What do you normally do when a Jehovah Witness knocks on your door?

[D28guy]

QueenBee,

"I have served as a deacon on several occasion; head of several major church committees with authority over men & women; assisted in worship services and in every church I have attended, women have played key roles within leaderhsip - everything from teaching to preaching and in between, some of them, much more effectively then men IMO."

Good for you. :applause: Praise the Lord!

Mike

 

[DHK]

DHK, I would like you to answer a question for me.

This is a quote from the scriptures...

"Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a mother hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not."

DHK...

Here is the question:

Who said that?

Mike

Christ said that.
Please don't tell me that love and compassion are feminine traits. Is that your implication?

 

[Matt Black]

"He created them, male and female, in His own image". Now, if God has no feminine traits, how on earth was He able to create 'female' 'in His own image'???

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

"
"He created them, male and female, in His own image". Now, if God has no feminine traits, how on earth was He able to create 'female' 'in His own image'???"

Couldnt have said it better myself. :thumbs:

Now its time for me to go to....:sleeping_2:

God bless,

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Sleep well! I will pick up the reins here as it's 12-20pm.

On the whole "Scripture is clear" point, I think it's more than fair to say that one man's clarity is another man's unclarity. For example, it seems as plain as daylight to me that the Discourse on the Bread of Life in John 6:32-54 is 'plainly' about the Eucharist, but most people here would disagree with that statement; I would say that they are misinterpreting it through the misty lens of their own denominational tradition and doubtless that is an accusation which can likewise be levelled at me, but that doesn't alter the fact that, for me, the meaning is 'clear' and for others (from my POV) it isn't.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

God is Spirit. God created them in the image of Him... sinless.

Them being created male and female does not mean God is male and female.

Adam and Eve were created in God's perfect, sinless image.

 

[Rubato 1]

I'm not even gonna go back and see how this thread got so far away from the OP in only two days?!?! Yikes! It's not a different thread, its a different shirt!

 

[DHK]

"He created them, male and female, in His own image". Now, if God has no feminine traits, how on earth was He able to create 'female' 'in His own image'???

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

According to the Word of God and some of the above posters, God the Father Himself, as well as Jesus Christ, cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, nor be allowed in it.
Strange theology.

In Darby's translation:
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do ye not know that unrighteous persons shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,
--taking female characteristics upon themselves, or showing feminine traits. IOW, Heresy.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Strange indeed.

 

[gb93433]

In Darby's translation:

Do you agree with Darby's theology too?

 

[gb93433]

Only in part is this true; but not entirely. As the letter progresses we find out that he is addressing primarily the elect lady. That is not made entirely clear until verses 4 and 5. The first verse says plainly:

2 John 1:1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not I only, but also all they that know the truth;
--Thus the greeting includes the children, and is not just to the lady.

The argument is partly about who the elect lady and children are. You are simply repeating the words of the text.

There is a quite a good article at http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2069

The author is a professor at DTS.

When you get done reading the article then let me know and we discuss some of the things in that.

Your allegorization is doctrinally wrong. I will state it again. If there is nothing in the context to take the passage in a figurative way, then always interpret it literally. It deserves a literal interpretation, for you have no precedent to read into this epistle the things that are not there.
Church is not in this epistle. It is adding to the Word of God.
"The lady is a church" Wrong! The lady is a lady!!

Try studying the historical context and you will learn why John did what he did.

I have never met a lady yet, that looked like a church.
Where do you get such garbage?
"The children are 'ITS' believers" Wrong!
The children are not "its"; the children are the children of the lady, though I am sure they are believers as well.

Where is “its” in the text?

Historical and textual context tells otherwise.

You are right so take a look at it.

Again, why do you post such nonesense that cannot be found anywhere in this entire book?

Maybe that is because he is writing a letter.

Try looking at the use of children in 1 & 2 John as well

Chairos is not just a greeting. In fact it is used for joy more that Greeting. And it is used for "farewell" as well. It is just as much as a farewell as a greeting, as are othere such words in other languages (aloha being one such example).
In fact, this word for greeting, chairos is used 74 times in the NT. Only 3 times it is translated "Greetings," and 5 more times "hail," the only other form of greeting given in these 74 occurences of this word. It does have the translation of both "God speed," and "farewell." But 42 times the translation is "rejoice," its primary meaning. In this you err in your research.

Do you really expect me to believe a lie? Chairos is not a greeting ever. In fact the word does not even exist. That form is not even the form, for a verb.

Nonsense. The fact that the pronoun indicates nothing of the such. True, he is writing to the lady. The fact that the pronoun is in the plural means nothing, or gives no reason for allegorization. It could simply indicate "the lady (and children)" or "the lady (and her household)," etc. We don't know who all is included in the "you." There is no reason to assume an allegorical "church."

Besides that you have sunk your own ship going against your own argument. Church is a singular noun. "The church is known as a lighthouse in the community." It takes a singular verb--"is". It is not plural.

Your assumption is wrong. Can you quote me where I ever made such a statement? You made that assumption in one of your statements. Discuss the text not what you think I wrote.

 

[DHK]

Do you agree with Darby's theology too?

non sequitor

 

[DHK]

T
Do you really expect me to believe a lie? Chairos is not a greeting ever. In fact the word does not even exist. That form is not even the form, for a verb.

gb,
I gave you the source of my informaton.
It is a Greek-English Concordance.
Because you don't have such reference material you call me a liar. That is not the way to debate. But perhaps I should call another moderator in for I don't like the belittling insults of ignorance and being called a liar, even when I provide you the evidence that says otherwise. I feel sorry for you when you have to deny information that is factual and documented by well-researched sources, sources that are in use just as much as Strong's Concordance is. It is a concordance; a Greek Concordance; a standared Biblical reference work. There is something wrong when you have to deny basic information when posted and then call the poster a liar for posting it.

 

[DHK]

Your assumption is wrong. Can you quote me where I ever made such a statement? You made that assumption in one of your statements. Discuss the text not what you think I wrote.

Did you actually read post #237, and even attempt to answer it?

 

[gb93433]

gb,
I gave you the source of my informaton.
It is a Greek-English Concordance.

You have a great source. I am saying that I believe you do not know how to use it properly. It seems that you are upset by my comment and I did not see any question or challenge why I wrote that. The reason I saw what I did is because at one time I did the same thing. The man who trained me is most likely the best Greek professor in the SBC. Over and over students said that if you wanted to learn Greek he is the person to take. He was also in charge of the largest doctoral program at one time. Over and over he taught us to learn to use a concordance properly. In fact we had a number of exercises in determining the meaning of words in their context by using a concordance. I believe that most people do not know how to properly use a concordance to determine the meaning of words.

I asked you to give just one verse anywhere in the Bible where chairos is used. I did not see a response except to see you come back with belittling remarks. If you can show me one verse where chairos is used I will openly apologize for being wrong. I also explained that it is not found and gave further explanation about it. Instead of being challenged by that it seems that you came back with remarks that attempted to belittle me instead of directly challenging my statements and trying to understand why I wrote what I did.

Because you don't have such reference material you call me a liar.

If I am a liar I will apologize if you can tell me what I do have. It is quite a judgment to declare something I know which is not true.

You might want to use some humility when making those kind of statements even if they were true. I know what materials I have. What proof do you have that I do not have such materials? Before you make such judgments be sure that you are correct first. Do not make assumptions and declare them as fact until you are sure. Did I not call that what the Bible calls it?

That is not the way to debate. But perhaps I should call another moderator in for I don't like the belittling insults of ignorance and being called a liar, even when I provide you the evidence that says otherwise. I feel sorry for you when you have to deny information that is factual and documented by well-researched sources, sources that are in use just as much as Strong's Concordance is. It is a concordance; a Greek Concordance; a standared Biblical reference work. There is something wrong when you have to deny basic information when posted and then call the poster a liar for posting it.

You write as though I do not know what you are talking about and need some teaching. From what I read it seems that you assume I don't have a clue. Your assumptions remind me of the time a man came to where I was working many years ago and began telling me about something. What I did not tell him is that I had studied what he was talking about and have been published in one of the top professional magazines in that area.

The simple point is that I am saying that I do not believe you know much about Greek nor do you know how to properly use a concordance. I asked you to look at some of the Greek words and you have not given the right parsing. In fact at times you were not even close.

If we are going to have healthy debate then I must address the issues you raise and I ask that you address the issues I raise.

If we disagree that is fine. That is to be expected. However to name me among heretics is quite an accusation. You do not know me and have no clue who I am.
I cited a reference for you to read written by a professor at DTS and I saw no comments or anything that indicated to me that you read it. I saw nothing to indicate that you even considered his points.

To try and insult me by declaring God's word says.... and I also read differences in views among godly men tells me a lot about you. There are some great scholars who are godly men whom I have great respect for who have taught me and are some of the best in their area of study in Christianity. I am indebted to them for both their life and their knowledge. So for you to act like it is so simple and you have all the answers destroys your credibility. I appreciate good questions without accusations. Good questions make me think and challenge me to know more and be strengthened in my faith.

I enjoy good debate with those who will honestly take a look at the issues I raise and I take a look at the issues they raise. The key trait I think we should have is that we are after the truth and that we both may be wrong. I have gotten the impression that you are not so much after the truth so much as you are out to prove your point at any cost.

There have been times on the BB where I have been challenged by people to think about what I believe and it has changed my life as a result. I will try to deal with questions you may have in challenging my viewpoint but I would also ask you to so the same thing with me.

 

[DHK]

I asked you to give just one verse anywhere in the Bible where chairos is used. I did not see a response except to see you come back with belittling remarks. If you can show me one verse where chairos is used I will openly apologize for being wrong. I also explained that it is not found and gave further explanation about it. Instead of being challenged by that it seems that you came back with remarks that attempted to belittle me instead of directly challenging my statements and trying to understand why I wrote what I did.

If I am a liar I will apologize if you can tell me what I do have. It is quite a judgment to declare something I know which is not true.

2 John 1:10-11 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
--chairo—God speed (Check Strong’s Concordance).

2 Corinthians 13:11 Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.
--chairo—farewell

James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
--chairo—greeting

Matthew 5:12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
--chairo—rejoice

Luke 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
--chairo—be glad.

These are some of the definitions. The word is translated at least eight different ways in 74 different verses. The majority of the times, 42 of them, it is translated as “rejoice.”
A Greek Concordance is not difficult to use. I resent your insinuation that “I don’t know how to use one.”Perhaps you don’t know how to use an English dictionary. These kind of continuous insults are quite needless. I have the information before me, but I don’t feel like typing up 74 different Scriptures, all because of your unbelief.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I posted those 74 references earlier in the thread, but know it went over some heads.

 

[queenbee]

I'm not even gonna go back and see how this thread got so far away from the OP in only two days?!?! Yikes! It's not a different thread, its a different shirt!

Yeah, it's become a hairshirt!

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Yeah, it's become a hairshirt!

No such animal.

 

[gb93433]

These are some of the definitions. The word is translated at least eight different ways in 74 different verses. The majority of the times, 42 of them, it is translated as “rejoice.”
A Greek Concordance is not difficult to use. I resent your insinuation that “I don’t know how to use one.” Perhaps you don’t know how to use an English dictionary. These kind of continuous insults are quite needless. I have the information before me, but I don’t feel like typing up 74 different Scriptures, all because of your unbelief.

In post #229 you posted “Chairos is not just a greeting.” My point was that chairos is not a word that even exists. In fact it could not because that form is the form of a noun or adjective. In the NT and other literature chairein is used as a greeting or farewell. Chaireinis an infinitive form of chairo. There is only one exception to the word (chairein) used for greetings. That is in Romans 12:15 which is an infinitive that functions as an imperative [Young, R. A. (1994). Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic And Exegetical Approach. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers.].

Not one of those verses uses the word chairos. The verses you searched out are all verses that use words which stem from the word chairo. They are in many forms. Yes they do have many different meanings. The word used in 2 Jn 10 is in the infinitive form.

The verses which use chairein (the same word used in 2 Jn 10) are:

Acts 15:23
Acts 23:26
Rom 12:15
2Cor 2:3
James 1:1
2Joh 1:10,11

It appears that you went the opposite direction that I did. I started with the word used in 2 Jn10 and found the usages of that word to see how it was used in other places. You started with the root word to see how a number of different forms were used. The one main problem I have with your way of doing it is that the root word can have many meanings. The way I did the search was to see if the word used in 2 Jn 10 had any different meanings and if it was used differently in any verses.

Sometime I would challenge you to do a study on the word presbuteros from the start of the OT, through the intertestamental period, through the NT, and into the early church time period. Then study the word episkopos doing the same thing. If you do you will find some rather interesting things that happened. Using an English concordance will not solve that issue.