In article , Sarah Kanary says...
>
>
>
> wrote in message 
>news:crr6g3$o0n$1{at}nikalinux.nikaconsulting.net...

[snip]
>Jesus Christ counseled: "Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw 
>your pearls before swine, that they may never trample them under their feet 
>and turn around and rip you open." (Mt 7:6)

That is a pretty bad translation. And why aren't you following the
recommendations/guidelines of the FAQ and Charter? You did not indicate where
the translation came from.

> That is why Jesus on certain 
>occasions refrained from giving full information or direct answers to 
>certain questions when doing so could have brought unnecessary harm. (Mt 
>15:1-6; 21:23-27; Joh 7:3-10)   Rahab did likewise.  Her cooperation with 
>the Israelite spies was an act of faith in Jehovah.  (Jos 2:1-6)
>
>What does any of this have to do with dressing up a pagan sun-worship 
>holiday to look "Christian" then lying to children about it?

We don't "lie to children" about it. Unless, of course, you are referring
specifically to ONE of the man practices surrouncing Christmas, that of telling
children about "Santa Claus".


[snip]
>It still doesn't specify who "we" is.  You said "Why
should we believe...."
>
>The "we" that you used included yourself.

Why are you so sure of this? You know he is not going to believe your claim in
any case.

>So unless you are claiming to be 
>part of God, which I doubt, then it most certainly was NOT the point.

And you _still_ have not answered the question.

>>Didn't you understand that.  Rom 1 clearly teaches
>> that the constructs of the universe are a true reflection of its
>> Creator.  So much so, in fact, that judgment will come in regards to
>> its revelatory nature.  The principle of Jn 3:12 is not a NT principle.
>> It was a principle established by God Himself before creation ever
>> took place.   They "constructs of the universe" clearly
reflect a unity
>> within the diversity.  This is everywhere evident.  It is evident in
>> the physics of the universe, this is evident in society of man.  How do
>> you explain this if there is no diversity within the Godhead.  Which
>> brings us to you unexplainable next point......
>
>All this assumes that God, who *alone* is Jehovah, the Most High, (Ps. 
>83:18) is a 'Godhead' in the first place.  Yes, His creation, its 
>organization and complexity, testify to His awesome majesty and vast 
>intelligence, creation alone should move us to "praise Jah, you
people!" 
>(Ps 150)  Until I get a satisfactory answer as to how one can remove God's 
>Name thousands of times from His own Book, yet still claim to
"love" that 
>God, the other stuff is moot.

You have been given a satisfactory answer many times. Yet you stubbornly reject
the answer, falsely branding it "not satisfactory", even while you rely on
extremely dubious 'scholarship' claiming that the Divine Name was in Hebrew in
the LXX manuscripts.

Such a double-standard, Sarah, will convince nobody of anything: unless, of
course, it convinces many that you are a stubborn fool.

>Jehovah God inspired His Name to be in the Bible nearly 7,000 times.  Most 
>popular English Bible translations today have *removed* it altogether. 

THen don't use them! I don't. I use the Slavonic, Greek and Vulgate, and I
recognize the Divine Name in the form it is preserved in those versions. Why
can't you recognize it?

>These facts are not philosophical anomalies.  They are cold hard facts.  No 
>one who seeks to remove that Name is a friend of God.  Period.

Just as no one who denies that He is Trinity is a friend of God. Period.

[snip]

>And, unlike Arius, the Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses does 
>not believe in any such thing as a "Godhead" in the first place.

That just means that even Arius could get this right, but you do not!

>>
>> Arius and his followers held that the Logos (a term he argued was an
>> incorrect title) must have been created by God Himself.  And like JW's,
>> he understood "begat", (gennan) as applied to the Logos'
generation, to
>> be purely figurative and to mean "make" (poiein).  Thus
his conclusion
>> was that to suggest that the Logos was an extension or an emanation rom
>> or a consubstantial portion of the Father was to reduce the Godhead to
>> purely physical categories (read Athanasius, de syn. 16)
>
>And, unlike Arius, Jehovah's Witnesses do NOT believe "Logos" to be an 
>incorrect title, and DO believe that the meaning of 'begat' is clearly 
>spelled out in the Bible already.

But what YOU believe is "spelled out" there isn't even there at
all. You rely on
the twisted reasonings of men to deny the true sense of Scripture and substitute
a counterfeit in its place.

>>Kelly writes:
>>
>> "The Arians' denial of His divinity, for example, was closely connected
>> with, and may have been a corollary of, their preconcieved ideas about
>> the union of the Word with the human element in Christ."  (p. 280)
>
>And, unlike Arius, Jehovah's Witnesses do not deny the divinity of Christ. 

Yes, you do.

>The word translated 'divinity' or 'divine' as used in the Bible is our 
>guideline for what that means, not a creed.

So you say, but in practice, what you do is very, very different.

>>
>> "Preconceived," as Kelly puts it,
"presuppositional" as I term it.
>> Either way, your are predisposed in your inclination when coming to the
>> pertainent passages of scripture which teach that Jesus was Deity by
>> nature.
>
>Call it what you wish, we(Jehovah's Witnesses) let the Bible define 'deity' 

Nonsense. You do no such thing.

>or 'divinity' not post-biblical creeds.

This too, is obviously false. You sneak in your own "post-biblical
'creed'" in
the form of your eisegesis.

>  Or Arius.  Or Athanasius.  Truth is 
>not determined by who comes out on top in a violent religio-political 
>battle.

Nor is determined by who is the most ignorant and stubborn, as you JWs would
have us believe.

>  Jesus loved truth,

WHich makes Him very, very different from all of the leaders of the JWs.

> and Jesus is/was the Prince of Peace.

But not the 'peace' of mindless conformity, which you have inflicted on all who
fall under the sway of your cult.

Christ said "Peace I give you, not of this world", but you insist
on teaching a
_very_ worldly notion of 'peace', and then accuse the true Church of NOT being
the true Church because we do NOT teach your worldly peace.

>Where 
>Jesus Christ truly rules, there is peace.  Where there is no peace, there is 
>no following of Jesus.

No. Christ HImself tells us how wrong you are, when He says:

   "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth;
   I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.  (Mat 10:34 RSVA)

How wrong you are, Sarah!

>> Again, you have no answer for the implication of Heb 1:3.
>
>The Bible has an answer, it is simply not one you prefer.

Well, it isn't the one you claim to see there, either!

>  Heb. 1:3 clearly 
>says the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is an *image*.

You have already made two mistakes here! No wonder you are so confused, Sarah!
1) there is NOTHING restricting Heb 1:3 to the _resurrected_ Lord. It is a
_present participle_, which says nothing about the time.

2) the 'image' is an EXACT image, more exact than any earthly image of any thing
(as shown by comparison with Jn 14:8-11).

>Thus, not the 
>original.  A copy.  If God says in His inspired writings that His Son is an 
>'image' then that's what he is.

So why do you deny it, by falsely restricting it to 'resurrected' Lord, and by
denying the _perfection_ of the copy?


[snip]
>Call it what you wish, God's Word is truth and no lie.  (John 17:17)

And that alone, makes a very big difference between God's Word and the word of
any JW!

[snip]


-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))

--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/17/05 3:35:42 PM ---