>>18772046
Yep, Jehovah's False Witnesses and Mohammedeans do indeed go to the same burn pit.

>>18772046
Jehovah's Witnesses would be an infinitely less retarded cult if they didn't prohibit their members from getting potentially lifesaving blood transfusions.
>inb4 bloodless surgery
Not always an option in life or death scenarios

>>18772077
Leviticus 7:27 ►
Anyone who consumes blood must be cut off from his people.

>>18772083
A blood transfusion =/= hematophagy, you fucking retards

>>18772085
Suppose a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcoholic beverages. Would that simply mean that you should not drink alcohol but that you could have it injected into your veins? Of course not!

Likewise, abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all. So the command to abstain from blood means that we would not allow anyone to transfuse blood into our veins.

>>18772091
Mental gymnastics

>>18772098
>Apart from the setting of major trauma, whole blood is rarely transfused in modern practice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_transfusion

File: Bible Prophecy + confirmi(...).png (169 KB, 1874x822)

169 KB PNG

Contradiction:

1 Timothy 3:16
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

Not only did "the Word" become flesh (John 1) but "God" became flesh.

In NIV and other modern translations "God" is removed. So in other words He did NOT "come in the flesh".

Problem:

1 John 4:3
“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

Look at

1 John 5:20
“And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.”

and

John 20:28
“And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.”

So as seen in the verses, the problem is that if you deny "God" came "in the flesh", you have to also deny that "Christ" came "in the flesh", because clearly this is the same person. And according to 1 John 4:3, "every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God".

---

Jesus Christ is The Lord God in the flesh. If Jesus Christ is not God, then no one has been saved, and everyone is still in their sins.

Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9, given by God, Romans 10:8, 17) only in the one, final, effectual sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:8-12) dying in your place (1 Cor. 15:3-4) as a substitutionary offering for sin (Rom. 5:1-10). His blood atonement made for you is finished (Rom. 3:23-25), so if you have received the Lord Jesus by faith (John 1:12) in your heart, you're forgiven of all your sins and are saved, once for all; finally and forever! (Rom. 8:38-39, Rom. 4:5)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VRT2FFXntc

>>18772046
>—

File: 7^7.png (76 KB, 754x579)

76 KB PNG

>>18772253
(continuing)

John 8:58
“Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”

John 8:24
“I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”

If ye believe not that I AM - Here (as in John 8:58) our Lord claims the Divine name, I AM, Exod 3:14. The Jews didn't get it, at least at first, but when He repeated it at John 8:58 again, the took up stones to kill Him, because that is the punishment for ascribing the Name of God to Himself.

Jesus claimed to be God, and He is God. The people who disagree are the Pharisees, JW's and other cultitsts.


Hebrews 1:8:
“But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.”

Isaiah 40:1 - 40:5:
"Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins. The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it."

Matt. 4:10, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.”

If Jesus is not God, you are not allowed to worship Him. However, it's Jesus who purchased the church with His own blood (the blood of God):

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." (Acts 20:28)

>>18772264
Hebrews 1:8 says in the New International Version:
‘But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever.”’
In fact, this is a quotation from Psalm 45:6, where we can read, according to the NIV again:
“Your throne, O God,[a] will last for ever and ever.”
There is a note, after the word “God”, that states: “Here the king is addressed as God’s representative.”
It is interesting. Why do they include that note?
Because Psalm 45 is addressed to the Israelite king, and it calls him “God”; so, the editors felt the need to clarify why a mere human is called “God” here.
The NIV Study Bible has this alternate note: “"Possibly the king's throne is called God's throne because he is God's appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as 'god.'"
So here we have an explanation that can apply to Christ Jesus as well. He is God’s representative.

>>18772264
I know some trinitarians believe that Jesus’ use of the words “ego eimi” (“I am”) in John 8:58 is a kind of proof that he is God Almighty. That’s why most trinitarian translations of this particular verse sound like weird English: “before Abraham was, I am”.
The reason they believe this verse proves the trinity is that God, in Exodus 3:14, said “I am who I am”, and so they think Jesus here is claiming to be the “I am” of Exodus. But that interpretation has several problems:
• For one, interpreting “ego eimi” as a proper name doesn’t make sense gramatically. “Before Abraham was, Richard” doesn’t make sense either.
• On the other hand, “ego eimi” is an extremely common expression in Greek, and it wouldn’t make sense to understand that any time someone says “ego eimi” is claiming to be God. Just ten verses later, in John 9:9, the blind man that was cured by Jesus uses the expression “ego eimi”, and nobody understands that he was claiming to be God. And there are plenty of other examples.
• And if that was not enough, Exodus 3:14 says: “God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you’””. In the Greek Septuagint, the expression “I am who I am” is not “ego eimi ego eimi”, but “Ego eimi ho on” (“I am the one who is”). And then it says: “This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘Ho on’ has sent me to you”. So here, “ego eimi” is just the subject and verb of the sentence; the equivalent of the name of God is not “ego eimi”, but “ho on” instead!

>>18772253
Jesus is not God in the Gospel of John. No, not even in John 20:28.
In John 20:28, Thomas exclaims "My Lord and my God!", after seeing Jesus resurrected and touching the wounds in his side.
Now this has long been misunderstood to be an explicit identification of Jesus as God. However, that's not what's going on, if the author of the Gospel of John gets to have anything to say about this. Because in John 14, Philip asked Jesus to show him the Father, and Jesus says, "Tsk, tsk, Philip, haven't you figured it out yet? To see me is to see the Father."
This is not because Jesus is the Father because Jesus goes on to explain and to repeat himself several times that the Father is in him and he is in the Father. This is a mutual indwelling, and that allows whoever sees Jesus to see the Father who dwells in Jesus.
And this is the logic of divine images, which would have been just absolutely ubiquitous in this time and place, where divine images were everywhere and everyone knew that divine images manifested the presence of the deity they indexed.
So what happens in John 20:28 is that finally somebody figures it out. Philip couldn't figure it out, but Thomas does figure it out. Jesus is Lord, but also has the Father dwelling in him. So Jesus also manifests the presence of the Father.
So when Thomas recognizes Jesus for who he is, he sees not only Jesus, but also the Father, and therefore exclaims, "My Lord and my God." Not because Jesus is God, because Jesus is not God in the Gospel of John.

>>18772253
Let’s check a commentary on 1 Timothy 3:16:
"The reading which, on the basis of external evidence and transcriptional probability, best explains the rise of the others is ΟΣ. It is supported by the earliest and best uncials (א* A*vid C* Ggr) as well as by 33 365 442 2127 syr hmg, pal goth ethpp Origen lat Epiphanius Jerome Theodore Eutherius acc. to Theodoret Cyril Cyril acc. to Ps-Oecumenius Liberatus.
Furthermore, since the neuter relative pronoun Ο must have arisen as a scribal correction of ΟΣ (to bring the relative into concord with μυστήριον), the witnesses that read Ο (D* itd, g, 61. 86 vg Ambrosiaster Marius Victorinus Hilary Pelagius Augustine) also indirectly presuppose ΟΣ as the earlier reading. The Textus Receptus reads ΘΕΟΣ, with א e (this corrector is of the twelfth century) A 2 C 2 D c K L P Y 81 330 614 1739 Byz Lect Gregory-Nyssa Didymus Chrysostom Theodoret Euthalius and later Fathers.
Thus, no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports ΘΕΟΣ; all ancient versions presupposeΟΣ or Ο; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading ΘΕΟΣ. The reading ΘΕΟΣ arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of ΟΣ as ΘΣ , or (b) deliberately, either to supply a substantive for the following six verbs, or, with less probability, to provide greater dogmatic precision."
This is taken from the book A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger.
Also Bart Ehrman says this verse is a clear example of an alteration, when a scribe decided to “clarify” that “he” here refers to God in order to combat “heresies” which denied that Christ is God.
In short the most ancient and trusworthy manuscripts do not say “God” in this verse. The current consensus among scholars is that the original reading was “he” and that “God” was a later alteration.

>>18772077
god sent out the latest update a few months ago. JW's can now get blood transfusions as long as it isn't whole blood.

>>18772077
They dropped that rule recently.
That change obviously didn't make all of those family members happy who had their loved ones die over it in the past...

>>18772083
I love when heretics quote mine Scripture like we care. I will never dicuss Scripture with you until you can justify your position epistemologically.

>>18772333
>>18772330
Leviticus 7:27 ►
Anyone who consumes blood must be cut off from his people.

>>18772336
JEHOVAH’s Witnesses strive to adhere to the form of Christianity that Jesus taught and that his apostles practiced

File: First-and-Last-Words-of-F(...).png (3.03 MB, 2614x1470)

3.03 MB PNG

>>18772325
>the editors felt the need to clarify why a mere human is called “God” here.
Because the editors did not understand that Jesus was that Israelite king. The King is not a "mere human".

The King shall come through the line of Judah – Gen 49v8-10. The King (the Lord Jesus Christ) shall reign and rule in the Kingdom seated on David’s Throne. 2 Sam 7 (v16). God promised this to David – Ps 89v3+4+35-37. Jer 23v5+6, Isa 11v1+2, Luke 2v40, Isa 9v6+7, Luke 1v26-33. The Throne of David was on earth; it is now vacant and has been for 2500 years, but when the ‘times of the Gentiles’ have run their course, and the time has come to set up again the ‘Tabernacle (house) of David’, which has fallen down (Acts 15v13-18), the ‘Throne of David’ will be re-established and given to Jesus Christ.

>it wouldn’t make sense to understand that any time someone says “ego eimi” is claiming to be God.
The Jews wanted to kill Jesus after he said, “ego eimi.” What you're doing is your falling back to technical "interpretations" argument, but Jesus wasn't even speaking greek. If Jesus was not claiming to be God in John 8:58 and 10:30, then what was it that He said that warranted such a violent response from the Jews in both cases? When Jesus said "I am" in that context, the Jews wanted to stone him because of Leviticus 24:16. That explanation of "that's not what He actually said" doesn't make sense.

>Jesus is not God in the Gospel of John

John 1:1-2: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God."
John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

You did not address the contradiction. If the modern "Bibles" and scholars a right, then what do you do with 1 John 4:3? yes Christians understand modern scholars say that in 1 Timothy 3:16 it's "He" and not "God", but that creates a clear contradiction.

>>18772337
Apparently the JW disagree

>>18772338
Why don't you become biblical unitarians instead of JWs. That has a more compelling case

>>18772340
>The long-standing refusal of whole-blood transfusions on religious grounds, a core teaching based on the command to ‘abstain from blood’ (Acts 15:20), is unchanged.
https://www.jw.org/en/global-communications/country/global-news/Jehovahs-Witnesses-Each-Witness-Now-Decides-Whether-to-Accept-or-Donate-Main-Blood-Components/

>>18772343
If we believe the Bible to be God’s inspired Word, we have no alternative but to accept its testimony as to Christ’s actually having had a prehuman existence.—John 1:1, 3; Phil. 2:5-7; Col. 1:13-17; Heb. 2:9.

>>18772337
just reported you to your body of elders

>>18772339
1 Timothy 3:16 in the New World Translation:
"Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in the world, was received up in glory.’"
1 Timothy 3:16 in the King James Bible:
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
Are JEHOVAH’s Witnesses some rascals who changed that verse of the Bible to avoid recognizing Jesus as God Almighty?
No, the issue actually is reduced to the difference between these two Greek words ΟΣ and ΘΣ:
• ΟΣ (ος) is a relative pronoun that literally means “he who”.
• ΘΣ (θς) is not a word properly, but the contraction of the word ΘΕΟΣ, which means “God”.

>>18772339
I think The Living Bible puts John 8:58 very nicely. The Jewish leaders complaint that Jesus was too young to have seen Abraham, and Jesus answered:
“The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born!”
We understand this to be the point of his answer: he had seen Abraham because he existed even before Abraham. This is by far the most natural way to understand this verse.

>>18772349
?

>>18772339
The words in Hebrews 1:8, 9 quoted from Psalms 45:6, 7. In Psalm 45:7, speaking to the Israelite King, it says: "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows."
The ancient Israelite king was not God but was anointed by God, his God, to an exalted position above his fellows. And so Hebrews 1:9 shows that Christ is not God, but was anointed by his God to an exalted position above his fellows. So the context indicates that the person addressed in Hebrews 1:8 is not God, but one who worships God and was anointed by his God.

>>18772325
Also, The OT Scriptures teach that there is to be an earthly and visible Kingdom over which the Son of Man is to rule – Dan 7v13+14, Dan 2v34+35+44+45, Jer 23v5, Zech 14v9.

Now who called Himself "the Son of Man"?

>>18772350
The modern "Bibles" have errors and contradictions unlike the KJV. The KJV is not corrupted. You can look at the contradictions of the modern versions at https://kjvcompare.com/ easily.

Now, the modern "Bible" defenders will just say verses like 2 Samuel 21:19 are just "problems with the bible", but if you admit that there are problems in your "Bible", then you have to admit that cannot be the original text.

>Are JEHOVAH’s Witnesses some rascals who changed that verse of the Bible
Well yes, but in this case no, the "most ancient and trusworthy manuscripts" you're referring to, the Alexandrian texts which the modern "Bibles" are translated from Egypt, not from Israel. They are twisted by gnostics like origen and are far from "original".

>>18772355
1 Timothy 3:16 in Sinaiticus reads: “He was made manifest in the flesh.” In place of “he,” the majority of then-known manuscripts showed an abbreviation for “God,” made by a small alteration of the Greek word for “he.” However, Sinaiticus was made many years before any Greek manuscript reading “God.”

Thus, it revealed that there had been a later corruption of the text, evidently introduced to support the trinity doctrine.

>>18772359
You can't just blindly go by whichever is the "oldest we have now" and then automatically go by that, especially when it introduces contradictions with the rest of he Bible.

The KJV is a miracle, and going by the modern translations just because the alexandrian texts are "the oldest" (they are still wrong even if no older manuscripts survived this far), is crazy when you just look at the KJV. Amazing things about the KJV (that are exclusively found in the KJV) are found constantly, https://kjvcode.com/

>>18772367
The New World Translation is based on up-to-date scholarly research and the most reliable ancient manuscripts. In contrast, the King James Version of 1611 was based on manuscripts that were often less accurate and not as old as those used in producing the New World Translation.

>>18772370
- There are no original manuscripts existing today.

- God wrote one Book and He promised to preserve every word of it - Ps 12:6-7

If your book contains errors, it's not the preserved word of God, because God doesn't make errors.

Since the KJV is the only Bible in the world that doesn't contain errors, why would I instead go to some other "Bible" just because the scholars think it's based on the oldest manuscripts, when that's al they are, old. It doesn't prove that those manuscripts are the real ones just because they're older.

You look at a verse like 2 Samuel 21:19 and say "well, God didn't preserve His word for us so we can't know what it originally says, so it's just an error", but someone who read the KJV doesn't have to wonder why there's an error in the Bible, because there isn't one.

>>18772379
The New World Translation strives to convey faithfully the original message that was inspired by God. (2 Timothy 3:16)

Many translations of the Bible sacrifice faithfulness to God’s message in favor of following human traditions, for instance by replacing God’s personal name, JEHOVAH, with titles such as Lord or God.

>>18772379
nta. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma
>The comma is mainly only attested in the Latin manuscripts of the New Testament, being absent from the vast majority of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the earliest Greek manuscript being from the 14th century.
If God allowed the Greek-speaking world to be dominated by an allegedly imperfect copy of the Bible for a thousand years, why do you think he wouldn't let the English-speaking world be similarly dominated by an imperfect copy of the Bible for a few centuries?

>>18772389
Early Hebrew did not contain vowels but only consonants, it is not known exactly how to pronounce God’s name. So, LORD is substituted for YHWH. The Jews did not want to pronounce or mispronounce the name of YHWH out of reverence, not out of tradition.

Okay, so you say the KJV is wrong because it has substituted LORD for the name of God, but YHWH was already also a substitution, so that argument doesn't make sense.

>>18772394
>why do you think he wouldn't let the English-speaking world be similarly dominated by an imperfect copy of the Bible for a few centuries?
It doesn't matter what I think, it's just a fact that the KJV is perfect, there are so many reasons why people accept it as the perfect word of God, but you join in with the world saying that it's just coincidence.

https://truthischrist.com/seven/

>>18772400
True Christians would be associated with God's name: (Jn.17:3,6,26; Acts 15:14/Isa.55:5; 1 Peter 2:9/Ex.19:4- 5; Ps.83:18). They would not use Bibles which have removed the Most Holy Divine Name of God.

Replacing the Divine Name with the common noun "Lord" cannot be justified by any translational principles so it is a blatant "subtraction" from God's word which brings a curse on anyone who approves it (Rev.22:18).

>>18772046
Yes Joseph Smith was a pedophile ! Jw is a cult just like the mormons but probably a lot worse. Very bad institution very evil

>>18772417
The Name of God was not written in text in the Old Testament, YHWH was substituted. Also, it wasn't just replaced with "Lord" it's "the LORD" or "GOD".

It's not a subtraction. In the same way YHWH was a substitution but let you know that the name of God is here, the LORD in capital letters has the same exact purpose.

>>18772419
JEHOVAH’s Witnesses strive to adhere to the form of Christianity that Jesus taught and that his apostles practiced

>>18772420
“I am JEHOVAH. That is my name.”—Isaiah 42:8.

Many translators of the Bible use God’s name sparingly, if at all. They often replace it with the title “LORD.”

Yet, God’s name actually occurs some 7,000 times throughout the original-language text of the Bible.

The name consists of four Hebrew consonants, corresponding to YHWH or JHVH, and has historically been rendered “JEHOVAH” in English.

>>18772422
U strive to touch kids and control young women lol. Don't get it twisted, your controlling pdo cult is what it is.

>>18772046
Amin brother
Truly JW are the only judeochristian group that truly understood the message of Isa

>>18772102
Except in the third world, this is basically the governing body dabbing on African JWs.

>>18772440
Leviticus 7:27 ►
Anyone who consumes blood must be cut off from his people.

>>18772438
Well, they are braver than the average christian to question the foundations of the nicaean orthodoxy.

Imagine making your church symbol a fucking website

>>18772046
Jesus never existed
>>225978875
>>225979702
>>225980543

>>18772348
>>The long-standing refusal of whole-blood transfusions on religious grounds, a core teaching based on the command to ‘abstain from blood’ (Acts 15:20), is unchanged.
Yeah whole-blood. Just extract the different components and inject them separately and suddenly it's allowed. Common man, don't pretend to be retarded. God won't be tricked by technicalities. Either it's forbidden or it's not.

>>18772046
>non trinitarian
Just be a jew, or a muslim, because if you reject the trinity then you reject salvation in Christ, reject the new covenant.

>>18772473
they are a corporation after all