Christianity QA

Question:

dude, you need help

Response:

dude, you need help

It’s curious to watch these pedantic clowns trying to break your spirit… like a bunch of kids on an elementary school playground. Perhaps our resident playground bullies would do well to take the following quote to heart… "Only after we can learn to forgive ourselves can we accept others as they are because we don’t feel threatened by anything about them which is better than us." – Stephen Covey Precision

Response:

Perhaps our resident playground bullies would do well to take the following quote to heart… "Only after we can learn to forgive ourselves can we accept others as they are because we don’t feel threatened by anything about them which is better than us." – Stephen Covey

~~~How typical of you now—to get all self-righteous on us, huh?  WHO is feeling threatened here? US? LP? Accepting others? Those who are lying pompous fools? YOU or LP have NEVER been anything but kind and Christian—–right? LP said something asinine and inappropriate and he’s getting heat for doing it. Don’t you two take potshots at someone else here that had an unfortunate incident in his life? THAT gives YOU TWO birdbrains LOTS of laughs though, doesn’t it? Why didn’t you dust off that "Coventry" quote when Tom was being dumped  on, huh? So SPARE us the condescending bullcrap okay? You have only proven yourself to be a bigger hypocrite that we already assumed you were. And THAT’S saying something! Dizz

Response:

"Only after we can learn to forgive ourselves

$ Have you forgiven yourself for suggesting someone toss hot coffee in another person’s face? can we accept others as they are

$  You don’t accept OTHERS unless they also serve the WTS/GB. because we don’t feel threatened by anything about them which is better than us." – Stephen Covey

$ Now remove the beams from your eyes…. — Bob & V *`     …. "Thou seest the mote in thy non-JW brother’s eye, but thou seest not the beam in thine own JW eye. When thou castest the beam out of thine own JW eye, then wilt thou see clearly to cast the mote from thy non-JW brother’s eye." http://quotes.watchtower.ca/ www.JWFiles.com www.freeminds.org www.Watchtowerobserver.org

Response:

duuuude…

  you need to take a pill… lighten up

L Perez, You’re the one who brought up the homosexual innuendos not me. I am just saying that it was a Freudian slip on your part.  And that you might need to sit down and talk to your wife and elders about these feelings. I am sure they would understand. But still if you need help in finding a person to counsel you please know that I would be willing to make recommendations in what to look for in a counselor. In closing I wish you the best on your new sexual discovery. William

Response:

duuuude…   you need to take a pill… lighten up L Perez, You’re the one who brought up the homosexual innuendos not me.

you said you wanted to hop me and I told you that I dont swing that way. now, allow me to edit your words as you like to edit others…  I  need to sit down and talk

 about these feelings. But

 finding a person to counsel  please know that I

 look for  a counselor. In closing I wish

new sexual discovery. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – William

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – duuuude…   you need to take a pill… lighten up L Perez, You’re the one who brought up the homosexual innuendos not me. you said you wanted to hop me and I told you that I dont swing that way. now, allow me to edit your words as you like to edit others…  I  need to sit down and talk  about these feelings. But  finding a person to counsel  please know that I  look for  a counselor. In closing I wish new sexual discovery. William

It’s ok Perez everyone here has seen your posts. I made a simple spelling error and you are the one that turned it into a sexual orientation subject. I understand you are in denial, and I understand this is why you are lashing out at me. You’re upset because the truth has finally come forth from your own hand. You could always say someone forged that post. But if you claim forgery now you will look really suspicious As for editing your words I do think everyone here has already read the words straight from your own post, and everyone can plainly see I didn’t change your words in any way, shape, or form. So for you to even go off on a tangent like this does nothing more that show how insecure you really are. The only reason you’re editing my words is because (no pun intended) got caught with your pants down. However speaking for myself I would love to see you do a sentence by sentence comparison of you post and what you’re claiming I said, you will see that what you have done is nothing short of diabolical deception. Now I ask where have I edited your words I haven’t even quoted any of your words, have I? Tell me do you in fact keep denying what you said to me to convince us, or to convince yourself that you made no comments on homosexuality. If you’re trying to convince us I think you have done dug your hole and jumped in it, as for trying to convince yourself. Well, you can try but I think you have already damaged yourself this time. Infact since everyone here has been reading what’s going on ask them if I edited any of your words, surely you would get an honest answer from them. Since it would be hard for anyone to lie, After all your original post and all your follow up post are still on the thread. Have a nice night William

Response:

Please stop cross-posting between LdS and JW NGs! This article would have been better suited to alt.religion.christian.biblestudy . Iosepa — Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono. :The life (sovereignty) of the land is perpetuated in (by) righteousness.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – duuuude…   you need to take a pill… lighten up L Perez, You’re the one who brought up the homosexual innuendos not me. you said you wanted to hop me and I told you that I dont swing that way. now, allow me to edit your words as you like to edit others…

LP, you are putting words in someone elses mouth.  It was a spelling mistake he made, nothing more. YOURS was an error in judgement, nothing less. — Gordie In Acts 20:28 there is not a single Greek manuscript containing the word "Son".  NOT EVEN ONE!  "Somehow" a person (or persons) searched out and found each and every OF approximately 5600  manuscripts and modified them all.  All of these manuscripts were handwritten.  How do you  suppose that the owner wouldn’t recoginze the change IN HIS OWN HANDWRITING STYLE??? Original manuscripts are still being discovered.  How unsuccessful we are in finding them.  They did  the job on ALL of them (even the newly found ones) and they didn’t have technology, or modern  communication, or rapid transit, or knowledge of where these manuscripts must be stored or hidden.   Some were even still being written at that time. AND WE ARE TO BELIEVE THAT 7000 CHANGES TOOK PLACE!

Response:

Then on top of that your poor attempt at comic relief makes no sense at all. Guess my post was to serious for you, and too in-depth for you to answer sorry for taking up your time. I was really hopping you

please dont hop me dude… I dont swing that way LOL BTW, you take yourself *way* more seriously than I do

Response:

Then on top of that your poor attempt at comic relief makes no sense at all. Guess my post was to serious for you, and too in-depth for you to answer sorry for taking up your time. I was really hopping you please dont hop me dude… I dont swing that way LOL BTW, you take yourself *way* more seriously than I do

Dear LP: You know you’re NOT a jerk because you’re a witness; you’re a jerk because you’re you. The worst part about it you are too callow and don’t even realize it. Besides you’re the one who made the sexual orientation comment, so now we know your mind is in the gutter, and this has shown not only me, but your brethren on here just how perverted you really are. Is that typical of you to make sexual gratuitous comments in the same breath when you’re talk about God? So now that we know you have thoughts of homosexual tendencies in relation to talking about Jehovah God maybe you should leave the NG, I think if that cause you to speak like that then you have some real issues. In the field I work which is psychology, I will say that with your comment coming from you like that, well, would make me wonder if you’re secure with your own sexuality. You may have heard that there is always a grain of truth in everything. So what I am saying is simply that you suggested to me that you have homosexual feelings, which is fine but I do think you should talk to your wife about them and make sure she will be able to deal with this. I would also say that if you are uncomfortable with these feelings you’re having then psychotherapy could work wonders for you. However they don’t subscribe medication for this, unless you’re having these thoughts because you’re suffering from frotteurism. And considering that the immoderate charges running through you’re spiritual associations and connections; I could see that as the reason for your comment to in regards of homosexuality. Another thing that comes to mind is your line of work, I am wondering if this could be the cause of it. I am aware that you are a dance instructor, and that there seems to be a growing number of people coming out of the closet in that field, so in short that’s all I am considering that you are doing by way of that last post. If there is anything I can do to help you to either deal with these issues or in helping you seek professional help, please feel free to contact me. William PS I take myself seriously because I am a serious person. Sorry but when it comes to God it is NOT a joking matter to me. He maybe funny to you, but to me there are too many lost souls to be playing games.

Response:

Then on top of that your poor attempt at comic relief makes no sense at all. Guess my post was to serious for you, and too in-depth for you to answer sorry for taking up your time. I was really hopping you please dont hop me dude… I dont swing that way LOL BTW, you take yourself *way* more seriously than I do

Information bomb, change the subject, take a jab here, take a jab there, bob and weave. <whewNow nobody remembers what they were REALLY asking in the first place</whew — Gordie ‘There are some translations that should not be considered, because they have been created with a  hidden agenda: 1. The most famous of this type of translation would be the New World Translation (NWT) done by  the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is not actually a translation, in the traditional sense (although a translation  was apparently done), but is more like a redaction in which the words selected are designed to present  the meaning that will support the pre-determined Jehovah’s Witness doctrinal beliefs. That type of a  translation is, in reality, a deception that hides under the pretense of scholarship. In a number of  instances, the same word in the original language is translated differently, in order to support Jehovah’s  Witness doctrine, which, if the word was translated the same in each text, would reveal the particular  doctrine to be in error.’ http://www.ondoctrine.com/0faqs015.htm

Response:

duuuude… you need to take a pill… lighten up

Response:

duuuude… you need to take a pill… lighten up

L Perez, the HS dropout and failure as a delicate and gay dance teacher now gives out medical advice to others, just like the GB of the Witchtower Babble and Trickem SickSiety does….  wattaya know?   — V *~            … "Thou seest the mote in thy non-JW brother’s eye, but thou seest not the beam in thine own JW eye. When thou castest the beam out of thine own JW eye, then wilt thou see clearly to cast the mote from thy non-JW brother’s eye." http://quotes.watchtower.ca/ www.JWFiles.com www.freeminds.org www.Watchtowerobserver.org

Response:

Sniped for space and cut and paste jobbie http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/jehovah.htm#favorable I Notice you or your cut and paste answer didn’t address any of the points made. Then you made a attempt to be funny. But then again I am rather embarrassed to think I would have gotten an intelligent response from you. Then on top of that your poor attempt at comic relief makes no sense at all. Guess my post was to serious for you, and too in-depth for you to answer sorry for taking up your time. I was really hopping you would have been more honest and given some insight that I might have over looked, but oh well. May be someone who has a little more integrity beyond a cut and paste jobbie will answer this. Have a nice life. William

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The first person to propose a definitive, exclusive canon of Christian scriptures was Marcion of Sinope, c. 150. He accepted only the Gospel of Luke, and ten of Paul’s epistles. He rejected the entire Old Testament, the other three Gospels, the book of Acts and the epistles of Peter and John. From the books he did accept, he removed any passages that connected Christianity with Judaism. This was because Marcion believed that the God of the Jews who gave them the Law was an entirely different god than the Supreme God who sent Jesus Christ and inspired the New Testament scriptures. this was the beginning and and what eventually led to the removal of the Divine Name of Christ’s God and Father from the NT. Of course, YHVH told the prophets of ancient Israel that He planned to send His only-begotten Son, the Messiah and they recorded it in many places in the OT. The OT and NT are inseparable!

No, you’re a Yahwehist that likes to skew the issue.  God Himself uses many names for Himself.  Yahweh is one of them.  All names used of God are holy because of Whom they refer to.  And yes, the trinity exists.  Yahwehists are nice-meaning but misled people, usually of the perfectionistic type. — Ask Not for whom the Bell Tolls, and You will Pay only the Station-to-Station rate.

Response:

Below are quotes from many historians and scholars not affiliated with Jehovah’s Witnesses who believe there is overwhelming evidence which points to the removal of the Almighty Father YHWH’s name from early NT manuscripts: This article was published on the Catholic magazine "Rivista Biblica", year XLV, n. 2, april-june 1997, p. 183-186. JHWH. The tetragrammaton in the New Testament For a long time it was thought that the divine Tetragrammaton YHWH, in Hebrew written with the letters  YHWH/JHVH (which recurs over 6800 times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament) did not appear in the original writings of the New Testament. In its place it was thought that the writers of the New Testament had used the Greek word for LORD, KYRIOS. However, it seems that such an opinion is wrong. Here below are some factors to consider: 1) The Tetragrammaton in the Greek Version of Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX). One of the reasons produced to support the above mentioned opinion was that the LXX substituted YHWH (YHWH) with the term KYRIOS, (kurios) which was the equivalent Greek of the Hebrew word ADONAY used by some Hebrews when they met the Tetragrammaton during the Bible reading. However, recent discoveries have shown that the practice of substituted in the LXX YHWH with KYRIOS started in a much later period in comparison with the beginning of that version. As a matter of fact, the older copies of the LXX keep the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew characters in the Greek text. (See App. 1) Girolamo, the translater of the Latin Vulgate confirms this fact. In the volumes we still find the Tetragrammaton of God’s name expressed in ancient characters". And in a letter written in Rome in the year 384 it says: "God’s name is made up of four letters; it was  thought ineffable, and it is written with these letters: iod, he, vau, he (YHWH). But some have not been able to decipher it because of the resemblace of the Greek letters and when they found it in Greek books they usually read it PIPI (pipi)". S. Girolamo, Le Lettere, Rome, 1961, vol.1, pp.237, 238; compare J.P.Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol.22, coll.429, 430. Further confimation comes from The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, that says: "Recently discovered texts doubt the idea that the translaters of the LXX have rendered the Tetragrammaton JHWH with KYRIOS. The most ancient mss (manuscripts) of the LXX today available have the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew letters in the Greek text. This was custom preserved by the later Hebrew translater of the Old Testament in the first centuries (after Christ)". Vol.2, pag.512. Consequently, we can easily deduce that if the writers of NT in their quotations of the OT used the LXX they  would surely have left the Tetragrammaton in their writings the way it recurred in the Greek version of the OT. To confirm  the correctness of this conclusion it is interesting to note the following declaration made before the finding of the manuscripts proving that the LXX originaly continued the Tetragrammaton: "If that version (LXX) would have kept the term (YHWH), or had used the Greek term for JEHOVAH and another for  ADONAY, such a use would have surely been followed in the  discourses and in the reasonings of the NT. Therefore our Lord, in quoting the 110th Psalms, insteand of saying: ‘The LORD has said to my LORD’ could have said: "JEHOVA has said to ADONI". Supposing that a Christian student was translating in Hebrew the Greek Testament: every time that he met the word KYRIOS, he should have had to consider if in the context there was something that indicated the true Hebrew correspondent; and this is the difficulty that would have arisen in translating the NT in whatever language if the name JEHOVAH would have been left in the Old Testament (LXX). The Hebrew scriptures would have constitued a standard for many passages: every time that the expression "the LORD’s angel" recurs, we know that the term LORD represents JEHOVA; we could come to a similar conclusion for the expression "the LORD’s word", according to the precedent established in the OT; and so it is in the case of the name "the LORD of armies". On the contrary, when the expression "my LORD" or "our LORD" recurs, we should know that the term JEHOVA would be inadmissible, when instead the words  ADONAY or ADONI should be used". R.B.Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament, 1897, p.43. For a stronger support of this argument there are the words of the professor George Howard, of the University of Georgia (U.S.A.) who observes: "When the Septuagint Version that the New Testamental Church used and quoted, contained the Divine Name in Hebrew characters, the writers of the New Testament included without doubt the Tetragrammaton in their quotations". Biblical  Archeology Review, March 1978, p.14. Consequently several translators of the NT have left the Divine Name in the quotations from the OT made by the New Testament writers. It can be noted, for example  the versions of Benjamin Wilson, of Andr

Related Posts