The Jehovah Witness Bible Proves the Holy Trinity

[The Baron]

I still prefer the idea of a genesis sans creator or deity. It is more miraculous to me than if an entity created us. A creator is just an enhanced version of us. Humans create life when they reproduce and it doesn't take any special talent.

The difference is God created everything ex nihilo (out of nothing).

But life created by pure random dumb luck or chance, now that's a miracle.

That takes more faith then I'm capable of mustering.

I define a creator as someone who makes something -- art, chili, etc.

But not the entire universe?

Gods, again my opinion, are embued with mystical/mythical properties bestowed upon them by the ignorance of superstition. The more we discover, the less miraculous things appear.

Uh huh...but believing that everything sprang from nothing isn't problematic for you?

 

[Dragonfly]

Uh huh...but believing that everything sprang from nothing isn't problematic for you?

Why is that god springing from nothing isn’t problematic for you?

 

[The Baron]

Why is that god springing from nothing isn’t problematic for you?

God is eternal. He has always existed. He did not "spring from nothing". He has always been.

 

[Dragonfly]

God is eternal. He has always existed. He did not "spring from nothing". He has always been.

Special pleading and argumentum ad absurdum.

Thanks for playing.

 

[tosca1]

Why is that god springing from nothing isn’t problematic for you?

He didn't spring from anything. There was no "springing" at all!
That's what it means of having............................ NO BEGINNING!

 

[Paradoxical]

I'd be disappointed if there wasn't another Baron out there somewhere.

The world needs more of me.

And while I know nothing of "Hindu Apologetics" (I assume they have them) I can comment on "Islamic Apologetics" as I have studied some of this (although no one would ever dare accuse me of being an expert in this field--I have given it my "due diligence").

And from what I've read, Islamic apologetics is nothing more than a criticism of Christianity. And a criticism of one religion is not a defense of your own (apologetics means "to present a defense for").

True and there is a lot of evidence that supports many other parts of the Bible which I've already mentioned.

And if so much of the Bible can be proved then the parts we can't prove are far more easy to accept then if there were nothing to support the Bible. Speaking only for myself, I've a bachelor degree in science...I want to see the evidence. If is wasn't there, I'd be doing something else right now.

the Bible is right on some history and that makes the rest more believable? Okeeeeyyy

 

[Paradoxical]

No, nor are they being debated here.

Faith is a reaction to the evidence and does not exist in spite of any lack of evidence. There is an entire field of study dedicated to proving the Bible true and includes archaeology, extra-biblical sources, physics, reason, etc.

The evidence is there is someone wishes to examine is objectively.

Faith is nothing more than a belief given to you by elders. It is not based on evidence at all but claims. Christianity is based on claims of a vision by a guy who never met Jesus at a period of time in history where people claimed visions almost daily.

 

[Logicman]

The NT was not written over centuries. It was written by unknown men

Nonsense. For instance,

The Gospels are NOT anonymous. That's a classic skeptic's claim that doesn't hold water. FYI, the early church fathers were UNANIMOUS that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels that bear their names, thus making Matthew and John (plus Peter via Mark and Peter in his epistle) CONTEMPORARY EYEWITNESSES TO JESUS AND HIS RESURRECTION. The authorship of the Gospels was not questioned until Faustus, nearly 400 years after the fact. Proximity matters in historiography. Those closest to the writings all stated that the author attribution was intact.” Here's the citations (Matthew and Mark. Luke and John are also available upon request):


Matthew

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/1-church-fathers-and-matthews-gospel/

Mark Authorship

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/2-church-fathers-and-marks-gospel/


Luke Authorship

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/3-church-fathers-and-lukes-gospel/


John Authorship

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/4-church-fathers-and-johns-gospel/

Who Wrote the Gospels?

Many have questioned who the original authors of the Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – were. Skeptics and those with a revisionist liberal agenda love to argue that the Gospels …

righterreport.com

with the exception of Paul.

Very astute!

 

[Paradoxical]

Nonsense. For instance,

The Gospels are NOT anonymous. That's a classic skeptic's claim that doesn't hold water. FYI, the early church fathers were UNANIMOUS that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels that bear their names, thus making Matthew and John (plus Peter via Mark and Peter in his epistle) CONTEMPORARY EYEWITNESSES TO JESUS AND HIS RESURRECTION. The authorship of the Gospels was not questioned until Faustus, nearly 400 years after the fact. Proximity matters in historiography. Those closest to the writings all stated that the author attribution was intact.” Here's the citations (Matthew and Mark. Luke and John are also available upon request):


Matthew

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/1-church-fathers-and-matthews-gospel/

Mark Authorship

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/2-church-fathers-and-marks-gospel/


Luke Authorship

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/3-church-fathers-and-lukes-gospel/


John Authorship

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/4-church-fathers-and-johns-gospel/

Who Wrote the Gospels?

Many have questioned who the original authors of the Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – were. Skeptics and those with a revisionist liberal agenda love to argue that the Gospels …

righterreport.com

Very astute!

So, ummm, if the early church fathers, themselves steeped in agenda like CNN and MSNBS on steroids, were in agreement, that means what exactly

 

[Logicman]

So, ummm, if the early church fathers, themselves steeped in agenda like CNN and MSNBS on steroids, were in agreement, that means what exactly

Unlike unlearned skeptics who either haven't done their homework, or have their own biased agenda, the "agenda" of the earliest church fathers was to tell the truth.

Also, why can't you just feel enlightened and happy that you found out better evidence than what you had previously?

 

[Paradoxical]

Unlike unlearned skeptics who either haven't done their homework, or have their own biased agenda, the "agenda" of the earliest church fathers was to tell the truth.

Also, why can't you just feel enlightened and happy that you found out better evidence than what you had previously?

This is like asking someone a hundred years from now to explain why CNN or MSNBC supported Biden.

It's a given, an agenda, a bias.

Saying "The early church fathers" doesn't impress me in the least. They were just people like you and me.

 

[tosca1]

Saying "The early church fathers" doesn't impress me in the least. They were just people like you and me.

I don't think they're meant to impress.
They're meant to testify about their time with Christ, teach what was taught by Christ........................and start the ball rolling, so to speak.

 

[Paradoxical]

I don't think they're meant to impress.
They're meant to testify about their time with Christ, teach what was taught by Christ........................and start the ball rolling, so to speak.

Ummm, the early church fathers were not the apostles. They never spent any time with Jesus.

They were the original purveyors of fake news because they were influential and boisterous and probably thuggish guys who bullied others into going along with what they said. People like today's Adam Schiff, AOC, Joy Reid, Jake Tapper, Joe Biden, all of MSM. just look at how many people believed that Trump colluded with Russia because influential people claimed it was true over and over and over again like Josef Goebbels did to convince the Germans that the Jews were a problem. All you need do is take the Russian Collusion ruse where millions believed a lie, back two thousand years ago and there ya have it.

 

[surada]

Are Hinduism and Islam not Theologies? Are you frightened to incorporate the fact that in India there's surely a version of "The Baron" who will passionately insist Hinduism and The Vedas are proven truths?

There is no evidence to prove a great deal of the bible.
Adam and Eve, and Noah and the Ark to name two specific parts.

If you take the stories literally there were 130 years between Noah's flood and the Tower of Babel.

 

[tosca1]

Ummm, the early church fathers were not the apostles. They never spent any time with Jesus.

They were the original purveyors of fake news because they were influential and boisterous and probably thuggish guys who bullied others into going along with what they said. People like today's Adam Schiff, AOC, Joy Reid, Jake Tapper, Joe Biden, all of MSM. just look at how many people believed that Trump colluded with Russia because influential people claimed it was true over and over and over again like Josef Goebbels did to convince the Germans that the Jews were a problem. All you need do is take the Russian Collusion ruse where millions believed a lie, back two thousand years ago and there ya have it.

The apostles were the early church fathers too. they were the beginning.
They started not like the organized churches that we know of.




The church began on the Day of Pentecost, fifty days after the Passover when Jesus died and rose again. The word translated “church” comes from two Greek words that together mean “called out from the world for God.” The word is used throughout the Bible to refer to all those who have been born again (John 3:3) through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus (Romans 10:9–10). The word church, when used to reference all believers everywhere, is synonymous with the term Body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22–23; Colossians 1:18).

The word church first appears in Matthew 16 when Jesus tells Peter, “On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” (verse 18). The “rock” here is the statement Peter had made, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (verse 16). That truth about Jesus is the bedrock of the church that has flourished for over two thousand years. Everyone who makes that truth the foundation of his or her own life becomes a member of Jesus’ church (Acts 16:31).

The book of Acts details the beginning of the church and its miraculous spread through the power of the Holy Spirit. Ten days after Jesus ascended back into heaven (Acts 1:9), the Holy Spirit was poured out upon 120 of Jesus’ followers who waited and prayed (Acts 1:15; 2:1–4).

The start of the church involved Jews in Jerusalem, but the church soon spread to other people groups. The Samaritans were evangelized by Philip in Acts 8. In Acts 10, God gave Peter a vision that helped him understand that the message of salvation was not limited to the Jews but open to anyone who believed (Acts 10:34–35, 45). The salvation of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26–39) and the Italian centurion Cornelius (Acts 10) convinced the Jewish believers that God’s church was broader than they had imagined. The miraculous calling of Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1–19) set the stage for an even greater spread of the gospel to the Gentiles (Romans 15:16; 1 Timothy 2:7).

When did the church begin/start? | GotQuestions.org

When did the church begin? When did the church start? When/what was the origin of the church?

www.gotquestions.org