Aren't Jehovah's Witnesses people truthful witnesses?

[paarsurrey1]

Aren't Jehovah's Witnesses people truthful witnesses, please?

1 Corinthians

12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God* that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
http://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/15.htm

Jesus did not die on the Cross, he survived, so as per Paul's own argument Pauline-Christianity's "faith is futile". Right, please?
Please correct me if I am wrong with reasonable arguments.
________
*Jehovah

This entails that the Jehovah-Witnesses' people who believe in Paul and the Pauline-Christianity, are false witnesses as long as, and if they have no concrete evidence/s of Jesus, not dying on the Cross.Right, please?
Please correct me if I am wrong with reasonable arguments.

Regards

[brianbbs67]

Tam, only John went into these details. I do not think I am eating Christ or drinking his blood, when I observe this. He said to do this in remembrance of him. Gather, eat and drink. Break bread and share wine. I do not believe in a "transfiguration", as to truly eat human flesh and drink blood is forbidden. I beleive it is symbolic and his reminder. He gave us something to gather ourselves by and remember him. As often as you do this,remember me. I apologize in advance if this was not your intent.

I think (I could be wrong) that its only Catholics that believe the wine and bread literally change into human flesh and blood. In any case we (Jehovah's Witnesses) believe that the emblems (bread/wine) are SYMBOLIC of Jesus' body and blood.


JW

I also used the wrong term. Transubstantiation is the RCC thing. My wife is from a Catholic background and maintains even they view it as symbolic. Eating of the tree of life is where this comes from. Many think Jesus is the human incarnation of that tree. Thus Eucharist and transubstantiation.

I have never heard what Catholics think about the Transfiguration, though I've been in innumerable conversations with Catholics. They have plenty to say about Transubstantiation, however. Every Catholic I've ever talked to---even on these threads---says that they believe that the hosts actually transform into the body and blood of Jesus.

I have heard the same as you. But, she corrected me and said every catholic church she attended taught it as symbolic. Which would be correct. Could just be different Diocheses?? There is a lot of variation in every established church.

[onewithhim]

Tam, only John went into these details. I do not think I am eating Christ or drinking his blood, when I observe this. He said to do this in remembrance of him. Gather, eat and drink. Break bread and share wine. I do not believe in a "transfiguration", as to truly eat human flesh and drink blood is forbidden. I beleive it is symbolic and his reminder. He gave us something to gather ourselves by and remember him. As often as you do this,remember me. I apologize in advance if this was not your intent.

I think (I could be wrong) that its only Catholics that believe the wine and bread literally change into human flesh and blood. In any case we (Jehovah's Witnesses) believe that the emblems (bread/wine) are SYMBOLIC of Jesus' body and blood.


JW

I also used the wrong term. Transubstantiation is the RCC thing. My wife is from a Catholic background and maintains even they view it as symbolic. Eating of the tree of life is where this comes from. Many think Jesus is the human incarnation of that tree. Thus Eucharist and transubstantiation.

I have never heard what Catholics think about the Transfiguration, though I've been in innumerable conversations with Catholics. They have plenty to say about Transubstantiation, however. Every Catholic I've ever talked to---even on these threads---says that they believe that the hosts actually transform into the body and blood of Jesus.

I have heard the same as you. But, she corrected me and said every catholic church she attended taught it as symbolic. Which would be correct. Could just be different Diocheses?? There is a lot of variation in every established church.

Hmmmm, that's interesting. I have never come in contact with a Catholic that viewed the hosts as symbolic. Do Catholics really differ in regard to something so important to most of them (or half of them)? That just shows, I guess, how divided the RCC truly is.

"Now I urge you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same line of thought." (I Corinthians 1:10)

I see that qualification as highly important, and one that Jesus' true Church would demonstrate clearly.

[onewithhim]

Tam, only John went into these details. I do not think I am eating Christ or drinking his blood, when I observe this. He said to do this in remembrance of him. Gather, eat and drink. Break bread and share wine. I do not believe in a "transfiguration", as to truly eat human flesh and drink blood is forbidden. I beleive it is symbolic and his reminder. He gave us something to gather ourselves by and remember him. As often as you do this,remember me. I apologize in advance if this was not your intent.

I think (I could be wrong) that its only Catholics that believe the wine and bread literally change into human flesh and blood. In any case we (Jehovah's Witnesses) believe that the emblems (bread/wine) are SYMBOLIC of Jesus' body and blood.


JW

I also used the wrong term. Transubstantiation is the RCC thing. My wife is from a Catholic background and maintains even they view it as symbolic. Eating of the tree of life is where this comes from. Many think Jesus is the human incarnation of that tree. Thus Eucharist and transubstantiation.

I have never heard what Catholics think about the Transfiguration, though I've been in innumerable conversations with Catholics. They have plenty to say about Transubstantiation, however. Every Catholic I've ever talked to---even on these threads---says that they believe that the hosts actually transform into the body and blood of Jesus.

I have heard the same as you. But, she corrected me and said every catholic church she attended taught it as symbolic. Which would be correct. Could just be different Diocheses?? There is a lot of variation in every established church.

Hmmmm, that's interesting. I have never come in contact with a Catholic that viewed the hosts as symbolic. Do Catholics really differ in regard to something so important to most of them (or half of them)? That just shows, I guess, how divided the RCC truly is, and Jesus' real Church wouldn't differ on important doctrines.

"Now I urge you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same line of thought." (I Corinthians 1:10)

I see that qualification as highly important, and one that Jesus' true Church would demonstrate clearly.

[Pipiripi]

~Jesus did not write anything for the posterity
~Jesus did not dictate anything to any person, disciple or no-disciple
~Jesus did not authorize anybody to write on his behalf, so everything that has been mentioned in the Gospels has been written and ascribed to Jesus is unauthorized.

The Bible is the word of God not the word of His Son, Jesus. Thus Jesus didn't have to authorize anything. Jehovah God is the one who authorizes who writes and who doesn't. So it's not that Jesus authorized anyone, yet apparently Jesus was not authorized to write any part of the Bible. Otherwise, we would have books written by Jesus. The word of God can come from anyone Jehovah so sees fit, even from imperfect men He can get exactly what he wants to tell the world.

Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks. Especially refrain from such remarks that are negative comments about the author of the post.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 93 by onewithhim]

I apologize for having two identical postings. I don't know how to delete one of them.

[2timothy316]

~Jesus did not write anything for the posterity
~Jesus did not dictate anything to any person, disciple or no-disciple
~Jesus did not authorize anybody to write on his behalf, so everything that has been mentioned in the Gospels has been written and ascribed to Jesus is unauthorized.

The Bible is the word of God not the word of His Son, Jesus. Thus Jesus didn't have to authorize anything. Jehovah God is the one who authorizes who writes and who doesn't. So it's not that Jesus authorized anyone, yet apparently Jesus was not authorized to write any part of the Bible. Otherwise, we would have books written by Jesus. The word of God can come from anyone Jehovah so sees fit, even from imperfect men He can get exactly what he wants to tell the world.

Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks. Especially refrain from such remarks that are negative comments about the author of the post.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

Certainly this is a mis-post. This person is not even a moderator.

[brianbbs67]

~Jesus did not write anything for the posterity
~Jesus did not dictate anything to any person, disciple or no-disciple
~Jesus did not authorize anybody to write on his behalf, so everything that has been mentioned in the Gospels has been written and ascribed to Jesus is unauthorized.

The Bible is the word of God not the word of His Son, Jesus. Thus Jesus didn't have to authorize anything. Jehovah God is the one who authorizes who writes and who doesn't. So it's not that Jesus authorized anyone, yet apparently Jesus was not authorized to write any part of the Bible. Otherwise, we would have books written by Jesus. The word of God can come from anyone Jehovah so sees fit, even from imperfect men He can get exactly what he wants to tell the world.

Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks. Especially refrain from such remarks that are negative comments about the author of the post.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

Certainly this is a mis-post. This person is not even a moderator.

A moderator edited his post to remove the content, thats all.

[TripleZ]

[Replying to post 1 by paarsurrey1]

Yes, we try to be. We (JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES) base our beliefs on the entire bible Canon (66 books) the official statement from our website is as follows:



Jehovah's Witnesses do believe Jesus died to save mankind, it is one of our fundamental beliefs.



JEHOVAH'S WITNESS



Vidoe : Why did Jesus die?
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/book ... t_index]=0

show us where you read that Yeshua did not die ?

[Pipiripi]

[Replying to post 1 by paarsurrey1]

Yes, we try to be. We (JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES) base our beliefs on the entire bible Canon (66 books) the official statement from our website is as follows:



Jehovah's Witnesses do believe Jesus died to save mankind, it is one of our fundamental beliefs.



JEHOVAH'S WITNESS



Vidoe : Why did Jesus die?
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/book ... t_index]=0

show us where you read that Yeshua did not die ?

But your teaching show up more to the owner theory of the Watch Tower.

[TripleZ]

[Replying to post 1 by paarsurrey1]

Yes, we try to be. We (JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES) base our beliefs on the entire bible Canon (66 books) the official statement from our website is as follows:



Jehovah's Witnesses do believe Jesus died to save mankind, it is one of our fundamental beliefs.



JEHOVAH'S WITNESS



Vidoe : Why did Jesus die?
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/book ... t_index]=0

Paul never said that Yeshua did NOT die.