is not easy to prove Jesus' resurrection .You can't go back in time and get a dna speciment ,you have to engage in historical investigation and see which argument fits the facts best .There are 2 Christian scholars who developed the "minimal facts " argument ,Garry Habermas and Mike Likona .Watch the following video it's very informative and will help you reach an answer.
raymond frantz
JoinedPosts by raymond frantz
-
63
Where was the dead body of Jesus? Did the disciples disappear it?
by opusdei1972 ini am currently an skeptic, but i have to admit that i can't assure that all the stuff of early christianity was false.. for instance, we know that the genuine letters of paul were written before the destruction of jerusalem.
so, paul affirmed that jesus resurrected, though he was not there when it supposedly happened.
but, if jesus did not resurrect, why didn't the jews expose this falsehood?.
-
-
-
101
The Watchtower 11/15/2014
by wifibandit inhttp://bayfiles.net/file/1jpu5/qhxxxl/w_e20141115.pdf.
select "premium download".
(thanks breakfast of champions).
-
-
raymond frantz
It just doesn't make sense .First they say " in the end we may receive instructions from the organization that don't make sense from a human point of view but we have to follow them ", implying that a worldwide organization with them as the head will still be functional .
Then they say " stick with your family study, in the end that is all that will remain " ,meaning that all organization including congragations will brake down .
And now this " At that crucial time, Jehovah will give us lifesaving instructions, and the “inner rooms” might well be connected with our local congregations."
Like Jesus said :""they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit." - Mat 15:14
-
6
Questions From Readers 1957 watchtower : Guess who was Armageddon in 1957?
by raymond frantz indon't be confused .when i say who i mean who because back in 1957 jehovah's witnesses didn't believe that armageddon was just the gathering of the kings of the earth to battle with the invisible armies of jesus' angels.no ,armageddon was more than that and it did fit bible account far more than it does today .. read the post below which contains a 1957 question from readers (please let me know if the page is displaying correctly on your browser).
is armageddon a place ?.
-
-
raymond frantz
Don't be confused .When I say who I mean who because back in 1957 Jehovah's Witnesses didn't believe that Armageddon was just the gathering of the kings of the earth to battle with the invisible armies of Jesus' angels.No ,Armageddon was more than that and it did fit Bible account far more than it does today .
Read the post below which contains a 1957 question from readers (please let me know if the page is displaying correctly on your browser)
Is Armageddon a place ?
-
12
This week's Book study :the chicken or egg debate
by raymond frantz inthis week's book study has this to say on paragraph 11:.
11 all humans are by inheritance sinful and thus deserving of sins penaltydeath.
(romans 5:12) but jehovah finds no pleasure in the death of sinners.
-
-
raymond frantz
thanks for the post cofty I'll have a read
-
12
This week's Book study :the chicken or egg debate
by raymond frantz inthis week's book study has this to say on paragraph 11:.
11 all humans are by inheritance sinful and thus deserving of sins penaltydeath.
(romans 5:12) but jehovah finds no pleasure in the death of sinners.
-
-
raymond frantz
navytown I needed some clarification on this verse not a diversion .I'm a believer not interested in a debate about faith in God or validity of Christian concepts
-
12
This week's Book study :the chicken or egg debate
by raymond frantz inthis week's book study has this to say on paragraph 11:.
11 all humans are by inheritance sinful and thus deserving of sins penaltydeath.
(romans 5:12) but jehovah finds no pleasure in the death of sinners.
-
-
raymond frantz
it was foreign to me until I actually read romans 3:24 on biblehub and how 99% of other translations render the phrase "undeserved kindness" as grace .
The word fro grace in the original text is "charis" No Greek whether modern or ancient will describe "charis" as undeserved kindness .This phrase removes the idea of a free gift
-
12
This week's Book study :the chicken or egg debate
by raymond frantz inthis week's book study has this to say on paragraph 11:.
11 all humans are by inheritance sinful and thus deserving of sins penaltydeath.
(romans 5:12) but jehovah finds no pleasure in the death of sinners.
-
-
raymond frantz
This week's Book study has this to say on paragraph 11:
11 All humans are by inheritance sinful and thus deserving of sin’s penalty—death. (Romans 5:12) But Jehovah finds no pleasure in the death of sinners. He is “a God of acts of forgiveness, gracious and merciful.” (Nehemiah 9:17) Still, because he is holy, he cannot condone unrighteousness. How, then, could he show mercy to inherently sinful humans? The answer is found in one of the most precious truths of God’s Word: Jehovah’s provision of a ransom for mankind’s salvation. In Chapter 14 we will learn more about this loving arrangement. It is at once profoundly just and supremely merciful. By means of it, Jehovah can express tender mercy toward repentant sinners while maintaining his standards of perfect justice.—Romans 3:21-26.
"Jehovah's most wonderful provision for mankind's salvation is the ransom sacrifice " the paragraph says ,BUT when you read Romans 3:24 that is quoted in the paragraph it says the following :"24 and it is as a free gift+ that they are being declared righteous by his undeserved kindness+ through the release by the ransom paid by Christ Jesus"
The free gift is : the undeserved kindness (=grace) which was made manifest or set in operation with the ransom sacrifice.
So the question is this : What came first Grace or the Ransom ? What is more important Jehovah's plan for man's salvation (=Grace) or the actual act that made it possible (=Ransom)?
Charisma a way to understand “Undeserved Kindness” (link to an article about undeserved kindness)
-
5
Bible Highlights (from the book of Numbers) : Was Zipporah the Cushite wife of Moses in Numbers 12:1 ?
by raymond frantz inwas zipporah the cushite wife of moses in numbers 12:1 ?
(click the link above to readf the full post).
"now miriam and aaron began to speak against moses because of the cushite wife he had married, for he had taken a cushite wife.
-
-
raymond frantz
Was Zipporah the Cushite wife of Moses in Numbers 12:1 ?
(click the link above to readf the full post)
"Now Mir′i·am and Aaron began to speak against Moses because of the Cush′ite wife he had married, for he had taken a Cush′ite wife." –Numbers 12:1
Was Zipporah the wife mentioned in Numbers 12:1 or had Moses remarried ? Was she an Ethiopian as some translations suggest or a Cushite ? And why would that make any difference ?
Some Bible commentators say that since Moses had been married to Zipporah for a long time she was not the one involved here, as any objection against her would have been raised long before. So they reason that Zipporah had died and Moses had remarried, this time selecting an Ethiopian woman, and that this remarriage was recent and raised the controversy. But the Bible does not say this, and the circumstances do not require such reasoning. Zipporah had been away from Moses, and now she rejoined him in the camp near Mount Sinai. It was soon after the camp began to move that the contention arose. Hence, while the marriage was not recent, the presence of Zipporah in the camp was.—Ex. 18:1-5.
-
52
Colossians 1:15-16 and the word "other"
by yogosans14 in"he is the image of the invisible god, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities.
all [other] things have been created through him and for him.
" (col. 1:15-17, for context.
-
-
raymond frantz
Sorry I got late on this one ,answering the original post ,a have a couple of querstions :
1. You say there is another word for first born in Greek which Paul didn't use here .Which one is this word
2. You connect the verses in Collosians witht the verses in Psalms when two different languages are used there ,one Greek and one Hebrew .Do you mean the Hebrews meant the same thing when the Greek's refered to a "first-born"?
By the way the Greek word used there is prōtotokos(=πρωτότοκος) the common Greek word for first born
5 3739 [e]
15 hos
15 ὅς
15 who
15 RelPro-NMS1510 [e]
estin
ἐστιν
is
V-PIA-3S1504 [e]
eikōn
εἰκὼν
[the] image
N-NFS3956 [e]
pasēs
πάσης
of all
Adj-GFS4416 [e]
prōtotokos
πρωτότοκος
[the] firstborn
Adj-NMS2937 [e]
ktiseōs
κτίσεως ;
creation
N-GFS -
Will anointed judge angels in heaven ? is there Scriptural evidence evidence to support this idea?
by raymond frantz inhow is it that christians judge angels, according to 1 corinthians 6:3?in 1 corinthians 6:3 paul says :" do you not know that we will judge angels?
then why not matters of this life?
" some have thought that by judging paul was speaking of christians being able to expel demons.
-
raymond frantz
How is it that Christians “judge angels,” according to 1 Corinthians 6:3?
In 1 Corinthians 6:3 Paul says :" Do you not know that we will judge angels? Then why not matters of this life?" Some have thought that by ‘judging’ Paul was speaking of Christians’ being able to expel demons. But Christ’s followers already had been empowered to do that on occasion so how are we to interpret Paul's words ?
Questions from Readers from 1979 watchtower 12/1 ,small and interesting subject check on the link above
