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

[TripleZ]

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

and so, what exactly is it that JW are actually " witnessing " ?
and what exactly is it that they have claimed to have SEEN ?

[JehovahsWitness]

and so, what exactly is it that JW are actually " witnessing " ?
and what exactly is it that they have claimed to have SEEN ?

A witness is someone who publicly testifies about what they have seen, know or believe be true. Nobody has seen God but Jehovah's Witness testify as to what we believe to be true about Jehovah God and his purpose.


JW

[otseng]

Paul says no such things,,lol are you serious ? The JWs are of course still false witnesses as they only believe the words of men, not Gods word...

Moderator Warning


15. It is not permitted to say another person or group is not a Christian or call them a cult if the person or group identifies as Christian (this includes Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or any group that claims to be Christian).

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[onewithhim]

[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 ?

JehovahsWitness did not say that Jesus did not die.

[onewithhim]

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

what is it that you believe ? I have never heard a JW agree with Paul, maybe they agree with Paul before Yeshua took hold of him and changed him to witness to us Gentiles ?
BTW are you saying that Paul says that Yeshua did NOT die on the crossbeam ?
You only need to make a choice, as to whom you believe, either a man, or men, or the Word Of God ONLY!

What are you saying? Jehovah's Witnesses believe everything Paul wrote. He was hand-picked by Jesus to be His disciple. Yet you say that we don't believe what Paul said? You must not have talked to very many JWs.

[onewithhim]

Why do you claim that all the books of the Bible are divinely inspired? Do you have any evidence supporting this view, or is it only an assumption?

But if this is true, must not all these books be free from error?

Being inspired and "free from error" are two different things.

[polonius]

Why do you claim that all the books of the Bible are divinely inspired? Do you have any evidence supporting this view, or is it only an assumption?

But if this is true, must not all these books be free from error?

Being inspired and "free from error" are two different things.

RESPONSE: So aren't you then admitting that God "inspires" error?

[onewithhim]

Why do you claim that all the books of the Bible are divinely inspired? Do you have any evidence supporting this view, or is it only an assumption?

But if this is true, must not all these books be free from error?

Being inspired and "free from error" are two different things.

RESPONSE: So aren't you then admitting that God "inspires" error?

No.

His inspiration is flawless. It is MEN who make something flawed. A perfectly flawless message could come from God, and the man receiving it could be a wee bit off. Like adding a bunch of stuff that God didn't inspire. For example, try explaining how God could've inspired what it says at Exodus 4:25,26. Even the WT doesn't have an explanation for that.

[polonius]

Why do you claim that all the books of the Bible are divinely inspired? Do you have any evidence supporting this view, or is it only an assumption?

But if this is true, must not all these books be free from error?

Being inspired and "free from error" are two different things.

RESPONSE: So aren't you then admitting that God "inspires" error?

No.

His inspiration is flawless. It is MEN who make something flawed. A perfectly flawless message could come from God, and the man receiving it could be a wee bit off. Like adding a bunch of stuff that God didn't inspire. For example, try explaining how God could've inspired what it says at Exodus 4:25,26. Even the WT doesn't have an explanation for that.

Response; From the modern study of archaeology, we know that the Exodus story is fictional. In short 2,2 million Hebrews never spent 40 year in the desert and, in fact were never in Egypt to begin with.

The Biblical Exodus Story Is Fiction

By Staks Rosch
“Except, in reality, there wasn’t actually an Exodus. I have since learned that the Jews were never slaves in Egypt and that the entire story of Exodus is fiction.
“As it turns out, well-known Jewish commentator and author Rabbi David Wolpe has also known about the Exodus Myth. In his article, “Did the Exodus Really Happen?“ he mentions that other rabbis wanted him to keep the fiction of the Exodus story on the down-low. The basic story of the Exodus from Egypt (extracting supernatural elements) was touted to me as one of the most historical aspects of the Bible, yet it never happened. This seriously puts into question the historicity of any and all of the Bible stories.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts[1] is a 2001 book about the archaeology of Palestine and its relationship to the origins of the Hebrew Bible. The authors are Israel Finkelstein, Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, and Neil Asher Silberman, a contributing editor to Archaeology Magazine.

The authors describe their approach as one in which the Bible is one of the most important artifacts and cultural achievements [but] not the unquestioned narrative framework into which every archaeological find must be fit. Their main contention is that
"...an archaeological analysis of the patriarchal, conquest, judges, and United Monarchy narratives [shows] that while there is no compelling archaeological evidence for any of them, there is clear archaeological evidence that places the stories themselves in a late 7th-century BCE context."

As noted by a reviewer on Salon.com[2] the approach and conclusions of The Bible Unearthed are not particularly new. Ze'ev Herzog, professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, wrote a cover story for Ha'aretz in 1999 in which he reached similar conclusions following the same methodology; Herzog noted also that some of these findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades, even though they have only recently begun to make a dent in the awareness of the general public.[2]

[onewithhim]

Why do you claim that all the books of the Bible are divinely inspired? Do you have any evidence supporting this view, or is it only an assumption?

But if this is true, must not all these books be free from error?

Being inspired and "free from error" are two different things.

RESPONSE: So aren't you then admitting that God "inspires" error?

No.

His inspiration is flawless. It is MEN who make something flawed. A perfectly flawless message could come from God, and the man receiving it could be a wee bit off. Like adding a bunch of stuff that God didn't inspire. For example, try explaining how God could've inspired what it says at Exodus 4:25,26. Even the WT doesn't have an explanation for that.

Response; From the modern study of archaeology, we know that the Exodus story is fictional. In short 2,2 million Hebrews never spent 40 year in the desert and, in fact were never in Egypt to begin with.

The Biblical Exodus Story Is Fiction

By Staks Rosch
“Except, in reality, there wasn’t actually an Exodus. I have since learned that the Jews were never slaves in Egypt and that the entire story of Exodus is fiction.
“As it turns out, well-known Jewish commentator and author Rabbi David Wolpe has also known about the Exodus Myth. In his article, “Did the Exodus Really Happen?“ he mentions that other rabbis wanted him to keep the fiction of the Exodus story on the down-low. The basic story of the Exodus from Egypt (extracting supernatural elements) was touted to me as one of the most historical aspects of the Bible, yet it never happened. This seriously puts into question the historicity of any and all of the Bible stories.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts[1] is a 2001 book about the archaeology of Palestine and its relationship to the origins of the Hebrew Bible. The authors are Israel Finkelstein, Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, and Neil Asher Silberman, a contributing editor to Archaeology Magazine.

The authors describe their approach as one in which the Bible is one of the most important artifacts and cultural achievements [but] not the unquestioned narrative framework into which every archaeological find must be fit. Their main contention is that
"...an archaeological analysis of the patriarchal, conquest, judges, and United Monarchy narratives [shows] that while there is no compelling archaeological evidence for any of them, there is clear archaeological evidence that places the stories themselves in a late 7th-century BCE context."

As noted by a reviewer on Salon.com[2] the approach and conclusions of The Bible Unearthed are not particularly new. Ze'ev Herzog, professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, wrote a cover story for Ha'aretz in 1999 in which he reached similar conclusions following the same methodology; Herzog noted also that some of these findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades, even though they have only recently begun to make a dent in the awareness of the general public.[2]

I have read all the articles I have run into and what I understand is that scholars are divided, and there is no consensus of opinion. I have watched documentaries that show that the Israelites were indeed in Egypt, and certain hieroglyphic displays can be read to back up this line of thought.

Most people fall for Constantine's mother's fixation on the "Mount Sinai" of the southern Egyptian peninsula, so scholars have been looking in the wrong place for Mt. Sinai. It is really in Midian, which is Arabia, on the eastern side of the Red Sea, or the Gulf of Aqabba. So no wonder artifacts haven't been found on the Egyptian peninsula.

And I have seen enough to convince me that there is much more to tell about Israel being in Egypt. The whole story has not been told.