dometome:
You see? I don't even know when I said that Cornelius is not a Christian, you are trying to put words into my mouth. I wonder who is changing goal post now. David and Solomon's case is different from yours and tht of Cornelius, Christianity started with Christ, but ignorant trolls like you find it difficult to understand because you don't want to, Christ started Christianity and no one else but CHRIST. CHRISTIANITY MEANS CHRISTLIKE, CHRIST IS A PACIFIST AND DID NOT GO TO WAR, HE SAID IT THAT THOSE WHO LIVE BY THE SWORD DIE BY IT.

Where in the Bible did Jesus Christ or your jehovah preach neutrality? When you show me a verse in the Bible that says this then your religion is the only true religion.

Someone asked you to mention a passage where a high ranking army officials in the Bible left the military after he accepted Christ? You could not provide any verse. Instead, you started talking of how secular historians said roman army officials became senators because it was easy for them to convert.

You said Christians ain't politicians yet wanted to deceitfully say Cornelius probably left the military and became a politician. Liar liar.
Your doctrine isn't supported biblically. Deal With it. Your beliefs are mere speculations and are based on hearsay by worldly/secular historians.

dometome:
Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahh Hahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha!
The question I asked is simple, where is the love? How hard can that be?
That it wasn't recorded in the scriptures doesn't mean it did not happen. Cornelius would certainly have become a member of the Senate if he continued as a soldier in the army, when he retires, but he did not become a senator, which means that he must have resigned, his Christlike life will not permit him to go to war and he can no longer be paid by the Roman government if he doesn't carry out his duties, is he tge only one? No! Even Theophilus (though he wasn't a soldier but a high ranking official that he was addressed as his Excellency by Apostle Paul). Use your head!

Do you know all you just said are just speculation based on your own imagination? Bible never talked about it so all you just said is poo. As far as the Bible is concerned Cornelius was a high ranking roman army official who accepted Christ.
Bible never recorded any human being who left the military because he accepted Christ. You just made up stuff to justify your non biblical doctrines.

For me Bible yet enough for everything. Since in your religion Bible isn't enough you have to add speculations made up by worldly historians to formulate your doctrines no problem.

But in all these you are not even sure of your doctrines. They are still speculations

Peterosky:
.My dear you don't need to kill yourself to defend what you really don't know.I don't want to tell you my story cause I will like to open a thread about it.In my church, you can be suspended for not paying your tithe.So what can you say about that? Are we not being forced to pay tithes and offerings?

thats terrible mehn. I can't attend that type of a church even if I'd pay the tithe

dometome:
Ignorant and Proud! Google is your friend. Stop being ignorant.

Google can show me the 1994 awake. Google can also show me reputable medical journals that say blood transfusion is the only available treatment for very severe anemia.
Google can show me that us army has not stopped using blood transfusion. In fact it is the go to procedure when bloodless surgery/medicine fails.

InansBobo:
thats terrible mehn. I can't attend that type of a church even if I'd pay the tithe

.My dear it's a very funny situation.

unitysheart:


Nothing like that. We only encourage those who have more to contribute to cover for others voluntarily.

Lai's lies...

Deadlytruth:


You are dead wrong.
Just before Jesus was taken back up to heaven His disciples asked him if He would at that moment restore the earthly kingdom of Israel to them. That means the closest followers of Jesus were interested in how they were being politically governed and were seeking political independence from the Roman Empire. Did Jesus scold or rebuke them for their interest in politics and earthly governance? No.
Jesus even promised them that the time would come when their political aspirations would be fulfilled by the God they were serving through him.
That was Jesus'own approval of political participation.

Also, in Romans 16:23 Paul sent greetings to some believers from another believer Erastus who was the city treasurer. City treasurership is a position of earthy governance derived from political involvement. Why did Paul address Erastus as a fellow believer if political participation violates Christianity tenets?

The problem with you JWs is that you just want to outwardly appear different from others in order to deceive gullible unbelievers that you are better than everyone else. In your wierd quest for being different you invent human assumptions and propagate them in manners that depict them as derived from the Bible. When the discerning Christians challenge you to prove those human laws with the scriptures you delve into logic and historical account as if human error bound records of history are more authentic than the Bible itself which is God's own record of the same history.

You don't need human records or results of human researches to prove the Bible right or wrong. Before Ferdinand Magellan undertook the circumnavigation voyage, the Bible had already recorded that the earth is spherical. Waiting for the results of human researches to corroborate biblical facts before accepting their veracity is blasphemous as it suggests that God's words must need human approval and confirmation before being accepted by believers.

You too much....tuawale....thunder fire every man made religion...that guy no near...he dey waist level with him China knowledge

nairavsdollars:
I attended the church of Jehovah's Witnesses and i noticed they don't compel people to pay Tithes and Offerings like most Pentecostal churches.

All they have is a box where any willing attendee is free to drop whatever he or she desires. No POS, no long sermon, no threat on giving like most Pentecostal churches. Jesus Christ never forced people to give and Christians are meant to emulate Christ.

I don’t like their doctrines but on this i am impressed.

If it's not the TRUTH it can never be orderly and immaterialistic like the TRUTH, NEVER compare Jehovah's Witnesses with any other because we are NO PART OF THE WORLD UNDER SATAN'S CONTROL! John 17:16

Themandator:




You too much....tuawale....thunder fire every man made religion...that guy no near...he dey waist level with him China knowledge

They are an unfortunate bunch of brainwashed victims of mind control by an assemblage of eight men far away in New York City.
When you observe a JW very closely what you eventually discover is that before he came across that society in his life he never had any accurate knowledge of genuine Christianity based on a deep personal study of the Bible hence he got easily swept off his feet by the Watchtower's carefully but deceitfully crafted manipulative doctrines.

TATIME:
If it's not the TRUTH it can never be orderly and immaterialistic like the TRUTH, NEVER compare Jehovah's Witnesses with any other because we are NO PART OF THE WORLD UNDER SATAN'S CONTROL! John 17:16

The Bible says Christians are part of the World but not of the world. But you are here saying you JWs aren't even part of the physical world at all. Then that means you can't be Christians since Christians are still a part of the physical world.
So to which world or planet do you belong? Or are you already in your paradise?
See how you people misquote the Bible to deceive gullible people?

Hairyrapunzel:

Google can show me the 1994 awake. Google can also show me reputable medical journals that say blood transfusion is the only available treatment for very severe anemia.
Google can show me that us army has not stopped using blood transfusion. In fact it is the go to procedure when bloodless surgery/medicine fails.

They say participation in military service is evil yet they are using the supposed scientific progress made by the supposedly evil US Army as reference for their belief.
How different are they from a person who says he doesn't eat snake meat yet he licks stew made with snake meat extract?

Netanyahu1:
What I know is that churches are audited yearly, just to make sure they are not being run as business. They are to be not for profit as such are not supposed to pay taxes.

On the other pastors are not supposed to be living lavishly on church money either. In countries that enforce the law pastors are put in jail for spending more than 10% of the donations.

why do u think we have frcn n cac, note b4 a church name is approved u r supposed to have a mini board working with you, and secondly most well organised churches dnt allow d pastor to control d finance of d church e.g acfm,rccg etc cos they remit certain % of d income to d headquarter,n den d remaining is used in paying d resident pastor n runnings ,most of d cars these pastors drive r gifts 4rm members (thats why i dnt like some new churches cos dey see it as avenue to escape poverty

Hairyrapunzel:


Do you know all you just said are just speculation based on your own imagination? Bible never talked about it so all you just said is poo. As far as the Bible is concerned Cornelius was a high ranking roman army official who accepted Christ.
Bible never recorded any human being who left the military because he accepted Christ. You just made up stuff to justify your non biblical doctrines.

For me Bible yet enough for everything. Since in your religion Bible isn't enough you have to add speculations made up by worldly historians to formulate your doctrines no problem.

But in all these you are not even sure of your doctrines. They are still speculations

To them the Bible is not enough to guide them. They need extra human sources to prove that the Bible is the truth. They ignore 2 Timothy 3:16.

Deadlytruth:

The Bible says Christians are part of the World but not of the world. But you are here saying you JWs aren't even part of the physical world at all. Then that means you can't be Christians since Christians are still a part of the physical world.
So to which world or planet do you belong? Or are you already in your paradise?
See how you people misquote the Bible to deceive gullible people?

Please Sir,i need your help.Can you explain to a lay man like me what exactly Jesus meant by that statement "They are no part of the world just as i am no part of the world"? John 17:16{New Word Translation of the Holy Scriptures "JWs Bible"}and "They are not of the world even as i am not of the world" {KJV} Because as you rightly said Jesus and His faithful followers were PHYSICALLY in the world back then so what exactly did He meant by that statement? Before the He said God should not take them out of the world, God bless you Sir!

TATIME:
Please Sir,i need your help.Can you explain to a lay man like me what exactly Jesus meant by that statement "They are no part of the world just as i am no part of the world"? John 17:16{New Word Translation of the Holy Scriptures "JWs Bible"}and "They are not of the world even as i am not of the world" {KJV} Because as you rightly said Jesus and His faithful followers were PHYSICALLY in the world back then so what exactly did He meant by that statement? Before the He said God should not take them out of the world, God bless you Sir!

Your caparison between the rendering in KJV and Jw's NWT says it all.
While KJV says "they are not of the world", JW's NWT says " they are not part of the world". There is a clear semantic difference between the expressions "not of" and "not part of". While the former means not to share beliefs, lifestyles, attitudes, etc with a group even though one might naturally belong to that group, the latter simply means to be a member of a group by virtue of certain natural features which one does not have the power to alter".

Deadlytruth:


Your caparison between the rendering in KJV and Jw's NWT says it all.
While KJV says "they are not of the world", JW's NWT says " they are not part of the world". There is a clear semantic difference between the expressions "not of" and "not part of". While the former means not to share beliefs, lifestyles, attitudes, etc with a group even though one might naturally belong to that group, the latter simply means to be a member of a group by virtue of certain natural features which one does not have the power to alter".

Hmmmmmmmm so the LATTER is wrong because the group will have "certain natural features which one does not have the power to alter" then why did Jesus said to Peter "whatever you bind on earth will be bind in heaven and whatever you loosen on earth will be loosened in heaven"(Matthew 16:19)) despite Peters numerous blunders? Does it mean that Peter and the eleven could set up some features that a Christian could be allowed to alter?

TATIME:
Hmmmmmmmm so the LATTER is wrong because the group will have "certain natural features which one does not have the power to alter" then why did Jesus said to Peter "whatever you bind on earth will be bind in heaven and whatever you loosen on earth will be loosened in heaven"(Matthew 16:19)) despite Peters numerous blunders? Does it mean that Peter and the eleven could set up some features that a Christian could be allowed to alter?

Being not of the world simply means you don't conform to the evil ways of majority of people in the world. But being not part of the world simply means you have to physically get out of the world... which is an impossibility ....1 Cor. 5:10
It is a very simple concept which needs no deliberate dissimulation.

The NWT deliberately distorts the KJV in the quest for dissimulation.
Examples abound.

TATIME:
Please Sir,i need your help.Can you explain to a lay man like me what exactly Jesus meant by that statement "They are no part of the world just as i am no part of the world"? John 17:16{New Word Translation of the Holy Scriptures "JWs Bible"}and "They are not of the world even as i am not of the world" {KJV} Because as you rightly said Jesus and His faithful followers were PHYSICALLY in the world back then so what exactly did He meant by that statement? Before the He said God should not take them out of the world, God bless you Sir!

Jesus said he is not of the world. Whereas your Bible changed that verse to Jesus said he is not part of the world. You see the deceitful nature of watchtower? Changing things in the Bible to suit their doctrines.

Deadlytruth:


Being not of the world simply means you don't conform to the evil ways of majority of people in the world. But being not part of the world simply means you have to physically get out of the world... which is an impossibility ....1 Cor. 5:10
It is a very simple concept which needs no deliberate dissimulation.

The NWT deliberately distorts the KJV in the quest for dissimulation.
Examples abound.

Hmmmmmmmm i'm learning fast from you Sir. So "no part of the world" means you have to PHYSICALLY get out of the world But Jehovah's Witnesses lives virtually in almost all parts of the earth yet we are SEPARATE since we don't conform to popular customs and man-made traditions that all others indiscriminately practice. Please it is the same meaning that we gave it perhaps you're misquoting us because we speak the American English.

Hairyrapunzel:

Google can show me the 1994 awake. Google can also show me reputable medical journals that say blood transfusion is the only available treatment for very severe anemia.
Google can show me that us army has not stopped using blood transfusion. In fact it is the go to procedure when bloodless surgery/medicine fails.

Ignorant and proud, No it is not the only treatment for very severe Anaemia, and I said that the US military is focussing more on bloodless medicines. Mind you they have the intention of phasing out blood transfusion in the future.

TATIME:
Hmmmmmmmm i'm learning fast from you Sir. So "no part of the world" means you have to PHYSICALLY get out of the world But Jehovah's Witnesses lives virtually in almost all parts of the earth yet we are SEPARATE since we don't conform to popular customs and man-made traditions that all others indiscriminately practice. Please it is the same meaning that we gave it perhaps you're misquoting us because we speak the American English.

As per the bolded, you are wrong. Being not of the world does not mean not to conform to popular traditions generally but not to conform to the popular or unpopular traditions that are evil. A tradition might be popular yet godly while a tradition might be unpopular yet very evil.
How evil or godly a tradition is not a function of its popularity or obscurity.
There are traditions which JWs conform to though obscure but evil at least by the same standards they judge others. Examples abound. In fact most of your doctrines are as evil as the popular ones you claim you don't adhere to.

Your desire to be different is just for the sake of it and not really out of a genuine commitment to godliness.

We have examined the godliness versus evil of your traditions and beliefs in another thread here on NL and your members who featured there all disappeared for lack of superior argument. You may check it up and answer the questions put before them which they deserted.

Hairyrapunzel:


Do you know all you just said are just speculation based on your own imagination? Bible never talked about it so all you just said is poo. As far as the Bible is concerned Cornelius was a high ranking roman army official who accepted Christ.
Bible never recorded any human being who left the military because he accepted Christ. You just made up stuff to justify your non biblical doctrines.

For me Bible yet enough for everything. Since in your religion Bible isn't enough you have to add speculations made up by worldly historians to formulate your doctrines no problem.

But in all these you are not even sure of your doctrines. They are still speculations

Ignorant and proud. The wages of a military official of Cornelius rank is sixteen times the wages of a day labourer during the Roman times, was that recorded in the Bible? But we know that from people who lived at the time and wrote about it. For example Tertulian, When Emperor Nero blamed the Christians for the Roman fire and many Christians were killed, did the Bible specifically say what happened, did it mention anybody's name? But we Know for sure that it happened. Now the question remains when Hutu Catholics were busy killing Tutsi Catholics, where is the love? This seems like a million dollar question.

Your tradition of not participating in politics and getting enlisted in the army have just been proven with the Bible to be man made. I would that you counter these biblical proofs first before boasting further of non-conformity with the world.

Hairyrapunzel:


Where in the Bible did Jesus Christ or your jehovah preach neutrality? When you show me a verse in the Bible that says this then your religion is the only true religion.

Someone asked you to mention a passage where a high ranking army officials in the Bible left the military after he accepted Christ? You could not provide any verse. Instead, you started talking of how secular historians said roman army officials became senators because it was easy for them to convert.

You said Christians ain't politicians yet wanted to deceitfully say Cornelius probably left the military and became a politician. Liar liar.
Your doctrine isn't supported biblically. Deal With it. Your beliefs are mere speculations and are based on hearsay by worldly/secular historians.

Ignorant and proud. Go and read those posts again, but Christ admonished his followers to LOVE ONE ANOTHER and see themselves as brothers and fellow workers, so if the Catholic Hutu is happy to see Catholic Tutsi die because of tribal and national origin, then where is the love. This has become a million dollar question.

dometome:
Ignorant and proud. The wages of a military official of Cornelius rank is sixteen times the wages of a day labourer during the Roman times, was that recorded in the Bible? But we know that from people who lived at the time and wrote about it. For example Tertulian, When Emperor Nero blamed the Christians for the Roman fire and many Christians were killed, did the Bible specifically say what happened, did it mention anybody's name? But we Know for sure that it happened. Now the question remains when Hutu Catholics were busy killing Tutsi Catholics, where is the love? This seems like a million dollar question.

Mr. Man, why are you like this now? You are still quoting human error prone extra biblical sources to defend your opinion. Are you saying those accounts of history written by man are infallible as God Himself who wrote the Bible? Why are you finding it difficult to just bring out a verse of the Bible which directly or even indirectly suggests that Cornelius resigned from the Army after conversion?

Deadlytruth:


Since when did conjectures become permitted in defending ones doctrines supposedly based on the scriptures?
If it's non-mention in the scriptures doesn't mean it didn't happen, then it could as well mean it didn't really happen. Conjecturing runs in two directions. So why choose one direction that favours your sentiment?

hahahaha just like mary the mother of God

Deadlytruth:


In Biology it is a principle that meat from which blood is 100℅ removed is very whitish. But you buy and eat Red meat from the markets yet you claim you forbid eating or taking blood and blood products. What an interesting irony! The

Ignorant and proud.
What did God tell Israelites about killing an animal for food? Is it not to make sure the blood has been poured out completely because the life of that animal is its blood, I think he also told Noah the same thing.

Deadlytruth:


But you initially said it categorically and authoritatively that Cornelius resigned from the army after conversion. So why the shift of goalpost now? Do you think the scriptures would have omitted it if resignation from the army were a post-conversion requirement?
The Bible itself says that the scripture, as it is, is just enough to teach us all we really need to know in order to please God.
John The Baptist only admonished his guest soldiers in the wilderness to refrain from abuse of their profession for oppression and pervertion of justice. He didn't ask them to stop being soldiers.
The cases of German Nazis vs Catholics were all instances of abuse of the military. Don't religious leaders of every religious group abuse their positions? Does that now make the whole idea of religion evil?

Christianity is not absolutely pacifist as you would have us believe. Christianity advocates self defence where necessary and possible, and defending yourself could sometimes entail physically injuring your attacker in such a way that incapacitates him from further hurting you.
If a Fulani Herdsman comes around with the intention of killing everyone in your family and you have access to a gun, would you take a seat and watch him just because you are a pacifist demonstrating agape love?

I believe you are ignorant of the meaning of the word Pacifist, and you are proud of your ignorance.

Deadlytruth:


But you initially said it categorically and authoritatively that Cornelius resigned from the army after conversion. So why the shift of goalpost now? Do you think the scriptures would have omitted it if resignation from the army were a post-conversion requirement?
The Bible itself says that the scripture, as it is, is just enough to teach us all we really need to know in order to please God.
John The Baptist only admonished his guest soldiers in the wilderness to refrain from abuse of their profession for oppression and pervertion of justice. He didn't ask them to stop being soldiers.
The cases of German Nazis vs Catholics were all instances of abuse of the military. Don't religious leaders of every religious group abuse their positions? Does that now make the whole idea of religion evil?

Christianity is not absolutely pacifist as you would have us believe. Christianity advocates self defence where necessary and possible, and defending yourself could sometimes entail physically injuring your attacker in such a way that incapacitates him from further hurting you.
If a Fulani Herdsman comes around with the intention of killing everyone in your family and you have access to a gun, would you take a seat and watch him just because you are a pacifist demonstrating agape love?

I believe you are ignorant of the meaning of the word Pacifist, and you are proud of it.

dometome:
hahahaha just like mary the mother of God

I am not a Roman Catholic hence not debating from their perspective. At least by saying "just like Mary the mother of God, you have accepted that all you have been saying are conjectures too. You have just shot yourself in the foot.

Deadlytruth:

I am not a Roman Catholic hence not debating from their perspective. At least by saying "just like Mary the mother of God, you have accepted that all you have been saying are conjectures too. You have just shot yourself in the foot.

Go straight to the point and stop beating about the bush.

dometome:
I believe you are ignorant of the meaning of the word Pacifist, and you are proud of it.

Is the word "pacifist" found in the Bible? So your God told you that you show love by watching your enemies slaughter you when you have a means of self defence? Even your Awake magazine makes publications in support of self defence. So what then does your pacifism mean?