ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Explain Romans 8:20

How do you interpret Romans 8:20?

Join Our Free Dating and Take The Relationships Quiz
 ---trey on 8/6/12
     Helpful Blog Vote (6)

Post a New Blog



"My argument." Warwick (2)

"You cannot accept what Scripture says.." Warwick

Fair enough. Show me any "Scripture" that says that God is a Trinity made up of 3 persons and I will gladly accept your...uhh...argument(?) Just saying so doesn't make it true. Chapter and verse please.

"The Trinity is plainly in Scripture..." Warwick

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia-

"The term "Trinity" is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God..."p. 3012, Vol. IV, Eerdmans, 1984.
---scott on 9/1/12


"[Ratified] not my argument." Warwick (1)

Yes it is/was. On 8/23/12 you said: "Those who ratified the Trinity were but codifying what Scripture says..."

Are you now saying that the Trinity doctrine was not "ratified" by these men?

"Restating the obvious". Warwick

What scripture identifies God as three persons? If "obvious", we would expect to find many examples (at least one) that describe our "one" God (Deut 6:4, 1 Tim 2:5) as three.

Additionally, are you now abandoning the notion that the Trinity needs to be "revealed"? How is it both "obvious" and yet dependent upon divine revelation to be understood?
---scott on 9/1/12


To correct my last post, The Watchtower magazine... currently having a worldwide circulation of over 42million MONTHLY issues in 195 languages. It is the most widely distributed religious magazine in the world.
---David8318 on 8/24/12


Ruben- thank you for quoting a Watchtower article. Can you find a post of mine that quotes from "the Watchtower"?

No! My faith is based on scripture. Yours and Warwick's faith is based on the uninspired writings of the RCC Catechism as you so eloquently demonstrated in your post of 8/6/12 on 'The Title of Jesus Christ' thread.

The Watchtower magazine does publish interesting scriptural material, currently having a worldwide circulation of over 42million issues in 195 languages. It is the most widely distributed religious magazine in the world.

The Watchtower primarily directs people to the Bible's message of God's Kingdom under Christ. The RCC Catechism however IS the basis of the understanding of your faith.
---David8318 on 8/24/12


Scott, that is not my argument. My argument is that Scripture clearly presents the Trinity, as reality. That people later included it in creeds etc is only restating the obvious.

You cannot accept what Scripture says because you have been duped by a very organized, and persuasive cult. They used to visit but gave up when they realized I could see through their duplicity.

I have met people who have left your cult and read the stories of others. The similarities contained bear testimony to their authenticity. Some never recover psychologically and often lose their trust in God. In thinking of the WTS the word perfidy comes easily to mind.

A pastor friend has baptized 300+ ex JW's. They praise God for him.
---Warwick on 8/24/12




When Ruben is asked to explain the trinity he can only quote the unscriptural RCC Catechism!

---David8318 on 8/24/12

And David thinks it is all him and not he WTS:

[...] Jehovah poured out his spirit upon them and assigned them the responsibility of serving as his
sole visible channel, through whom alone spiritual instruction was to come. Those who recognize
Jehovahs visible theocratic organization, therefore, must recognize and accept this appointment of
the faithful and discreet slave and be submissive to it.... Since 1879 the Watch Tower magazine
has been used by this collective group to dispense spiritual food regularly to those of this little
flock of true Christians... (October 1, 1967), p. 590.
---Ruben on 8/24/12


I am away for about a week and am happy dig into that a little when I return. In the meantime, as a partial answer to your question:

---scott on 8/23/12

Scott,

Enjoy your time off, hope all is while! I also will be off on vacation next week, since this blog is close, we can resume of the blog that reads:

Meaning of Title Of Jesus

See you soon.
---Ruben on 8/24/12


Trinty Ratified - Warwick

It's your argument. I can see why you won't defend it. You might want to think these things through.
---scott on 8/24/12


The shortened form of the divine name is "Jah".

---scott on 8/23/12

Paul uses the name Jah

He quotes 68:18 and applied to the ascension of Jesus Christ!

Psalm 68:18 "You have ascended on high, you have carried away captives, you have taken gifts in the form
of men, Yes, even the stubborn ones, to reside among them, O Jah God.

Esp 4:7-10 " Wherefore he says: When he ascended on high he carried away captives, he gave gifts [in] men.... The very one that descended is also the one that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might give fullness to all things."

BTW-Both are from the NWT Bible.
---Ruben on 8/24/12


But in prayer to his God and Father Jesus said "I have made your name known...and will make it known. John 17:26
---scott on 8/23/12

Scott,

Ok Jesus first said "I have made your name known" I went and read the four gospels and did not find where Jesus made his name known to the disciples!

Second Jesus says "and will make it known" Again when and where did he do this, BCV please?

Regarding your question, Catholic do use the name that Jesus made known:

"that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, " (phil 2:10-11)

"every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ"( Acts 2:38)

Many more if you need them!
---Ruben on 8/24/12




Warwick pleads he has come to understand the mystery-trinity from reading "Scripture".

In reality Warwick really means his understanding comes from the 'The Catechism of the Catholic Church'. Writings of men from uninspired sources. Afterall, the RCC Catechism is what Warwick preaches every time he posts. Ruben can't understand the trinity concept without the RCC Catechism. When Ruben is asked to explain the trinity he can only quote the unscriptural RCC Catechism!

Warwick will of course cry he is not a Catholic. But his indoctrination by the C & MA fundamentalist unit is but a lap dog of the RCC. Both spin the Egypto-babylonian / pagan Greek philosophies of triunism.
---David8318 on 8/24/12


"Ratified Trinity..." Warwick (2)

Additionally, where in God's word do we find any indication that belief in the Trinity is required for Salvation, any inspired declaration that Christians are "legally bound" to such a belief? The scriptures are repleat with exhortations requiring Christians to believe and demonstrate faith in Christ as the Son of God, Messiah, the lamb that takes away sin, etc. Our eternal lives are dependent on faith in Jesus Christ as he is clearly defined in God's word.

Centuries later uninspired men said that failure to believe in the Trinity was punishable by death and eternal torment. Were they ratifying this mandate because God lacked the "authority" to do so himself?
---scott on 8/24/12


Scott I do not need one person to tell me that God is three in one. I have come to understand that from reading Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit.
---Warwick on 8/24/12


"Those who ratified the Trinity were but codifying what Scripture says to overcome heresies." Warwick (1)

Ratification is a principal's approval of an act of its agent where the agent lacked authority to legally bind the principal.

Are you suggesting that the all-mighty God "lacked the authority" or ability to clearly make the case, through explanation and inspired argumentation for a Triune God on his own, therefore legally binding this doctrine upon Christians?

Did God need uninspired men to "legally bind" us to a notion that is no where stated as a declaration of faith anywhere by his inspired bible writers?

Continued
---scott on 8/23/12


"Where does Jesus use the name Jehova?" Ruben

The divine name and the CGS (NT) is an interesting and fairly lengthy discussion.

I am away for about a week and am happy dig into that a little when I return. In the meantime, as a partial answer to your question:

The shortened form of the divine name is "Jah".

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass..." Rev 1:1

In this "Revelation of Jesus" we find the shortened version of God's name in the word "Hallelu-jah" which means "Praise Jah" (Jehovah). (Revelation 19:1, 3, 4 and 6)
---scott on 8/23/12


Scott, the Trinity is plainly in Scripture for all who have not been indoctrinated, to see. This reality was spelled out to combat heresies, but you are forbidden to accept the obvious.

Your pernicious cult has a habit of changing its beliefs so the Trinity may soon be acceptable. Remember when you were taught to "worship" Jesus? Now you can't. Maybe next year? Organ transplants were forbidden, deemed "cannibalism." Now you are allowed to be a "cannibal" and eat blood. The acceptability of blood transfusions can,t be far away.

In 1938 the WTS commanded JW's have no children. Fortunately for you this Commandment was later revoked! All this error and change from God's only organization on earth!
---Warwick on 8/23/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


Ruben,

Didn't your mother teach you that it is not polite to answer a question with a question? = )

"The question is: why are Catholics now forbidden to use the name that Jesus made known?"
---scott on 8/23/12


But in prayer to his God and Father Jesus said "I have made your name known...and will make it known. John 17:26

The question is: why are Catholics now forbidden to use the name that Jesus made known?
---scott on 8/23/12

Where does Jesus use the name Jehova or when did he teach the name Jehova?

Example:

Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole"

Here Peter uses the word 'name' and applys it to Jesus. Where does Jesus do the same thing?
---Ruben on 8/23/12


"If that was true then why are you guys missing the 7 books..." Ruben

Uhhh what? You lost me. I believe you've missed my point regarding the similarity between Jews and Catholics and their alleged privilege with the handling and history of God's inspired word.

While I don't believe that this is necessarily true to begin with...Catholics claim (in their case) that this identifies some superior standing and special relationship with God.

Again...the Jews also had that with the OT (entrusted with the very words of Moses and the prophets, etc.) and after Christ came they no longer enjoy any special standing with God...do they?

"Look, your house in abandoned to you." Luke 13:35
---scott on 8/23/12


"JW's are not known to [emphasize] Jesus' name" Ruben

Not true. The name of Jesus should truly inspire feelings of honor, respect, and obedience. The apostle Paul said: "In the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:10, 11)

But in prayer to his God and Father Jesus said "I have made your name known...and will make it known. John 17:26

The question is: why are Catholics now forbidden to use the name that Jesus made known?
---scott on 8/23/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


scott That is of course a highly debatable subject but even if your premise was true, the Jews wrote, were entrusted with, compiled, even translated into Greek (LXX 300 years before Christ) the Hebrew Scriptures or OT. I do not think that the Jews are God's people today either.

If that was true then why are you guys missing the 7 books which the RC and the Orthodox Church both have? And what about the books of the NT, surely you do not believe the JWs had something to do with it?




---Ruben on 8/23/12


"These councils with the uninspired men took hundreds of years to tell us which books belong in the Bible and you believe them, why?" Ruben

That is of course a highly debatable subject but even if your premise was true, the Jews wrote, were entrusted with, compiled, even translated into Greek (LXX 300 years before Christ) the Hebrew Scriptures or OT. I do not think that the Jews are God's people today either.


"Where is one single explanatory passage, one verse, to help monotheistic Jews grasp this monumental change in their centuries old view of God?

Still unanswered.
---scott on 8/23/12


scott* To the contrary, it is blind adherence to an unexplainable, mysterious doctrine that took hundreds of years to develop through councils of uninspired men that defies thinking of any sort.

But yet, these councils with the uninspired men took hundreds of years to tell us which books belong in the Bible and you believe them, why?


scott* Where is one single explanatory passage, one verse, to help monotheistic Jews grasp this monumental change in their centuries old view of God?

Where in the New Testament does it speak of Gods people being witnesses to Jehovah?


scott* Independent thinking? Please.

see above:)
---Ruben on 8/23/12


scott* The scriptures are repleat with exhortations requiring Christians to believe and demonstrate faith in Christ as the Son of God, Messiah, the lamb that takes away sin, etc. Our eternal lives are dependent on faith in Jesus Christ as he is clearly defined in God's word.

And yet even though the NT emphasizing the name of Jesus, JW's are not known to do that today,Why?

Scott * uninspired men said that failure to believe in the Trinity was punishable by death and eternal torment. Were they ratifying this mandate because God lacked the "authority" to do so himself?

Not because he lack the authorithy because he gave them the authorithy to teach and preach what he command them to do. (LK 10:16)
---Ruben on 8/23/12


Shop For Church Fundraisers


"Ratified Trinity..." Warwick (2)

Additionally, where in God's word do we find any indication that belief in the Trinity is required for Salvation, any inspired declaration that Christians are "legally bound" to such a belief? The scriptures are repleat with exhortations requiring Christians to believe and demonstrate faith in Christ as the Son of God, Messiah, the lamb that takes away sin, etc. Our eternal lives are dependent on faith in Jesus Christ as he is clearly defined in God's word.

Centuries later uninspired men said that failure to believe in the Trinity was punishable by death and eternal torment. Were they ratifying this mandate because God lacked the "authority" to do so himself?
---scott on 8/23/12


"Those who ratified the Trinity were but codifying what Scripture says to overcome heresies." Warwick (1)

Ratification is a principal's approval of an act of its agent where the agent lacked authority to legally bind the principal.

Are you suggesting that the all-mighty God "lacked the authority" or ability to clearly make the case, through explanation and inspired argumentation for a Triune God on his own, therefore legally binding this doctrine upon Christians?

Did God need uninspired men to "legally bind" us to a notion that is no where stated as a declaration of faith anywhere by his inspired bible writers?

Continued
---scott on 8/23/12


Scott, you have it backwards. You are a victim of a dangerous cult which demands obedience to its changing man made rules and regulations. Organ transplants are "cannibalism" then they aren't, and so on.

Those who ratified the Trinity were but codifying what Scripture says to overcome heresies.

If Jesus is not God the Son why does Scripture keep saying He is, e.g. Colossians 1:16, John 20:28. Jesus is the Creator and sustainer of all things, but if we believe you we have a creature as Creator and sustainer of all things!

I am not a member of any exclusive cult and come to my own conclusions by my own study and the leading of the Holy Spirit. You are not free to do this, sadly.
---Warwick on 8/23/12


Trey, the word "futility" refers to the inability to achieve a goal or purpose. In the passage 'The creation was subject to futility, means that the creation, all man, is unable to achieve the original goal or purpose of God, because God cursed the physical universe because of sin (Gen. 3:17-19) and now, no part of creation entirely fulfills God's original purpose.
"but because of Him who subjected it in hope" God brought hope to them when He spoke about Christ in (Gen. 3:15).
---Mark_V. on 8/23/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


"Think independently." Warwick

To the contrary, it is blind adherence to an unexplainable, mysterious doctrine that took hundreds of years to develop through councils of uninspired men that defies thinking of any sort.

Not only is God's word silent regarding any clear declaration of a three-in-one Deity but absent also is any explanation or teaching of this brand new idea for 1st century Jews.

Entire chapters are dedicated to explaining, yes, teaching new concepts such as the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15). Where is one single explanatory passage, one verse, to help monotheistic Jews grasp this monumental change in their centuries old view of God?

Independent thinking? Please.
---scott on 8/22/12


Explaining Romans 8:20:
Adams fall signaled the fall of Creation so Creation became subject to sin which is death. Though God passed the sentence because of Adam, God also gave us a hope through the Cross of Christ who will rectify all things.
---Patricia on 8/22/12


Scott,

I see you're keeping count of the insults. Is that a part of the Watchtower, anti-baptist deprogramming?
---Marc on 8/22/12


Scott, the WTS has destroyed your ability to think independently. Your question: "If Jesus Christ needed to be "appointed," or "decreed," to judge by someone that he refers to as his God (Rev 3:12) how is he equal to that same God? Does the Almighty God need to be appointed...for anything?"

Asked and answered: "Acts 17:31 God appointed "the man" Jesus judge. As to His flesh, obedient servant, to His spirit,fully God...we will see Him, Son of God, Son of Man in heaven."

To comprehend my answer you need to understand the difference between the Son of Man and the Son of God who said "a body have you prepared for me." Who said this Scott, and who is the body?
---Warwick on 8/22/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


"Son of Man, Son of God" Warwick

Happy to address your comments but first...

The question remains (8/19/12). Again, I've asked this several times now and you've yet to provide an answer.
---scott on 8/21/12


Scott,Jesus is "Son of God" (spirit-you agree God is spirit?) and "Son of Man" You agree Jesus was also human? See Matthew ch. 26, where Jesus refers to himself as "Son of Man" c4 times-vs 2 "The Son of man will be handed over to be crucified." However later the high priest asked if He was "the Son of God." Jesus answered yes, and they would see the "Son of Man" sitting at the right hand of the "Mighty one" in heaven, in the 'seat' of absolute power.

In Acts 17:31 we read God appointed "the man" Jesus to judge the world. As to His flesh, obedient servant, as to His spirit,fully God and like Stephen we will see Him, Son of God, and Son of Man in heaven.
---Warwick on 8/21/12


"The REAL issue"

"Just as those under the law have and are still so obsessed with the Law they too have overlooked the Blood of Jesus?" kathr4453

God's mandate regarding the use of blood pre-dates the Mosaic Law by about 850 years. (Gen. 9:3, 4) And it was repeated even after Christ died for us and was raised to heaven (Acts 15:28, 29) having "blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees...He has taken it out of the way..." Col 2:14

"You do not believe in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ who shed HIS BLOOD for the forgiveness of sin..." kathr4453

Not true. I believe this with every fiber of my being.
---scott on 8/21/12


"Insult"- Marc

Let's see. Marc has either directly or though inference called me:

A liar, desperate, deliberately dishonest, deceptive, a black-mailer, a paid WT plant, illiterate, a cheat, a slave, a name-dropper, misapprehending the truth, false, a plagiarist, nonsensical, routinely passing off hacked-to-pieces passages, cultic, errant, illogical, unoriginal, heretical, not serious, without academic training, without understanding, authority loving, Johnny-come-lately, failed ("As someone actually trained in both philosophy and religious studies...I would, without hesitation, FAIL you."), quote-miner, disingenuous, fallacious and insane.

By comparison, asking Marc if he's 12 is a compliment.
---scott on 8/21/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


"It takes quite a while for the programming to be overcome." Warwick

Yes, as an ex-Baptist, I continue, with God's help, to overcome years of unscriptural programming. It's a slow process and one that I highly recommend.

And of course it's obvious to all that this tack by you is simply a red-herring to avoid answering the question regarding Jesus being "appointed," or "decreed". I'll wait...even if it takes until November.
---scott on 8/21/12


So,I guess Scott hasn't got the guts to deal with the logic of my rebuttal after all, seeing as how quickly he reverted to that good old standby of the intellectually defeated, the ad hominem.

I did previously advise you that you should ring Brooklyn for advice. Seeing as they are God's only prophetic mouthpiece on earth they would have given you YHWH's answer, rather than resorting to the evasive insult. (Gee, Scott, that insult must have been the first non-cut-and-paste comment you've ever made!!!!)

Finally, Scott, still waiting for an explanation as to how logically and ontologically a finite creature (Michael the angel) can contain ALL the fullness (i.e. that which belongs to the Creator) of an eternal, infinite Being (YHWH).
---Marc on 8/21/12


Scott, you have taken my comments personally and out of context. I didn't explain it well.

I have nothing personally against you but do have strong objections to the WTS. I believe your thinking has been so confused by your WTS indoctrination that you can no longer think for yourself. Now of course a sceptic could say this is true of all Christians but not to anywhere near the extent it applies to JW's. True Christians are free to attend any Christian church. I am happy to do so if their doctrine is Christ centered. I am not Baptist but when in France happily do so. Could you come with me or are they all heretics?

I have met some exJW's and it takes quite a while for the programming to be overcome. Some never get over it.
---Warwick on 8/21/12


Scott, what is your belief on the Blood of Jesus Christ?

I imagine to those who practice or practiced satanic pagans rituals of drinking blood it would be considered no big deal..right? It would not be thought of as a sacred thing at all, correct?


But it can work the other way around too. Have you become too obsessed/possessed concerning animal blood that you have totally overlooked the Blood of Christ?
---kathr4453 on 8/21/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


Scott #2 The REAL issue here is this:

Just as those under the law have and are still so obsessed with the Law they too have overlooked the Blood of Jesus?

Satan really has his ways of making sure you stay on the wrong track, SO THAT you are blinded to the truth.

You're not going to heaven just because you never drank animal blood or got a blood transfusion.

You're not going to heaven because you do not believe in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ who shed HIS BLOOD for the forgiveness of sin who in fact is not an angel because "angels cannot BLEED" or become humans with BLOOD.

---kathr4453 on 8/21/12


"Guts"- Marc

What, are you 12? You and your "Christian" Zionist anger issues.
---Scott on 8/20/12


Scott,you can't have it both ways: either the wine analogy implies that it is the substance consumed qua substance consumed that matters (and not how it is used), and thus no blood can enter a person's body OR your reference to the command to Noah means it isn't the blood per se but how you use it (after all, if it were the blood qua blood then, as you tacitly admit, Noah would have been ordered to be vegetarian).

So, I say it's a case of how blood is used, not the blood in itself. Therefore, drinking blood is prohibited (it's a sign of paganism) while giving your own life for another is not proscribed as it fulfils the second commandment i.e. loving your neighbour.

Scott, got the guts to tackle the logic of my argument...directly?
---Marc on 8/20/12


"To paraphrase Festus-Scott you are out of your mind." Warwick

To directly quote Jesus Christ:

"It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household!" Matt 10:25, NIV

"When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He [Jesus] is out of his mind." Mark 3:21, NIV

Thank you. Your continual insults are both revealing and encouraging.
---scott on 8/20/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


Scott, it isn't that I have not answered your question but that your WTS indoctrination does not allow you to understand it.

To paraphrase Festus-Scott you are out of your mind, your false learning is driving you out of your mind Acts 26:24.
---Warwick on 8/20/12


"Exactly." Marc

The Doctor says "SIt down Marc. I've got good news and bad news".

"What is it Doc?" Marc replies. "Give it to me straight".

With one hand on Marc's trembling shoulder the Doctor says "the bad news is- No more drinking Cabernet Sauvignon. Merlot and Malbec may never pass your lips again! Your liver is...well...no longer living. I'm very sorry. It's for your own good."

WIth a single tear on his rosy cheek Marc asks: "and the good news?"

"The good news", the Doctor says, "is that we'll hook you up to an IV. Who needs hand-blown stemware? We'll have you on a drip, mainlining Merlot in no time."

Cheers!
---scott on 8/20/12


how is he equal to that same God?
---scott on 8/19/12

Scott,

Easy:

" And: You at [the] beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself,
and the heavens are [the] works of your hands. They themselves will perish, but you
yourself are to remain continually, and just like an outer garment they will all grow old...-Hebrews 1:8-12

Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth itself, And the heavens are the work of
your hands. 26 They themselves will perish, but you yourself will keep standing, And just like
a garment they will all of them wear out. Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will
finish their turn." -Psalms 102:25, 26 New World Translation
---Ruben on 8/20/12


Scott, how do you remove the blood from a piece of steak? When you cook that steak, the blood is been cooked. And you eat it. If the blood is so important to you that people have to die, why is it not important to you when you eat it from a steak? You can barbaque and get fat, yet refuses anyone who is sick and needs the blood during surgery. After my sister died, the witnesses had a barbaque and talked about how great my sister was for not taking the blood. Here is a passage,
". (Genesis 1:29, 9:3, 4) Clearly, Jehovah links very closely the life and the blood of a creature" but has no bearing concerning a human, but an animal. God never said go and kill a human but don't drink his blood. He was speaking of animals.
---Mark_V. on 8/20/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


"Your confusion"- Warwick

See "but the question remains" below (8/19/12). As you know, I've asked this several times now and it still remains unanswered. None of your comments address the simple question.
---scott on 8/20/12


Scott, your confusion is born of your innability to comprehend that Jesus is fully God, invisible spirit (e.g. Hebrews ch. 1) and fully man, human (e.g. Hebrews ch.2) He is the man (the body prepared Hebrews 10:5) in which "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" Colossians 2:9. Therefore He is fully God and fully man.

At judgement who will be seen, the eternal invisible God, or the Man Jesus in whom the whole fullness of God dwells? I will give you a clue who did they see at Cana, at the sermon on the mount, in Gethsemane, or on the cross? Jesus the man. And God has appointed they will see the same man, Acts 10:42, 17:31, 2 Timothy.

"Behold the man" John 19:5.
---Warwick on 8/20/12


Scott,

Re Noah/blood, exactly. Noah was given a clear message not to consume blood, obviously meaning drinking it because any meat consumption entails consuming blood. The JWs then extend that order to include proscribing someone's giving their life (blood) to save someone else's. The JWs believe an altruistic act(blood donations are anonymous often like organ donations which God's ONLY PROPHETIC ORGANISATION ON EARTH decreed were against God's command, then they weren't, then...I've lost where we're up to, Scott) is AN EVIL.

Scott now won't directly respond but will send a cut-and-paste, out-sourced list of favourable "experts" to direct everyone's attention from my point, as is his usual, Brooklyn approved strategy.
---Marc on 8/19/12


"Vegetarian...But none of you are." Mark_V

Now, my old friend Mark, how can you possibly make a statement like this? Do you know this for a fact? Many of Jehovah's Witnesses are vegetarians...but as a matter of personal choice. My wife and I shared a meal with one last night!

Gen. 9:3, 4: "Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul - its blood - you must not eat."
---scott on 8/19/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


"Vegetarian" Mark_V, Marc

"Every moving animal...may serve as food for you...Only flesh with its soul - its blood - you must not eat." Gen. 9:3, 4

Was Noah told by God to be vegetarian? Read it again.
---scott on 8/19/12


"Whether God or Jesus presides, it is still God presiding, Jesus being God" Warwick

But the question remains:

If Jesus Christ needed to be "appointed," or "decreed," to judge by someone that he refers to as his God (Rev 3:12) how is he equal to that same God? Does the Almighty God need to be appointed...for anything?
(Ac 10:42, 17:31, 2Ti 4:1)
---scott on 8/19/12


Scott,

Unless you're a vegetarian, then everytime you eat a chop, steak or sausage, you're eating blood and thus, according to the Watchtower,you're committing sin and should be disfellowshipped. All meat has blood still in it - that's why it's red!
---Marc on 8/19/12


Scott, If Jehovah Witnesses were vegetarians then you could stand on your belief. But none of you are. You say you don't eat blood, but no one can remove the blood from a piece of steak. You can try all you want, and you will not succeed. Even the smallest piece will have blood. You guys are hypocrites.
---Mark_V. on 8/19/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


God's VIEW on Blood

ebrews 12:24
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Scott, does Jesus BLOOD cry out for vengence?
---kathr4453 on 8/19/12


God's view of Blood

9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat -

WHY?

Blood made atonement for the soul, Lev 17:11. The life of the sacrifice was accepted for the life of the sinner. Blood must not be looked upon as a common thing, but must be poured out before the Lord, 2Sam 23:16.

Scott, no one has to be KILLED, STRANGLED or SACRIFICED FIRST in order to give a blood transfusion.
---kathr4453 on 8/19/12


God's view on Blood- kathr4453 & Mark_V (1)

In God's Word, blood is so intimately involved in the life processes that we read: "the soul of the flesh is in the blood." (Lev. 17:11) Consider- when Cain slew Able "The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground." NIV

Animal flesh could be eaten, but not the blood-

As the Source of life, Jehovah has provided definite instructions regarding the use of blood.

God said to Noah (of course before the Mosaic Law): "Every moving animal...may serve as food for you...Only flesh with its soul - its blood - you must not eat." Gen. 9:3, 4

Continued-
---scott on 8/18/12


God's view on Blood- (2)

Only sacrificial use of blood was approved by God- See Lev. 17:11, 12

Animal sacrifices under the Mosaic Law foreshadowed the one perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (Heb.9:11-14, 22, Eph 1:7)

Christians-

The context of Acts 15:28, 29 is the controversy over circumcision. The decision was:

"...keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [or, killed without draining their blood] and from fornication".

Here eating blood is equated with idolatry and fornication. These are not just pagan practices but things that God's people have avoided in the past (Jews) and would continue to avoid as Christians.
---scott on 8/18/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


Scott, regarding judgement, whether God or Jesus presides, it is still God presiding, Jesus being God, Creator/sustainer of everything-Colossians 1:15-17. That the Father gives Jesus this task means all will be judged by Jesus who as to His flesh is Son of Man, (a human) and to His spirit is Son of God (God). That Jesus will judge all demonstrates Jesus is God, on Gods judgement seat. As you show Jehovah is Judge of all but this leaves you in a quandary as in your terms Jehovah does not Judge. You have Jesus, a creature judging! Must Jesus judge Himself!

But then we have every knee bowing to Jehovah (Isaiah 45:23) and to Jesus Philippians 2:10,11. Everyone bows and worships Jehovah and a creature?
---Warwick on 8/18/12


Scott, (Acts 15:20) is not a restriction for New Testament believers. In the context James and the other leaders did not want the Gentiles to revel in their freedom in Christ, which could cause the Jewish believers to follow that same liberty and violate their conscience. So James proposed that the Gentiles abstain from 4 Pagan, idolatrous practices that were in violation of the law of Moses so as not to offend Jews. For we know in (Acts 10:15 and Acts 11:9) "But the voice answered me again from heaven, 'What God has cleansed you must not call common. This was done three times" God had commanded him to kill and eat and Peter did not want to because of his conscience. My sister might have lived if she had faith in Jesus Christ.
---Mark_V. on 8/17/12


Scott, Isaiah 45:23 sets just another dilema for the slaves of the WTS "Every knee will bend to me, (Jehovah) and every tongue will confess..."

Philippians 2:10,11 "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,"

In your confused belief you have everyone bowing and confessing God Almighty, and that's fine. But you also have everyone in heaven, on earth, and under the earth worshiping an angel? Isnt this heresy?

Why will every knee bend and every tongue confess God and Christ? Because they are one and the same person.
---Warwick on 8/17/12


Scott,

We Trinitarians, that group of people who were the foundation members of the Church, are still waiting for you to explain how logically and ontologically a finite, non-eternal creature (Michael the angel) can contain ALL the fullness of an eternal, infinite Being (YHWH).

Quick, give NY a call. I believe the telephone code for Brooklyn is 718, oh but I guess you already know that.
---Marc on 8/17/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


Scott from another thread:

Romans 14:10 "we will all stand before the judgment seat of God."

But then we read "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ," 2 Corinthians 5:10.

Hold on, whose judgement seat is it, Christ's or God's? Are there two, can we choose?

Paul solves this apparent dilemma for you in Romans 9:5 "..Christ who is God over all," God's judgement seat/Christ's judgement seat, the same Judgement seat, the same person.

Your beliefs leave you with judgement seat no. 1 where God presides and no.2 where an angel, a creature judges mankind. However 1 Corinthians 6:3 says "...we are to judge angels." Wrong again!
---Warwick on 8/16/12


Scott, that scripture stating not to eat meat strangled or blood, had to do with pagan practices of pagans actually drinking blood of animals as a pagan ritual. All pagan practices were and still are forbidden. That's why God also told Israel not to tattoo or mark the body, because it was a pagan practice. "Be ye separate".

But OUR LIFE is in only One's blood and that of Jesus Christ, who Jesus actually stated to eat my flesh and drink my blood. Of coarse this is symbolic of the Blood of the covenant and in doing in remembrance of our covenant relationship having our sin washed away by the blood of Jesus Christ, and eating His flesh meaning to partake of His sufferings. We don't literally eat or drink as in cannibalism.
---kathr4453 on 8/16/12


Deuteronomy 12:16 "Only the blood you must not eat. On the earth you should pour it out as water".
It appears that this law is telling us not to ingest or take in "animal blood", when the animal is slaughtered for food.

A good example of this can be found in the first book of Samuel. Then it says in 1 Samuel 14:31-33, ----Look, the people are sinning against the Lord by eating with the blood!"

In the New Testament it does talk about abstaining from blood, but again it is referring to ingesting the blood of animals not only slaughtered for food, but also from those animals that were killed and sacrificed to pagan gods. Acts 15:20 Again this is referring to the consuming of dead animal blood.
---kathr4453 on 8/16/12


"Aspirin"
The soul or life is not in Aspirin, but according to God's Word, it is in the blood. Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:11,14.

The view held by Witnesses on this is a biblical one and not a medical one. But there certainly is a great deal of research that clearly shows the medical or health benefits of following God's command on the matter.

Early Christians upheld that divine prohibition. British scholar Joseph Benson said: This prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his posterity, and repeated to the Israelites ... has never been revoked, but, on the contrary, has been confirmed under the New Testament, (Acts 15:20, 29) and thereby made of perpetual obligation."
---scott on 8/16/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


Interestingly WHEN did blood transfusions even come into existance? Bible Days? OT Times? What verse says, "Thou shall not give blood transfusions"?

Taking an asprin can be dangerous too for some people, but thank goodness for aspirin!
---kathr4453 on 8/16/12


"The truth does hurt-" Mark_V

As I've told you before, I'm sorry for the loss of your sister, I have lost (non-Witness) loved ones myself and it's hard to imagine anything worse. But while it's an emotional topic, I can tell you that the subject of hematology in medicine is more complex than you might imagine.

I know nothing of your sister's circumstances but were you aware that the transfusion of blood is a very dangerous procedure and in no way guarantees the survival of a patient either in an emergency or with chronic disease? In fact many die every year because of problems associated with blood transfusions.

"Your cause"-

Not a "cause", a biblical command. Acts 15:28,29
---scott on 8/16/12


Scott, the truth does hurt when someone tells it to you. You said,
"Additionally you might be interested in Dr. Jason BeDuhn's "Truth in Translation"
No, I am not interested and don't care who Jason is. I know the lies that the Witnesses have spoken. My sister died for your cause, not for the cause of Christ. What the watchtower teached on ( March 1, 1979) my sister did, she put her faith in your organization, and not in Jesus Christ.
"I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus" (Acts 20:21). She believed in the lies your religion teaches. Whenever someone mentioned Jesus, she would laugh at the thought.
---Mark_V. on 8/16/12


"Your Bible tried to change that..." Mark_V

Your ridiculous misrepresentation of Jehovah's Witnesses, the New World Translation and their Christological views reveals an embarrassing lack of knowledge of Bible Translation and the Biblical languages...for starters.

I have been posting here for years, posing question after question with the use of God's Word that you are either unwilling or unable to answer and, to my knowledge, I have never even used the NWT. Jehovah's Witnesses use lots of translations (and I do like the NWT).

Additionally you might be interested in Dr. Jason BeDuhn's "Truth in Translation" where he actually prefers the NWT over the 10 or so others that he compared it to.
---scott on 8/15/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


David, I don't know what you are complaining about since your denomination created their own Bible, are you not a Jehovah Witness? I'm pretty sure you are. Since you don't believe Jesus Christ is God.
---Mark_V. on 8/15/12

Mark
Why do you always insist on telling lies about me and others you disagree with?
Satan is the father of lies, and you are a liar. So could you really be a child of God as you say?
You may want to check yourself before it's too late.
---David on 8/15/12


David, I don't know what you are complaining about since your denomination created their own Bible, are you not a Jehovah Witness? I'm pretty sure you are. Since you don't believe Jesus Christ is God. The witnesses interpreted it the way they wanted, without the real Jesus Christ of Scripture. The real Jesus Christ of Scripture is God. Your Bible tried to change that with its own interpretation. Yet it failed to completely remove Him as Lord and Savior and will have to revise it again.
---Mark_V. on 8/15/12


Joseph, another great answer you gave, I agree totally with your answer.
---Mark_V. on 8/9/12

Mark
Ands that's the beauty of having over 30 English Bible translations.
All you have to do is find one that matches your doctrine, as Joseph did in his example.
---David on 8/15/12


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.