JOHN 15:19 one reason true christians are no part of the world

avatar

fantasyislander said:

333 said:

I am not opposed to the idea. And to be fair, trinitarians believe that Christ is both the son and God. But my only point was that such passages do nothing to disprove trinitarians.

ok, but pretty much every point you make also hinges on the "fact" that Jesus is God. do you not agree with this?

No, I don't think so. Which ones do you mean?

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #181 posted 08/03/04 4:23pm

HiinEnkelte

avatar

fantasyislander said:

HiinEnkelte said:

it's interesting now to watch this thread switching tactics to a questioning of the Jesus as the incarnation of God, to watch people try to translate and read the bible according to their pre-formed doctrine rather than to get their doctrine from an accurate reading of the bible.

so does it make sense to you?

my point was- why have people abandoned the search for accurate knowledge regarding translation and an understanding of what the original words were and how they are to be translated? and why have they instead tried to undermine that noble pursute by instead trying to discredit accurate translation by applying pre-formed doctrine to it (e.g. Jesus is only a lesser god polytheistic doctrine)?

Welcome to the New World Odor and
the Mythmaking Moonbattery of Obamanation.

Chains We Can Bereave In

LIBERALISM IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #182 posted 08/03/04 9:09pm

zkp2003

avatar

WSTGM said:

Hi

I just wont to give a big tanks too fantasyislander, zkp2003 and others that are making this world a better place by teaching people, like me, the truth.

biggrin

WOW!! Are you familiar with the "truth" or have you just started learning it from these message boards? You are sincerely welcome and you truly will be blessed in your journey to learn more about Jehovah God.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #183 posted 08/04/04 2:05am

Beaulah

fantasyislander said:

we do try to make the world a better place- by teaching people the truth from the bible. do you know how many lives have been changed for the better by studying with JWs? how many men used to beat their wives? how many wives were degrading and belittling to their husbands? how many people used to steal and cheat? how many people used to get into fights and hurt others? how many people went to war and killed others? how many people used to be prostitutes and drug dealers? do you have any idea how many people's lives have changed, all because of studying the bible? it's an amazing thought, and something i am very proud to be a part of.

Surely you don't think that only Jehovas Witnesses' are capable of making people's lives better - that's extremely narrow minded.

My real question though was: Where do you draw the line about being part of this world? It seems to me that the Amish people take this belief more to heart than the Jehovas Witnesses who seem very much to live in this world, but want to take no responsibility for the way it's run.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #184 posted 08/04/04 6:33am

Beaulah said:

Surely you don't think that only Jehovas Witnesses' are capable of making people's lives better - that's extremely narrow minded.

not at all. i know there are many people out there trying to make this world a better place, and i applaud their efforts. your question was directed about what the witnesses do to make this world a better place, so i answered it.

My real question though was: Where do you draw the line about being part of this world? It seems to me that the Amish people take this belief more to heart than the Jehovas Witnesses who seem very much to live in this world, but want to take no responsibility for the way it's run.

i answered this question in my next post. here's what i said:

maybe it would be helpful to look at the example of the first century christians to understand this. they didn't seclude themselves in some secret community. they didn't avoid the marketplace so as not to be considered "of that world." they were noted for not being of this world, because they refused to participate in politics. they did not join the army. they paid their taxes and were obedient to the "superior authorities", being good citizens and obeying the laws, etc. but one line they never crossed was getting involved in politics or giving their allegiance to caesar rather than God.

Jesus told us to remain separate from the world, but not to seclude ourselves in a secret community. if he had, the first century christians would have gone to live in caves in the desert or something. but they didn't.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #185 posted 08/04/04 6:57am

avatar

Wow, that was quite the left turn that was just made! I'll make a few statements on the points, then try to get back to where we were.

On the point of Matt. 4 disproving the trinity: It's an interesting reasoning point, but not a proof text.

On Test vs Tempt: Seems like splitting hairs on that one. If the one 'tested' FAILS then the desire had to be there. If the 'tested' one passes, the desire can be there or not. There is no way to tell. Only the person involved can say for sure. The one OFFERING the test/temptaion just guesses at what might be desirous. What did the devil offer?
#1: Food. Jesus had fasted 40 days & nights. Was his body not 'desiring' food? I suggest it was. But Jesus ignored his body's desire and the Devil's challange.
#2: Pride. How was this pride? The Devil said: "IF you are a son of God"..then jump. COULD Jesus have been desirous to PROVE to the Devil who he was(just to shut him up!)? And to fullfill the scripture at Psalm 91:11,12? Possible. Unable to tell.
#3: Rulership. Did Jesus know that he WOULD be ruler of the world? Yes. Was it going to happen at that time? NO. What the Devil was offering, was the same thing God was offering, but sooner. Was Jesus impatient? No. Was there any desire here? I would guess NOT. But it was a reasonable guess / offer on the Devil's part.
To one person an offer might be desirous, to another not at all. As it says at James 1:14,15 - "But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death."
What word, test or tempt, is more accurate? Only the one involved can say. The POINT of it all, was that the offer was made. If it wasn't the Devil's to offer, it wouldn't have been a test or a temptation.

To HiinEnkelte I say: I havn't left the topic. I just can't do any replying at work, like so many can. Therefore, my posts come slower.

I would like 333 to address my post from 8/2/04 at 3:56 pm. I can see how it could have been missed with all the additional discussion.

To Fantasy: thank you for addressing these other issues. biggrin They always seem to come-up in ANY thread about the bible.

Every single decision we make, every breath we draw, opens some doors and closes many others. Most of them we don't notice. Some we do.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #186 posted 08/04/04 7:00am

avatar

BTW, to FantasyIslander....either you or PlanetMe needs a new avatar..... Are you the one facing right or left? Or are you two twins? AAAAAaaaaahhhhh! lol

Every single decision we make, every breath we draw, opens some doors and closes many others. Most of them we don't notice. Some we do.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #187 posted 08/04/04 10:34am

HiinEnkelte

avatar

"Notice that there is no command in the Scriptures against military service" (Watchtower, Aug. 1, 1898, pg. 231).

"There could be nothing against our conscience in going into the army. Wherever we would go we could take the Lord with us, the Captain of our salvation, and wherever we would go we could find opportunities to serve him and his cause" (THE WATCHTOWER, April 15, 1903, pg. 120).

Welcome to the New World Odor and
the Mythmaking Moonbattery of Obamanation.

Chains We Can Bereave In

LIBERALISM IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #188 posted 08/04/04 12:30pm

avatar

NotDeaf said:

They always seem to come-up in ANY thread about the bible.

NotDeaf said:

On the point of Matt. 4 disproving the trinity: It's an interesting reasoning point, but not a proof text.

Eklab101 said "Also is a pretty good reasoning point for Trinitarians as well. Can you imagine Satan being able to tempt God Himself with earthly kingdoms of the world? Such an offer would only be tempting to a flesh and blood human with the ability to sin and accept the offer."

My only point was that God can be "tempted" or better "put to the test." Both the OT and the NT clearly say so. Also Jesus himself says the same thing in Matt. 4:7. Jesus uses a form of the same verb "to test" in regard to "tempting" God as Matthew does in regard to Jesus being put to the test by Satan. Since God can be "tempted" or "put to the text," there is no reason to jump to the conclution that this verse can some how be used to prove there is no trinity.

NotDeaf said:

On Test vs Tempt: Seems like splitting hairs on that one. If the one 'tested' FAILS then the desire had to be there. If the 'tested' one passes, the desire can be there or not. There is no way to tell. Only the person involved can say for sure. The one OFFERING the test/temptaion just guesses at what might be desirous. What did the devil offer?
#1: Food. Jesus had fasted 40 days & nights. Was his body not 'desiring' food? I suggest it was. But Jesus ignored his body's desire and the Devil's challange.
#2: Pride. How was this pride? The Devil said: "IF you are a son of God"..then jump. COULD Jesus have been desirous to PROVE to the Devil who he was(just to shut him up!)? And to fullfill the scripture at Psalm 91:11,12? Possible. Unable to tell.
#3: Rulership. Did Jesus know that he WOULD be ruler of the world? Yes. Was it going to happen at that time? NO. What the Devil was offering, was the same thing God was offering, but sooner. Was Jesus impatient? No. Was there any desire here? I would guess NOT. But it was a reasonable guess / offer on the Devil's part.
To one person an offer might be desirous, to another not at all. As it says at James 1:14,15 - "But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death."
What word, test or tempt, is more accurate? Only the one involved can say. The POINT of it all, was that the offer was made. If it wasn't the Devil's to offer, it wouldn't have been a test or a temptation.

I would not call it "splitting hairs," but rather subtle differences in meaning, nuance. According to the Bible God can be "tempted" or "put to the text." However one cannot infer from that God has the desire to sin. As I point out in an above post the Greek verb need not carry the idea of "desire."

You say "If the one 'tested' FAILS then the desire had to be there." Here is a case of those subtle differences in meaning. What desire are you speaking of: (1) the desire to pass the test? or (2) the desire for the reward offered for passing a test? For example: A student takes an exam at collage. The teacher says: "Everyone who passes the test can take the next day off. Now someone might not care in the least about passing the test so that he/she could have the next day off. In other words, the prize, or goal, means nothing to them. Thus they do not have the desire. In regard to the test itself, their only goal is to do well. The desire in that case has nothing to do with the reward offered. Another student may only care about passing the test so that he/she might get the reward.

Next, you says "If it wasn't the Devil's to offer, it wouldn't have been a test or a temptation." I strongly disagree with this. Con men offer things that they cannot deliver on all the time, never could, never would. And Satan is nothing more than just that, a con man. It is really does not matter if he could deliver the goods or not. All that was needed was for Jesus to take the bait. In this way Jesus would have failed his mission. And thats what Satan really wanted. Satan would have said or done anything to stop it, even promised that which was not his to give.

NotDeaf said:

I would like 333 to address my post from 8/2/04 at 3:56 pm. I can see how it could have been missed with all the additional discussion.

I see it now.
[Edited 12/13/05 21:17pm]

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #189 posted 08/04/04 1:08pm

bluesbaby said:

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

Show me a true Christian and I'll eat my hat. All of us fall short and if we can accept that, we'll get along much better.

You are sounding like a true Christian.....where is your hat??? wink

NO,bluesbaby. Because I am lesbian, I could not possibly be a true Christian. wink

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #190 posted 08/04/04 1:30pm

fantasyislander said:

Beaulah said:

I find Jehovas Witnesses very confusing. Where is the line drawn in regard to 'not being of this world'?

Do you (JW's).....

Ride in cars?
Travel on aeroplanes?
Watch TV?
Use computers?
Have mobile 'phones?
Wash your clothes in a washing machine?

IMO your stance on voting and politics makes it seem as though you have been brainwashed. Why would you not use your power to make this world a better place while you are waiting for the end?

I know of witnesses who still do all of the above. Not only does this thread point to witnesses considering themselves the only ones to be 'true christians' but it is so incredibly hypocritical. The witnesses I wish were on this thread are the ones that would tell you in a heartbeat that they are not perfect, that they make make mistakes, that they are human. I recently got back interested in studying but some of you guys on this thread.....whooo!!!!

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #191 posted 08/04/04 2:02pm

avatar

NotDeaf said:

Your explanation of the Greek and English is well done. The idea of property / ownership, along with the allegiance that is inherent in it, seems to be the thrust of the text.

As to the NTW and the use of the phrase ‘no part of’: I suggest this is what you describe in your note on translators. The NTW translators were taking into consideration the implied allegiance that comes with ownership. Sticking strictly to the literal translation would lead to the use of Belong. Nothing wrong with that, just means more research would be needed on the part of the reader to understand the implications.

The question then becomes, if Christians do not belong to the world, then does the allegiance end as well? And, does this include to the governments? It would seem so. Jesus taught his followers to pray (Matt 6:10) to let your kingdom come. At Philippians 3:13 the Christians citizenship is said to be ‘in the heavens’. At 2 Corinthians 5:20 Christians are described as ‘ambassadors’. Therefore, a Christian is a citizen of God’s heavenly kingdom, and an ambassador to all other governments. An ambassador would NOT become involved with any government other than it’s own. For a Christian that means not becoming involved with any human governments.

You added at the end a comment about ‘no command not (to) participate in government or the military’. Briefly on the military, in addition to the points about not becoming involved with the governments, John 13:35 wouldn’t allow for one Christian to kill another in warfare. It would also come into play during campaign season. Or do Republican Christians still love Democrat Christians? They aren’t very united, are they?

NotDeaf said:

Your explanation of the Greek and English is well done. The idea of property / ownership, along with the allegiance that is inherent in it, seems to be the thrust of the text.

Thanks

NotDeaf said:

As to the NTW and the use of the phrase ‘no part of’: I suggest this is what you describe in your note on translators. The NTW translators were taking into consideration the implied allegiance that comes with ownership. Sticking strictly to the literal translation would lead to the use of Belong. Nothing wrong with that, just means more research would be needed on the part of the reader to understand the implications.

Perhaps, but that is not translation. It is going beyond merely translating a text. Also, the implied allegiance does not rule out other allegiances and need not mean more than one's main or primarily allegiance is to Christ.

NotDeaf said:

The question then becomes, if Christians do not belong to the world, then does the allegiance end as well? And, does this include to the governments?

In regard to your first two question let me use an analogy. I am married and have been for almost 27 years (really). My primarily allegiance is to my wife. But that does not mean that I don't or can't interact with other women. As long as I don't break my primarily allegiance to my wife I may interact with other women (Please don't read too much into this analogy. I am not saying that I or anyone may play around on the edge. That would be the same thing as breaking the allegiance). What I am saying is that I may have relationships with females, relatives, friends, and other females as long as I stay within the bounds of my allegiance to my wife. In the same manner Christians my have a relationship with government but if there is a conflict between that relationship and ones relationship with Christ, then one must stay with their primarily allegiance to Christ.

NotDeaf said:

Jesus taught his followers to pray (Matt 6:10) to let your kingdom come. At Philippians 3:13 the Christians citizenship is said to be ‘in the heavens’.

Wow, you are jumping into something now. Let me just touch on this. The topic here is present (or realized) eschatology verse future eschatology. The kingdom can be spoken of in the sense of: "now" and "not yet." The kingdom has come, at least in part, but there is more to come. In other words the kingdom has not fully been realized. Once the kingdom is fully come, fully realized, there will be no governments, no kings but the one true King. So while there is a presentness to the kingdom, we still have to live in the world.

NotDeaf said:

At 2 Corinthians 5:20 Christians are described as ‘ambassadors’. Therefore, a Christian is a citizen of God’s heavenly kingdom, and an ambassador to all other governments. An ambassador would NOT become involved with any government other than it’s own. For a Christian that means not becoming involved with any human governments.

I have got to disagree with you when you say: "An ambassador would NOT become involved with any government other than it’s own." That is just what an ambassador does. An ambassador get involved in the affairs of other governments for the sake of their own.

NotDeaf said:

You added at the end a comment about ‘no command not (to) participate in government or the military’. Briefly on the military, in addition to the points about not becoming involved with the governments, John 13:35 wouldn’t allow for one Christian to kill another in warfare. It would also come into play during campaign season. Or do Republican Christians still love Democrat Christians? They aren’t very united, are they?

As far as the Republicans or Democrats go, I vote for the person who best reflects my own views. It does not matter to me which party they belong to. The fact that they don't get along in matters of policy is a good thing. Are there Republican Christians? I think so. Are there Democrat Christians? Once again I think so.

As to John 13:55, all I have to say is, you are correct in principle. But I think that there is a little question begging going on here. On the battlefield, who is and who is not a Christian is a judgment left to God. Perhaps only one of them is truly a Christian. Perhaps neither of them is truly a Christian. But it is not the fact that they are in the military that makes them or does not make them a Christian. I would say this could never happen. Only one or neither would be a Christian. Now they might think they are, but you know just as I do thinking you are one and being one is not the same thing.
[This message was edited Thu Aug 12 4:03:22 2004 by 333]

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #192 posted 08/04/04 2:03pm

333 said:

NotDeaf said:

They always seem to come-up in ANY thread about the bible.

I would not call it "splitting hairs," but rather subtle differences in meaning, nuance. According to the Bible God can be "tempted" or "put to the text." However one cannot infer from that God has the desire to sin. As I point out in an above post the Greek verb need not carry the idea of "desire."

You say "If the one 'tested' FAILS then the desire had to be there." Here is a case of those subtle differences in meaning. What desire are you speaking of: (1) the desire to pass the test? or (2) the desire for the reward offered for passing a test? For example: A student takes an exam at collage. The teacher says: "Everyone who passes the test can take the next day off. Now someone might not care in the least about passing the test so that he/she could have the next day off. In other word, that prize, or goal, means nothing to them. Thus they do not have the desire. In regard to the test itself, their only goal my be to do well. The desire in that case has nothing to do with the reward offered. Another student may only care about passing the test so that he/she might get the reward.

Next, you says "If it wasn't the Devil's to offer, it wouldn't have been a test or a temptation." I strongly disagree with this. Con men offer things that they cannot deliver on all the time, never could, never would. And Satan is nothing more than just that, a con man. It is really does not matter if he could deliver the goods or not. All that was needed was for Jesus to take the bait. In this way Jesus would have failed his mission. And thats what Satan really wanted. Satan would have said or done anything to stop it, even promised that which was not his to give.

NotDeaf said:

I would like 333 to address my post from 8/2/04 at 3:56 pm. I can see how it could have been missed with all the additional discussion.

I see it now.

see, here i am seeing again that you believe that Jesus is God, and not God's Son. is this what you consider a possibility? or the truth?

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #193 posted 08/04/04 2:05pm

NotDeaf said:

BTW, to FantasyIslander....either you or PlanetMe needs a new avatar..... Are you the one facing right or left? Or are you two twins? AAAAAaaaaahhhhh! lol

yeah, she needs to quit copying me. . . . .

just kidding! we are the same person. i am PlanetMe, and PlanetMe is FantasyIslander. the other name is the one i usually use when i'm at work. don't know why, just wanted to be different . . . . wink

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #194 posted 08/04/04 2:08pm

avatar

fantasyislander said:

333 said:

I see it now.

see, here i am seeing again that you believe that Jesus is God, and not God's Son. is this what you consider a possibility? or the truth?

Examples please. Be specific. I truly don't know what you are referring to.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #195 posted 08/04/04 2:18pm

333 said:

fantasyislander said:

see, here i am seeing again that you believe that Jesus is God, and not God's Son. is this what you consider a possibility? or the truth?

Examples please. Be specific. I truly don't know what you are referring to.

ok, i reread it. it seems that your post could go either way. you have some mentions of Jesus and God as separate, but other mentions as if Jesus is God. it is truly confusing. here's what i'm referring to:

My only point was that God can be "tempted" or better "put to the test." Both the OT and the NT clearly say so. Also Jesus himself says the same thing in Matt. 4:7. Jesus uses a form of the same verb "to test" in regard to "tempting" God as Matthew does in regard to Jesus being put to the test by Satan. Since God can be "tempted" or "put to the text," there is no reason to jump to the conclution that this verse can some how be used to prove there is no trinity.

the bold text imlies that you believe it was God who was being tempted or put to the test. but it was Jesus who the devil was speaking to. so do you believe that Jesus is God?

as to this point:

Next, you says "If it wasn't the Devil's to offer, it wouldn't have been a test or a temptation." I strongly disagree with this. Con men offer things that they cannot deliver on all the time, never could, never would. And Satan is nothing more than just that, a con man. It is really does not matter if he could deliver the goods or not. All that was needed was for Jesus to take the bait. In this way Jesus would have failed his mission. And thats what Satan really wanted. Satan would have said or done anything to stop it, even promised that which was not his to give.

a conman can only con if the person he's conning doesn't know that he doesn't actually have these things to offer. are you implying that Jesus didn't know any better? are you implying that Jesus wouldn't have known he was being conned? he knew if those things actually belonged to the devil or not, and if they were actually the devil's to offer to him.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #196 posted 08/04/04 2:28pm

ekalb101

avatar

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

fantasyislander said:

I never understand why people are always accusing JWs of not being perfect when we NEVER claim to be perfect. In a heartbeat I will tell you I AM NOT PERFECT, I MAKE MISTAKES, I AM HUMAN. Fantasyislander didnt make any sort of statement that becoming a JW makes a person perfect did she? She pointed out how people that formerly did terrible things made wonderful changes after studying the bible and applying it in their lives. Do you not see that as a benefit for society? Doesnt that make the world just a little bit better place to live?

Many Christmas' ago, I went to buy a doll for my son. I reached for the last one they had, but so did another man. As I rained blows upon him, I realized there had to be another way.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #197 posted 08/04/04 2:29pm

OdysseyMiles

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

fantasyislander said:

I'm not perfect! I make mistakes, and I'm definitely human (as far as I can tell). I think what Fantasy was saying was that many people have changed their lives for the better with the help of applied bible principals.
This does not make any Witness of Jehovah perfect or above anyone else.
I'm sure there are plenty of so-called Witnesses out there who are leading double lives and doing their own thing, etc. In contrast, I also believe that many folks who have made tremendous changes do take a certain amount of pride in that, and I think they're entitled to feel good about it. It strengthens their faith and is an encouragement to others.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #198 posted 08/04/04 2:42pm

avatar

fantasyislander said:

the bold text imlies that you believe it was God who was being tempted or put to the test. but it was Jesus who the devil was speaking to. so do you believe that Jesus is God?

as to this point:

333 said:

I see what you are referring to now.

Eklab101 said "Also is a pretty good reasoning point for Trinitarians as well. Can you imagine Satan being able to tempt God Himself with earthly kingdoms of the world? Such an offer would only be tempting to a flesh and blood human with the ability to sin and accept the offer."

Eklab101 is saying: See Jesus was tempted, if he was truly God then there is no way he could be tempted. Therefore the teaching of the trinity must be false.

What I am saying is that the same verb is used of both God and Jesus. So clearly God can be "tempted" or "put to the test." Thus one cannot conclude since Jesus was tempted he could not be God because the same verb is used of both. Therefore this verse does not prove or even suggest that Jesus is not God. Thats all I am saying.

fantasyislander said:

Yes Jesus knew better. That goes without saying. Your comment "a conman can only con if the person he's conning doesn't know that he doesn't actually have these things to offer" is only partly true. The fact is a con man cannot know until he tries. The question is not what Jesus knows, but how much or little Satan knows. Clearly he believed it was at least worth a try. But that does not suggest that he could deliver on his so-call promise.
[Edited 12/13/05 21:19pm]

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #199 posted 08/04/04 3:45pm

333 said:

I see what you are referring to now.

Eklab101 said "Also is a pretty good reasoning point for Trinitarians as well. Can you imagine Satan being able to tempt God Himself with earthly kingdoms of the world? Such an offer would only be tempting to a flesh and blood human with the ability to sin and accept the offer."

Eklab101 is saying: See Jesus was tempted, if he was truly God then there is no way he could be tempted. Therefore the the teaching of the trinity must be false.

What I am saying is that the same verb is used of both God and Jesus. So clearly God can be "tempted" or "put to the test." Thus one cannot conclude since Jesus was tempted he could not be God because the same verb is used of both. Therefore this verse does not prove or even suggest that Jesus is not God. Thats all I am saying.

ok, i see what you were saying. are you aware though of the scripture at James 1:13? it says, "For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone." do you think that wouldn't apply to this scripture as well? i believe that God is beyond temptation. there is no way Satan could have tempted God himself, even tho the kingdoms belonged to him. of course Satan thought it was worth a try. because he knew that Jesus knew the kingdoms of the world actually do belong to him. (1 John 5:19- "We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one.")

fantasyislander said:

Yes Jesus knew better. That goes without saying. Your comment "a conman can only con if the person he's conning doesn't know that he doesn't actually have these things to offer" is only partly true. The fact is a con man cannot know until he tries. The question is not what Jesus knows, but how much or little Satan knows. Clearly he believe it was at least worth a try. But that does not suggest that he could deliver on his so-call promise.

so, you don't think Satan would have known that Jesus knew they weren't actually his to offer? that's assuming quite a bit, don't you agree?

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #200 posted 08/04/04 4:35pm

avatar

333 said:

As to John 13:55, all I have to say is, you correct in principle. But I think that there is a little question begging going on here. On the battlefield, who is and who is not a Christian is a judgment left to God. Perhaps only one of them is truly a Christian. Perhaps neither of them is truly a Christian. But it is not the fact that they are in the military that makes them or does not make them a Christian. I would say is that this could never happen. Only one or neither would be a Christian. Now they might think they are, but you know just as I do thinking you are one and being one is not the same thing.

I just got home, and will read all this and respond this evening, but I have to comment on that statment. Are you saying that if Christians are ok to join the military, AND go to war, AND kill the other soldiers, that a Christian would never kill another Christian????? How is that even possible? Are there not Christians all over the world? In the history of warfare, did not the Church bless the soldiers of BOTH sides? Or do you believe that God picks one side over the other? In that case, any Christian who happens to live in the wrong country is now fighting AGAINST GOD. Suddenly, you are no longer a Christian because you are in the wrong army? For no Christian to ever kill another Christian in warfare, there must BE NO CHRISTIANS in the war.

I'll read, absorb, think, and reply to the rest later.

(oh.....and BTW.....I'm imperfect too.....and I make mistakes....etc.....)

Every single decision we make, every breath we draw, opens some doors and closes many others. Most of them we don't notice. Some we do.

- E-mail - orgNote -

http://www.myspace.com/nueraproject

Reply #201 posted 08/04/04 5:05pm

jojofran

avatar

Just my two cents. Through Bible study we see that Jesus is the 2nd Adam, meaning he was the only other perfect "man" after Adams death. To offset the death stain left upon us by Adam, Jesus had lovingly chosen to undergo a sacrificial death. If Jehovah had come down and sacrificed himself for us it would have been a huge imbalance of the atonement. It is an impossibility for God to die. But that certainly does not take away from the love he has shown us because he gave up his most precious creation to do this. Adam died so Jesus had to die to make the balance perfect. Just as Adam was tempted or tested by Satan, Jesus was also. Adam was tested by his desire for things Satan said that would be given him if he partook of the fruit. I think Satan did in fact lie or try to con Jesus into believing he would have given him authority over the kingdoms of the world. Would he have given them to him had he did an act of worship? Probably not since he is of course the father of the lie. But as we are speaking on being "no part of the world" the scripture ties in quite well because it does say that Satan said he had the authority over them. So that being written Satan has invisible authority over the governments of the world which we can clearly see by the fruitages of his spirit by the senseless deaths that have occured through bloodshed and warfare. Why would one be voting for visible representatives who would "have" to engage in unrighteous acts to protect ones country? God has allowed the wicked to breathe and furthermore provides all with life sustaining food. Does that give evidence that he condones unrighteousness? Jesus said that his kingdom is not of this source and if it were his attendants would have fought for it. Clearly, there has been no righteous war as of yet fought by Jesus in liew of his Kingdom except for the war in heaven which is documented in Revelations. The bible says that Jesus is to subdue his "enemies" at armageddon. So one should ponder who they are actually "invisibly" voting for during election time. Satan entered Judas at the "last supper" and was trying to stir up trouble then true? So why is it hard to believe that invisibly Satan would not have the power to do so today with high ranking officials in government?

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #202 posted 08/04/04 8:31pm

avatar

333 said

This is truly the difference between translation and transliteration. In a transliteration, there would be no implied information. In translation, the implications ARE considered. Implied information can be just as important to clear understanding.

333 said

In regard to your first two question let me use an analogy. I am married and have been for almost 27 years (really). My primarily allegiance is to my wife. But that does not mean that I don't or can't interact with other women. As long as I don't break my primarily allegiance to my wife I may interact with other women (Please don't read too much into this analogy. I am not saying that I or anyone may play around on the edge. That would be the same thing as breaking the allegiance). What I am saying is that I may have relationships with female, relatives, friends, and other females as long as I stay within the bounds of my allegiance to my wife. In the same manner Christians my have a relationship with government but if there is a conflict between that relationship and ones relationship with Christ, then one must stay with their primarily allegiance to Christ.

It is indeed the nature of the allegiance that maters. Using your example, I suggest that having the professional and personal relationships with women equates to living in a civilized society. Obeying the traffic laws. Paying taxes. Registering your car. Etc. Becoming INVOLVED with the government would equate to becoming INVOLVED with another woman. (Where involved has that extra special meaning.) That would conflict with the primary allegiance to the wife, and to Christ.

333 said

I have got to disagree with you when you say: "An ambassador would NOT become involved with any government other than it’s own." That is just what an ambassador does. An ambassador get involved in the affairs of other governments for the sake of their own.

An ambassador may make REQUESTS of another government for the sake of it’s own. Certainly a Christian may ask the government for the right to worship. For permits to build a Church. Etc. But would an ambassador have voting rights? Would an ambassador run for office? No.

333 said

As to John 13:55, all I have to say is, you correct in principle.

Then let's apply the principle.

.

Every single decision we make, every breath we draw, opens some doors and closes many others. Most of them we don't notice. Some we do.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #203 posted 08/04/04 11:45pm

avatar

fantasyislander said:

333 said:

I see what you are referring to now.

Eklab101 said "Also is a pretty good reasoning point for Trinitarians as well. Can you imagine Satan being able to tempt God Himself with earthly kingdoms of the world? Such an offer would only be tempting to a flesh and blood human with the ability to sin and accept the offer."

Eklab101 is saying: See Jesus was tempted, if he was truly God then there is no way he could be tempted. Therefore the the teaching of the trinity must be false.

What I am saying is that the same verb is used of both God and Jesus. So clearly God can be "tempted" or "put to the test." Thus one cannot conclude since Jesus was tempted he could not be God because the same verb is used of both. Therefore this verse does not prove or even suggest that Jesus is not God. Thats all I am saying.

333said:

Yes Jesus knew better. That goes without saying. Your comment "a conman can only con if the person he's conning doesn't know that he doesn't actually have these things to offer" is only partly true. The fact is a con man cannot know until he tries. The question is not what Jesus knows, but how much or little Satan knows. Clearly he believe it was at least worth a try. But that does not suggest that he could deliver on his so-call promise.

so, you don't think Satan would have known that Jesus knew they weren't actually his to offer? that's assuming quite a bit, don't you agree?

fantasyislander said:

I am not really sure what you mean here. If you are asking me does God use evil to tempt someone I would have to say no. If you are asking me can God be tempted to do evil, again I would say no.

fantasyislander said:

i believe that God is beyond temptation.

If you mean that God can't be tempted to do evil, I agree. But that is not what the Greek verb "peirazo" means. It means "to try, to put to the test." Can God be put to the test, yes.

Moses asked the people in Exodus 17:2: "Why do you keep putting God to the test."

In Deut. 6:16, the same verse Jesus quotes in Matt. 4:7: "You shall not put the LORD your God to the test."

The Hebrew verb "nasah" is used in both Exodus 17:2 and Deut. 6:16. In the Septuagint the Hebrew verb "nasah" is translated "peirazo" in Exodus 17:2 and Deut. 6:16 (See A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament 3rd Ed. (George Abbott-Smith: T. & T. Clark, 1986 p. 352 ) and Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint, Keyed to the Hatch-Redpath Concordance (T. Muraoka: Baker, 2001 p. 97). In Matt. 4:1 and 4:7 the verb is "peirazo." It is all the same verb. It is used of both Jesus and God.

Thus when a English text says that God or Jesus was tempted it does not mean that they wanted that whihc was evil or that they wanted to do sin. It merely means they were put to the test, tested. They have no desire to do or have that which is evil but they can be tested. As I point out in an above post the Greek verb need not carry the idea of "desire."

fantasyislander said:

there is no way Satan could have tempted God himself

Not in the sense you are using the word "tempt," no. The Greek verb "peirazo" does not carry the same connotation as the English word "tempt." Satan or people can try or put God to the test.

fantasyislander said:

so, you don't think Satan would have known that Jesus knew they weren't actually his to offer? that's assuming quite a bit, don't you agree?

No more than you are assuming that he would know. Here's the thing, Satan is not omnipotent. For example, he asked God to put Job to the test. Satan said the only reason Job followed God was because God gave so much and did so much for Job. If Satan was omnipotent he would have known that Job would not cruse God as he said Job would. Also, there is also no reason to think that Satans knowledge is equal to Christs. I would find it very strange indeed if the devil was equal to Christ on any level. So clearly Satan knowledge is limited. How much he knows, I can't say.
[Edited 12/4/05 15:10pm]

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #204 posted 08/05/04 12:09am

avatar

NotDeaf said:

333 said:

What I am saying is this is a matter for God to sort out. You are assuming that because they call themselves Chirstians they are. I don't. You are assuming that because the church blessed the soldiers of both sides they are Christians. I don't. Could one side be right and another side wrong in a war? Sure! Case in point, Hitler. Did God want Hitler defeated? I think so yes. Did some in Hitlers armies believe they were Christian? I can't say for a fact there were but I don't doubt at least some did. Were they? I will let God be the judge of that.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #205 posted 08/05/04 4:55am

Heiress

thank you for your response, 333.

333 said: "Jesus is not saying that his kingdom does not extent to the world. He is saying that the source and authority of his kingdom is not derived from the world. Jesus came to establishes the kingdom. How can one then say that his kingdom does not extent to the world?"

i believe that this is where jesus' actions come into play... and that of his apostles. i believe that this is why these details were written down. their work was non-political. how about the time the people seized Jesus, hoping to make him king? (John 6:15) he might have set a great precedent for christian participation in politics at that time...

we're in perfect agreement over the origin of secular authorities. i said the same as you, in different words.

333 said: "Satan is only a pretender to the throne. His claim to kingship is false."

i can agree with that. as he is angry, knowing he has a short period of time before his presence is no longer tolerated... (Rev. 12:12) he is ruler/prince because he exercises power in some way over this world, would you not agree?

333 said:

"So in regard to Matt. 4:8-10, I don't believe that Satan had the authority or power to give Jesus all the kingdom of the Earth. It was a lie. How can Satan give the King of kings something that is already his? How can Satan give the creator of the world that which belongs to him already because he created in the first place? How can Satan give Jesus all the kingdom of the world, when they only exist because God allows it or places them into power?"

But obviously Jesus is not exercising kingly power over the world at this time... shall i lol or shall i cry ?

1 john 5:19 explains the devil's authority well - the whole world is lying in his power. even if his power is illegitimate.

333 said: "Jesus is not saying that his kingdom does not extent to the world. He is saying that the source and authority of his kingdom is not derived from the world. Jesus came to establishes the kingdom. How can one then say that his kingdom does not extent to the world?"

again, i maintain that the example of Jesus' actions point us to the correct interpretation of his words. do you believe that Jesus meant to be ambiguous on this point?

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #206 posted 08/05/04 5:59am

mzflash

After reading most of this thread, I'm left with the impression that Satan has taken over some righteous minds.

For anyone to say that God does not love a soldier who is willing to sacrifice his life for the freedom of his brother, I say that they do not know God.

Why would He favor those sitting at home drinking beer and critiziing others more than one who loves his neighbor as himself and is willing to stand up for what they have been taught is right?

I'm not saying war is right. I'm saying that some of those who follow what Jesus taught, that we should love our neighbors as ourselves, might have been steered in the wrong direction. Surely God is all of His wisdom sees this and loves the intent in the soldiers heart.

God sees and knows all. We do not.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #207 posted 08/05/04 6:02am

ekalb101 said:

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

I gathered from what she said as people used to do these things but no longer do and since I know for a fact that there are Witnesses that do all this stuff, it came off as a little bit much for me. As far as Witnesses not claiming to be perfect, what does calling yourself "one of God's chosen people" infer? What does telling everyone else their faith is wrong say?

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #208 posted 08/05/04 6:07am

OdysseyMiles said:

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

Hey Odysssey! biggrin

I hear what you're saying but some of the things posted in this thread are a little misleading to me. I do not want anyone to think I'm picking on Witnesses, especially with me considering studying again. The most knowledge that I have gained has come from people like you.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #209 posted 08/05/04 7:25am

zkp2003

avatar

mzflash said:

Did someone say God did not love soldiers? Hmmm?I don't see that written anywhere. God doesn't love war....and BTW I think it is a tremendously brave and commendable thing that someone believes in something so much that they are willing to lose their life over it, I think God love's even the suicide bombers..as they were lead to do what they did by men , and really believed they would go straight to heaven after they killed all the people and themselves. You are right only God know's what is in someones heart, we don't . Did I understand you when you said love your neighbor as yourself? Does this only apply when there is no war going on? A neighbor would not kill a neighbor (even if it is all the way in Iraq )if he loved him as himself. Please you must agree (or not) that there are alot of soldiers that have really gone too far to recieve glory for themselves...like the female shown in newsweek magazine, laying across a stack of dead bodies with her thumb up as in right on! Look what we killed!! That is absolutely disgusting. I personally don't think God was proud of her, but again back to the heart, we don't know it only God does. Who are you implying that sits home and drinks beer and critisizes people?

- E-mail - orgNote -