JW's just came to my door

[teddy trueblood]

Also consider that John uses ho Theos in John 20:28, when Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and my God".

Please see Lesson A (after the word ‘First’).

John modifies both ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ with a prepositional phrase (a genitive noun): ὁ κύριος μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.

I have another study for John 20:28 and if you will only start another discussion, I will share some of it. As for now I wish to discuss the Seven Lessons for John 1:1c.

It would be very helpful if you would carefully read the Lessons on John 1:1c above before continuing our discussion.

 

[Michael74]

I found your website RDB. No need to paste your research on the above Scriptures.

 

[teddy trueblood]

That's good, Michael. I've reached an age where even cutting and pasting from my own files is sometimes a challenge.

If you would like to see the mechanics of my examination of John 1:1c, see the DEF study (part 3, Appendix and Part 4, end note #5)

 

[teddy trueblood]

I would appreciate any honest investigation of the grammar of John 1:1c as presented in the first five lessons presented above (replies #21-27). I believe I have covered all the bases for an honest and complete investigation of John's (and the other Gospel writers) use of all other constructions parallel to John 1:1c.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I will pause here and see if there are questions concerning A - E above before continuing.

As is usual it appears no one will actually discuss my actual study of John's usage/grammar concerning John 1:1c.

I discussed it with you awhile back, and defended the qualitative interpretation of the Greek. You were then banned and I therefore didn't discuss the topic again.

I certainly remember actually having a somewhat in depth discussion on the matter though, and even a respectful one.

I think the conclusion (as most discussions end with) was simply agree to disagree.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Thank you for your response, Doulos!

I'm sorry, but I don't remember your responses to my request for discussion concerning my study of the grammar of John 1:1c. I admit that my poor old memory is worse than ever, but I even tried to find your posts concerning this on this site, but failed.

If you would, please, either direct me to the earlier posts in question, or repeat them for me.

Thanks

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Thank you for your response, Doulos!

I'm sorry, but I don't remember your responses to my request for discussion concerning my study of the grammar of John 1:1c. I admit that my poor old memory is worse than ever, but I even tried to find your posts concerning this on this site, but failed.

If you would, please, either direct me to the earlier posts in question, or repeat them for me.

Thanks

It was awhile back, and I don't remember which thread it was in, but I remember first responding to a post about a book discussing which was the best translation of the Bible. The discussion of course then moved from there to John 1:1c.

I don't really like repeating the same ol' discussions, when I know where they will end and I feel that I took from the discussion what I wanted before.

I just wanted to contest the idea that no one around here has ever discussed it with you.

Have a good day,
DI

 

[teddy trueblood]

Doulos, please don't take this wrong, but unless I can find it or see it here (and since I honestly don't remember anyone actually discussing what I have written about my study of the grammar of John 1:1c), I must stand by my statement:

"As is usual it appears no one will actually discuss my study of John's usage/grammar concerning John 1:1c."

 

[teddy trueblood]

I found a discussion with “mcgyver” about two years ago. But I didn’t find where he actually acknowledged the grammar part of my study. That is, he did not examine my actual work of comparing every proper example of John’s constructions which were truly parallel to John 1:1c and how they were translated in all twenty-some Bibles I examined at that time. Instead, the discussion was about other aspects including the provably false use of Colwell‘s Rule, “context,” Philo, false gods, etc.

http://www.christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/talk-to-a-jw-nwt.29016/page-2

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Doulos, please don't take this wrong, but unless I can find it or see it here (and since I honestly don't remember anyone actually discussing what I have written about my study of the grammar of John 1:1c), I must stand by my statement:

"As is usual it appears no one will actually discuss my study of John's usage/grammar concerning John 1:1c."

Don't take this the wrong way? What other way is there to take it except that you assume my dishonesty on account of the fact that you yourself do not remember it. I am busy today and have no time to read through old threads, but I assumed you would remember or at least concede as I had no reason to lie.

I do believe that this will be my last post to you on this board.

Blessings,
DI

 

[teddy trueblood]

Don't take this the wrong way? What other way is there to take it except that you assume my dishonesty on account of the fact that you yourself do not remember it. I am busy today and have no time to read through old threads, but I assumed you would remember or at least concede as I had no reason to lie.

I do believe that this will be my last post to you on this board.

Blessings,
DI

............................
I'm sorry you take that approach. Why should I not believe that you may be mistaken? Why take 'offense'?

Maybe you posted under the name of mcgyver (who still didn't address the grammar I posted).

Maybe you were discussing it with someone else?

The point is that I took considerable time trying to find your posts and couldn't. Would I do that if I thought you were being dishonest?

Who accused you of lying?!!

Of course if you are unable to respond to what I ask, it is understandable that you wouldn't care to continue. That is your choice. No harm done.

 

[teddy trueblood]

So, I'm back to trying to find anyone who will objectively discuss my complete analysis of John's use of theos and all his usages of proper examples of constructions which are parallel to his John 1:1c. found in Lessons A-E on page 2 above.

 

[Free]

So, I'm back to trying to find anyone who will objectively discuss my complete analysis of John's use of theos and all his usages of proper examples of constructions which are parallel to his John 1:1c. found in Lessons A-E on page 2 above.

But what will it actually demonstrate? As I have stated several times previously, the context of John 1:1c must be taken within the context of the rest of John 1. We simply cannot ignore context. The best translation therefore is "the Word was God." It's that or John then lies in verse 3; a lie which Paul repeats twice.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

............................
I'm sorry you take that approach. Why should I not believe that you may be mistaken? Why take 'offense'?\.

Why take offense? Because I am certain that it was you who I talked to, and therefore you must think I am dishonest.

Maybe you posted under the name of mcgyver (who still didn't address the grammar I posted).

Nope, never had that name.

Maybe you were discussing it with someone else?

I'm 100% positive it was you.

The point is that I took considerable time trying to find your posts and couldn't. Would I do that if I thought you were being dishonest?

The thread may have been deleted, as you were banned for it I believe. Instead, you took the stance that I was not being truthful, or was mistaken... that is not the case.

Who accused you of lying?!!

What other alternative is there.

Of course if you are unable to respond to what I ask, it is understandable that you wouldn't care to continue. That is your choice. No harm done.

Responded to it in the past.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Doulos, I kept looking and finally found what you were referring to: http://www.christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/truth-in-translation.51633/

If you will examine it, I think you will see that you did not really answer my questions there. And that was just a small part of my five lessons found in this discussion.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Doulos, I kept looking and finally found what you were referring to: http://www.christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/truth-in-translation.51633/

If you will examine it, I think you will see that you did not really answer my questions there. And that was just a small part of my five lessons found in this discussion.

You can see that this was a full month before I was banned for a month. Nothing was deleted in that discussion.

 

[ironmonk]

I didn't actually let them in my house this time but about a year or so ago I did. I am just trying to figure out how to witness to them. I think that they think Im expressing interest in the JW religion but I'm only trying to figure out how to explain to them that their doctrines are wrong. I have a hard time just closing the door on them so I just talk to them on the front porch.

2 John 1:10

 

[TimothyW]

Just a moment ago 2 Jehovah's witnesses left my house after a brief discussion about the afterlife and hell. They told me that the Bible really teaches that we cease to exist after dying and after the judgment. Well, its interesting cause this is a hot topic on the A&T forum. Before they left I offered them a Christian tract but they wouldn't accept it. Can someone tell me what the JW's main difference in doctrine is with Christianity?

Someone JUST asked me if I was JW because I do not accept the traditional view of eternal conscious torture in Hell. The JWs that came to your door were correct, the Bible really does teach that the wicked will perish and will be no more, in other words the wicked will cease to exist after the judgment.

But I am NOT JW, and here is why. (And this will answer your question about the main difference between JWs and Christians)
JWs do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was and is truly God. I absolutely believe that Jesus Christ IS God, Fully God and also Fully Man. I believe that the Bible is absolutely clear on this, and this one point removes the JWs from Christianity. If someone does not believe that Christ is truly God, how can they also claim to be Christian?

I guess this is why I get so offended when people ask me if I'm JW. If Jesus of Nazareth is not truly God, then His death on the cross is of no effect for me and the rest of us. Then we will still owe the penalty for sin on Judgment Day. The wages of sin is death, so we would all perish on Judgment Day if Jesus is not truly God. My faith is in Jesus Christ.

 

[TimothyW]

I didn't actually let them in my house this time but about a year or so ago I did. I am just trying to figure out how to witness to them. I think that they think Im expressing interest in the JW religion but I'm only trying to figure out how to explain to them that their doctrines are wrong. I have a hard time just closing the door on them so I just talk to them on the front porch.

Forget trying to talk them into your view on hell. You won't succeed, and you will just alienate them. They will assume that if you don't know the truth about hell, you can't be trusted on the divinity of Jesus Christ. Stick to the divinity of Jesus Christ. There is ample evidence in the Bible for this. The hell issue is minor beans compared to Jesus Christ being God. They don't have to accept eternal torture in hell in order to be Christian, but they do have to accept Christ to be Christian.

 

[jeff77]

Someone JUST asked me if I was JW because I do not accept the traditional view of eternal conscious torture in Hell. The JWs that came to your door were correct, the Bible really does teach that the wicked will perish and will be no more, in other words the wicked will cease to exist after the judgment.

But I am NOT JW, and here is why. (And this will answer your question about the main difference between JWs and Christians)
JWs do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was and is truly God. I absolutely believe that Jesus Christ IS God, Fully God and also Fully Man. I believe that the Bible is absolutely clear on this, and this one point removes the JWs from Christianity. If someone does not believe that Christ is truly God, how can they also claim to be Christian?

I guess this is why I get so offended when people ask me if I'm JW. If Jesus of Nazareth is not truly God, then His death on the cross is of no effect for me and the rest of us. Then we will still owe the penalty for sin on Judgment Day. The wages of sin is death, so we would all perish on Judgment Day if Jesus is not truly God. My faith is in Jesus Christ.

Thanks for explaining that. I wasn't sure if they believed Jesus is the son of God. I know that just because your view of hell is like theirs it doesn't make you a JW.