What do JWs know?

[2ndpillar2]

I just had two JWs come to my house. They said that they do not believe in the Trinity, yet they were quoting from a bible whose canon was produced by Athanasius in 367 A.D., the same guy who was the main proponent of the Trinity doctrine at Constantine's Council of Nicaea. They apparently did not know that Athanasius produced the canon they used, and that he proposed doctrine which is opposite of what they believe. Is this a one off, or is lack of historical context part of the JWs normal routine? They gave their quote of the day, Rev 21:4, without context, and didn't know that Rev 22:15 applied to the same Jerusalem, and that those "who practice lying" would not "enter". As soon as I told them, they turned and walked quickly away. The second time in around so many weeks, that JWs came, and quickly walked away when confronted with their inconsistencies.

[2ndpillar2]

What do JWs know?

They know how to commit sin.

But, do they know the difference between wickedness and righteousness? (Malachi 3:18)

Why don't you join them and find out.

If they are lawless (Mt 13:41 & Mt 7:23), there is no reason to investigate further. As with "Christians" in general, they carry the mark of the beast, and not the mark of God. As with the JWs who come to my house, they flee when presented with the truth of the matter. They apparently aren't that organized, because different JWs keep coming back. They give their singular quotes out of context, which with the slightest investigation, are simply something taken out of context, which doesn't actually apply to them. They have simply been "deceived" by the "beast with two horns like a lamb" (Rev 13:14), and their own false prophets (Mt 7:13-15). They have made prophecies which have not come to pass. That should be a hint of malfeasance.

[Capbook]

Are you saying he should have followed the example of Eusebius

If person is a Christians, a disciple of Jesus, he should follow Jesus.

and simply made-up things to make the church look good?

Unfortunately many seem to do so. It would be best, if disciples of Jesus ("Christians") would remain loyal to Jesus.

The problem is that the "message" of the "enemy"/"devil" is portrayed to be the "message of the son of man" (Mt 13:24-49), as the wolves come dressed in sheep's clothing (Mt 7:13). Both "messages" are planted together in the same field (NT book), with the "many" choosing the wrong message (Mt 7:13).

I believe the message on Mat 13:24-49 is from Jesus. Verse 49 separation of the wicked from the righteous.
And so is Mat 7:13-14 leading to life is difficult while broad way to destruction.

Matt 13:49 says
This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous
NIV
Matthew 7:13-14 says
"Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.(NKJV)

[onewithhim]

I just had two JWs come to my house. They said that they do not believe in the Trinity, yet they were quoting from a bible whose canon was produced by Athanasius in 367 A.D., the same guy who was the main proponent of the Trinity doctrine at Constantine's Council of Nicaea. They apparently did not know that Athanasius produced the canon they used, and that he proposed doctrine which is opposite of what they believe. Is this a one off, or is lack of historical context part of the JWs normal routine? They gave their quote of the day, Rev 21:4, without context, and didn't know that Rev 22:15 applied to the same Jerusalem, and that those "who practice lying" would not "enter". As soon as I told them, they turned and walked quickly away. The second time in around so many weeks, that JWs came, and quickly walked away when confronted with their inconsistencies.

We have gone back to the original languages---Hebrew and Greek---and quote from a Bible that is translated from them. We do not hold Athanasius as any kind of authority.

JWs would walk away because we are not looking for people to argue with. We are looking for people who are looking for the truth about God and we enjoy conversing with them.

[onewithhim]

Are you saying he should have followed the example of Eusebius

If person is a Christians, a disciple of Jesus, he should follow Jesus.

and simply made-up things to make the church look good?

Unfortunately many seem to do so. It would be best, if disciples of Jesus ("Christians") would remain loyal to Jesus.

The problem is that the "message" of the "enemy"/"devil" is portrayed to be the "message of the son of man" (Mt 13:24-49), as the wolves come dressed in sheep's clothing (Mt 7:13). Both "messages" are planted together in the same field (NT book), with the "many" choosing the wrong message (Mt 7:13).

That is absolutely right. The "many" are following the wolves in sheep's clothing. (And just because the many Bible versions say one thing about Hebrews 1:8, that God is referring to Jesus as God, it is not necessarily true, even though there are versions accepted by the "many."

[Capbook]

Are you saying he should have followed the example of Eusebius

If person is a Christians, a disciple of Jesus, he should follow Jesus.

and simply made-up things to make the church look good?

Unfortunately many seem to do so. It would be best, if disciples of Jesus ("Christians") would remain loyal to Jesus.

The problem is that the "message" of the "enemy"/"devil" is portrayed to be the "message of the son of man" (Mt 13:24-49), as the wolves come dressed in sheep's clothing (Mt 7:13). Both "messages" are planted together in the same field (NT book), with the "many" choosing the wrong message (Mt 7:13).

That is absolutely right. The "many" are following the wolves in sheep's clothing. (And just because the many Bible versions say one thing about Hebrews 1:8, that God is referring to Jesus as God, it is not necessarily true, even though there are versions accepted by the "many."

It not just Heb 1:8 that says Jesus is God. Even the prior text verse 3 said so.
Barnes and Adam Clark believes that Jesus is equal with Father and of the same essence with the Father.

Hebrews 1:3
The drift of the argument is, to show his dignity as "he has spoken to us" (Heb 1:1), and not in the period antecedent to his incarnation. It is to show his claims to our reverence as sent from God-the last and greatest of the messengers which God bas sent to man. But, then it is a description of him "as he actually is" - the incarnate Son of God; the equal of the Father in human flesh;
(from Barnes' Notes)

Hebrews 1:3
From these words it is evident:
1. That the apostle states Jesus Christ to be of the same essence with the Father, as the
apaugasma or proceeding splendour, must be the same with the augasma, or inherent splendour,
2. That Christ, though proceeding from the Father, is of the same essence; for if one
augee, or splendour, produce another
augee, or splendour, the produced splendour must be of the same essence with that which produces it.
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary)

[onewithhim]

Are you saying he should have followed the example of Eusebius

If person is a Christians, a disciple of Jesus, he should follow Jesus.

and simply made-up things to make the church look good?

Unfortunately many seem to do so. It would be best, if disciples of Jesus ("Christians") would remain loyal to Jesus.

The problem is that the "message" of the "enemy"/"devil" is portrayed to be the "message of the son of man" (Mt 13:24-49), as the wolves come dressed in sheep's clothing (Mt 7:13). Both "messages" are planted together in the same field (NT book), with the "many" choosing the wrong message (Mt 7:13).

That is absolutely right. The "many" are following the wolves in sheep's clothing. (And just because the many Bible versions say one thing about Hebrews 1:8, that God is referring to Jesus as God, it is not necessarily true, even though there are versions accepted by the "many."

It not just Heb 1:8 that says Jesus is God. Even the prior text verse 3 said so.
Barnes and Adam Clark believes that Jesus is equal with Father and of the same essence with the Father.

Hebrews 1:8 actually says "God is your throne," not "Your throne O God." It is not saying that Jesus is God, and in the next verse it says that Jesus HAS a God. "God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." (KJV) It's very clear that Jesus could not be God, if he has a God and worships Him himself.

Jesus is not equal to the Father, and none of the verses you've quoted have shown that. He is of the same essence, meaning that they are both Spirits. (John 4:24; I Timothy 6:16) Nothing to say they are equal. Indeed, Jesus even states in Revelation 3:12 that he has a God:

"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: And I will write upon him my new name." (KJV)

[kjw47]

I just had two JWs come to my house. They said that they do not believe in the Trinity, yet they were quoting from a bible whose canon was produced by Athanasius in 367 A.D., the same guy who was the main proponent of the Trinity doctrine at Constantine's Council of Nicaea. They apparently did not know that Athanasius produced the canon they used, and that he proposed doctrine which is opposite of what they believe. Is this a one off, or is lack of historical context part of the JWs normal routine? They gave their quote of the day, Rev 21:4, without context, and didn't know that Rev 22:15 applied to the same Jerusalem, and that those "who practice lying" would not "enter". As soon as I told them, they turned and walked quickly away. The second time in around so many weeks, that JWs came, and quickly walked away when confronted with their inconsistencies.

God wrote the bible via holy spirit through righteous men. Men did NOT make up the canon, God did. Men in darkness take credit when none is there for them. Only ones in darkness believe them because they do not know truth.
God used wicked men to carry out his will in the OT. Gods will can never be stopped no matter what source he must use.
Rev 21:4 doesn't mention Jerusalem. Are you confused? You assume out of darkness. Israel is cut off of being Gods chosen( Matt 23:38) Spiritual Israel are the ones referenced in revelation. I hope this clears it up for you.

Revelation 21:4, is a follow up to Revelation 21:2, whereas it references the "new Jerusalem", whereas Revelation 22:3, the "Lamb shall be in it", and with reference to Revelation 22:14-15, the liars will not, but instead, be outside the gates. As for the "wicked" that would be the product of the "message" of the "enemy"/"devil" (Mt 13:24-30), which is the message of lawlessness (Mt 13:41), or in layman's terms, the gospel of grace/cross/lawlessness. And the Roman bishop Athanasius was not a righteous man, for he pushed lawlessness in the form of a Trinity dogma. As for Israel being "cut off", Mt 23:38 is referring to the Pharisees/hypocrites, whom "murder" those "I am sending", which would point a finger at Paul, who was the person of power in the murder of Stephen. As for Israel/Ephraim, both Judah and Ephraim/Israel are under judgment until they "acknowledge their guilt" (Hosea 5:10-15). At that time they will be given a new heart and spirit, and washed clean, and then live on the land I gave to Jacob/Israel. (Ez 36 & 37). Do you live on the "land I gave to Jacob"? Do you "keep My statutes" (Ezekiel 37:24)?

Ezekiel 37:24 “‘My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees.

Jerusalem represents the throne that Gods anointed kings sat on--The new Jerusalem is the bride( co rulers alongside Jesus) who sit on thrones( Rev 1:6, Rev 20:6) mentioned at 21:2