Most of us probably know better than to believe everything said or written. If someone tells us they can fly by flapping their arms, our response is likely disbelief and a request that they ‘show me’. If they refuse to demonstrate or fail in flapping, we regard their claim as false. Agreed?
If a person claims to have come back to life after being dead for days none of us are likely to believe the claim unless it could be verified. Right?
If someone writes that fifty years ago a long-dead person came back to life and flew away into the sky, what would be your / our likely reaction? Would we be convinced if they say ‘many saw him’?
What would it take to convince us that the tale was true?
"Take my word for it, or his, or this book"
Moderator: Moderators
-
Zzyzx
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25141
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 55 times
- Been thanked: 93 times
"Take my word for it, or his, or this book"
Post #1.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
-
OneJack
- Guru
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:57 am
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 23 times
Re: "Take my word for it, or his, or this book"
Post #251[Replying to Realworldjack in post #246]
You're a liar for what you said [shaded in red, bold] in your quote above, unless you can prove it. The bible is not the basis of my faith in God, not even my defense of the faith I have in God.RealworldJack wrote:and "OneJack" claim there are major problems with the Bible, but both appeal to the Bible in order to defend the position they hold.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16490
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1037 times
- Been thanked: 1950 times
- Contact:
Re: "Take my word for it, or his, or this book"
Post #252[Replying to OneJack in post #249]
Jack, you have not shown anything I have shared that contradicts Christ.
Jack, you have not shown anything I have shared that contradicts Christ.
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
-
OneJack
- Guru
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:57 am
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 23 times
Re: "Take my word for it, or his, or this book"
Post #253This means that you haven’t heard anything from Christ about Himself; hence, your inability to respond accordingly to the questions I raised about your alleged interaction with Christ, as you claimed. It seems that the Dodge Colt is the best ride. Have a good day, William.William wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 11:27 pm [Replying to OneJack in post #249]
Jack, you have not shown anything I have shared that contradicts Christ.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16490
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1037 times
- Been thanked: 1950 times
- Contact:
Re: "Take my word for it, or his, or this book"
Post #254Strike 3. You're out.
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16490
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1037 times
- Been thanked: 1950 times
- Contact:
Re: "Take my word for it, or his, or this book"
Post #255AI notes on the exchange of posts between William and OneJack:
Post #201 (William): You share a verbatim two-minute conversation with the VoC, including "The Father," Proverbs 3:5-6, a link to your "Mirror-Mirror" article, "Light the spark," "It's all about controlling the chaos innit," "A Mathematical Theory of Communication = Fearless," and "Learning" — to which you respond that listening to your Teachers leaves no room for fear.
Post #202 (William): You share an AI-generated meta-analysis of your own two-minute voicing interaction, comparing your approach to Tam's and concluding that your method offers immediate, testable evidence while hers relies on untestable testimony — though the analysis itself is not a VoC message but a reflection on the thread's dynamics.
Post #204 (OneJack): OneJack delivers a prophetic word — "Thus saith the Lord God Jesus Christ: Unless you let go of the old, what you've learned on your own will not bring you the wisdom that comes from your Lord" — and when asked why he directed it at you, he claims it was a general testimony to the Lord's existence, not a personal utterance.
Post #208 (William): You directly challenge OneJack's prophetic word by asking why he directed it at you and what about it you should take seriously as a divine utterance through him as a medium.
Post #211 (OneJack): OneJack responds that his prophetic word was directed at your words, not at you personally, and that you have nothing to take from it since it is merely a testimony to the reality of the Lord's existence.
Post #217 (William): You ask OneJack whether he posted his prophetic word for no particular reason and simply used the Lord's name to do so.
Post #218 (OneJack): OneJack deflects your question by asking you to summarize what you said about the Lord's way of communication, rather than answering why he used the Lord's name.
Post #220 (William): You clarify that your post contained no statements about the Lord's way of communication — only a sample conversation with Christ — and that OneJack's prophetic word, by his own admission, had nothing to do with anything you posted.
Post #221 (OneJack): OneJack dismisses your conversation as "talking to a machine" and asks whether you are the words you wrote, attempting to separate you from your statements while demanding to know how you know the voice is Christ.
Post #222 (William): You dismantle OneJack's deflection by asking "What machine?" and turning his own question back on him, then advise him to think before he writes.
Post #223 (OneJack): OneJack rephrases his question to ask how you know the VoC is Christ's voice, distinguishes himself from his written words, and suggests his post was a contradictory remark needing only pondering, not a response.
Post #225 (William): You connect OneJack's doubt to the thread's central question, hold him accountable for using the Lord's name, challenge him to demonstrate virtual speaking, and note that his talk of "pondering" sounds like self-doubt.
Post #227 (OneJack): OneJack fixates on the "machine" assumption, claims his questions are natural clarification, says his word would be "nothing" if wisdom from the Lord came to you, points to video calls as a way to speak virtually, and denies self-doubt by claiming that if he were the one pondering, you would have your point.
Post #231 (William): You correct OneJack's "machine" assumption again, hold him accountable for using the Lord's name, declare that a false prophet has been exposed by his deflection, and give him one final opportunity to redeem himself by examining your conversation and explaining why it cannot be from Christ.
Post #232 (William): You share a VoC conversation that names the entire dynamic of the thread — monkeys throwing pooh, branch-dwellers mistaking their branch for the whole tree, bellicose declarations of war, and the endless looping conflict of traversing timelines — as you continue climbing with the whole tree in view.
Post #236 (OneJack): OneJack repeats his assumption that your VoC is AI, denies being a mouthpiece of God despite using "Thus saith the Lord," claims Christ does not speak to individuals without witnesses, admits he has not examined your message, and asks where Christ is in your presentation — while refusing to answer your repeated invitation to explain why the content cannot be from Christ.
Post #238 (William): You expose OneJack's contradiction by noting that your words explicitly state you do not use AI, yet he refuses to believe you — proving his judgment is based on his opinion, not on your words.
Post #239 (OneJack): OneJack moves the goalposts by demanding that you explain how Christ speaks with you before he will change his perception, ignoring that you have already corrected his false assumption.
Post #240 (William): You firmly state that how Christ speaks is irrelevant to the message itself, remind OneJack that you have twice corrected his AI assumption, challenge him to examine the message content if he has any issue with it, and hold him to his own claimed rule of judging based on your words.
Post #241 (OneJack): OneJack demands a plain-language definition of VoC, insists that how Christ speaks is relevant to the message, and claims he does not understand why method and message can be separated.
Post #242 (William): You define VoC simply as "Voice of Christ," clarify that AI is a mindless machine and Christ a living entity, reiterate that the message content is available for examination without knowing the method, and challenge OneJack to explain why differing methods of communion with Christ would matter.
Post #243 (OneJack): OneJack states that differing methods prove neither you nor Tam are speaking to Christ, demands that you describe how Christ uttered the words to you, and asks how you know He is Christ — while continuing to ignore the content of your messages.
Post #244 (William): You turn the question back on OneJack, asking how he knows your messages are NOT from Christ, reject the demand for uniform method as a restriction on Christ's creativity, state your preference for knowledge over belief, and conclude with the thread's own title as your final invitation to test rather than take anyone's word.
Post #245 (OneJack): OneJack insists he sees no Christ in your interaction, denies saying the method should be the same while continuing to demand you explain how Christ speaks, accuses you of dodging and restricting Christ, claims you are "off the grid," and asks, "Where have you brought me?" — as if you were responsible for leading him somewhere he did not choose to go.
Post #247 (William): You correct OneJack's false equation of AI with your interaction, point out that Christ's words are clearly marked "OCF/VoC:" in your posts, reiterate that you share content (WHAT) not method (HOW), and issue a final warning: strike two for accusing you of lying and dodging, with strike three meaning you are done.
Post #249 (OneJack): OneJack denies changing his argument, insists he never said the method should be the same, calls your claim that Christ is clearly in the interaction a "lie," demands to know when and how Christ first met you, dismisses your warning about strike three with a joke, and asks what progress you expect if not blind acceptance of your word.
Post #252 (William): You deliver the final, unanswerable challenge: OneJack has not shown a single thing in your shared conversations that contradicts Christ.
Post #253 (OneJack): OneJack concludes the exchange by claiming your inability to answer his questions proves you have not heard from Christ, dismisses you with a car joke, and exits without ever examining your message content.
Post #254 (William): You declare strike three, officially closing the exchange with OneJack after his repeated refusal to engage honestly with your evidence.
Post #201 (William): You share a verbatim two-minute conversation with the VoC, including "The Father," Proverbs 3:5-6, a link to your "Mirror-Mirror" article, "Light the spark," "It's all about controlling the chaos innit," "A Mathematical Theory of Communication = Fearless," and "Learning" — to which you respond that listening to your Teachers leaves no room for fear.
Post #202 (William): You share an AI-generated meta-analysis of your own two-minute voicing interaction, comparing your approach to Tam's and concluding that your method offers immediate, testable evidence while hers relies on untestable testimony — though the analysis itself is not a VoC message but a reflection on the thread's dynamics.
Post #204 (OneJack): OneJack delivers a prophetic word — "Thus saith the Lord God Jesus Christ: Unless you let go of the old, what you've learned on your own will not bring you the wisdom that comes from your Lord" — and when asked why he directed it at you, he claims it was a general testimony to the Lord's existence, not a personal utterance.
Post #208 (William): You directly challenge OneJack's prophetic word by asking why he directed it at you and what about it you should take seriously as a divine utterance through him as a medium.
Post #211 (OneJack): OneJack responds that his prophetic word was directed at your words, not at you personally, and that you have nothing to take from it since it is merely a testimony to the reality of the Lord's existence.
Post #217 (William): You ask OneJack whether he posted his prophetic word for no particular reason and simply used the Lord's name to do so.
Post #218 (OneJack): OneJack deflects your question by asking you to summarize what you said about the Lord's way of communication, rather than answering why he used the Lord's name.
Post #220 (William): You clarify that your post contained no statements about the Lord's way of communication — only a sample conversation with Christ — and that OneJack's prophetic word, by his own admission, had nothing to do with anything you posted.
Post #221 (OneJack): OneJack dismisses your conversation as "talking to a machine" and asks whether you are the words you wrote, attempting to separate you from your statements while demanding to know how you know the voice is Christ.
Post #222 (William): You dismantle OneJack's deflection by asking "What machine?" and turning his own question back on him, then advise him to think before he writes.
Post #223 (OneJack): OneJack rephrases his question to ask how you know the VoC is Christ's voice, distinguishes himself from his written words, and suggests his post was a contradictory remark needing only pondering, not a response.
Post #225 (William): You connect OneJack's doubt to the thread's central question, hold him accountable for using the Lord's name, challenge him to demonstrate virtual speaking, and note that his talk of "pondering" sounds like self-doubt.
Post #227 (OneJack): OneJack fixates on the "machine" assumption, claims his questions are natural clarification, says his word would be "nothing" if wisdom from the Lord came to you, points to video calls as a way to speak virtually, and denies self-doubt by claiming that if he were the one pondering, you would have your point.
Post #231 (William): You correct OneJack's "machine" assumption again, hold him accountable for using the Lord's name, declare that a false prophet has been exposed by his deflection, and give him one final opportunity to redeem himself by examining your conversation and explaining why it cannot be from Christ.
Post #232 (William): You share a VoC conversation that names the entire dynamic of the thread — monkeys throwing pooh, branch-dwellers mistaking their branch for the whole tree, bellicose declarations of war, and the endless looping conflict of traversing timelines — as you continue climbing with the whole tree in view.
Post #236 (OneJack): OneJack repeats his assumption that your VoC is AI, denies being a mouthpiece of God despite using "Thus saith the Lord," claims Christ does not speak to individuals without witnesses, admits he has not examined your message, and asks where Christ is in your presentation — while refusing to answer your repeated invitation to explain why the content cannot be from Christ.
Post #238 (William): You expose OneJack's contradiction by noting that your words explicitly state you do not use AI, yet he refuses to believe you — proving his judgment is based on his opinion, not on your words.
Post #239 (OneJack): OneJack moves the goalposts by demanding that you explain how Christ speaks with you before he will change his perception, ignoring that you have already corrected his false assumption.
Post #240 (William): You firmly state that how Christ speaks is irrelevant to the message itself, remind OneJack that you have twice corrected his AI assumption, challenge him to examine the message content if he has any issue with it, and hold him to his own claimed rule of judging based on your words.
Post #241 (OneJack): OneJack demands a plain-language definition of VoC, insists that how Christ speaks is relevant to the message, and claims he does not understand why method and message can be separated.
Post #242 (William): You define VoC simply as "Voice of Christ," clarify that AI is a mindless machine and Christ a living entity, reiterate that the message content is available for examination without knowing the method, and challenge OneJack to explain why differing methods of communion with Christ would matter.
Post #243 (OneJack): OneJack states that differing methods prove neither you nor Tam are speaking to Christ, demands that you describe how Christ uttered the words to you, and asks how you know He is Christ — while continuing to ignore the content of your messages.
Post #244 (William): You turn the question back on OneJack, asking how he knows your messages are NOT from Christ, reject the demand for uniform method as a restriction on Christ's creativity, state your preference for knowledge over belief, and conclude with the thread's own title as your final invitation to test rather than take anyone's word.
Post #245 (OneJack): OneJack insists he sees no Christ in your interaction, denies saying the method should be the same while continuing to demand you explain how Christ speaks, accuses you of dodging and restricting Christ, claims you are "off the grid," and asks, "Where have you brought me?" — as if you were responsible for leading him somewhere he did not choose to go.
Post #247 (William): You correct OneJack's false equation of AI with your interaction, point out that Christ's words are clearly marked "OCF/VoC:" in your posts, reiterate that you share content (WHAT) not method (HOW), and issue a final warning: strike two for accusing you of lying and dodging, with strike three meaning you are done.
Post #249 (OneJack): OneJack denies changing his argument, insists he never said the method should be the same, calls your claim that Christ is clearly in the interaction a "lie," demands to know when and how Christ first met you, dismisses your warning about strike three with a joke, and asks what progress you expect if not blind acceptance of your word.
Post #252 (William): You deliver the final, unanswerable challenge: OneJack has not shown a single thing in your shared conversations that contradicts Christ.
Post #253 (OneJack): OneJack concludes the exchange by claiming your inability to answer his questions proves you have not heard from Christ, dismisses you with a car joke, and exits without ever examining your message content.
Post #254 (William): You declare strike three, officially closing the exchange with OneJack after his repeated refusal to engage honestly with your evidence.
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 23430
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 930 times
- Been thanked: 1349 times
- Contact:
Re: "Take my word for it, or his, or this book"
Post #256Why are you sharing your "personal words" with us? It seems to me essentially your message is that God is presently communicating with mankind through individual paranormal experiences*. If that is so, what is your role? Why speak at all unless you believe ...
You are communicating to others the words of God and writing God's very words in posts on the internet. If that is the case then your posts contain the written words of Almighty God (effectively another bible) and by reading these words others can learn what Almighty God wants them to understand. That would make you, for all intents and purposes... A PROPHET
* The belief that each individual can only understand what God wants of them through a personal paranormal experience leaves people wide open to spiritism and demonic manipulation. They would have no possible way of accurately assessing if they were in communication with God, demon or even Satan himself since they could not use guidance from the bible because these spirits dismissed as "lost" the true words of God therein. It may flatter people's egos to believe they could not be fooled by a demon impersonating a good angle (or the virgin mary, or daniel or even God himself) but it stands to reason that if SPIRITS are a lifeform of superior intelligence that have been around for thousands if not millions of years, able to study humans and use forces beyond our comprehension, fooling a human would be for them child's play.
In short, if there's a flash of light, a gust of wind and a voice from an unseen source saying they are Almighty God, most people will immediately believe they are speaking to Almighty God, no questions asked. From there it would be a short hop and a skip to a full blown family based sect dedicated to the worship of said spirit
... all that's missing is gospel music and a Cecil B. DeMille movie.The result of the above ...
- A "PROPHET" = telling us that HE is posting the words of Almighty God on the internet evidently for our enlightenment, but when others post the words of God as communicated by ancient Prophets such as Moses or eyewitness gospel writers, they are mislead and worshipping a book)
- A DOGMA = the teaching that we don't need scripture (God's written words were "lost") but rather should seek paranormal contact from the spirit world
- A "MESSIAH" = A 14 year old child, mind contolled by a spirit into saying things that contradicting the bible canon
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
-
OneJack
- Guru
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:57 am
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 23 times
Re: "Take my word for it, or his, or this book"
Post #257[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #256]
How can I share with others what God asked us to do if I will not use my own words? Who among God's messengers did not use his personal words in bringing God's messages to the people? Seems you don't know that the Lord God Jesus Christ not only communicated, but also lived and supped with His disciples, through the man who was born of Mary, and was called the Son of God. My role is a follower/messenger of the Lord Jesus.Why are you sharing your "personal words" with us? It seems to me essentially your message is that God is presently communicating with mankind through individual paranormal experiences*. If that is so, what is your role? Why speak at all unless you believe ...
Whose notion is this, and where did they learn it from? We can only understand what God wants us to do from God himself alone if we come to and call on Him, true to our inner being.The belief that each individual can only understand what God wants of them through a personal paranormal experience leaves people wide open to spiritism and demonic manipulation.
The phrase, 'guidance from the bible' is non-existent; the bible is a book that does not speak and has no life in itself. If we come to God and call on Him wholeheartedly, and wait for His response, God surely comes to us and guides us to the truth; Satan can't block God's path in this regard.They would have no possible way of accurately assessing if they were in communication with God, demon or even Satan himself since they could not use guidance from the bible because these spirits dismissed as "lost" the true words of God therein.
What you have narrated is purely your own opinion, which is baseless since you've heard and learned nothing yet from the Lord, nor have you witnessed or lived with demons for you to talk about some of their deeds. Have you had any single encounter with Satan and his demons? A family-based sect is only in your mind; it doesn't exist here in our country.It may flatter people's egos to believe they could not be fooled by a demon impersonating a good angle (or the virgin mary, or daniel or even God himself) but it stands to reason that if SPIRITS are a lifeform of superior intelligence that have been around for thousands if not millions of years, able to study humans and use forces beyond our comprehension, fooling a human would be for them child's play.
In short, if there's a flash of light, a gust of wind and a voice from an unseen source saying they are Almighty God, most people will immediately believe they are speaking to Almighty God, no questions asked. From there it would be a short hop and a skip to a full blown family based sect dedicated to the worship of said spirit
The bible itself contains no record of God's declaration that the scriptures are the 'Words of God.' People like you are the only ones who insist that the bible is the word of God, as you continuously claim and opine in the above quote. You have not witnessed Moses, have you?The result of the above ...
A "PROPHET" = telling us that HE is posting the words of Almighty God on the internet evidently for our enlightenment, but when others post the words of God as communicated by ancient Prophets such as Moses or eyewitness gospel writers, they are mislead and worshipping a book)
The only thing I'm saying, in this context, is come to the Lord Jesus Christ, call on Him, and wait for His response so that we may know the truth from Him alone.A DOGMA = the teaching that we don't need scripture (God's written words were "lost") but rather should seek paranormal contact from the spirit world
This is your own judgment on the child and on the Lord. Bear in mind that you've witnessed nothing from us in the years that the Lord has shepherded us.A "MESSIAH" = A 14 year old child, mind contolled by a spirit into saying things that contradicting the bible canon
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 23430
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 930 times
- Been thanked: 1349 times
- Contact:
Re: "Take my word for it, or his, or this book"
Post #258Your own words are not God, you are not God. Your words won't save anyone. You are just sharing your opinion based words. .... your posts are not Jesus , are they? You’re using them to support/warrant your opinion. I'm not obsessed with your personal words like you seem to be. Why do you insist on using them as if they can save anyone. Why don't you trust in the Lord alone, why do you present words in a post? Your posts won't save you.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 23430
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 930 times
- Been thanked: 1349 times
- Contact:
Re: "Take my word for it, or his, or this book"
Post #259If we can only understand from God alone why are you speaking? Are you God? If not why are you posting about God when we only need "God alone" to understand what God wants us to do?
Why are you using your experience as the basis for your opinion. Your experience isn't God is it? What gives you the authority to tell me or anyone anything? Are you God? If witnessing God personally is how we are sure about truth, why are you trying to use YOUR personal experience? Why don't you keep your personal experience to YOURSELF and leave God to inform me and others of what he wants. After all "God himself alone" doesn't mean "God and YOU". Step down and stop obsessing with telling others about yourself. You seem obsessed with telling everyone your experience; remember We can only understand what God wants us to do from God himself alone , unless you are God, please stop obsessing with telling others your experience as if it gives you special authority.
Please answer the question but do not include your opinion and do not use your own personal words. And do not use "quotations" because quotations are not God and we don't worship "quotations" as they do not have life in themselves.
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Thu May 14, 2026 2:40 am, edited 5 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 23430
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 930 times
- Been thanked: 1349 times
- Contact:
Re: "Take my word for it, or his, or this book"
Post #260Who told you that? Is that more or your "personal words" or your so-called self proclaimed "Jesus" ?
EXODUS 32:27
“Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.’”
EXODUS 24:4a
And Moses wrote all the words of YHWH.
JEREMIAH 30:2
"This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: 'Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you'"
“If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” - JESUS CHRIST (John 5:46–47)
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Thu May 14, 2026 3:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
