizens. In 212, the emperor Caracalla
decreed that everyone in the Roman Empire was now a Roman citizen,
but the auxilia did not disappear (many units were now centuries old
with a storied battle history they were loath to part with), rather,
they ceased to be a method for social advancement and became just
another type of unit which included special units such as cavalry and
archers.

Like everything else in Roman society, the army also had a pagan
religious element. Festivals, sacrifices, and sacred ceremonies
honoring the gods, the emperor, the Legion’s standards, and
nonspecific virtues such as virtus and disciplina were commonplace.
How Christians in the ranks would deal with the requirement to partake
in these ceremonies would become a major issue.[2]

In the 1st century, we have some scraps of evidence of Christians in
the Roman military. The gospel of Luke states that some soldiers
(possibly from the Roman puppet Herod’s auxiliary forces) asked John
the Baptist for religious advice, and he told them “Don’t extort money
and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.” Matthew
mentions that Jesus was visited by a centurion in Capernaum who asked
him to heal his sick servant. Later, the book of Acts records that
Peter preached at the house of a centurion named Cornelius who was
stationed in Caesarea, and the man and his household became some of
the first non-Jewish converts to Christianity.[3]

From the conversion of Cornelius at about AD 39 to AD 173, we have
absolutely no sources referencing Christian participation in the army.
None. It may have happened, it may not have happened. Either way, we
know nothing about it, so speculating is futile.[4]

In 173, we have a story that would be easy to dismiss were it not
documented by five sources. During the Marcomannic Wars, emperor
Marcus Aurelius was leading the Legio XII Fulminata (“Thunderstruck”)
campaign along the Danube against the Quadi, erstwhile allies of Rome
who had switched sides. The Quadi met the legion with a superior force
and drove them to an open field away from water sources. It was a hot
day, and the Quadi halted their attack to allow heat and thirst to
take its toll.

Surrounded, outnumbered, out of water, growing weak from thirst and in
desperate straights, what is clear from the sources is that lots of
men began to pray. Soon, a thunderstorm materialized. Lightning struck
the treeline where some of the Quadi had gathered, scattering many of
them. Rain and hail poured from the sky. No battle could be fought in
such weather, so the Quadi withdrew, which was fortunate for the
Romans as they were so busy gulping down water collected in their
helmets and shields that they were hardly in a position to fight.

Relief on the Column of Marcus Aurelius in Rome, showing Roman troops
surrounded by the Quadi as a rain god arrives with a thunderstorm on
the upper right.

Christian authors Tertullian and Apollinarius said that the Christians
in the legion prayed and credited them with providing rain, adding
that Marcus Aurelius thanked his Christian soldiers for their prayers.
Pagan writer Cassius Dio credited an Egyptian magician named Arnuphis
who “invoked by means of enchantments various deities and in
particular Mercury.” The unknown author of the Historia Augusta
credited the prayers of Marcus Aurelius himself, he did not note the
receiving deity. The event is also depicted in a relief on a column
commissioned by Marcus Aurelius in Rome, where the rain is seen coming
in anthropomorphic form, with a rain god spreading his arms over the
troops.[5]

What can one make of this? The presence of Christians in Legio XII
cannot be casually dismissed. The legion was normally based in
Melitene in Cappadocia, a place with a large Christian population. The
earliest Christian writer to mention the incident was Tertullian, who
wrote about it a mere thirty years after it happened. Apollinarius,
the other Christian to mention it, was from Melitene.[6] The accounts
are easily reconcilable. One can surmise that once the unit was
surrounded and in dire straits, the men began praying to the gods of
whatever religion they happened to follow. The Christians prayed their
God and the pagans to every god they could possibly think of. When
rain fortuitously came, each man walked away convinced that his
prayers had caused his personal deity to come through for everyone.

Since Cadoux and Yoder first published their views some decades ago,
archaeology has shed new light on Christians in the Roman Army in the
late 2nd and early 3rd centuries. A number of gravestones have been
found that list a soldier’s religion as well as his unit. H. Leclerq
recorded 8 pre-Constantian Christian gravestones of soldiers. The
earliest is a gravestone of a Christian who served in Legio II Parthia
and died in 201. This makes it not only the earliest Christian
soldier’s inscription, but one of the oldest known Christian
inscriptions period.[7] Legio II was raised by Septimius Severus in
197 in preparation for his invasion of Parthia, so the soldier in
question cannot have served long before his death.

The remains of two Christian churches from the early 3rd century have
been excavated by archaeologists, and both of them are linked to the
Roman army. The oldest was discovered at Megiddo in Israel in the late
1990s. The church was built in a back room inside of a military
fortress that served as the headquarters of the Legio II Traiana
(“Trajan’s”) and Legio VI Ferrata (“Ironclad”). On the floor there is
a mosaic depicting two fish as a symbol of Jesus Christ. Any doubt
about the room’s use and the identity of its worshipers is removed by
inscriptions written in Greek on the mosaics:

“The God-loving Akeptous has offered the table to God Jesus Christ
as a memorial.”

“Gaianus, also called Porphyrius, centurion, our brother, has made
the pavement at his own expense as an act of liberality. Brutius
carried out the work.”

Mosaic on the floor of an early Christian church within the Roman army
fortress at Megiddo.

Akeptous is a woman’s name, and the names of several other women were
also written on the floor. This indicates women played some role in
this church as well, despite having benefactors and a congregation
likely made up of soldiers.[8]

The second church was located inside a house built against the city
wall in the fortress city of Dura-Europos, on the west bank of the
Euphrates on the Syrian frontier. The church was built around 241. The
city also featured a synagogue as well as temples to Mithras and
numerous polytheistic deities. Unlike Megiddo, we have no direct
evidence that soldiers attended the church save the circumstantial
evidence of its location inside a heavily fortified border garrison
town that was home to thousands of Roman soldiers.

The church only operated for fifteen years. In 256, Dura-Europos
became a target for Persian Shah Shapur I of the ascendant Sassanid
Empire. In preparation for the siege, both the synagogue and the
church were filled in with dirt in order to strengthen the walls (this
preserved the numerous paintings which adorned the insides). It was
futile. The city was taken in a violent assault that included one of
the first recorded cases of the use of poison gas in warfare. The city
was razed to the ground, its population deported, and was never
rebuilt.[9]

Aerial view of the fortress town of Dura-Europos, on the west bank of
the Euphrates on the border of Roman Syria.

Most of this archaeological evidence was unknown when Cadoux and Yoder
were writing their works. As a result, the most discussed pieces of
evidence are not the archaeological finds but the textual evidence
from the early church fathers.

An often overlooked individual in this debate is a Christian named
Sextus Julius Africanus. Born in Aelia Capitolina (formerly known as
Jerusalem), he served as an officer in the Roman army before joining
the civil service as a diplomat during the reign of Severus Alexander.
For the rest of his life he traveled widely. He led an embassy to
Edessa, sought funds to rebuilt Emmaus, worked to establish a library
in Rome, visited Alexandria, Nysa and the site of Noah’s Ark. He met
and later corresponded with Origen. The topics of his writings reveal
him to be a polymath and one of the first Christian intellectuals to
branch out of theology and into other fields. He wrote a work of
history called the Chronography which drew on Christian, Jewish and
Pagan sources. He engaged in textual criticism of the book of Daniel,
proving that the additional sections in the Septuagint were not in the
original text. Another work called the Kestoi dealt with science,
magic and technology. Here he offered advice on military morale,
tactics and technology, including swordsmanship, the proper use of war
elephants and a recipe for making burning phosphorus. Unfortunately
for his place in history, the vast majority of his writings have been
lost.[10] His views on war and the validity of the state have not
survived, but seeing as how he carried out the duties of both and
wrote about them, it seems he did not categorically disapprove of
either.

Most discussion of the textual evidence has centered around two
prolific writers of the early 3rd century church: Tertullian and
Origen. Here, the pacifists often commit what is known amongst ancient
historians as the Everest Fallacy. That is, the lack of source
material in the ancient world causes us to mistake the exceptional for
the typical. The pacifists tend to take the writings of Tertullian and
Origen as normative for Christian thought of the period, when in fact
these two prodigious writers were exceptional theologians of their
time. Using them as “typical” Christians of their time period is
equivalent to seeing Mount Everest as a “typical” mountain, or William
Shakespeare as a “typical” English playwright of the 16th century, or
the Beatles as a “typical” British rock band of the 1960s. The truth
is, many Christians of the early 3rd century were illiterate, and many
other authors such as Julius Africanus have had their writings lost.
Tertullian and Origen survived because they were considered
exceptional, not because they were typical.

Reconstruction of the baptismal font in the church at Dura-Europos, at
Yale University Art Gallery.

With that said, what do these two men say on the issue? Tertullian’s
views changed over time. In the first years after his conversion, c.
197, he penned a work titled Apology (sometimes styled “Defense of the
Christians”) where he argued that Christians were not dangerous
subversives but were in fact loyal citizens of the Roman Empire
deserving of official toleration and protection. After all, he said
“We are not Indian Brahmins or Gymnosophists, who dwell in woods and
exile themselves from ordinary human life.” Christians, he wrote, were
normal members of society and valued the Empire because of the peace
and security that it provided. Thus they prayed for its safety and
continued survival. What did they pray for specifically? “We pray for
life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection to the
imperial house; for brave armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous
people, the world at rest, whatever, as man or Caesar, an emperor
would wish.”[11]

To further his case, Tertullian pointed out that “We are but of
yesterday, and we have filled every place among you— cities, islands,
fortresses, towns, market-places, the very camp, tribes, companies,
palace, senate, forum—we have left nothing to you but the temples of
your gods.” Later, he added that “We sail with you, and fight with
you, and till the ground with you…How it is we seem useless in your
ordinary business, living with you and by you as we do, I am not able
to understand.” Christians according to Tertullian were normal members
of society in everything except their refusal to take part in pagan
religious rites. They carried on commerce, farmed, and served in the
navy and army (and were therefore found in “fortresses” and “the very
camp.”). If they wanted to hurt the Empire they could, but they didn’t
want to, because they were just as personally invested in its survival
as everyone else.[12]

Later in life, Tertullian’s views changed. By about 206 he had
embraced the Montanist movement, a sect of Christianity that put an
emphasis on prophetic revelation and strict morality. Declaring that
“what has not been freely allowed is forbidden,” he became legalistic,
moralizing and harshly critical of the Roman government and political
system.[13] When asked to comment on the propriety of Christians
serving in the Roman military even if they were not required to make
pagan sacrifices or execute people, he rejected the idea outright.
Whereas he had once argued that Christians supported the Roman state,
he now declared that “There is no agreement between the divine and the
human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil,
the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot be due to
two masters— God and Caesar…how will a Christian man war, nay, how
will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken
away?”[14]

He expounded further on his views in another work titled “On the
Military Crown.” This piece was occasioned by a Christian soldier who
had refused to wear a laurel crown when his unit was personally
inspected by the emperor. He was arrested for insubordination, tried,
and sentenced to death. Some Christians condemned him for being an
extremist and needlessly antagonizing the authorities. Tertullian came
to his defense, arguing that the laurel crown was a symbol of the gods
Apollo and Bacchus. While it might be permissible to use pagan goods
for non-religious purposes, such as burning incense to get rid of a
foul smell, he argued that crowns had no practical use outside of
their symbolism and therefore Christians should have nothing to do
with them.[15]

Inscription dedicating to “God Jesus Christ” a table which stood on
the stone pedestal to the left, at the Megiddo church.

He then moved on to consider the issue of “whether warfare is proper
at all for Christians.” He strongly concluded that it was not. How, he
asked, could Christians wield a sword when Jesus told Peter to put his
sword back in its place? How could a Christian soldier pull guard duty
on the Sabbath when he won’t work? How could a Christian soldier guard
pagan temples, or march under the flag of a regime hostile to
Christianity? It was wrong, he argued, for Christians to have any
loyalties but to Christ. Christians should not join the army and those
in the army should leave immediately.[16]

Writing from Alexandria, Origen proposed a more systematic theory of
Christian pacifism in his “Against Celsus.” Countering Celsus’ charge
that Christians did not serve in the military, Origen argued that
Christians did better by staying home and praying for the emperor,
“wrestling in prayers to God on behalf of those who are fighting in a
righteous cause, and for the king who reigns righteously, that
whatever is opposed to those who act righteously may be destroyed.”

In response to Celsus’ charge that if everyone did as the Christians
did the empire would be overrun by its enemies, Origen argued that
Christianity uniquely had the potential to unite all the peoples of
the world under one faith. Once everyone became a Christian and
followed its pacifist teachings, there would be no more wars and no
kingdom would have to worry about being conquered by another one.[17]

Where Origen went a bit fuzzy is about what was supposed to happen
before this point. What happens when not all the world is Christian,
and there are still wars and foreign invasions? He implied that some
wars are just by saying that Christians should pray for the emperor’s
success in war, but seemed to suggest that Christians become
freeloaders and stay home while other people do the fighting.[18]

What is clear from this body of evidence is that in the late 2nd and
early 3rd centuries many Christians were joining the army and many
soldiers were converting. If they were not, Tertullian and Origen
would not have felt the need to spill so much ink to write about it.
[19]

Cleaning the Megiddo mosaic. The text on the left reads “Gaianus, also
called Porphyrius, centurion, our brother, has made the pavement at
his own expense as an act of liberality. Brutius carried out the
work.”

There were several factors that made the army conducive to
Christianity. Contrary to Claiborne’s claim that early Christianity
was “filled with those who had been left in the wake of imperial
progress – day laborers, working children, old folks, feisty
revolutionaries, single working mothers, those with disabilities,
immigrants, and other who just had nothing to lose,” early Christian
conversion in fact was a province of the upper classes. Upon closer
thought this should not be surprising, for a religion that is spread
primarily by sacred texts presupposes the ability to read.
Christianity spread along trade networks and into urban centers,
amongst the merchants, administrators and tradesmen. The last areas
penetrated by Christianity were the ranks of the rural poor.[20]

Roman soldiers, especially officers, were more likely to be literate
as it was needed for administrative functions. Army units were
constantly on the move throughout the empire, indeed, soldiers may
have spread Christianity to some new areas such as Britain. After the
sporadic persecutions of Nero, Trajan, and Marcus Aurelius in Lyons,
Christianity entered a period of unofficial toleration. The emperor
Alexander Severus even met with Origen personally and kept a statue of
Jesus (along with statues of Orpheus, Abraham and Apollonius of Tyana)
in his personal shrine. Caracalla’s decree in 212 granting citizenship
to the entire empire likely opened the door for many more Christian
recruits to join the legions. Throughout the first half of the 3rd
century, “one gets the sense that the army had adopted a modus vivendi
with its Christian troops by following an unofficial “don’t ask, don’t
tell” policy” with regards to their religious beliefs and observance
of Army religious practices. Likely, some form of accommodation and
compromise was arrived at on the unit level. In Megiddo, it even
appears that some of the officers themselves were Christians and
funded church construction for their men. When the persecutions began
during the reign of Diocletian, many commanders were reluctant to
condemn their Christian soldiers, and some tried to give them every
way out possible. They didn’t want to lose good soldiers over the
seemingly arbitrary whims of the emperor.[21]

Against this evidence, Yoder was forced to admit that Christians did
serve in the military before Constantine, but tried to justify his
position by arguing that this time period was “The epoch of Pax
Romana, an age of world peace. There were brushfire skirmishes with
barbarians around the edge of the empire, but few Christians lived
there. Most of the Mediterranean world had not seen war for
centuries.” In this world, “Most Roman soldiers were simply
bureaucrats. They carried the mail, administered roads, and enforced
laws and the prison system.” Christians who joined the army “probably
did it because the work was easy and the rewards generous, without
troubling themselves much with moral analysis.”[22]

This assessment of Roman history is, quite frankly, absolutely
preposterous. First, to refute the idea that service in the Roman
legions was “easy,” Flavius Vegetius’ account of the training of a
Roman legionnaire can be found here. It included running, obstacle
courses, vaulting over wooden horses in full armor, digging trenches,
mock combat twice a day with “wooden swords double the weight of the
common ones,” ruck marching with 60-pound packs, and field exercises
featuring lengthy marches and maneuvering in formation. Conditions
were harsh. Modern analysis of surviving legion rosters and discharge
records estimates that only 50-60% of soldiers completed their full
term of service. Combat, harsh military discipline, medical
discharges, and disease took care of the rest.[23]

What is even more preposterous is the claim that the 3rd century was
“an age of world peace.” Between the reign of Marcus Aurelius and the
beginning of Constantine’s establishment as sole emperor in 324, there
were no fewer than 21 wars against foreign enemies, three major
secession movements, two major civil wars, and thirteen military
coups. The period is referred to as the Third Century Crisis, and is
generally seen as a time that nearly brought the Roman Empire to its
knees. Of course most of these wars were on the borders of the empire.
That is also where most of the soldiers were stationed.

Another pacifist, Roland Bainton, has claimed that Christians only
served in non-combat positions, specifically in the positions of
frumentarius, vigiles, beneficarius and protectores. The problem is,
Bainton seems to have not been aware of what these positions actually
were. A vigiles was a firefighter and could pass as a non-combat
position, but the frumentarii were the emperor’s intelligence agency
and secret police. A beneficarius was a supply officer, but it was
invariably an intermediate rank that a soldier held before his
promotion to centurion. A protectores was an officer in charge of
training, but the position did not exist before Constantine’s military
reforms so no one would have held it pre-Constantine. Yoder and others
have claimed that Christians served only as police to enforce civil
order, not as soldiers, but this overlooks the fact that in most of
the Empire soldiers were the police.[24]

Wall painting from the church at Dura-Europos showing Jesus and Peter
walking on water.

The rapid growth of Christianity in the Roman Empire stoked fear and
resentment amongst the pagan population, some of whom blamed the
Christians for the gods’ apparent disfavor towards the empire. The
first persecutions under Decius in 250 and Valerian in 260 were brief,
and ended when each ruler was killed in battle.

Much worse came during the reign of Diocletian from 285 onwards. By
this time, Christians had filled the ranks of the military to the
point that Diocletian had doubts about the loyalty of his troops.
Before he could begin a general persecution of Christians in the
empire, he first had to purge the military of Christians. Soldiers
were forced to offer a sacrifice to the Roman gods, if they refused
they were to be expelled from service. Some were executed.

Numerous stories of military martyrs date to this time period. Many
are unreliable, but many others are written in a style that indicate
the accounts were based off of notes taken at an actual trial. The
stories of soldiers such as Marinus, Maximilian, Marcellus, Dasius,
Julius the Veteran, Tipasius and others are too lengthy to recount
here. Their presence, however, reveals some facts about the presence
of Christians in the Roman army. The men described were veterans and
well-regarded by their fellow soldiers. Some of the men were officers
or offered promotion to officer rank. Julius served 27 years, fought
in seven campaigns and re-enlisted after his original term of service
had expired. In many cases, their commanders were reluctant to act
against them due to their exceptional service and offered them
bonuses, gave them time to reconsider, or tried to make other
accommodations to convince them to make the sacrifice and remain in
the service.

What is important to note is that the soldiers’ trouble always came
from refusing to sacrifice to the Roman gods or wear religiously
symbolic clothing. We don’t have a case of a pre-Constantian soldier
martyr who was brought to trial for refusal to fight. This indicates
their objection was to Roman army religion, not to the concept of war
and soldiering itself. Their long terms of service also seem to
indicate that their rejection of army religion hadn’t been a problem
for their officers until orders came down from above to start making
it a problem.[25]

The debate over pacifism in the early church has often overlooked the
views of Christians who lived outside of the Roman Empire. While few
written sources that address the topic have survived, the actions of
the kingdom of Armenia are an interesting case. Towards the end of the
Diocletianic persecution Maximin Daia, the emperor of the east,
attempted to extend the persecution into the Roman client state of
Armenia. Armenia was at the time the world’s only officially Christian
nation, and when Maximin’s troops attempted to enforce his decrees
there the entire country rose in armed revolt and defeated the Roman
forces.[26]

Wall painting from the church at Dura-Europos showing Jesus healing
the paralytic.

So what are we to make of Origen and Tertullian? The available
evidence seems to indicate that at the very least, a large number of
Christians disagreed with them. Tertullian’s embrace of the Montanists
clearly took him outside the mainstream of contemporary Christian
thought of his era. Because of this, the pacifist views which he
adopted after joining the sect were likely also outside of the
mainstream. Origen is a more interesting case, but even here we can
note that he corresponded with other scholars such as Julius Africanus
who quite likely disagreed with him.

It is also interesting to note that the two scholars lived in the most
peaceful parts of the Roman Empire at that time.[27] One can
justifiably wonder if their views on war might have been different had
they had lived in Britain, or the Danube frontier, or the border with
the Sassanid Empire. As it was, once Constantine came to power and
Christianity grew to encompass the majority of the population of the
Roman Empire, Christians all of a sudden had to take on the duties of
the responsible exercise of power. As a result, Ambrose and Augustine
began to develop what became known as Just War theory, which has
dominated Christian thought on the matter ever since.

There was no golden age of a pacifist church avoiding the worldly
entanglements of politics, only to trade its soul to Constantine for
earthly power. Instead, as Peter Leithart observes, “the story of the
church and war is ambiguity before Constantine, ambiguity after, and
ambiguity right to the present.”[28] The pacifists are reaching back
for a mythical past that never existed. There has always been
disagreement on the issues of war and the legitimacy of the state, and
there likely always will be so long as the world breeds overreaching
governments and discontented citizens.

Further Reading:

Cecil John Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude Toward War (London:
Headley, 1919), available online at: http://archive.org/details/earlychristianat00cadouoft.

John T. Helgeland, “Christians and the Roman Army, A.D. 173-337,”
Church History, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), pp. 149-163+200.

Peter J. Leithart, Defending Constantine (Madison, Wisconsin:
InterVarsity Press, 2009).

John F. Shean, Soldiering for God: Christianity and the Roman Army
(Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2010).

Vassilios Tzaferis, “Inscribed ‘To God Jesus Christ’: Early Christian
Prayer Hall Found in Megiddo Prison,” Biblical Archaeology Review,
Vol. 33, No. 2 (March/April 2007), available online at:
http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/oldest-church-02.asp.

John Howard Yoder, Early Christian Attitudes to War, Peace, and
Revolution (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Institute of Mennonite Studies,
2009).

References:

[1] John Howard Yoder, Early Christian Attitudes to War, Peace, and
Revolution (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Institute of Mennonite Studies,
2009), 43.

[2] John T. Helgeland, “Christians and the Roman Army, A.D. 173-337,”
Church History, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), p. 149-163+200; John
Helgeland, Robert J. Daly and J. Patout Burns, Christians and the
Military: The Early Experience (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985),
48-55; Arthur Darby Knock, “The Roman Army and the Roman Religious
Year” Harvard Theological Review 45 No 4, 1952, p. 223-229.

[3] Luke 3:14; Matthew 8:5-13; Acts 10:1-48.

[4] Peter J. Leithart, Defending Constantine (Madison, Wisconsin:
InterVarsity Press, 2009), 260.

[5] Eusebius, The History of the Church, trans. by G.A. Williamson
(New York: Penguin Books, 1965), 5.5; Tertullian, Apology, trans. by
S. Thelwall (1885), NewAdvent.org, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm
(accessed April 19, 2012), 5; Cassius Dio, Roman History, trans. by
Earnest Cary (1927), LacusCurtius, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/home.html
(accessed April 12, 2012), 72.8-10; Historia Augusta, trans. by David
Magie (1932), LacusCurtius, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/home.html
(accessed April 12, 2012), Life of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, 24.4.

[6] Helgeland, et. al, Christians and the Military: The Early
Experience, 32-34.

Note, the Christians did mistakenly assert that the legion’s nickname
Fulminata came from this event. In fact, inscriptions show the name
dates to the time of Augustus over 150 years earlier. (See Shean,
Soldiering for God, 190-191).

[7] John F. Shean, Soldiering for God: Christianity and the Roman Army
(Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2010), 183.

[8] Vassilios Tzaferis, “Inscribed ‘To God Jesus Christ’: Early
Christian Prayer Hall Found in Megiddo Prison,” Biblical Archaeology
Review, Vol. 33, No. 2 (March/April 2007), available online at:
http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/oldest-church-02.asp

[9] Carly Silver, “Dura-Europos: Crossroad of Cultures,” Archaeology,
August 11, 2010 (online feature) http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/dura_europos/
(accessed April 19, 2010).

[10] Shean, Soldiering for God, 193-194.

[11] Tertullian, Apology, 30, 32, 42.

[12] Tertullian, Apology, 37, 42.

[13] “Tertullian,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm;
“Montanists,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm;
Tertullian, On The Military Crown, trans. by S. Thelwall (1885),
NewAdvent.org, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm (accessed
April 19, 2012), 2.

[14] Tertullian, On Idolatry, trans. by S. Thelwall (1885),
NewAdvent.org, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0302.htm (accessed
April 19, 2012), 19.

[15] Tertullian, On the Military Crown, 1-2, 7-10, 12.

[16] Tertullian, On the Military Crown, 11.

[17] Origen, On The Military Crown, trans. by Frederick Crombie
(1885), NewAdvent.org, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0416.htm
(accessed April 19, 2012), 8.68-73.

[18] Leithart, Defending Constantine, 269.

[19] Leithart, Defending Constantine, 264-265.

[20] Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw, Jesus for President (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan, 2008), 156; Shean, Soldiering for God, 113-114.

For more on the spread of Christianity, see Rodney Stark, The Rise of
Christianity (HarperOne, 1997).

[21] Shean, Soldiering for God, 143-144, 155, 207-209, 244.

[22] Yoder, Early Christian Attitudes to War, Peace, and Revolution,
50; John Howard Yoder, For the Nations: Essays Public & Evangelical
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1997), 70 n. 14.

[23] A Companion to the Roman Army, ed. by Paul Erdkamp (London:
Blackwell, 2011), 427.

[24] Helgeland, “Christians and the Roman Army, A.D. 173-337,”
162-163.

[25] Helgeland, et. al, Christians and the Military: The Early
Experience, 56-65; Shean, Soldiering for God, 186-205.

[26] Eusebius, The History of the Church, 9.8.

[27] Shean, Soldiering for God, 202-203.

[28] Leithart, Defending Constantine, 278.

[vince garcia]

I'm sorry, this must be impossible.

James the JW quoted historians who say Christians refused to serve in
the army, and since James cannot be wrong in anything he says, or in any
source he quotes, YOUR sources must be the ones who are wrong

I know that because he told me i was uninterested in the truth, and he
would no longer eespond to me, so clearly HE cannot be the one who is in
error because only HE knows the truth apparently

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 13, 6:29 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
>
> > Christians in the Roman Army: Countering the Pacifist Narrative

> >http://riversfromeden.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/christians-in-the-roma...

Since James gets his views straight from Columbia Heights(i.e. JW
headquarters),how can archaeological evidence such as gravestones
listing Roman soldiers as Christian, override his cult?


Mark 4:12
That seeing they may see, and not perceive;
and hearing they may hear, and not understand;
lest at any time they should be converted,
and their sins should be forgiven them.

[vince garcia]

They can't, obviously. The authority of the WS overrides historical
inscriptions.

If it's a choice between actual inscriptians from antiquity--or QUOTING
THE BIBLE DIRECTLY--and the word of the Watchtower Society and James'
hand-picked modern historians, we must go by the word of the Watchtower
Society and James' hand-picked modern historians, correct?

That's the REAL truth, apparently.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

The JW organization doesn't allow its
members to make up their own mind.

“Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the
Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals,
regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret
the Bible. For this reason the Bible cannot be properly understood
without Jehovah’s visible organization in mind.”—The Watchtower,
October 1, 1967, p. 587

http://4jehovah.org/help-jw-bible-read.php

[James]

vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>

>vince garcia wrote:
>>
>> Obves teaches the resurrected will have sex in eternity. I doubt the JWs
>> teach this. Can you confirm JWs deny this teaching? thx

The JW's go by the Bible. And the Bible says there will be no
marriages for the resurrected. Mt 22:29,30,

"29. But Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing
the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in
marriage, but are as angels in heaven. " (ASV)

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 15, 9:21 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com>

Hey, they got one right.
Now, try this one.


Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
and shalt believe in thine heart that God
hath raised him from the dead,
thou shalt be saved.

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

Yes, that is so true. And to add Jesus' words at Mt 24:13,

"But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved." (NASB)

Thus according to Jesus, we must continually "confess with thy mouth
the Lord Jesus" and continually believe that "God hath raised him from
the dead", until the "end", then we will recieve salvation.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 16, 11:43 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>

The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Resurrection of Jesus

by Matt Slick

The Watchtower organization says that Jesus did not rise from the dead
in the same body he died in (You Can Live Forever on Paradise Earth,
p. 143-44). Instead, it says that He rose as a spirit creature and
that the material body of Jesus was taken away by God the Father.
Therefore, they deny the physical resurrection of Christ. Is this
important? Most definitely!

1 Cor. 15:14 says, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching
is vain, your faith also is vain." In other words, if Jesus did not
rise from the dead, then Christianity is a waste of time and we are
then still dead in our sins. It is obvious that the doctrine of the
resurrection of Jesus is a vital and essential element of
Christianity. But what of the Jehovah's Witnesses? Are they accurate
in their assessment of Jesus' resurrection in denying the bodily
resurrection but affirming a "spiritual" resurrection? The answer is a
definite, "No."

It is obvious from Jesus' own words in John 2:19-21 that He would
raise Himself from the dead:

"Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in
three days I will raise it up." 20The Jews therefore said, "It took
forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in
three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

John 2:19-21 is a clear prophecy of Christ. Note that He said He would
raise up "this temple." John the apostle clarifies for us that "this
temple" was actually Jesus physical body. Therefore, Jesus' physical
body was raised from the dead. Very simple. However, the Jehovah's
Witnesses do not believe Jesus' own words here.

In order to help you see the error of the Watchtower position and aid
you in refuting their arguments, I've compiled the following list of
arguments used by the Jehovah's Witnesses to support their position.

1. They use 1 Pet. 3:18 where it says that Christ was "put to death in
the flesh, but made alive in the spirit" as an attempt to show that
Jesus was not raised physically, but as a kind of spirit creature.
Their use of the scripture to support their position is incorrect
because this verse does not say that He was raised a spirit creature.
It says that He was "made alive in the spirit." What does that mean?
Quite simply, it means that Jesus was raised in an imperishable body.
This is what 1 Cor. 15:35-45 says when it refers to the body as being
sown perishable, but raised imperishable; sown in dishonor and raised
in glory; sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body, etc. Jesus
was the "Last Adam", a life giving spirit. Paul is typifying the
resurrection body. In this passage Paul is talking about the
resurrection of all people. All Christians will be raised in physical
bodies. It is said the same of Jesus.

2. The Bible says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of
God (1 Cor. 15:44-50). Therefore, Jesus' physical body could not be
raised lest it contradict this verse.
What the Jehovah's Witnesses miss is that after His resurrection Jesus
said, "Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as
you see I have" (Luke 24:39). You must note that Jesus did not say,
"flesh and blood." He said, "flesh and bones." This is because Jesus'
blood was shed on the cross. The life is in the blood and it is the
blood that cleanses from sin: "For the life of the flesh is in the
blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for
your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the
soul" (Lev. 17:11). See also, Gen. 9:4; Deut. 12:23; and John 6:53-54.
Jesus was pointing out that He was different. He had a body, but not a
body of flesh and blood. It was flesh and bones.

3. The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus manifested different
physical forms in order to convince the disciples that He had been
raised.
This is faulty for several reasons. First, it would mean that Jesus
was tricking His disciples into believing that His body had been
raised when it hadn't. Second, it disregards the clear teaching of
Jesus Himself who said His very body would be raised. He said in John
2:19-21, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
20Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this
temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking
of the temple of His body." Jesus said that His body would be raised.
The Jehovah's Witnesses clearly deny Jesus' very words. Fourth, 1 Tim.
2:5 says, "For there is one mediator between God and man, the man
Christ Jesus." Jesus is said to be a man -- in present tense language.
If He was not raised physically, then how could he be a man? He could
not be.

4. Jesus manifested different bodies after the resurrection, the same
way the angels took human form in the Old Testament in order to show
the disciples that He had been raised.
Again, this contradicts what Jesus said in John 2:19-21 that He would
raise Himself from the dead. . . physically. Also, Jesus is not an
angel contrary to what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe. Jesus was God
in flesh (John 8:58; John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8).

The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus did not rise from the dead in
the same body He died in. This is a dangerous doctrine that
contradicts the Bible and condemns those who believe it to eternal
destruction because it is denying His physical resurrection which is
the proof that He conquered death. The Jehovah's Witnesses need to
keep Jesus' own words in mind when He said, "Destroy this temple and
in three days, I will raise it up" (John 2:19). Since He was speaking
of His body says John in verse 21, then it must be true; Jesus rose
from the dead in the same body He died in. Also, at His ascension
people watched Him rise to be with the Father. They saw His body
ascend. That is why it can be said that Jesus, the man, is the
mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). It isn't an angel or a
spirit creature that is the mediator. It is Jesus the man.

http://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses-and-resurrection-jesus

[vince garcia]

Why it took you so long to apparently say that, I don't know

But someone else claims JWs DO teach that, so I don't know what to
believe.

You can be cagey sometimes...

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

True, Jesus gave that body for a ransom for mankind. He 10:10,

"And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the
body of Jesus Christ once for all." (NIV)

>Instead, it says that He rose as a spirit creature and
>that the material body of Jesus was taken away by God the Father.
>Therefore, they deny the physical resurrection of Christ. Is this
>important? Most definitely!

JW's go by whatever the Bible teaches. And it teaches that Jesus was
resurrected with a "spirit" body, not a physical body. 1 Pe 3:18,

"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust,
in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in
the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;" (NASB)

(See more on this below)

But spirit beings are invisable to humans, thus Jesus materialized a
physical body (not the same one he gave for the ransom) so as to be
seen by others.

Why do you think Mary Magdalene thought the resurrected Jesus was the
"gardener"? John 20:14,15,

" 14. When she had said this, she turned around, and beheld Jesus
standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus.
15. Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you
seeking?" Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, "Sir, if
you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will
take Him away."" (NASB)

It was only when Jesus spoke to her, that she then knew it was Jesus.
Vs 16,

"Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to Him in Hebrew,
"Rabboni!" (which means, Teacher)." (NASB)

>
>1 Cor. 15:14 says, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching
>is vain, your faith also is vain." In other words, if Jesus did not
>rise from the dead, then Christianity is a waste of time and we are
>then still dead in our sins. It is obvious that the doctrine of the
>resurrection of Jesus is a vital and essential element of
>Christianity. But what of the Jehovah's Witnesses? Are they accurate
>in their assessment of Jesus' resurrection in denying the bodily
>resurrection but affirming a "spiritual" resurrection? The answer is a
>definite, "No."

Actually it is a definite YES. See 1 Pe 3:18.

>
>It is obvious from Jesus' own words in John 2:19-21 that He would
>raise Himself from the dead:
>
> "Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in
>three days I will raise it up." 20The Jews therefore said, "It took
>forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in
>three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body."
>
>John 2:19-21 is a clear prophecy of Christ. Note that He said He would
>raise up "this temple." John the apostle clarifies for us that "this
>temple" was actually Jesus physical body. Therefore, Jesus' physical
>body was raised from the dead. Very simple. However, the Jehovah's
>Witnesses do not believe Jesus' own words here.

If Jesus was resurrected with the same body he had before, why did
Mary Magdalene think he was the gardener?

Also, the Bible clearly says that God raised Jesus from the dead. Acts
10:40,

"but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to
be seen." (NIV)

Then does that mean that John 2:19-21contradicts Acts 10:40? No, and
here is why.

AFTER Jesus was resurrected, nowhere in the Bible does it say that
Jesus resurrected himself (at least not that I have found). Even
though his resurrection is mentioned several times, it never gives
credit to Jesus for doing it himself.

Paul also confirms that God did the raising. He 13:20, "May the God of
peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from
the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep," (NIV)

Also Ro 8:1, "And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead
is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give
life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you."
(NIV)

So then what could Jesus have meant when he said "...and I will raise
it..."? Jesus was well aware that he would have to die, be in the
ground for 3 days, and then be raised. (Mt 12:40) Since he had this
advanced knowledge he could, in a predictive sense, speak of raising
up the temple of his body. Since he foretold it, it was just as if he
was going to do it. The prophet Ezekiel did the same thing. He
predicted that Jerusalem would be destroyed and said "I" (Ezekiel)
will destroy it. Of course, Ezekiel himself did not destroy Jerusalem
but the Babylonians did. Thus by foretelling Jerusalem's destruction,
Ezekiel laid claim that he destroyed it. Notice Eze 43:3,

"And it was according to the appearance of the vision which I saw,
even according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the
city: and the visions were like the vision that I saw by the river
Chebar; and I fell upon my face." (KJV)

>
>In order to help you see the error of the Watchtower position and aid
>you in refuting their arguments, I've compiled the following list of
>arguments used by the Jehovah's Witnesses to support their position.
>
>1. They use 1 Pet. 3:18 where it says that Christ was "put to death in
>the flesh, but made alive in the spirit" as an attempt to show that
>Jesus was not raised physically, but as a kind of spirit creature.
>Their use of the scripture to support their position is incorrect
>because this verse does not say that He was raised a spirit creature.
>It says that He was "made alive in the spirit." What does that mean?
>Quite simply, it means that Jesus was raised in an imperishable body.
>This is what 1 Cor. 15:35-45 says when it refers to the body as being
>sown perishable, but raised imperishable; sown in dishonor and raised
>in glory; sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body, etc.

Notice, sown a physical body, but raised a SPIRITUAL BODY.

>Jesus
>was the "Last Adam", a life giving spirit. Paul is typifying the
>resurrection body. In this passage Paul is talking about the
>resurrection of all people. All Christians will be raised in physical
>bodies. It is said the same of Jesus.

No, not all. Yes, Jesus was raised as a spirit being as you yourself
quoted. 1 Cor 15:44,

"it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is
a natural body, there is also a spiritual body." (NASB)

>
>2. The Bible says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of
>God (1 Cor. 15:44-50). Therefore, Jesus' physical body could not be
>raised lest it contradict this verse.
>What the Jehovah's Witnesses miss is that after His resurrection Jesus
>said, "Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as
>you see I have" (Luke 24:39). You must note that Jesus did not say,
>"flesh and blood." He said, "flesh and bones." This is because Jesus'
>blood was shed on the cross. The life is in the blood and it is the
>blood that cleanses from sin: "For the life of the flesh is in the
>blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for
>your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the
>soul" (Lev. 17:11). See also, Gen. 9:4; Deut. 12:23; and John 6:53-54.
>Jesus was pointing out that He was different. He had a body, but not a
>body of flesh and blood. It was flesh and bones.

Whether or not the materialized body of Jesus had blood in it or not,
is besides the point. (wouldn't he look terribly pale, if his body had
no blood?)

>
>3. The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus manifested different
>physical forms in order to convince the disciples that He had been
>raised.
>This is faulty for several reasons. First, it would mean that Jesus
>was tricking His disciples into believing that His body had been
>raised when it hadn't. Second, it disregards the clear teaching of
>Jesus Himself who said His very body would be raised. He said in John
>2:19-21, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
>20Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this
>temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking
>of the temple of His body." Jesus said that His body would be raised.
>The Jehovah's Witnesses clearly deny Jesus' very words.

see above the discussion of John 2:19-21 and Ezekiel.

>Fourth, 1 Tim.
>2:5 says, "For there is one mediator between God and man, the man
>Christ Jesus." Jesus is said to be a man -- in present tense language.
>If He was not raised physically, then how could he be a man? He could
>not be.

Are not spirit beings given the masculine gender?

>
>4. Jesus manifested different bodies after the resurrection, the same
>way the angels took human form in the Old Testament in order to show
>the disciples that He had been raised.
>Again, this contradicts what Jesus said in John 2:19-21 that He would
>raise Himself from the dead. . . physically. Also, Jesus is not an
>angel contrary to what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe. Jesus was God
>in flesh (John 8:58; John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8).

Not at all. Jesus was CREATED according to Col 1:15,

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."
(NASB)

Concerning your scriptures above, let's look at them one by one, and
see if Jesus is really God. John 8:58,

"Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was
born, I am."" (NASB)

Jesus knew he existed before the world was made, but this doesn't
prove he was God Almighty. (John 17:5) Many angels also existed before
the world was created. (Job 38:7). In Exodus 3:14 God was using this
as a title and name to be used against the Egyptians.

A Bible scholar Dr. J.H. Hertz said that in that phrase 'I am that I
am' the main emphasis in on the active manifestation of God's Divine
existence. He said that God was about to show himself in behalf of his
people in great and wonderful way. He said that "I will be what I will
be" is also an approved rendering.

The footnote to the NASB Bible agrees and says, "1.14 Or I WILL BE
WHAT I WILL BE " .

When Jesus used the phrase he was not using it as a name or title. He
was only explaining his pre-human existence.

The Greek Septuagint Version, which is the one the Apostles quoted
from in the first century, renders Exodus 3:14 as " ego' eimi' ho
Ohn'," which translates "I am the Being". The Greek words at John 8:58
"ego eimi" show the use of the verb "eimi" in the historical present
because Jesus was talking about himself in relation to Abraham's past.
That is why some translations render it differently. For example:

--An American Translation reads. "I existed before Abraham was born!",
--Moffatt, "I have existed before Abraham was born",
--Sacred Bible, "Before Abraham existed, I was existing",
--The New Testament, "Jesus said to them, 'I tell you, I existed
before Abraham was born!",
--The Four Gospels According the Sinaitic Palimpsest, "He said unto
them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I have
been.",
--The Twentieth Century New Testament, "Believe me 'Jesus replied,
'before Abraham was born I was already what I am.",
--The Modern New Testament, "Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say
to you, Before Abraham was born, I was.",
--The Syriac New Testament, "Jesus said to them: Verily, verily, I say
to you, That before Abraham existed, I was."
--The New World Translation (NWT) " Jesus said to them: "Most truly I
say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.""

John 1:1,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God."

Sounds pretty cut and dry doesn't it. But notice these translations:

"the Logos was divine." (MO);
"the Word was divine." (AT; SD);
"a god was the Word." (interlinear ED) ;
"the Word was a god" (NTIV).
"the Word was a god." (NWT)
"The Word was deity." (Simple English)


So why don't ALL Bibles agree on that passage? It all depends how
close the translators stay with the Greek grammar from the
manuscript(s) they translated it from.

What if I said to you these similar two statements:

He is George Bush.
He is the George Bush.

Does the addition of the definite article "the" change the meaning a
little? It is a similar thing with the Greek grammar found at John
1:1.

In Greek, that passage contains the word "god" [theos] twice, and the
context is talking about God and the Word (Jesus). [not some kinds of
false gods]

The first one has the definite article "the" before it, the second one
does not. Thus there is a difference between the meaning of the first
"god" [theos] and the second "god" [theos]. And a good translation
should show that difference.

According to the Bible translator William Barclay, he says that when a
Greek noun doesn't have the definite article in front of it, it
becomes a description (like an adjective) rather than an identity
(like a noun). And the second "theos" [god] has no definite article
preceding it.

The Catholic Bible, New American Bible (NAB), says in a footnote on
John 1:1,

"Was God:lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies
predication rather than identification".

And the apostle John near the end of his book at John 20:31, mentions
the final concluding comment about Jesus' position as to God. He said
that Jesus was the "Son of God", not 'God the Son', nor 'God'.

Thus to ACCURATELY get across what the writer of Joh 1:1 was saying,
is to show that the "Word" [Jesus] was with Almighty God in the
beginning, and that the "Word" was also like a god, or godlike.

That is how the Greek manuscripts read, and that is how honest and
accurate translators should translate it for their readers.

Col 2:9,

"For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form," (NASB)

Concerning Col 2:9. This is one is strickly a translation problem. If
you are a Trinitarian tranlator you will translate the word "theotes"
as "Deity" or "Godhead" or "Divinity" thus giving pesonality to them.
If you are non-Trinintarian translator then you will translate
"theotes" as "Divine Nature", "divine quality" or "Godship" which only
denotes qualities. Who is right? It depends on which reference you are
looking at. If it is a religious reference, you will get the
definition that coincides with their religious beliefs. To get an
unbiased definition, it would be best to go to a non-religious source.

Parkhurst's "A Greek and English Lexicon" translates "theotes" as
"Deity, godhead, divine nature". So you can take your pick here.

Liddell and Scott's "A Greek-English Lexicon" tranlates "theotes" as
it was used outside the scriptures, and defines it as "divinity,
divine nature" . It talks about a similar Greek expression "dia
theoteta" which means "for religious reasons".

A study of the context can help to understand the meaning that having
this "Divinity" or "Deity" does not make Christ God Almighty. In Col
1:19 it says,

"For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell
in Him," (NASB)

Thus all of this fullness dwells in Christ because it pleases the
Father. If it didn't, then the fullness wouldn't be there. The Father
makes the decision for the fullness to be there.

15 verses later at 3:1, Paul doesn't believe Jesus is the same person
as God because he says,

"Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on
things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God." (NIV)

Much of the argument that Paul is making in this second Chapter of
Colossians has to do with being mislead. In verse 8 he says to watch
out for human philosophy and traditions. In 3,6,7 he says there are
treasures of wisdom and knowledge in Christ and your faith would be
strengened if you lived in Christ. In 13-15 Paul says we don't need
the Law Covenent anymore because Christ took it away. Thus Paul is
saying that we don't need human philosophy and traditions, or even the
Mosaic Law because Christ has the fullness in himself and nothing more
is needed.

Phil 2:5-8,

" 5. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6. who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard
equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7. but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being
made in the likeness of men.
8. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by
becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."
(NASB)

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org



>

[James]

vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>

Go to the web page below, to get it from the source.

>
>
You can be cagey sometimes...

????

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

1 Corinthians 15:15
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God;
because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ:
whom he raised not up,
if so be that the dead rise not.


John 20:27
Then saith he to Thomas,
Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands;
and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side:
and be not faithless, but believing.


John 20:28

And Thomas answered and said unto him,
My Lord and my God.

[vince garcia]

That's actually the most accurate rendering

That aside, the only pissible understanding of Jesus' words is that he
is claiming to be God in flesh.

The Pharisees understood that clearly.

Everyone there understood that clearly.

2000 years of REAL Christianity have understood that clearly.

only deceived heretics and ignorant "bible scholars" who have their
heads up their asses and have to mistranslate verses like "God is your
throne" DON'T understand that clearly.

[James]

vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>

You personal opinions are noted. I stand by the Scriptures presented.

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

True, the Greek structure there does contain the definite article
"the", thus making the word translated as "God", and not 'a god' as
John 1:1 is as shown above. So did Thomas contradict the Bible and say
that Jesus was God Almighty?

Thomas more than likely knew of Jesus' words a few verses earlier at
20:17b,

"I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."
Thus Jesus was also returning to Thomas' (and all other humans') God.
Also, Jesus clearly said that no one has ever seen God. Joh 1:18,

"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in
the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (KJV)

And Thomas (and many others) had seen Jesus. So Scripturally, Jesus
could not have been God Almighty because they were even still alive
after seeing Jesus. (see Ex 33:20) And jumping to just 3 few verses
later that same writer, the apostle John, wrote that Jesus was the
"Son of God", not God. (John 20:31) So again, why did Thomas say it
that way, or the apostle John write it that way?

There are several possible explanations.

One was that the doubting Thomas was so enthused to have seen the
resurrected Jesus, that he exclaimed his astonishment to BOTH Jesus
and God: "My Lord and my God!" Seeing those wounds had just confirmed
that God really had resurrected Jesus, thus making all those things
true and not fake etc. Today, some people might say after an
astonishing event: "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!" It doesn't mean that all
three of them are the same person. It is just an expression about some
fabulous event.

Another possible explanation is that Thomas may have been doing what
others did in the past, in which a spokesman for God, like an angel,
was Biblically recorded as if it was actually God speaking. For
example Judges 13:20-22,

" 20. As the flame blazed up from the altar toward heaven, the angel
of the LORD ascended in the flame. Seeing this, Manoah and his wife
fell with their faces to the ground.
21. When the angel of the LORD did not show himself again to Manoah
and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the LORD.
22. "We are doomed to die!" he said to his wife. "We have seen God!"

Of course the account clearly states they saw an ANGEL of God, not God
Himself. But that angel so much REPRESENTED God that in essence they
'saw God', even though it clearly was an angel.

We have another example of this by Moses. Who gave the Mosaic laws to
Moses? In the OT it reads as if God did, but later on in the NT is
says that ANGELS delivered it. Acts 7:53,

"you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it."
(RSV)

So Thomas may have had such things in mind when he made his comment.

Another explanation is Greek and Arabic grammar. In some passages, in
the Greek the article "the" is found before the noun, but is not
translated as such because it is the way of that Greek grammar but has
no significance in the passage, and thus is dropped by the translator.
For example notice 1 Pe 2:18,

"Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to
the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing." (RSV)

But the literal Greek reads:

"The household servants, being submissive with all fear to the
masters,..."

Notice the definite article "the" before household servants and
masters. But it is dropped by the translators because of its
insignificance to the idea presented here. (see also the Greek
interlinear of Colossians 3:18 to 4:1, and 1�Peter 3:1, 7)

The definite article is also dropped by the translators at Joh 20:28,
but the significance of it is passed on by the translators to the
Greek word for "god" found there, thus making it "God" instead of
"god".

Yes, the Scriptures do not say that Jesus was God Almighty. God
Almighty always lived (Ps 90:2), but Jesus was created. Col 1:15,

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."
(NASB)

Jesus acknowledged that he was not equal to God. Joh 14:28,

"You heard me say, `I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If
you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the
Father is greater than I." (NIV)

And when Jesus was resurrected and went back to Heaven to be with God
again, Jesus still was inferior to God. 1 Co 11:3,

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and
the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (NIV)

I hope that helped you to see Jesus' true relationship with God. He
was God's Son, not God. As Jesus himself said at Joh 10:36,

"what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent
into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said,
`I am God's Son'?" (NIV)

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Ex 3:14 - And God said unto Moses,
I AM THAT I AM: and he said,
Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel,
I AM hath sent me unto you.

Joh 8:58 - Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily,
I say unto you,
Before Abraham was, I am.

eipen (5627) autoiv Ihsouv, Amhn amhn legw (5719) umin, prin Abraam
genesqai (5635) egw eimi. (5748)

Verse 58. Before Abraham was, I am.
The following is a literal translation of Calmet's note on this
passage:-"I am from all eternity. I have existed before all ages. You
consider in me only the person who speaks to you, and who has appeared
to you within a particular time. But besides this human nature, which
ye think ye know, there is in me a Divine and eternal nature. Both,
united, subsist together in my person. Abraham knew how to distinguish
them. He adored me as his God; and desired me as his Saviour. He has
seen me in my eternity, and he predicted my coming into the world."

On the same verse Bishop Pearce speaks as follows:-"What Jesus here
says relates (I think) to his existence antecedent to Abraham's days,
and not to his having been the Christ appointed and foretold before
that time; for, if Jesus had meant this, the answer I apprehend would
not have been a pertinent one. He might have been appointed and
foretold for the Christ; but if he had not had an existence before
Abraham's days, neither could he have seen Abraham, (as, according to
our English translation, the Jews suppose him to have said,) nor could
Abraham have seen him, as I suppose the Jews understood him to have
said in the preceding verse, to which words of the Jews the words of
Jesus here are intended as an answer."

Verse 59. Then took they up stones, Jews understood him as asserting
his Godhead; and, supposing him to be a blasphemer, they proceeded to
stone him, according to the law. Leviticus 24:16.

http://classic.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=joh&chapter=8&verse=58#Joh8_58


Joh 20:28 - And Thomas answered and said unto him,

My Lord and my God.

Ge 32:30 -
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel
for I have seen God face to face,
and my life is preserved.


Joh 5:18 -
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him,
because he not only had broken the sabbath,
but said also that God was his Father,
making himself equal with God.


Meditate on:

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead,
and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man,
yet He is not two, but one Christ.

http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

Then we have a difference of the applications of Scripture here.

Concerning John 8:58:

Jesus knew he existed before the world was made, but this doesn't
prove he was God Almighty. (John 17:5) Many angels also existed before
the world was created. (Job 38:7). In Exodus 3:14 God was using this
as a title and name to be used against the Egyptians. A Bible scholar
Dr. J.H. Hertz said that in that phrase 'I am that I am' the main
emphasis in on the active manifestation of God's Divine existence. He
said that God was about to show himself in behalf of his people in
great and wonderful way. He said that "I will be what I will be" is
also an approved rendering.

The footnote to the NASB Bible agrees and says, "1.14 Or I WILL BE
WHAT I WILL BE " .

When Jesus used the phrase he was not using it as a name or title. He
was only explaining his pre-human existence.

The Greek Septuagint Version, which is the one the Apostles quoted
from in the first century, renders Exodus 3:14 as " ego' eimi' ho
Ohn'," which translates "I am the Being". The Greek words at John 8:58
"ego eimi" show the use of the verb "eimi" in the historical present
because Jesus was talking about himself in relation to Abraham's past.
That is why some translations render it differently.

Ex, An American Translation reads. "I existed before Abraham was
born!"

Moffatt, "I have existed before Abraham was born"

Sacred Bible, "Before Abraham existed, I was existing"

The New Testament, "Jesus said to them, 'I tell you, I existed before
Abraham was born!"

The Four Gospels According the the Sinaitic Palimpsest, "He said unto
them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I have
been."

The Twentieth Century New Testament, "Believe me 'Jesus replied,
'before Abraham was born I was already what I am."

The Modern New Testament, "Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to
you, Before Abraham was born, I was."

The Syriac New Testament, "Jesus said to them: Verily, verily, I say
to you, That before Abraham existed, I was."

In some non-English Bibles such as C. Stage's Das Neue Testament
(German) "Jesus said to them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you" : Before
Abrham was born, I was."

Nuevo Testamento (Spanish),"Jesus answered: 'In truth, in truth, I say
to you: Before Abraham was born, I was"

F. Pfaefflin's Das Neue Testament (German), "Jesus: 'Before there was
an Abrahan, I was already there,"

The same expression "ego eimi",(I am) is used at John 8:24 and 28. But
many of the same translators who translate it just as "I am" at John
8:58, translate it as "I am he" at John 8:24 and 28. (NASB,
NIV-footnote).

The faithless Jews who heard Jesus speak were many times
misinterpreting Jesus actions and statements. For example, they
thought Jesus was promoting cannilbalism. (John 6:60)

Because he liked to eat good food and enjoy wine with "sinners" they
called him a drunkard and a glutton. (luke7:34)

They thought he was some kind of super constuction worker. (John 2:19)

If they were misinterpreting Jesus' statements that he was claiming to
be God, it would not be surprising. (Although in 8:59 it only mentions
they wanted to stone Jesus for saying that he existed before Abraham.)

The Pharasees comments are hardly truthworthy to base doctrines on.

>
>http://classic.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=joh&chapter=8&verse=58#Joh8_58
>
>
>Joh 20:28 - And Thomas answered and said unto him,
> My Lord and my God.
>
>Ge 32:30 -
> And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel
> for I have seen God face to face,
> and my life is preserved.
>
>
>Joh 5:18 -
> Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him,
> because he not only had broken the sabbath,
> but said also that God was his Father,
> making himself equal with God.
>
>
>Meditate on:
>
> 33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead,
> and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
>
>34. Who, although He is God and man,
> yet He is not two, but one Christ.
>
>http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

"...The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but
begotten." (Athanasian Creed)

Col 1:15,

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."
(NASB)

"...but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and
Co-equal." (Athanasian Creed)

1 Co 11:3,

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and
the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (NIV)

The was after Jesus' resurrection and Jesus was back in Heaven with
God. But he was still inferior to God,.

This creed was created by men. Go by the inspired words of the Holy
Bible. (2 Ti 3:16)

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 19, 7:44 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Duh! He uses the same "I Am" that was used in Exodus
the Greek is egw eimi which is literally "I Am".
That is the fact.

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

We can't ignore resources just because we have an opinion about
something. To repeat in part:

The footnote to the NASB Bible agrees and says, "1.14 Or I WILL BE
WHAT I WILL BE " .

When Jesus used the phrase he was not using it as a name or title. He
was only explaining his pre-human existence.

The Greek Septuagint Version, which is the one the Apostles quoted
from in the first century, renders Exodus 3:14 as " ego' eimi' ho
Ohn'," which translates "I am the Being". The Greek words at John 8:58
"ego eimi" show the use of the verb "eimi" in the historical present
because Jesus was talking about himself in relation to Abraham's past.

That is why some translations render it differently:

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

If you read the next line, the people who heard Jesus
knew he claimed to be God and picked up stones.
It's obvious to all except for someone with invincible
ignorance.

[vince garcia]

Do you have a brain?

I wonder.

No one picks up stones to stone someone for an INNOCUOUS statement, but
only FOR CLAIMING TO BE GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your damnation is just

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

If you are confused, Jesus clears things up at Joh 10:36,

"what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent
into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said,
`I am God's Son'?" (NIV)

So Jesus did not think he was God, but rather in his own words "I am
God's Son".

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

John 5:18

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him,
because he not only had broken the sabbath,
but said also that God was his Father,
making himself equal with God.

John 20:28

And Thomas answered and said unto him,
My Lord and my God.

Genesis 32:30

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

Joh 10:36: "say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into
the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"
(ASV)

>
>John 20:28
> And Thomas answered and said unto him,
> My Lord and my God.

You have a difficult one to explain here. Thomas was excited to see
Jesus, so his statement might be one like people say today when
excited about something; "Jesus, Many, and Joseph"!

>
>Genesis 32:30
>And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel:
> for I have seen God face to face,
> and my life is preserved.

Ex 33:20, "But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see
me and live."" (NIV)

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Duh! Jesus didn't rebuke Thomas
John 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas,
because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed:
blessed are they that have not seen,
and yet have believed.

Paul in Acts did rebuke
Acts 14
9 The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and
perceiving that he had faith to be healed,

10 Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped
and walked.

11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their
voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us

in the likeness of men.

12 And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he
was the chief speaker.

13 Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought
oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with
the people.

14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent
their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like
passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these
vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the
sea, and all things that are therein:


It's obvious you can't think for yourself,
Jesus accepts Thomas calling him God,
and I accept Scripture.
.

>
>
> >Genesis 32:30
> >And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel:
> > for I have seen God face to face,
> > and my life is preserved.
>
> Ex 33:20, "But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see
> me and live."" (NIV)
>

So which verse is correct?

Ans: John 14
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you,
and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?
he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;
and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

Meditate on:

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead,
and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man,
yet He is not two, but one Christ.

http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

> James
> John 4:23,24www.jw.org

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

Jesus didn't rebuke Thomas possibly because he took the saying as
Thomas might have meant it. My lord (Jesus) and my God (Yahweh)!

>
> Paul in Acts did rebuke
> Acts 14
>9 The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and
>perceiving that he had faith to be healed,
>
>10 Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped
>and walked.
>
>11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their
>voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us
>in the likeness of men.
>
>12 And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he
>was the chief speaker.
>
>13 Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought
>oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with
>the people.
>
>14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent
>their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
>
>15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like
>passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these
>vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the
>sea, and all things that are therein:
>
>
> It's obvious you can't think for yourself,
> Jesus accepts Thomas calling him God,
> and I accept Scripture.

But Jesus never did say "I am God" or "I am the Father" or anything
like that. Rather Jesus said he was "God's son". Thus Thomas'
statement was one of exclaimation and two distinct persons were meant;
Jesus and Yahweh.

>.
>
>
>>
>>
>> >Genesis 32:30
>> >And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel:
>> > for I have seen God face to face,
>> > and my life is preserved.
>>
>> Ex 33:20, "But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see
>> me and live."" (NIV)
>>
> So which verse is correct?

Their both correct. In the Bible at times, when a person is in the
presence of one of God's powerful angels, they are seeing "God's
glory", but react as if they were seeing God Himself. Notice in Ex
24:16 that it was "the glory of Jehovah" (ASV) that resided on Mount
Sinai. But those laws given to Moses there were actually "promulgated
through angels". (Gal 3:19; NJB)

The physician Luke confirms this at Acts 7:53,

"In spite of being given the Law through angels, you have not kept
it." (NJB)

So Jacob grapples with a righteous angel of God and thus beheld God's
glory radiating from that angel. In that way it was as if he was
seeing God face to face.

>
> Ans: John 14
> 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you,
>and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?
>he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;
>and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
>
>
>
> Meditate on:
>
> 33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead,
>and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

But Jesus is no longer a man once he was resurrected and went back to
Heaven to be with God. And Paul said something you need to meditate
on: 1 Cor 11:3.

>
>34. Who, although He is God and man,
> yet He is not two, but one Christ.

That is not in the Bible that I am aware of. If you think it is,
please show me where.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org



>

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Or,Thomas got it right! Now, you are denying what
the Bible clearly states. You have now lost all
credibility.

A begotten son has the er,
same nature as the father.
Since God the father's nature is from
all eternity, so is the Son's.

>
> >> >Genesis 32:30
> >> >And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel:
> >> > for I have seen God face to face,
> >> > and my life is preserved.
>
> >> Ex 33:20, "But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see
> >> me and live."" (NIV)
>
> >   So which verse is correct?
>
> Their both correct. In the Bible at times, when a person is in the
> presence of one of God's powerful angels, they are seeing "God's
> glory", but react as if they were seeing God Himself.  Notice in Ex
> 24:16 that it was "the glory of Jehovah" (ASV) that resided on Mount
> Sinai. But those laws given to Moses there were actually "promulgated
> through angels". (Gal 3:19; NJB)
>
> The physician Luke confirms this at Acts 7:53,
>
> "In spite of being given the Law through angels, you have not kept
> it." (NJB)
>
> So Jacob grapples with a righteous angel of God and thus beheld God's
> glory radiating from that angel. In that way it was as if he was
> seeing God face to face.
>

So in Christ we see God.

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds
of them which believe not,
lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ,
who is the image of God,
should shine unto them.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ans:  John 14
> >         9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you,
> >and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?
> >he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;
> >and how sayest thou
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

Thomas "got it right" no matter what. Sadly we can't ask Thomas
exactly what he meant by that statement. But based on THE BIBLE and
its other Scriptures, we interpret it the way I said.


>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > �Paul in Acts did rebuke

When Jesus went back to Heaven again: 1 Co 11:3,

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and
the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (NIV)

It doesn't get any plainer than that.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> > Ans: �John 14
>> > � � � � 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you,
>> >and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?
>> >he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;
>> >and how sayest thou
>>
>> ...
>>

>> read more �

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

I accept what Thomas said, just like Jesus did.

> ...
>
> read more »