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

[JP Cusick]

Paul doctored the anonymous Gospels with the sole purpose to elevate Jesus from man to a god and to that end he made the "sheep" believe that Jesus died a cursed death on Cross and then raised from the literal and physical dead.
How could Paul leave his focal point ?

If we believe that there is a real and powerful God in command of events, then the Apostle Paul did and wrote exactly what God orchestrated, and then we today must decipher and interpret the text accordingly.

My understanding is that Paul was the later version of Moses, because Moses taught a weaker message than did God, as like God gave the ten commandment but Moses gave exceptions to the commandments, and Jesus tells us why = "because of the hardness of their hearts" per Matthew 19:7-8

So too Paul gave child's milk instead of spiritual meat because Paul was speaking to babes and not to mature disciples.

This does not mean that Moses or Paul did anything wrong - it just means that God gives each person according to the need and to the requirements.

If any person were to truly and sincerely follow Moses or Paul then that would lead them into greater truths of Jesus and of Muhammad and beyond.

There is nothing wrong with God providing steps leading upward to the top, and virtually every person has to start at the lower steps and climb up the ladder to the fuller truths of God.

Moses is a stepping stone, Paul is a stepping stone, Jesus is a stepping stone, Muhammad is a stepping stone, all leading up to the highest truths of our Creator.

[marco]

If any person were to truly and sincerely follow Moses or Paul then that would lead them into greater truths of Jesus and of Muhammad and beyond.

Moses is a stepping stone, Paul is a stepping stone, Jesus is a stepping stone, Muhammad is a stepping stone, all leading up to the highest truths of our Creator.

But they are not all stepping stones towards truth, else those who shout Allah Akbar after an atrocity would know murder is wrong. They have digested Muhammad's words and deduced killing is okay. Muhammad has nothing whatsoever to do with Paul or indeed Jehovah's Witnesses. He was a ruthless warrior. Here's a snatch that gives an insight into the "Prophet's" world:

" The Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe, were besieged for 25 days until they surrendered. According to Mohammed al-Ghazali, during that time the Muslims allowed the Jews who had refused to betray the Prophet during the Battle of the Ditch to leave and "go wherever they wished". Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, a companion of Muhammad, was chosen by him as an arbiter and all parties agreed to abide by his judgment. Sa'd gave his verdict that "the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives". Muhammad approved of the ruling, calling it similar to God's judgment, after which nearly all male members of the tribe who had reached puberty were beheaded."

Of course we can say this is false and we can believe only the nice things that have been reported about Muhammad. Where is truth?

[Monta]

[Replying to post 32 by marco]


"Of course we can say this is false and we can believe only the nice things that have been reported about Muhammad. Where is truth?"

Good posts your and JP.

Equally we have problem with OT of course much older text written in a style foreign to our way of thinking. Muhammad is much later after OT and NT. Must admit don't know much about Koran but if the violence as you quoted is in it, it's value is questionable.

[marco]

[Replying to post 32 by marco]


"Of course we can say this is false and we can believe only the nice things that have been reported about Muhammad. Where is truth?"

Good posts your and JP.

Equally we have problem with OT of course much older text written in a style foreign to our way of thinking. Muhammad is much later after OT and NT. Must admit don't know much about Koran but if the violence as you quoted is in it, it's value is questionable.

To be precise, the life of Muhammad is taken from writings about him known as the hadith, and these are secondary to the Quran which is thought to be the dictated words of Allah. Muhammad worked for the woman who became his first wife, of many, and traded and raided successfully before going off to a cave to meet the angel Gabriel. God apparently sent angels to help him in the Battle of Badr, so he is no Jesus, full of love and meekness.

There are debates as to what Muhammad actually did and obviously his biographers and worshippers would have provided a sanitised version since Muhammad is regarded as almost divine and disparaging him is regarded as blasphemy. The violence in the Quran involves animosity towards unbelievers and it is probably from these verses that today's fanatics get their idea that Allah is great and needs people killed.

We are asked whether JWs are truthful -of course they as, as are most Muslims. The question is whether what they honestly profess is factual. Who knows?

[JP Cusick]

Must admit don't know much about Koran but if the violence as you quoted is in it, it's value is questionable.

What "Marco" posted was not from the Qur'an, and he copied pasted from Wikipedia while failing to provide the link, because the story is denounced as a lie.

Link here = Wiki ~ Invasion of Banu Qurayza

My understanding of the true story is that Muhammad was preaching his new religion about peace and unity but the Jewish people did not want another new religion based on Abraham and on the Jesus of Christianity so the Jewish leaders in that one small area decided to fight against Muhammad and they lost.

According to more reliable interpretation then Muhammad offered the Jewish community to live as brethren in peace, but they resisted and they took up arms against the new religion and they violently refused to accept the new order.

[tam]

Peace to you paarsurrey,

[Replying to post 1 by paarsurrey1]

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.

He did not survive, but died and rose again.

Your correction is clearly spelled out throughout the New Testament.

Your claims are false and appear to be designed to sow doubts and bring confusion.

but died and rose again

Those who die medically, physically and literally never become alive again in this world. Will one give ones' medical, physical and literal evidences to prove that :
~Jesus died on the Cross
~Jesus became alive from medical, physical and literal dead?
It is one's weird claim. Isn't it, please?
Anybody, please

Regards

Some people do die, and can be resuscitated after a short period of time. Just not after such a long period of time.

However, if I am not mistaken, you do believe in the resurrection, right? You do believe that all those people who have died (medically and physically, and for a long period of time) will be resurrected at some point (on the Last Day)? So you must accept that it is possible for people to be dead (medically and physically), and then become alive again in this world, right?

In which case, would you not have to concede that it IS possible for Christ to have died and been resurrected?


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

Peace to you paarsurrey1,

[Replying to post 23 by paarsurrey1]

After 40 days of the event, when Jesus was put on the Cross, Jesus went out of Judea in search of the lost ten tribes of Israel which was Jesus' mission as per clue in the NT, so Paul lost his track.

Did you know that the Samaritans were descendants of the ten tribe Northern Kingdom (the ten 'lost' tribes)? The Samaritan woman at the well called Jacob their father; and they worshiped on the same mountain that Jeroboam (king of the ten tribes) set up for them.

So my Lord did already preach to descendants of the lost ten tribes as well as to the Jews.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[brianbbs67]

Did you know that the Samaritans were descendants of the ten tribe Northern Kingdom (the ten 'lost' tribes)? The Samaritan woman at the well called Jacob their father; and they worshiped on the same mountain that Jeroboam (king of the ten tribes) set up for them.

So my Lord did already preach to descendants of the lost ten tribes as well as to the Jews.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

That was who Christ came for first. The lost sheep of Isreal.

[JP Cusick]

Did you know that the Samaritans were descendants of the ten tribe Northern Kingdom (the ten 'lost' tribes)? The Samaritan woman at the well called Jacob their father; and they worshiped on the same mountain that Jeroboam (king of the ten tribes) set up for them.

So my Lord did already preach to descendants of the lost ten tribes as well as to the Jews.

The Samaritans claimed to be the northern Israel but it was not true, and that is why the Jews hated the Samaritans because the Jews knew that the Samaritans were not the northern Israel.

The huge Empire of Assyria would take all of the inhabitants of an area and replace them with other people who would do as Assyria wanted, and Assyria in 720 BCE created the false claim that the Samaritans were the northern Israel when they were not.

Thereby began the search for the lost ten (10) tribes of Israel, see HERE.

[tam]

Peace to you JP!

Did you know that the Samaritans were descendants of the ten tribe Northern Kingdom (the ten 'lost' tribes)? The Samaritan woman at the well called Jacob their father; and they worshiped on the same mountain that Jeroboam (king of the ten tribes) set up for them.

So my Lord did already preach to descendants of the lost ten tribes as well as to the Jews.

The Samaritans claimed to be the northern Israel but it was not true, and that is why the Jews hated the Samaritans because the Jews knew that the Samaritans were not the northern Israel.

The huge Empire of Assyria would take all of the inhabitants of an area and replace them with other people who would do as Assyria wanted, and Assyria in 720 BCE created the false claim that the Samaritans were the northern Israel when they were not.

This is not entirely accurate. Assyria did deport inhabitants of an area and then repopulate with other Assyrians, but Assyria did not deport all the inhabitants. They simply called all inhabitants of their newly conquered territory (whether native or foreign) Assyrians.

“…DEPORTEES WERE CAREFULLY CHOSEN FOR THEIR ABILITIES AND SENT TO REGIONS WHICH COULD MAKE THE MOST OF THEIR TALENTS. NOT EVERYONE IN THE CONQUERED POPULACE WAS CHOSEN FOR DEPORTATION AND FAMILIES WERE NEVER SEPARATED.�

https://www.ancient.eu/assyria/

“IN ORDER TO ASSURE THAT CONQUERED TERRITORIES WOULD REMAIN PACIFIED, THE ASSYRIANS WOULD FORCE MANY OF THE NATIVE INHABITANTS TO RELOCATE TO OTHER PARTS OF THEIR EMPIRE. THEY ALMOST ALWAYS CHOSE THE UPPER AND MORE POWERFUL CLASSES, FOR THEY HAD NO REASON TO FEAR THE GENERAL MASS OF A POPULATION. THEY WOULD THEN SEND ASSYRIANS TO RELOCATE IN THE CONQUERED TERRITORY.�

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the ... -of-israel


The Jews overlooked the peasants and lower classes that would have remained, and rejected all of them because outsiders had joined them. But blood is blood. Israel (from the ten tribes) maintained a presence in the land after being conquered by Assyria; and they were the Samaritans at the time Christ walked in the flesh. (today they are among the Palestinians)

And we can know that the Samaritans were of Israel because of the woman at the well who called Jacob their father. Christ did not correct her. He did in fact preach to the Samaritans on numerous occasions; even though He said He came for the lost sheep of Israel. The Samaritans, therefore, were some of these lost sheep of Israel.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy