JWs vs Evangelicals

[Elijah John]

There are a few verses from the New Testament that support the notion that Jesus is God. A position favored by Evangelicals and Trinitarians.

Then there are some that support the notion that Jesus is NOT God. A position favored by Jehovah's Witnesses, unitarians (small "u") and other Arians.

For debate, isn't this divide major evidence that the Bible is indeed contradictory in some very important ways?

If not, how do you explain the divide, as both camps claim the Bible is infallible and without contradiction?

[2timothy316]

Birthdays, Christmas and Easter are pagan in origin and not found in the Bible

The celebration of births, weddings, and Christ’s resurrection are most definitely seen in the Bible.

No decree to celebrate births or Christ's resurrection though.
Have you ever looked up the origin of Birthday celebrations or the origin of Easter? There is no record of any celebrations for either Jesus' birthday or resurrection in the Bible. Those decrees came from the RCC to cover pagan worship. Something is not approved by the Bible either.

Weddings are fine because a marriage is a provision from God. Jesus was even mentioned attending one in John the 2nd chapter. He even helped with beverage selection.

[2timothy316]

Tree worship, bunny worship and self-worship are all unapproved by the Bible.

And none of those things happen in the RCC's Mass. That is a very cynical way to view those holidays. Birthdays are not "self-worship", to celebrate a person by one's loved ones is not "worship". It can be viewed as an act of appreciation of God's most wonderous creation, namely that of a human being, made in the image of God.

And any pagan overtones to popular celebrations of Christmas and Easter, are just that, popular folk-ways, and not part of the official religous observance. Which by contrast celebrate the birth and resurrection of Christ, respectively. I've seen plenty of Christ-centered observance at holiday Mass, with ne'er a bow to tree or bunny.

Ah I see, are we only concerned how we as people feel about these things in 'popular folk-ways' or are we concerned how God views these things in a Godly way? Perhaps I'm in the wrong forum?

[2timothy316]

Birthdays are not "self-worship", to celebrate a person by one's loved ones is not "worship".

There is an affinity of such commemoration among the wicked as recorded in The Satanic Bible (Anton LaVey, (Air) Book of Lucifer – The Enlightenment, Avon Books, 1969, Ch XI, Religious Holidays, p. 96) regarding Birthdays:

"The highest of all holidays in the Satanic religion is the date of one’s own birthday. This is in direct contradiction to the holy of holy days of other religions, which deify a particular god who has been created in an anthropomorphic form of their own image, thereby showing that the ego is not really buried. The Satanist feels: ‘Why not really be honest and if you are going to create a god in your image, why not create that god as yourself." Every man is a god if he chooses to recognize himself as one. So, the Satanist celebrates his own birthday as the most important holiday of the year. After all, aren’t you happier about the fact that you were born than you are about the birth of someone you have never even met? Or for that matter, aside from religious holidays, why pay higher tribute to the birthday of a president or to a date in history than we do to the day we were brought into this greatest of all worlds? Despite the fact that some of us may not have been wanted, or at least were not particularly planned, we’re glad, even if no one else is, that we’re here! You should give yourself a pat on the back, buy yourself whatever you want, treat yourself like the king (or god) that you are, and generally celebrate your birthday with as much pomp and ceremony as possible."


So do you still want to defend birthdays?

[2timothy316]

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 40 by 2timothy316]

Here's a question, when do you think the first Bible appeared?

Actually, I think the Bible did not become readily available until the invention of the printing press in 1440.

Next question, when has their ever been a separate law code to follow? I don't recall there being a law of Moses and then a law of Aaron.

What laws are you referring? Mosaic law? The moral law? Canon law? God’s law? Does God’s law include the Mosaic law? The moral law? Canon law?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 40 by 2timothy316]

Here's a question, when do you think the first Bible appeared?

Actually, I think the Bible did not become readily available until the invention of the printing press in 1440.

The first Bible was when Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Thousands of years before the printing press.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Pentateuch

Next question, when has their ever been a separate law code to follow? I don't recall there being a law of Moses and then a law of Aaron.

What laws are you referring? Mosaic law? The moral law? Canon law? God’s law? Does God’s law include the Mosaic law? The moral law? Canon law?

The law of Moses. It was in my post.

So again, was there another set of decrees from the priesthood (Aaron) separate from the law of Moses?

[RightReason]

[2timothy316]

The Pentateuch is the first five books of the Bible. The Pentateuch is not the Bible.

Oh dear...
Ok, so do you see the error in your statement here?

"Is the first five books of" what?

The Pentateuch was the Bible for Moses and the Hebrews for a long time. Then more scriptures were added to it and those additions became part of the Bible as well. The Bible has not always been the 66 books you know of today and this is my point. That while decrees and laws have been added to the Bible by 'God's People' I don't think that what comes from the RCC is from God. Because if it was, it would have no problems being put into the Bible.

[2timothy316]

[RightReason]