You don’t need an AI bot to give you the Scriptures and how it is translated in Hebrew and Koine Greek @paulhinkle.
https://www.stepbible.org/ or here…https://www.blueletterbible.org/
Hope this is helpful.
J.
You don’t need an AI bot to give you the Scriptures and how it is translated in Hebrew and Koine Greek @paulhinkle.
https://www.stepbible.org/ or here…https://www.blueletterbible.org/
Hope this is helpful.
J.
@Gospel My friend im not here to change how you feel or what you believe. That is not my job and if other learned that its not their job either then maybe this discussion would be different. I am here to learn and grow, and if i can grow stronger in my faith and beliefs by learning how jehovah’s witness differs from us then im all for it. They are failing to realize you are what you are and thats ok for you. I am not worried about your beliefs getting in the way of mine i am comfortable being who i am and what i believe in so you are not like a disease to me you are infomation. One way or the other i can learn from you my friend.
Thank you my friend, God bless you
i am in jail and can not go to outside links or web pages. But like i said i am taking someone else word at how the original bible has been translated into the english language no matter how you look at it because iam unable to translate it myself
The scripture stating that what is corruptible is raised incorruptible is 1 Corinthians 15:42-54, specifically 1 Corinthians 15:53-54 [KJV]: “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” . This passage describes the resurrection of the dead
Willard’s view stresses that the body is not discarded, but rather elevated, taking the “perishable” and raising it as “imperishable”.
Now that’s all i have to add…anybody that truly reads through this can see …no leg 
to stand on…
I do not think Jehovah’s Witness theology aligns with historic orthodox Christianity, and that difference is significant when interpreting these passages.
The question, however, is not whose tradition we prefer, but what the text itself actually says in context.
Are we allowing the meaning of Scripture to stand on its own terms, or are we importing an interpretive framework into it first?
I find myself regularly surprised at how quickly the discussion shifts away from the actual wording of the biblical text toward assumptions about translation or doctrinal systems.
At the same time, it is important to remember that correction, when it is needed, is not unloving. In fact, engaging carefully with the text and testing interpretations is part of responsible theological discussion, whether online or in person.
J.
You must be born again…and the vast majority of JWs don’t believe you must be born again…Grow by trusting Jesus for everything. Trust His teachings by living them out. TRUST he will provide for you. Salvation is not one moment we receive in time. But everyday life we receive from God as we are caught up in the works he prepared for us to do in Christ.
I don’t believe God goes against His nature- so pursue peace. Act in love. For love seeks not its own but the well being of others. Getting caught up in God"s actions is life. Peace and Blessings…nothing wrong with correcting others where they are wrong. And there are many corrections made here of the JW site He presented.
This is what have been saying brother @Johann. Jehovah’s have rewrote the bible to their translation, the way they see it.? We as christians read it as it was wrote not rewriting it but only translating it into english. Am i correct so far?
The following scriptures are typically used in support of a spirit-resurrection for Jesus: 1 Corinthians 15:45, 1 Peter 3:18, along with Galatians 1:1, 11, 12 where Paul says his appointment and teaching is not from any man, and Hebrews 5:7 where Jesus’ physical body is spoken of as being in the past (literally “in the days of his flesh”).
Additionally, and not any less significant, Hebrews 10:10 reports that Jesus sacrificed his physical body—thus for him to take it back would be to cancel the salvific transaction to God. Another issue which cannot be stressed enough is the Atonement Day drama where the High Priest passed though the curtain from the Holy to the Most Holy on Atonement Day with only the blood and not the body of the sacrificed animal, thus, in fulfillment, Jesus presented the value of his sacrificed life and not his body when he passed though the greater spiritual curtain in the presence of the Almighty God Jehovah.—Hebrews 10:19, 20.
Conversely, scriptures used to support Jesus being resurrected with his sacrificed body (not just with a new fleshly body, but his original Nazarene body), taking back his sacrificed body, are: Acts 17:31, 1 Timothy 2:5 and Colossians 2:9. However, the “man” expression in Acts 17:31 and 1 Timothy 2:5 refers to Jesus’ historical existence of being a man on earth. Thus Jesus is a man experientially, not ontologically. Colossians 2:9 rightly says he has a body, but does not specify a physical one, thus it may be a spirit body being referenced. An additional scripture popularly employed is Luke 24:39, where the resurrected Jesus said he is not a spirit but has “flesh and bones” after miraculously appearing inside a locked room (according to the parallel account in John 20:19).
Ones who conclude this means that Jesus was ontologically not a spirit also conclude that he also had no blood, and must therefore ignore this palpable and absurd contradiction of being alive as a man without any blood. However, when Jesus appeared in the locked room he indeed had blood as confirmed in Luke 24:39 and at 1 John 1:1 where his invited followers felt his flesh to confirm that he was not a vision. By feeling and examining his flesh, they could doubtlessly confirm blue veins and that he had blood (which is liquid flesh)[1] and was not bloodlessly blanched. This only makes sense if he was a spirit being materializing into the locked room. Supporting this as a materialization event is the context of Luke 24:39, for Jesus had earlier instantaneously vanished in Luke 24:31. He then reversed that in Luke 24:36-37, making a frightening appearance among them inside the locked room. (John 20:19)
Jesus being understood as materializing into the locked room addresses his miraculous and startling appearance, whereas the other interpretation does not and leaves it as an unresolved mystery of preposterous proportions.
To summarize:
Respectfully, you are twisting my faith to make it appear as something it is not, which is neither a nice thing to do nor a Christian thing to do.
You describe born-again as “growing trusting Jesus for everything”. I have confirmed thrice that if by born-again that is what you mean, then yes Jehovah’s Witnesses are born again in this sense.
However, you next said “JWs don’t believe you must be born again”, so this is not true.
What is true, however, is that most are not born-again in the sense of being born-again for life in Heaven as a spirit. Which is a different sense of the expression “born-again” that you describe as “Salvation is not one moment we receive in time. But everyday life we receive from God as we are caught up in the works he prepared for us to do in Christ.”, which is something I agree with.
The New World Translation is not a rewriting of the Bible, it is a translation of the Bible in english.
We base our beliefs on all 66 of its books, which include both the “Old Testament” and the “New Testament.”
Now this does make sence 
I agree
If Jesus took it back, it’s not a sacrifice anymore
So I believe that the fleshly body of Jesus has been sacrificed for good
And that now, my Lord Jesus is alive in a glorious, spiritual body, which is what the Scriptures say in 1 peter 3:18
@Johann ??? am i correct or no? 7 post back my friend?
I am somewhat puzzled by the direction of this exchange. At the outset, you appeared to acknowledge the concerns raised and expressed a willingness to learn more regarding the doctrinal claims being discussed in relation to Jehovah’s Witness teaching. Now, however, you are asking a question that seems to move away from that initial posture.
If we are engaging this seriously, then the issue is not shifting positions midstream, but carefully testing the doctrine in question against the consistent testimony of Scripture, including passages such as John 3:3–7, where the necessity of the new birth is clearly stated in absolute terms.
J.
Stop being mean to my friend @paulhinkle
Excellent points Johann. And also your previous post in this thread as well. It caused me to look up the general JW stance on this.
Jesus’ Body—Was It Flesh or Spirit After His Resurrection? | Bible Questions
This was a huge gnostic issue in the first century. Gnostics seeing that all flesh is evil. Therefore Jesus could not have risen in the flesh. Yet this is a distinction of the Christian faith, that indeed He has, as we someday too will as well.
About 7 years a brother in the faith mentioned a unique sense upon the power of the resurrection. Romans 5:10 implying that it is by His life we are saved. With the cross bringing justification but his life bringing eternal life, if i recall how he explained it a while back.
So yes it would seem the JW position shares the gnostic belief about resurrection. Thanks for your posts. Blessings.
Actually, the Gnostic did not believe that Jesus came in the flesh. They believe he came to earth as a spirit. Which is why John said they are antichrists, because they deny that he sacrificed his flesh.
I do believe that Jesus came in the flesh, and this flesh is what he sacrificed forever. So he has been resurrected with a glorious body, which is spiritual and incorruptible.
So my position has nothing to do with those of gnostics. I’m glad to have cleared this misunderstanding 
My understanding of that is John 10:18. He is sovereign over the definition of His flesh more than our philosophical views regarding, I believe.