HEY YOU ALL!!!

I still think its a different religion than the Jehovas Witness
No one will listen to me! I honestly think its a much deeper religion than that. It isnt a commenly knowen religion but when its talked about it sounds like its the jehovas witness but IT IS NOT!!!
If you want to know hit me up at I. M. on msn messanger steth@hotmail or stethhtets@yahoo. I aint goin to get in on it here its to heavy and too contraversial, like his album says. ITS DEEP>

Hey forget what I said he'll disclose this info soon enough' like when hes ready. Listen to the album

greatdj1 said:

God's name is Jehovah; Jesus' Hebrew name is "Yeshua". But no one ever wants to make a point of this...

Tina (~!~)

Freemasonary: People should think for themselves and use from the things from various religions that work for each persons soul. Organized religion was original controlled by those in with those in power so they are not concerned with spirituallly the maintance of ones soul. I asked a question who wrote the Bible? No one ever answered it. A person. Freemasons believe that when man tampers or touches anything that has to do with God their is room for mans coruption to influence it. That each person should educate themselves enough to discern the truth from the falsehoods.

imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty said:

This may be prince.org but not prince.search... Like I said many times we can judge (as far as our taste is concerned) his music but certainly not things only his self holds the key...

Peace to all of ya...

Pstyle said:

*** Only 144,000 will be saved? Very interesting as there are well over 6 MILLION Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide.

Pstyle said:

the 144,000 represent those who will be chosen as judges, priests and rulers, along with Jesus Christ...see revelation 14:1-3
JWs do believe in Jesus, as God's son and first creation.

SensualMelody said:



I agree! And Prince even mentioned it in "Play in the Sunshine", thus:

"We're gonna love all our enemies..."


Regards,


andyf

andyf said:

Yes andyf - It's a HUGE test, an even bigger test when people "try" to pick us apart for no good reason.

I love that song by the way!
[This message was edited Thu Nov 21 4:54:45 PST 2002 by SisterGirl]

SisterGirl said:

Nice one, SisterGirl. He also refers to what you say above in Push, thus:

"Ever stopped to wonder, why you put another down, no man should asunder, the joy that another man's found"


regards,

andyf

NettieSmiles said:

let's make sure we don't confuse god the father with his son jesus christ. jesus christ is not jehovah. he is jehovah's son. no christian group professes to believe that jehovah and jesus are the same person.
but here's where it gets sticky: christians for centuries have understood that jesus, being the son of the almighty god, could himself be no less than everything god himself is. how could god beget a son who was any less than god? how could the son of god be a created being? he cannot. the nicean-constanipolitan creed states that jesus is "true god from true god". jesus' 'god-ness', if you will, has its source in the father. he is god in that he is the son of jehovah, who is god.
but don't confuse the persons: jesus christ is what god the father is, but he is not who the father is. he is the son of the father. this does not amount to two gods, because the 'god-ness' of the father is exactly the same as the 'god-ness' of the son. they are identical, the son's has its source in that of the father, therefore one cannot say that since jehovah is god and jesus is god, this amounts to two gods.
see john 12:41, which refers directly to jesus - "isaiah said this because he saw his glory and spoke of him". now, look at isaiah 6:5 - "and i said, woe is me! for i am lost; for i am a man of unclean lips, and i dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the king, the LORD of hosts!" here isaiah has a vision of the LORD (god the father, jehovah), and in john 12:41 it says that isaiah saw jesus' glory and spoke of him. the glory of the father and the glory of jesus christ, his son, are identical. there is one glory, for there is one god.
JWs deny that jesus is 'true god'. the new world translation of the holy scriptures mis-translates the last portion of john 1:1 to read, "and the word was a god." by making jesus "a god", the new world translation designates him as a false deity because any "god" other than the one true god is an idol, a false god: "before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me" (isaiah 43:10).
so if jesus is simply "a god" rather than "true god from true god", then he is no different from satan, whom st. paul calls "the god of this system of things" (2 corinthians 4:4).
orthodox christians, based on a proper understanding of scripture and tradition, believe in one god, the father almighty...and in one lord jesus christ, the son of god...who is true god from true god: "hear o israel, the lord our god is one lord" (deuteronomy 6:4).

Mr7 said:

the doctrine of sola scriptura is invalidated by the bible itself: "so philip ran to him, and heard him reading isaiah the prophet and asked him, do you understand what you are reading. and he said, how can i unless someone guides me?and he invited philp to come up and sit with him" (acts 8:30-1).
the bible was never meant to exist in a vacuum, nor is it self-explanitory. scripture and tradition go hand in hand. and tradition of the church is nothing less than scripture rightly understood.


[This message was edited Tue Nov 19 12:42:24 PST 2002 by Mr7]
[This message was edited Tue Nov 19 12:46:31 PST 2002 by Mr7]
[This message was edited Tue Nov 19 12:48:41 PST 2002 by Mr7]
[This message was edited Tue Nov 19 12:58:00 PST 2002 by Mr7]
[This message was edited Tue Nov 19 13:09:10 PST 2002 by Mr7]
[/quote]

fms said:[quote]

Mr7 said:

the doctrine of sola scriptura is invalidated by the bible itself: "so philip ran to him, and heard him reading isaiah the prophet and asked him, do you understand what you are reading. and he said, how can i unless someone guides me?and he invited philp to come up and sit with him" (acts 8:30-1).
the bible was never meant to exist in a vacuum, nor is it self-explanitory. scripture and tradition go hand in hand. and tradition of the church is nothing less than scripture rightly understood.

***

'According to Paul's custom he went inside to them, and ... he reasoned with them from the scriptures, explaining and proving by references' Acts 17:2,3;

Everything should be proven by scripture. Tradition should never contradict with scripture. By Sola Scriptura, I mean that divine revelation comes through scripture alone. The scripture you have selected does not invalidate that. Far from it, the scripture you have selected proves not only the importance of Bible reading, but that it was a custom in those times. At times certain persons may need assistance or guidance, particularly (today) with historical details. I have personally found that researching and discovering what the original words and meanings for certain descriptions were in Hebrew and Greek most enlightening. Clearly I have obtained advice outside of the scriptures themselves for this. However, if tradition was scripture 'rightly understood', then such tradition would surely harmonise with scripture. In my personal opinion it does not.

Joshua read from the Bible himself (Joshua 1:8). Far from needing a Church to organise and select Scripture Old Testament Christians made hand-written copies themselves;

'... he must write in a book for himself a copy of this law from that which is in the charge of the priests, the Levites. And it must continue with him, and he must read it all the days of his life' (Deut17:18,19)

Clearly then, independent Bible reading was important.

The great importance of scripture is emphasised by Paul who wrote;

'All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work'

Obviously then, the Scriptures need to be read. All 'Scripture is inspired of God' not men. All Scripture is 'beneficial'. Therefore it follows that reading it is beneficial.

I do not dispute Traditions or Doctrines if they harmonise with Scripture. Paul explained and 'proved with references' from the Scriptures. Paul also wrote that the Scriptures are beneficial for 'setting things straight'. Thus, all doctrines of all 'christian' Churches and faiths should be checked against Scripture. If they either contradict Scripture or are not mentioned in Scripture they should be dismissed. The Bible warns us against following traditions of men. It also fortells that a great Apostasy would take place in the early Christian Congregation.

As I have previously stated in my opinion claims of divine appointment mean very little if those concerned do not follow the commands as indicated in the Scriptures.

In addition there is scarce and conflicting historical information regarding even the existence of the original Apostolic Church today, let alone the theory that this Church selected Scripture. Even if a particular Church did bind all the books together in one volume it does not follow that one has to accept all their teachings.

I thankyou for your responses, but this will be my final reply in our discussion. I respect and appreciate your beliefs and opinions, and I hope you will respect and appreciate mine.

Thankyou.
[This message was edited Thu Nov 21 13:05:43 PST 2002 by Mr7]

Whewww...that was some good n interesting reading


God speed to all yall