Are you surprised that no one wants to listen to you to the point of excluding your input?
If the scriptures say; "We originate with God" then it really is a "group thinking".
Is that what the scriptures really say?
John 1 4:7
6 We originate with God. He that gains the knowledge of God listens to us; he that does not originate with God does not listen to us. This is how we take note of the inspired expression of truth and the inspired expression of error.
7 Beloved ones, let us continue loving one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born from God and gains the knowledge of God. 8 He that does not love has not come to know God, because God is love.
Polemotheos,
I am glad you have not apologised for getting to know God.
The meaning of this often quoted scripture must still be eluding most people:
John 17:3
3 This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.
Regards
ablebodiedman
.
Post edited by: ablebodiedman, at: 2006/04/22 08:49
| | The topic has been locked.
Jinnvisible
User Junior Boarder
Posts: 7
Re:@ e-watchtowerman - 2006/04/22 15:34Is Yahovah understood in entirety as Yahovah?
Think carefully about that one.
What I am pointing out to you is a tautology. Tautologies are absolutely and irrifutably true!
Imagine if all our beliefs were formulated from tautologies... my goodness you would speak with authority.
Hi Mars,
You state that `Yahovah is understood in entirety as Yahovah` and name that a tautology.
I don`t beleive that is accurate. It doesn`t really mean anything execpt to put a limited context on that which is without limit.
For instance if I were to say `Mars is entirey understood as Mars` what does that mean ?
It means nothing execpt to suggest that you have to know Mars to understand him which would be fine, however when you apply that to God is is not.
God is not `entirely` understood, by anyone, as anything.
It could be said that,,, the entirety of `what is known` about God is known in recognition of the name Jehovah.
That is different .
To actually suggest that the `entirety of God - is ` known` as anything is false.
For instance you can say `A dog is just a dog` or a `cat is just a cat` or a `man is just a man`.
Yet how is it appropriate to say `Jehovah is just Jehovah` ?
In what way are you showing yourself to be reasonible ? X is understood in entirety as X
Mars is understood in entirety as Mars
Yahovah is understood in entirety as Yahovah
This tautology does not claim we have absolute knowledge... rather it suggests X is X and that any understanding of X is an understanding of X which therefore means X is entirely understood as X.
Here is a link to some of my posts, you may or may not have read them. Thought you might like to read them. Great talk we had today!! I know you Love Jehovah!
Perhaps there is someone left with an active and unconditioned mind who has not yet been removed from the e-watchmans paradise cafe who could help "warmth of the sun" understand who the man of lawlessness is and why.
They have a lot of catching up to do. Not much oil in those lamps.
ablebodiedman
.
Post edited by: ablebodiedman, at: 2006/04/25 05:58
| | The topic has been locked.
warmthofthesun
User Fresh Boarder
Posts: 3
Re:@ e-watchtowerman - 2006/04/27 09:16ABM, I read your interpretation on the MOL long ago when you posted your thoughts. You are not the only person who thinks the MOL are the rulers of Jehovah's Witnesses.
I do not agree with your interpretation. For starters, you have jumped a whole step by assuming that the Temple resides with Jehovah's Witnesses alone. Secondly you have removed the clearly political aspect of the MOL and it's connections to Daniel 11's willful King in verses 36 onward.
But you would have everyone assume that because they have not agreed to your interpretation that they have no oil in their lamps.
Forum 
