𓁟 host1.bitchan.one

When did you realize Jehovah’s Witnesses preserved the original teachings of the first century Church ?

⧖expiring ~17d0/41 kept1w ago

𓀐 @RiS7_oax

⏱ 2w 👍 0

⬆ upvote 0

[⇥] sort oldest ⏱

⬆[⏱]₿⚠

👍👎✔

𓀐↩⛓⚠

[⇥] flip, oldest first

filter [-]
𓀐 @5UzJcBQ5: >>18751380 I never realized that because it is not true. Have fun burning.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @8ooJA-+=: >>18751380 I always bully you freaks when you show up at my house.+ 1

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 1

𓀐 @PW~7e~RS: >>18751386 Why do you hate us ?+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @hmAS?eaX: >>18751380 When I first read the Bible.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @7L?AK~qN: >>18751380 Cherry picking. Why not Marcion, Montanus, or Cerinthus?+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @-9TwrjiL: >>18751418 Why would God let his Bible be corrupted ? >>18751420 Didn’t you just say you don’t hate us ?+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @A*zb6UYG: >>18751419 >>18751417 The name of God was given to the children of God for their salvation in Christ, the one true living God. You can call your discarnate devil whatever you want and worship it all you want but doing so will profit you nothing because ultimately all you're doing is denying that the veil tore and denying the Spirit.+ 1

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 1

𓀐 @Vjnaxf9S: >>18751434 Who did Jesus worship though ?+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @MRLZfH-N: >>18751485 God and Father are titles. He has a name. What is it ? You have a clue in Deuteronomy 6:4, what does it say ? >>18751489 > Jerome, for example, mentioned that many versions of the Mark didn't have the ending. Eusebius wrote that almost all copies of Mark ended with the afraid women. So, there were many manuscripts of Mark with the short ending And we know all of this, correct ?+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @b?hyJ==G: >>18751505 Where is the long ending here ? I can’t see it https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/nwt/books/mark/16/+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @y~eETccs: >>18751925 >there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things— above whom there is no other God — wishes to announce to them https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01285.htm Jesus is another God. Not the same God as the Father.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @ev2UoDAG: >>18751946 By calling Him another God and Lord he meant He is another besides the Father who is called God and Lord. His purpose is only to distinguish Him from the Father, which we also insist on, and those who recognize no distinction between the Father and the Son we condemn as accursed heretics. Second, it is completely unnecessary for Justin to use the developed categories and clear distinctions of the postnicene period to be a Trinitarian. Those categories and distinctions developed speci…+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @fPPASJ8s: >>18751968 Anachronistic circular reasoning. You assume that because Justin used the words “another God” he means the very same thing which your cult, which would not exist for nearly 2,000 years later, would mean. I say that he meant only that the Father and the Son are distinct. This you offer the argument that he used the words “another God”, as if the fact the words exist proves they have the meaning you would give to them. The question is what these words mean, not if they were used.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @-QJMY_C~: >>18751978 Where did he say that? >>18751976 >this pagan doctrine of monotheism was invented centuries later In reality none of them were polytheists like you.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @B~c-ESs7: >>18751984 > "There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord" Begging the question fallacy. See >>18751971 and >>18751956 for a full unanswered refutation of this non-argument. >Define polytheist A belief in multiple ontological gods.+ 1

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 1

𓀐 @noW2No+-: >>18751992 He said another God, not another co-equal and co-eternal person within one substance. You do trinitarians always invent things that aren’t in the text ?+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @xKor??Wr: >>18751985 Dark hell-spawned demons belong in hell and your blindness to the light is not a virtue, its suicidal foolishness.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @2Eg69KMf: >>18753831 You don't know the difference between a Satan, a devil, and a demon, so you're in no position to debate the judgement of angels. The 70 generations came and went, and all was reconciled with God in Christ.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @ZX5RYMXE: >>18751380 >Justin Martyr >cherry-picking Dialogue with Trypho to make it seem anti-Trinitarian and Arian since I have actually read this recently I know for an absolute fact that Justin Martyr says that Jesus actually is God; in that quote that your picrel has quotemined, Justin is actually arguing that Jesus (who he explicity says is the Word/Logos and also God) is "numerically distinct" from the invisible Father but of the same being, and is arguing against the Judaic idea that the Father hi…+ 1

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 1

𓀐 @8qfF_vZ7: >>18754873 @grok is this true?+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @5UzJcBQ5: I never realized that because it is not true. Have fun burning.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @8ooJA-+=: I always bully you freaks when you show up at my house.+ 1

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 1

𓀐 @PW~7e~RS: Why do you hate us ?+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @hmAS?eaX: When I first read the Bible.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @7L?AK~qN: Cherry picking. Why not Marcion, Montanus, or Cerinthus?+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @-9TwrjiL: Why would God let his Bible be corrupted ? Didn’t you just say you don’t hate us ?+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @A*zb6UYG: The name of God was given to the children of God for their salvation in Christ, the one true living God. You can call your discarnate devil whatever you want and worship it all you want but doing so will profit you nothing because ultimately all you're doing is denying that the veil tore and denying the Spirit.+ 1

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 1

𓀐 @Vjnaxf9S: Who did Jesus worship though ?+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @MRLZfH-N: God and Father are titles. He has a name. What is it ? You have a clue in Deuteronomy 6:4, what does it say ? > Jerome, for example, mentioned that many versions of the Mark didn't have the ending. Eusebius wrote that almost all copies of Mark ended with the afraid women. So, there were many manuscripts of Mark with the short ending And we know all of this, correct ?+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @b?hyJ==G: Where is the long ending here ? I can’t see it https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/nwt/books/mark/16/+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @y~eETccs: >there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things— above whom there is no other God — wishes to announce to them https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01285.htm Jesus is another God. Not the same God as the Father.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @ev2UoDAG: By calling Him another God and Lord he meant He is another besides the Father who is called God and Lord. His purpose is only to distinguish Him from the Father, which we also insist on, and those who recognize no distinction between the Father and the Son we condemn as accursed heretics. Second, it is completely unnecessary for Justin to use the developed categories and clear distinctions of the postnicene period to be a Trinitarian. Those categories and distinctions developed specifically to…+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @fPPASJ8s: Anachronistic circular reasoning. You assume that because Justin used the words “another God” he means the very same thing which your cult, which would not exist for nearly 2,000 years later, would mean. I say that he meant only that the Father and the Son are distinct. This you offer the argument that he used the words “another God”, as if the fact the words exist proves they have the meaning you would give to them. The question is what these words mean, not if they were used.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @-QJMY_C~: Where did he say that? >this pagan doctrine of monotheism was invented centuries later In reality none of them were polytheists like you.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @B~c-ESs7: > "There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord" Begging the question fallacy. See and for a full unanswered refutation of this non-argument. >Define polytheist A belief in multiple ontological gods.+ 1

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 1

𓀐 @noW2No+-: He said another God, not another co-equal and co-eternal person within one substance. You do trinitarians always invent things that aren’t in the text ?+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @ZX5RYMXE: >Justin Martyr >cherry-picking Dialogue with Trypho to make it seem anti-Trinitarian and Arian since I have actually read this recently I know for an absolute fact that Justin Martyr says that Jesus actually is God; in that quote that your picrel has quotemined, Justin is actually arguing that Jesus (who he explicity says is the Word/Logos and also God) is "numerically distinct" from the invisible Father but of the same being, and is arguing against the Judaic idea that the Father himself was w…+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @xF_-R3xo: > I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains th…+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @FG9X+uRj: >The word God can refer to any supernatural heavenly being that inhabits the divine realm polythiestic gnostic nonsense that even JWs don't actually say. You are just wrong and lying and nothing in the Scriptures or writings of the church fathers suggests this level of heresy. It's pretty clear what the term God actually means in th scriptures and what the church fathers meant by it. >muh mighty and almighty distinction Watchtower doctrine headcanon that is read into the text post-hoc and not a…+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @CdDRz6tS: that's not how angels are referred to in the Septuagint or how the apostles and church fathers understood the term Theos to be used so it is irrelevant. You are a Judaizer with a distorted new gospel that is not what the early church actually believed. There is no reason to retreat back to the OT and Hebrew texts; the true nature and character of God has already been revealed in the historical person of Jesus Christ and the majority of the prophecies of the OT and NT have already seen their ful…+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0