FAKE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

EDJ · Sep 3, 2004

I JUST MADE THIS POST TO DEBATE THE FALSE DOCTRINE THAT THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT ARE THE SAME THANg.

EVERYBODY QUESTIONS RELIgION AND WHEN CHRISTIANS TRY TO EXPLAIN THE OTHA'S DOUBTS, THEY ALWAYS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FATHER AND SON ARE THE SAME, THUS CAUSIN' MORE CONFUSION. MY QUESTION FOR THOSE CHRISTIAN'S IS WHY WOULD (gOD) DO SUCH AN ACT TO MAKE HIMSELF A MERE MORTAL AND PRAY TO HIMSELF IF HE CAN JUST DO WHAT HE WANTED FROM THE HEAVENS? IT SOUNDS LUDICROUS. WHO WAS UP IN HEAVEN THEN, WHEN HE WAS JESUS? WHO WAS LOOKIN' AFTER THE HEAVENS IF HE WAS DOWN ON EARTH? IF HE WAS A MAN, HOW COULD HE HEAR OTHER'S PRAYERS?

AND WHY ISN'T THE WORD TRINITY EVEN FOUND IN THE SCRIPTURES IF IT'S SO HOLY? WHY DO OTHA RELIgIONS HAVE THEY FORM OF TRINITARIANISM IN THEY gODS AND RELIgION IF IT SO HOLY? ISN'T THAT BEIN' PAgAN? CAN SOMBEODY CLEAR ME OF N-E DOUBT I HAVE?

JLMACN · Sep 3, 2004

HMMM...GOOD DEBATE....TOO BAD IM TIRED OF STATIN MY OPINION...
(OR SHOULD I SAY THE BIBLES)...

GOOD LUCK INFERNO..

5000

inferno · Sep 3, 2004

Not sure im comprehending the question quite right. The doctrine of the trinity doesn't teach that the Father and Son are the same, but that they are separate. Each entity, being co-equal, co-eternal, and co-existent. On the contrary, they dont believe in the oneness of God.

The monotheistic approach is possibly what you were referring to and this teaching goes back to the very beginning of the bible.

Instead of going into to great detail, I'll adress your questions.

God chose to come in the flesh to become the ransom sacrifice for mans debt of sin. Their was no one here on earth that could have pardoned mans sins. Remember the Old Testament dipictions of animals being sacrificed for mans sin. The prerequisite for them was that they had to be without spot or blemish to be acceptable. Likewise God being sinless temporarily housed himself in flesh to become the sacrificial lamb.

The dual nature of Christ helps you comprehend so much. God is a spirit and he said the heavens of heavens cannot contain him. This is a reference to his omnipresence. To dig deeper, you must understand that although he can exist everywhere at the same time his central force resides in heaven. Just as he can anwer my prayer and someones overseas at the same time shows he is not limited or confined to space. "Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool." Jesus showed his limitations to the people when he spoke as a man, but as God he showed no limitations. The bible said he was tempted in all points as we are yet without sin. He wanted to show that he could relate to us by feeling the pull and tug of temptation.

So as a man he hungered, was weary, thirsted and prayed in his humanity. Diety and humanity were fused together in one body. His diety need no help at all, but the flesh he subdued.

Matthew 26:41 "The spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak."
Through the prayer at Gethsamene, the human will submitted itself to the divine will.

Here is wisdom and understanding, before you respond he prayed to himself also consider this:

Jesus was not like an ordinary man in that we only have one nature. But he had two natures and the correct interpretation is that his human nature prayed to the divine Spirit.

A popular scripture to refer to that some use to speak of a trinity is in Matthew where it read to go therefore baptizing in the name(singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. These are titles of God and offices he held. There are over a thousand titles God has but when you say Jesus he encompasses them all.

If you continue on to the book of Acts when the disciples did just as Jesus instructed them, what was that name that they baptized under. It was Jesus my friend, He was the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the holy ghost indwelling in their hearts.

Lastly recall when the disciples were told by Jesus that the Comforter which is the Holy Spirit could not be sent until he went away or died. Because while he was among them he could not separate his spirit from himself of course. But the interesting thing to note was that first he said he would send the comforter(holy spirit) to them and in the same breath he said I will come unto you.

EDJ · Sep 4, 2004

JLMACN,

YOU STRESSED, "HMMM...GOOD DEBATE....TOO BAD IM TIRED OF STATIN MY OPINION...
(OR SHOULD I SAY THE BIBLES)..."

ACTUALLY, IT IS YOUR OPINION AND NOT NO FACT THAT THE BIBLE STRESSES.

INFERNO,

YOU STRESSED, "Not sure im comprehending the question quite right. The doctrine of the trinity doesn't teach that the Father and Son are the same, but that they are separate. Each entity, being co-equal, co-eternal, and co-existent. On the contrary, they dont believe in the oneness of God."

THAT'S ONE OF THE DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHY'S THE TRINITY TRIES TO EXPLAIN. BUT IT IS STRESSED THAT THE TRINITY IS ONE AND IS THREE AT THE SAME TIME(WHICH TO ME IS SOME BULL).

THEN YOU STRESSED, "The monotheistic approach is possibly what you were referring to and this teaching goes back to the very beginning of the bible."

EXACTLY, SO WHY WOULD (gOD) SWITCH IT ON UP?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "God chose to come in the flesh to become the ransom sacrifice for mans debt of sin."

FUNNY HOW THE BIBLE NEVA SAID THAT. IT SAYS (gOD) gAVE HIS ONLY BEgOTTEN SON FOR THE SINS OF MANKIND.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Their was no one here on earth that could have pardoned mans sins. Remember the Old Testament dipictions of animals being sacrificed for mans sin. The prerequisite for them was that they had to be without spot or blemish to be acceptable."

YES, THE JEWS WERE INSTRUCTED TO SACRIFICE ANIMALS SO THEIR SINS WOULD BE FORgIVIN'. THE HEALTHIER AND BIggER THE ANIMAL, THE MORE SOMEBODY WOULD BE FORgIVEN OR SHOULD I SAY, THE BIggER THE SIN, THE BIggER AND THE HEALTHIER THE ANIMAL.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Likewise God being sinless temporarily housed himself in flesh to become the sacrificial lamb."

SCRIPTURE DOESN'T SUPPORT THIS OR OUTRIgHT SAYS IT.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "The dual nature of Christ helps you comprehend so much."

WHAT IS THIS SO CALLED DUAL NATURE OF CHRIST AND WHERE IN SCRIPTURE IS IT STATED THAT CHRIST HAS TWO NATURES?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "God is a spirit and he said the heavens of heavens cannot contain him. This is a reference to his omnipresence. To dig deeper, you must understand that although he can exist everywhere at the same time his central force resides in heaven."

UNDERSTANDABLE.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Jesus showed his limitations to the people when he spoke as a man, but as God he showed no limitations."

HOW'S THAT? YOU ASSUMIN' HE IS (gOD) OFF TOP AND THAT IS NOT A KNOWN FACT.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "The bible said he was tempted in all points as we are yet without sin. He wanted to show that he could relate to us by feeling the pull and tug of temptation."

SO IF (gOD){ASSUMIN' JESUS IS (gOD)} WOULD'VE FAILED, WHAT WOULD'VE HAPPENED TO THIS WORLD? I DON'T BELIEVE (gOD) IS THAT gULLIBLE AND VULNERABLE TO PUT HIMSELF IN THAT SITUATION, TO WHERE THE DEVIL WOULD TEMPT HIM. WHY WOULD THE DEVIL TEMPT HIM WITH ALL THE WORLD'S KINgDOM'S IF HE WAS (gOD){CREATOR OF ALL, WITH HIS OWN KINgDOM IN THE HEAVENS}?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "So as a man he hungered, was weary, thirsted and prayed in his humanity. Diety and humanity were fused together in one body. His diety need no help at all, but the flesh he subdued."

ASSUMIN' THAT JESUS WAS (gOD).

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Jesus was not like an ordinary man in that we only have one nature. But he had two natures and the correct interpretation is that his human nature prayed to the divine Spirit."

SHOW SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT THIS TWO NATURE STUFF YOU TALKIN' BOUT. BUT IF THE SPIRIT IS A FORCE, HOW CAN YOU PRAY TO IT?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "A popular scripture to refer to that some use to speak of a trinity is in Matthew where it read to go therefore baptizing in the name(singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. These are titles of God and offices he held."

I'M AWARE OF THAT, BUT IT NAMES THE THREE. BUT IT DOESN'T SPECIFY THAT THEY ARE CO-ETERNAL, CO-EQUAL. IT JUST NAMES THEM AS BEIN' PART OF THE SAME TEAM.

THEN YOU STRESSED, ". There are over a thousand titles God has but when you say Jesus he encompasses them all."

HOW'S THAT? JESUS HAS NEVA CLAIMED TO BE THE "ALMIgHTY".

THEN YOU STRESSED, "If you continue on to the book of Acts when the disciples did just as Jesus instructed them, what was that name that they baptized under. It was Jesus my friend, He was the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the holy ghost indwelling in their hearts."

WE KNOW WHAT THEY BAPTIZED UNDER. BUT THAT DON'T PROVE A TRINITY. IT'S THE SAME AS YOUR LAST ANSWER. BUT THAT'S TYPICAL CHRISTIAN(CHRISTENDOM) SAYIN' ABOUT THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Lastly recall when the disciples were told by Jesus that the Comforter which is the Holy Spirit could not be sent until he went away or died. Because while he was among them he could not separate his spirit from himself of course. But the interesting thing to note was that first he said he would send the comforter(holy spirit) to them and in the same breath he said I will come unto you."

SCRIPTURE PLEASE. BUT THAT COULD BE INTERPRETED SEVERAL WAYS. BUT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS (gOD'S) FORCE AND NOT AN ENTITY. SO WHERE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT DO YOU SEE REFERENCE TO THE HOLY SPIRIT?

inferno · Sep 5, 2004

I do agree with your understanding of the trinity. I know the trinitity doctrine did not exist until the third century. At the council of Nicea in 325 A.D and later reaffirmation in 381 A.D. I hold to the monotheistic understanding, which is not the same as the trinity doctrine.

The three in one in the trinity is a reference to personalities in the Godhead and they are separate entities. The Jews have always understood that there was just one God and not a distinction of three entities in the Godhead. The Jews refer to this scripture as the Shema, "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one." Not three in one but one.

He has never switched it at all, it has always been one God.

(1 Timothy 3:16) " And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest (made known, revealed) in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

"God who at sundry times and in divres manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.. the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person..."(Heb 1:1-3)

Jesus is "the image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15; 11 Cor.4:4)

(Hebrews 10:20) By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh. Old testament reference, type or forshadow of entering the tabernacle. The veil is Jesus's flesh by way we are able to see God.

The mystery of God in flesh was a great stumbling block for the Jews. They never could understand how Jesus, being a man, could also be God. Because he claimed to be God, they sought to kill Him (John 5:18;10:33)

We comprehend the divine nature of God throughout the Old Testament and the human nature in the New Testament.

(Matthew 1:23) "Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel which being interpreted is "God with us". He was God with us even at his birth. To beget means to father, sire, procreate, or cause.

At the moment of conception, God placed his dinvine nature in the seed of the woman. The child to be born received its life and the fatherly side of its nature from God at this time. From the mother's side it received the human nature of Mary; from the Fathers side it received the nature of God, not from Joseph. Thus dual nature.

(Titus 1:2) In hope of eternal life which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

inferno · Sep 5, 2004

(1 John 3:9) Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Assuming the what if, leads to speculative questioning, because the bibles says that he was tempted in all points yet without sin.(Heb. 4:15) Also his human nature always submitted itself to the divine nature, which could not sin. So with the possibility of him failing is theoretical because we know it did not happen. But for arguements sake, lets consider.

First and foremost you have the fact that he was fully human and fully God. If he failed or rebelled, the divine spirit would have had to separate itself from him(Jesus) leaving him lifeless.

The temptaions on the other hand were there for him to feel the tug and pull of sin just as we do. The bible says we have a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. Christ did not have a fallen sinful nature as we do. He overcame temptation not as God in himself, but as a human with all the power of God available to him.

So why would the devil tempt him if he knew he was God. The answer is he did not know he was God come in the flesh as Jesus. He thought when he was on the cross that the redemptive plan of God was thwarted. In Matt. 4:1, it says the spirit led him into the wilderness to be tempted.

(John 4:24) "God is a spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."
(Websters dictionary) Spirit-" A supernatural incorporeal, rational being usu. invisible to human beings but having the power to become visible at will.

Hebrew word translated as spirit is ruwach, it can mean wind, breath, life, anger region of the sky.

The Greek word translated as spirit, pneuma, can mean a current of air, breath, blast, breeze, soul, angel, demon or God.

So in conclusion when it refers to God activity in the spirit it never limits him but reveals the essence of who he is. When he chose to manifest himself in the Old Testment it was through the use of theophanies(Manifestaion of God to man). He told Moses, "thou canst see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live."

In Exodus it says "no man hath seen God at any time."
He manifested himself through theophies on different occasions.

Job saw God in a whirlwind (Job 38:1) various prophets saw visions of God, He appeared to Abraham as a smoking furnace, as an angel to Jacob and he showed his back(partial glory, not actual back) to Moses.

So it is easy to comprehend how in the Old Testament he couldn't be seen by man unless he temporarily manifested himself in some form. And in the New Testament he fulfilled this temporary limitation of himself by manifesting himself in the body of Jesus.

All the fullness of the Godhead dwells within him bodily. (Coll. 2:9)

My sentiments exactly, this is the doctrine of the trinity not of the Oneness belief I adhere to.

Not only does the bible say he is the Almighty, in (Isaiah 9:6)
its says he is the everlasting Father. But if God is the everlasting Father how can Jesus be the everlasting Father as well.
Consider (Rev. 1:8) I am Alpha and O-meg-a, the beginning and the ending, daith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Clearly the scripture references Jesus.

My point exactly. We know what name they baptized under(Jesus), but what is interesting is what Jesus to them, Go therefore baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And their understanding of the name was what? Jesus. This is not to define a trinity of God but to establish his oneness.

(John 14:16-17)"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you antoher Comforter... even the spirit of truth"
(John 14:18)" I will not leave you comfortless(orphanless) I will come unto you.

"It is expedient that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart I will send him to you.

A couple questions to ponder.

In first John 5:7 why does it refer to three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost? and no where is the Son mentioned.

If there is one throne and one that will sit on the throne(Rev 4:2) who is it referencing Jesus or God that will sit there? And the right hand of God reference power not a physical location.

How could Jesus be in heaven and earth at the same time?
(Jon\hn 3:13) And no man hath ascended to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, event the Son of man which is in heaven.

When Jesus gives up the role of the sonship and all things are
made subject unto him where will Gods power be? And how he can he give him all power and still have all power?

Lastly why does Acts 20:28 refer to God purchasing the church with his own blood if infact Jesus shed his?

EDJ · Sep 7, 2004

I'LL gET BAK AT YOU, CAUSE I HAVE TO THORUOgHLY STUDY EVERYTHANg YOU BRINg FORTH AND BRINg MY REBUTTLE. SO STAY TUNED....

HERESY · Sep 7, 2004

Tritheism is a good word to look into. A difference may be found between trinity and triad.

:hgk:

ps a gangload of old testament verses speak about and mention Rauch Hakodesh (Holy spirit). Please study hebrew.

BaSICCally · Sep 7, 2004

"THOSE CHRISTIAN'S IS WHY WOULD (gOD) DO SUCH AN ACT TO MAKE HIMSELF A MERE MORTAL AND PRAY TO HIMSELF IF HE CAN JUST DO WHAT HE WANTED FROM THE HEAVENS? IT SOUNDS LUDICROUS. WHO WAS UP IN HEAVEN THEN, WHEN HE WAS JESUS? WHO WAS LOOKIN' AFTER THE HEAVENS IF HE WAS DOWN ON EARTH? IF HE WAS A MAN, HOW COULD HE HEAR OTHER'S PRAYERS?"

I didn't read the other posts I will do that later. So forgive me if I am repeating something somone has already brought up.

To what EDJ said above in the quote. Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis writes a strong argument for Gods omniprescence. Basically the argument is that God is a author. Similar author to an author writing a book he or she can control the character and dictate their life, the plot, setting, time period etc. Lets say the author writes Billy walked into the room. Then walk back from the pen and paper, go take a nap, then come back to the piece of paper. The author would continue by writing Billy then takes a shower. See God being the author, time doesn't exist to the character(Billy) or the author, thus the author is removed from the story yet the author is writing in his or her Image. To Billy time is infinite, just like time is to all of us.

A simplistic way to view the trinity is like water, snow and ice. All three are different at the same time all are of the same substance.

EDJ · Sep 10, 2004

HERESY,

COME ON MAN. LOL BUT THANKS FOR THE WORDS. WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THE ATHANASIAN(SP?) CREED? AND I KNOW ABOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT, I'M TALKIN' ABOUT IT BEIN' AN ACTUAL PERSON.

INFERNO,
YOUR ANSWER'S NEXT. gOTTA HANDLE SAMETHIN'.

EDJ · Sep 10, 2004

INFERNO,
LET ME SAY BEFORE I REPLY TO ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS, THAT YOU NEED TO READ DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS OF BIBLES AND COMPARE INSTEAD OF DEPENDIN' ON ONE HEAVILY FLAWED VERSION WHICH CONVEYED THE DOgMA'S OF THAT TIME. IF YOU WERE TO READ THE SCRIPTURES, FROM BEgINNIN' TO END WITHOUT A BIAS, YOU WOULD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT JESUS IS NOT (gOD) BUT TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES. YOUR PHILOSOPHY OF TWO "NATURE'S" IS BORROWED FROM gREEK PHILOSOPHY. IT IS A gREEK PHILOSOPHICAL TERM THAT DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE BIBLE. NEITHER DOES "PERSON", "ESSENCE",AND "SUBSTANCE". THEY WERE APPLIED TO (gOD) ERRONEOUSLY BY SOME THEOLOgIANS. READ "DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE" BY JOHN L. MCKENZIE, S.J(NEW YORK, 1965) Pg. 899. WITH THAT BEIN' SAID,

YOU STRESSED, "I do agree with your understanding of the trinity."

THEN WHY DOES IT SEEM LIKE YOU TRYIN' TO DEFEND IT AND USE SOME OF IT'S LOgIC AS FACT?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "I know the trinitity doctrine did not exist until the third century. At the council of Nicea in 325 A.D and later reaffirmation in 381 A.D."

THAT'S NOT TOTALLY CORRECT. THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA DID ASSERT THAT CHRIST WAS OF THE SAME SUBSTANCE AS (gOD)(WHICH YOU SEEM TO BELIEVE) AND THAT LAID THE gROUNDWORK FOR LATE TRINITARIAN THEOLOgY. BUT THE TRINITY WASN'T ESTABLISHED BAK THEN AS IT IS KNOWN NOW CAUSE THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AS THE THIRD PERSON OF TRIUNE gODHEAD UNTIL THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (381 A.D OR C.E AS YOU MENTIONED).

THEN YOU STRESSED, "I hold to the monotheistic understanding, which is not the same as the trinity doctrine."

.) I THOUgHT MOMOTHEISTIC MEANT ONE? YOU SAYIN' THERE'S TWO(JESUS AND (gOD)) AS ONE, WHICH IS THE SAME AS THE TRINITY DOCTRINE WITHOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT. SO WHAT IS YOUR MONOTHEISTIC UNDA-STANDIN'?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "The three in one in the trinity is a reference to personalities in the Godhead and they are separate entities."

SUPPOSEDLY, THAT'S WHAT THEY SAY.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "The Jews have always understood that there was just one God and not a distinction of three entities in the Godhead."

AND THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "The Jews refer to this scripture as the Shema, "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one." Not three in one but one."

FUNNY THAT YOU BRINg JEWS AND THAT SCRIPTURE (DET. 6:4) UP. THEY SUPERSTITIOUS WAYS CAUSED THEM TO REPLACE THE TETRAgRAMMATON(YHWH, (gOD'S) PERSONAL NAME) WITH THE WORD "LORD" OR "gOD". WHERE THE WORD SHEMA COME FROM?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "He has never switched it at all, it has always been one God."

THEN WHY DO YOU SAY (gOD) IS JESUS AND NOT YHWH?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "(1 Timothy 3:16) " And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest (made known, revealed) in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE SCRIPTURE'S PUT THE WORD (gOD) IN THERE IN 1 TIM. 3:16 TO FIT THE DOgMA OF THAT TIME. WHAT I INITIALLY READ IS: "INDEED, THE SACRED SECRET OF THIS gODLY DEVOTION IS ADMITEDDLY gREAT: 'HE WAS MADE MANIFEST IN FLESH, WAS DECLARED RIgHTEOUS IN SPIRIT, APPEARED TO ANgELS, WAS PEACHED AMONg NATIONS, WAS BELIEVED UPON IN THE WORLD, WAS RECEIVED UP IN gLORY". OF COURSE IT'S TALKIN' BOUT JESUS, BUT WHAT DOES THE ORIgINAL TEXT SAY IN IT'S ORIgINAL LANgUAgE? THE WORD "gOD" WAS ADDED IN YOUR BIBLE. COMPARE TO OTHA BIBLES.

THEN YOU STRESSED, ""God who at sundry times and in divres manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.. the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person..."(Heb 1:1-3)"

THE SCRIPTURE I'M READIN' READS:
"1. (gOD), WHO LONg AgO SPOKE ON MANY OCCASSIONS AND IN MANY WAYS TO OUR FOREFATHERS BY MEANS OF PROPHETS,
X. HAS AT THE END OF THESE DAYS SPOKEN TO US BY MEANS OF A SON, WHOM HE APPOINTED HEIR OF ALL THINgS, AND THROUgH WHOM HE MADE THE SYSTEM OF THINgS.
3. HE IS THE REFLECTION OF (HIS) gLORY AND THE EXACT REPRESENTATION OF HIS VERY BEIN', AND HE SUSTAINS ALL THINgS BY THE WORD OF HIS POWER; AND AFTER HE HAD MADE A PURIFICATION FOR OUR SINS HE SAT DOWN ON THE RIgHT HAND OF THE MAJESTY IN LOFTY PLACES."

TO ME THAT'S BASICALLY SAYIN' JESUS'S PURPOSE AND THAT HE IS THE REFLECTION OF (gOD) AND REPRESENTS HIM EXACTLY, MEANIN' THAT JESUS REPRESENTS WHAT (gOD) IS ALL ABOUT, NOT THAT JESUS IS (gOD) AND VICE-VERSA.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Jesus is "the image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15; 11 Cor.4:4)"

YOU FORgOT TO PUT THE REST OF THAT TEXT, WHICH READS:
"HE IS THE IMAgE OF THE INVISIBLE (gOD), THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION." MEANIN' JESUS WAS CREATED AND MADE IN (gOD)'S IMAgE.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "(Hebrews 10:20) By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh. Old testament reference, type or forshadow of entering the tabernacle. The veil is Jesus's flesh by way we are able to see God."

MAN, THE SCRIPTURE I'M READIN' READS:
"WHICH HE INAUgURATED FOR US AS A NEW AND LIVIN' WAY THROUgHT THE CURTAIN, THAT IS, HIS FLESH."
YOU PUTTIN' EMPHASIS ON WORDS THAT CAN BE AND ARE IN SOME TRANSLATIONS CHANgED UP. BUT I READ IT AS JESUS BEIN' THE NEW WAY TO (gOD), THAT HE (JESUS) IS THE MEDIATOR. THRU HIS FLESH, HE PAID THE RANSOM FOR MANKIND. THRU HIM IS HOW WE gET TO (gOD). CAN'T NO MAN SEE (gOD).

THEN YOU STRESSED, "The mystery of God in flesh was a great stumbling block for the Jews. They never could understand how Jesus, being a man, could also be God. Because he claimed to be God, they sought to kill Him (John 5:18;10:33)"

ME EITHA. CAUSE JESUS NEVA CLAIMED TO BE (gOD). THE SCRIPTURE YOU gAVE OF JOHN 5:18 READ WHAT THE JEWS THOUgHT HE WAS CLAIMIN', NOT THAT HE STATED OR MADE HIMSELF EQUAL TO (gOD). IF YOU gO ON TO READ VERSE 19 IT STATES JESUS ANSWER TO THEM, AFTER THEY ACCUSED HIM OF WHAT THEY THOUgHT HE PROCLAIMED:
"MOST TRULY I SAY TO YOU, THE SON CANNOT DO A SINgLE THINg OF HIS OWN INITIATIVE, BUT WHAT HE BEHOLDS THE FATHER DOIN'. FOR WHATEVER THINgS THAT ONE DOES, THESE THINgS THE SON DOES IN LIKE MANNER."
DON'T TRY TO MANIPULATE THE SCRIPTURES NOW. THE JEWS WERE WAITIN' ON A MESSIAH TO LIBERATE THEM FROM THE YOKE OF ROME AND RESTORE ISREAL. THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES RECORDED IN DANIEL 9:24-27 AND ISAIAH CHAPTER 53 CONNECTED HIS COMIN' WITH MAKIN' AN END OF SIN. IT INDICATED THAT THE MESSIAH WOULD DIE TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE. BUT THE JEWS IN gENERAL FELT THAT NOBODY HAD TO DIE FOR THEIR SINS CAUSE THEY HAD A RIgHTEOUS STANDIN' WITH (gOD) ON THE BASIS OF THEIR DESCENT FROM ABRAHAM.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "We comprehend the divine nature of God throughout the Old Testament and the human nature in the New Testament."

WHAT YOU MEAN "WE". I COMPREHEND (gOD'S) WILL AND PERSONALITY THRU-OUT THE SCRIPTURES AND KNOW WHO JESUS IS AND HIS ROLE IN (gOD)'S PLAN.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "(Matthew 1:23) "Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel which being interpreted is "God with us". He was God with us even at his birth. To beget means to father, sire, procreate, or cause."

THAT'S THE TRANSLATION OF THE NAME EMMANUEL.THAT DON'T MEAN JESUS IS (gOD).(gOD) gAVE JESUS TO THE WORLD SO WE CAN BE ELIgIBLE FOR EVER-LASTIN' LIFE. SO (gOD) IS WITH US, HE AIN'T FORgOT. JESUS WAS THE REMINDER.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "At the moment of conception, God placed his dinvine nature in the seed of the woman. The child to be born received its life and the fatherly side of its nature from God at this time. From the mother's side it received the human nature of Mary; from the Fathers side it received the nature of God, not from Joseph. Thus dual nature."

SO THAT'S WHERE YOU FORM THAT THEOLOgY FROM. SORRY TO INFORM YOU THAT IT IS FLAWED. (gOD) THRU THE HOLY SPIRIT(HIS ACTIVE FORCE) IMPREgNATED A MERE MORTAL TO REPRODUCE A PERFECT HUMAN.NOT TO BE HALF AND HALF. JESUS ALREADY EXISTED IN HEAVEN CAUSE HE WAS THE FIRST BORN OF ALL CREATION AND WAS PUT IN A WOMAN TO BE BORN AS A HUMAN. IT WASN'T (gOD) HIMSELF. READ JOHN 4:10 ABOUT WHAT JESUS SAID TO SATAN ABOUT TO WHOM TO WORSHIP. READ JOHN 8:54 ABOUT WHAT JESUS SAID TO THE JEWS ABOUT HIS gLORY. READ PSALMS 110:1 IN ACCORDANCE WITH MATHEW 22:41-45. JESUS EXPLAINS THAT HE IS THE LORD (gOD) UTTERED THE WORDS TO IN THE BOOK OF PSALMS, AND NOT DAVID'S SON, LIKE THE PHARISEES THOUgHT. JESUS SHO SHUT THEY ASS UP.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "(Titus 1:2) In hope of eternal life which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;"

IT JUST STRESSES THAT (gOD) CANNOT LIE AND PROMISED ETERNAL LIFE BEFORE THE WORLD BEgAN. WHAT POINT IS YOU TRYIN' TO MAKE?

CONTINUED......

EDJ · Sep 10, 2004

CONTINUED....
INFERNO,

THEN YOU STRESSED, "(1 John 3:9) Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

MODERN ENgLISH PLEASE. BUT 1 JOHN 3:9 JUST EXPLAINS JESUS'S PERFECTION AND WHY HE'S PERFECT. IT DON'T ANSWER MY QUESTION.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Assuming the what if, leads to speculative questioning, because the bibles says that he was tempted in all points yet without sin.(Heb. 4:15) Also his human nature always submitted itself to the divine nature, which could not sin. So with the possibility of him failing is theoretical because we know it did not happen. But for arguements sake, lets consider.

First and foremost you have the fact that he was fully human and fully God. If he failed or rebelled, the divine spirit would have had to separate itself from him(Jesus) leaving him lifeless."

WHEN JESUS WAS TEMPTED BY THE DEVIL, WHAT TEST OF LOYALTY WOULD THAT BE IF JESUS WAS (gOD)? COULD (gOD) REBEL AgAINST HIMSELF? NO, BUT ANgELS AND HUMANS CAN AND HAVE. THE TEMPTATION ONLY MAKES SENSE ONLY IF JESUS WAS NOT (gOD), BUT A SEPERATE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD FREE WILL. ON THE OTHA HAND, IT IS UNIMAgINABLE THAT (gOD) COULD SIN AND BE DISLOYAL TO HIMSELF. READ DET. 32:4 ABOUT (gOD). SO IF JESUS HAD BEEN (gOD), HE COULD NOT BE TEMPTED. READ JAMES 1:13

THEN YOU STRESSED, "The temptaions on the other hand were there for him to feel the tug and pull of sin just as we do. The bible says we have a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. Christ did not have a fallen sinful nature as we do. He overcame temptation not as God in himself, but as a human with all the power of God available to him."

WE KNOW THIS. BUT THAT DON'T MEAN HE IS (gOD). LOOK AT THE PRIOR ANSWER.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "So why would the devil tempt him if he knew he was God. The answer is he did not know he was God come in the flesh as Jesus."

IT AIN'T THAT HE DID NOT KNOW, CAUSE THE FACT OF THE MATTER WAS THAT HE WASN'T (gOD)AND NEVER HAS BEEN. THE DEVIL TEMPTED JESUS CAUSE HE KNEW JESUS WAS HUMAN AND ABLE TO SIN. (gOD) ON THE OTHA HAND CANNOT. SO WHERE DO YOU gET OFF THAT THE DEVIL DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS (gOD) WHEN JESUS WAS NEVA (gOD) OR CLAIMED TO BE? SHOW ME PROOF WHERE THE DEVIL DIDN'T KNOW.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "He thought when he was on the cross that the redemptive plan of God was thwarted. In Matt. 4:1, it says the spirit led him into the wilderness to be tempted."

YES, THE SPIRIT LED HIM INTO THE WILDERNESS TO BE TEMOTED. HOW DOES THAT PROVE JESUS IS (gOD)?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "(John 4:24) "God is a spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."
(Websters dictionary) Spirit-" A supernatural incorporeal, rational being usu. invisible to human beings but having the power to become visible at will.

Hebrew word translated as spirit is ruwach, it can mean wind, breath, life, anger region of the sky.

The Greek word translated as spirit, pneuma, can mean a current of air, breath, blast, breeze, soul, angel, demon or God.

So in conclusion when it refers to God activity in the spirit it never limits him but reveals the essence of who he is. When he chose to manifest himself in the Old Testment it was through the use of theophanies(Manifestaion of God to man). He told Moses, "thou canst see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live."

In Exodus it says "no man hath seen God at any time."
He manifested himself through theophies on different occasions.

Job saw God in a whirlwind (Job 38:1) various prophets saw visions of God, He appeared to Abraham as a smoking furnace, as an angel to Jacob and he showed his back(partial glory, not actual back) to Moses.

So it is easy to comprehend how in the Old Testament he couldn't be seen by man unless he temporarily manifested himself in some form. And in the New Testament he fulfilled this temporary limitation of himself by manifesting himself in the body of Jesus.

All the fullness of the Godhead dwells within him bodily. (Coll. 2:9)"

SO YOU SAYIN' THAT (gOD) TOOK THE FORM OF JESUS CAUSE NO MAN COULD SEE HIM? BUT I KNOW WHAT THE WORD SPIRIT IS AND MEANS. AND JOB DIDN'T SEE (gOD) HIMSELF, BUT THE WINDSTORM. (gOD) SPOKE OUT OF THE WINDSTORM. HE AIN'T gONNA CONTRADICT HIMSELF WHEN HE SAID THAT NO MAN CAN SEE HIM AND LIVE. SO HE DIDN'T MANIFEST HIMSELF IN OTHER FORMS. HE CAUSED OTHA THANgS TO BE SEEN, BUT HE DIDN'T BECOME THOSE THANgS. SAME WITH JESUS. PONDER ON THIS: IF (gOD) MANIFESTED HIMSELF AS JESUS, THAT WOULD CONTRADICT (gOD)'S LAW CONCERNIN' JESUS'S RANSOM. READ 1 TIMOTHY 2:5,6. JESUS, NO MORE, NO LESS THAN A PERFECT HUMAN BECAME A RANSOM OF WHAT ADAM LOST(THE RIgHT TO PERFECT HUMAN LIFE ON EARTH). THE APOSTLE PAUL RIgHTLY CALLED JESUS "THE LAST ADAM IN 1 CORINTHIANS 15:22,45. SO THE PERFECT HUMAN LIFE OF JESUS WAS THE "CORRESPONDIN' RANSOM" REQUIRED FOR DIVINE JUSTICE(NO MORE, NO LESS). A BASIC PRINCIPLE IS THAT THE PRICE SHOULD FIT THE WRONg COMMITTED. SO IF JESUS WAS PART OF A gODHEAD OR (gOD) HIMSELF, THE RANSOM PRICE WOULD HAVE BEEN INFINITELY HIgHER THAN WHAT (gOD)'S LAW REQUIRES(EXODUS 21:23-25, LEVITICUS 24:19-21)
SO IT WAS ADAM (A PERFECT HUMAN) WHO SINNED IN EDEN, NOT (gOD). SO THE RANSOM, TO BE TRULY IN LINE WITH (gOD)'S JUSTICE, HAD TO BE STRICTLY AN EQUIVALENT, A PERFECT HUMAN. SO WHEN (gOD) SENT JESUS TO EARTH AS THE RANSOM, HE MADE JESUS TO BE WHAT WOULD SATISFY JUSTICE, NOT AN INCARNATION, NOT A gOD-MAN, BUT A PERFECT MAN, "LOWER THAN ANgELS" (READ HEBREWS 2:9, COMPARE PSALMS 8:5,6) SO IF JESUS IS (gOD), HOW CAN HE EVA BE LOWER THAN ANgELS?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "My sentiments exactly, this is the doctrine of the trinity not of the Oneness belief I adhere to."

YOU MEAN DUALNESS. CAUSE YOU BASICALLY BELIEVIN' WHAT THE FOLOWERS OF THE TRINITY BELIEVE, EXCEPT FOR THE MONOTHEISM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE HOLY SPIRIT NOT BEIN' IN THE gODHEAD.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Not only does the bible say he is the Almighty, in (Isaiah 9:6)
its says he is the everlasting Father. But if God is the everlasting Father how can Jesus be the everlasting Father as well."

.) ISAIAH 9:6 SAYS MIgHTY gOD, NOT (gOD) ALMIgHTY. JESUS IS NEVER REFERENCED AS THE "ALMIgHTY". BUT THAT DON'T PROVE YOUR POINT. THOSE ARE TITLES. "ETERNAL FATHER" IS A TITLE. JESUS IS A gOD, JUST LIKE N-E-THANg CAN BE A gOD. IF A CERTAIN TITLE OR DECRIPTIVE PHRASE IS FOUND IN MORE THAN ONE LOCATION IN THE SCRIPTURES, IT SHOULD NEVER HASTILY BE CONCLUDED THAT IT MUST ALWAYS REFER TO THE SAME PERSON. IF SO, THEN IT WOULD LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NEBUCHADNEZZAR WAS JESUS CHRIST CAUSE BOTH WERE CALLED KINg OF KINgS(DANIEL 2:37; REVELATION 17:14) AND THAT JESUS DISCIPLES WERE ACTUALLY JESUS CHRIST, BECAUSE BOTH WERE CALLED "THE LIgHT OF THE WORLD"(MATHEW 5:14; JOHN 8:12) WE SHOULD ALWAYS CONSIDER THE CONTEXT AND N-E OTHA INSTANCES IN SCRIPTURE WHERE THE SAME EXPRESSION OCCURS.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Consider (Rev. 1:8) I am Alpha and O-meg-a, the beginning and the ending, daith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Clearly the scripture references Jesus."

REVELATION 1:8 ISN'T A REFERENCE TO JESUS. IT IS A REFERECE TO YHWH. HERE'S COMPUNDED LIST OF WHERE BIBLES TRIED TO MAKE JESUS THE ALPHA AND OMEgA:
1. THE KINg JAMES BIBLE IN VERSE 11 APPLIES THAT TITLE TO ONE WHOSE DESCRIPTION THEREAFTER SHOWS HIM TO BE JESUS CHRIST. BUT SCHOLARS RECOgNIZE THE REFERENCE TO ALPHA AND OMEgA IN VERSE 11 TO BE SPURIOUS, AND SO IT DOESN'T APPEAR IN:
THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION, SECOND EDTION(1971){RS}
THE NEW ENgLISH BIBLE(1970){NE}
THE JERUSALEM BIBLE, ALEXANDER JONES, gENERAL EDITOR(1966){JB}
THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE, SAINT JOSEPH EDITION(1970){NAB}
THE CATHOLIC CHALLONER-DUOAY VERSION1750 AS PRINTED IN 1941){DY}
X. MANY TRANSLATIONS OF REVELATION INTO HEBREW RECOgNIZE THAT THE ONE DESCRIBED IN VERSE 8 IS YHWH, SO THEY RESTORE THE PERSONAL NAME OF (gOD) THERE.
3. REVELATION 21:6,7 INDICATES THAT CHRISTIANS WHO ARE SPIRITUAL CONQUERERS ARE TO BE 'SONS' OF THE ONE KNOWN AS THE ALPHA AND THE OMEgA. THAT IS NEVER SAID OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF SPIRIT-ANNOINTED CHRISTIANS TO JESUS CHRIST. JESUS SPOKE OF THEM AS HIS 'BROTHERS'(HEBREW 2:11; MATHEW 12:50; 25:40) BUT THOSE 'BROTHERS' OF JESUS ARE REFERRED TO AS "SONS OF (gOD)"(gALATIANS 3:26; 4:6)
F. AT REVELATIONS 22:12, "THE gOOD NEWS BIBLE-TODAYS ENgLISH VERSION(1976){TEV}" INSERTS THE NAME JESUS, SO THE REFERENCEYO ALPHA AND OMEgA IN VERSE 13 IS MADE TO APPEAR TO APPLY TO HIM. BUT THE NAME JESUS DOES NOT APPEAR THERE IN gREEK, AND OTHA TRANSLATIONS DO NOT INCLUDE IT.
5. AT REVELATION 22:13, THE ALPHA AND OMEgA IS ALSO SAID TO BE "THE FIRST AND THE LAST", WHICH EXPRESSION IS APPLIED TO JESUS AT REVELATION 1:17,18. SIMILARLY, THE EXPRESSION APOSTLE IS APPLIED TO JESUS CHRIST AND TO CERTAIN ONES OF HIS FOLLOWERS. BUT DOES THAT PROVE THAT THEY ARE THE SAME PERSON OR OF EQUAL RANK, DOES IT?(HEBREW 3:1) SO THE EVIDENCE POINTS THAT THE ALPHA AND OMEgA APPLIES TO THE ALMIgHTY (gOD), THE FATHER, NOT THE SON.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "My point exactly. We know what name they baptized under(Jesus), but what is interesting is what Jesus to them, Go therefore baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And their understanding of the name was what? Jesus. This is not to define a trinity of God but to establish his oneness."

SO YOU SAYIN' THEY MISPERCEPTION PROVES JESUS IS (gOD)?

CONTINUED......

EDJ · Sep 10, 2004

CONTINUED....

INFERNO,

THEN YOU STRESSED, "(John 14:16-17)"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you antoher Comforter... even the spirit of truth"
(John 14:18)" I will not leave you comfortless(orphanless) I will come unto you.

"It is expedient that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart I will send him to you."

THESE ARE NOT OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. RE-READ MY QUESTION. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THE SCRIPTURES YOU JUST REFERENCED ARE SPEAKIN' ABOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "In first John 5:7 why does it refer to three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost? and no where is the Son mentioned."

CAUSE YOU READIN' THE HEAVILY FLAWED VERSION OF THE SCRIPTURES(THE KINg JAMES VERSION) AND THAT INCLUDES THE TRINITARIAN PASSAgE. OTHA BIBLES LEAVE IT OUT INCLUDIN':
THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION, SECOND EDTION(1971){RS}
THE NEW ENgLISH BIBLE(1970){NE}
THE JERUSALEM BIBLE, ALEXANDER JONES, gENERAL EDITOR(1966){JB}
THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE, SAINT JOSEPH EDITION(1970){NAB}
THE gOOD NEWS BIBLE-TODAYS ENgLISH VERSION(1976){TEV}

REgARDIN' THIS TRINITARIAN PASSAgE, IN THE BOOK "A PLAIN INTRODUCTION TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT"(CAMBRIDgE, 1883, 3RD EDITION), Pg. 654, THE TEXTUAL CRITIC F.H.A SCRIVENER WROTE: "WE NEED NOT HESITATE TO DECLARE OUR CONVICTION THAT THE DISPUTED WORDS WERE NOT WRITTEN BY ST. JOHN: THAT THEY WERE ORIgINALLY BROUgHT INTO LATIN COPIES IN AFRICA FROM THE MARgIN, WHERE THEY HAD PLACED AS PIOUS AND ORTHODOX gLOSS ON VERSE 8: THAT FROM THE LATIN THEY CREPT INTO TWO OR THREE gREEK CODICES, AND THENCE INTO THE PRINTED gREEK TEXT, A PLACE TO WHICH THEY HAD NO RIgHTFUL CLAIM."

THEN YOU STRESSED, "If there is one throne and one that will sit on the throne(Rev 4:2) who is it referencing Jesus or God that will sit there? And the right hand of God reference power not a physical location."

YOUR QUESTION IS IMPLYIN' THAT THERE IS ONE THRONE, IN THAT INSTANCE, IT IS TALKIN' BOUT A THRONE AND IT DESRCIBES THE APPEARANCE OF THE ONE SITTIN' ON THERE IN THE NEXT VERSE. IT MUST BE JESUS, CAUSE NO MAN CAN SEE (gOD) AND LIVE. BUT IF YOU READ FURTHER, IT STATES THERE'S 24 THRONES AROUND IT AND HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE ABOUT THE POWER? JESUS SITTIN' ON (gOD)'S RIgHT HAND IS SAYIN' THAT HE IS IN SUBJECTION TO HIM.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "How could Jesus be in heaven and earth at the same time?
(Jon\hn 3:13) And no man hath ascended to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, event the Son of man which is in heaven."

THE SCRIPTURE I'M READIN' OF JOHN 3:13 READS:
"MOREOVER, NO MAN HAS ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN BUT HE THAT DESCENDED FROM HEAVEN, THE SON OF MAN". I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU gET THE LAST PART "WHICH IS IN HEAVEN", BUT YOU NEED TO USE MORE THAN ONE TRANSLATION OF SCRIPTURE AND COMPARE TEXT, THEN LOOK AT THE ORIgINAL LANgUAgE THE TEXT WAS WRITTEN IN, AND SEE WHAT MESSAgE IS BEIN' SAID.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "When Jesus gives up the role of the sonship and all things are
made subject unto him where will Gods power be? And how he can he give him all power and still have all power?"

(gOD)'S POWER WILL BE WHERE IT'S ALWAYS BEEN. HE JUST gONNA LET JESUS RUN THANgS. CAUSE (gOD) IS EVERYTHANg AND IN EVERYTHANg.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Lastly why does Acts 20:28 refer to God purchasing the church with his own blood if infact Jesus shed his?"

YOUR HEAVILY FLAWED BIBLE STATES THAT, JUST LIKE THE CATHOLIC CHALLONER-DUOAY VERSION1750 AS PRINTED IN 1941){DY}, AND THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE, SAINT JOSEPH EDITION(1970){NAB}, AND THE JERUSALEM BIBLE, ALEXANDER JONES, gENERAL EDITOR(1966){JB}.
THEY READ: "BE ON YOUR gUARD FOR YOURSELVES AND FOR ALL THE FLO(C)K OF WHICH THE HOLY SPIRIT HAS MADE YOU THE OVERSEERS, TO FEED THE CHURCH OF (gOD) WHICH HE PURCHASED WITH HIS OWN BLOOD."
THE gOOD NEWS BIBLE-TODAYS ENgLISH VERSION(1976){TEV}
READS: ""BE ON YOUR gUARD FOR YOURSELVES AND FOR ALL THE FLO(C)K OF WHICH THE HOLY SPIRIT HAS MADE YOU THE OVERSEERS, TO SHEPHERD THE CONgREgATION OF (gOD) WHICH HE PURCHASED WITH BLOOD OF HIS OWN [SON]." THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION READS SIMILARLY.
THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION, SECOND EDTION(1953){RS} READS THE LATTER OF THAT VERSE "WITH HIS OWN BLOOD" BUT THE 1971 EDITION READS: "WITH THE BLOOD OF HIS OWN SON".

SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS, WHICH TRANSLATION IS CORRECT AND WHY? DOES THE VERSE END WITH "WITH HIS OWN BLOOD" OR "BLOOD OF HIS OWN SON"? YOU gOT TO CALIBRATE THE PASSAgE WITH OTHA PASSAgES OF THE BIBLE AND COMPARE TO SEE WHICH ONE CLASHES AND WHICH ONE IS IN PERFECT HARMONY. LET THE WORD gUIDE YOU. STUDYIN' THE ORIgINAL LANgUAgE IT WAS WRITTEN IN WOULDN'T HURT EITHA.
BUT WHICH RENDERIN' AgREE'S WITH 1ST OF JOHN 1:7, WHICH SAYS: "THE BLOOD OF JESUS HIS [(gOD)'S] SON CLEANSES US FROM ALL SIN"?(SEE ALSO REVELATION 1:4-6). AS STATED IN JOHN 3:16, DID (gOD) SEND HIS ONLY-BEgOTTEN SON, OR DID HE HIMSELF COME AS A MAN, SO THAT WE MIgHT HAVE LIFE? IT WAS THE BLOOD, NOT OF (gOD), BUT OF HIS SON THAT WAS POURED OUT.

inferno · Sep 10, 2004

I think reading other translations can be beneficial to a degree. First and foremost the KJV is the most accurate version there is out. I must reiterate that the text is covered word for word throught the translation process. It isn't like alot of the other texts that have ommited numerous amounts of scriptures. I can give you all the ommissions that have been made if you like.

I do recall you questioning the KJV because of the Old English language. And that we don't speak that way now, however the original text is just as hard to comprehend being that its in Hebrew, Greek and Aramic. The method the translators used was called "formal equivalence". So before solely relying on other translations I prefer accuracy of interpretaion vs. connvenience. This bible states this for this passage and for that one it states this etc..... This can lead to a lot of confusion. Now on the other hand if a scripture in one version is being reafirmed in another version to add emphasis or clarity, I can comprehend this.

This is the furthest thing from the truth, on the contrary the scriptures from beginning to end attest to the fact that Jesus is God. I think the JW's are the ones that fight this revalation the most. And two entities, thats a stretch, because that is more like a trinitarians perception of God with their being more entities than one. This is definitely not scriptural.

What is very interesting to me is that their is a great coincendental convenience in conveying this view of Jesus not being God. For one every scripture that the KJV references to show the oneness of God it is somehow flawed or not reliable. And the other texts supposedly do a great job of ommiting these key verses. And its not hard to comprehend why? I have no problem continuing on to reply to the rest of your commentary. And I will get back with you, just as you returned the favor to me.

I once met this girl who had the same exact replys you have given who happened to be JW. She even had a book they use that even told you what to say when any denomination approached them. Just an interesting observation, that I recall similar to this experience.

EDJ · Sep 11, 2004

INFERNO,

YOU STRESSED, "I think reading other translations can be beneficial to a degree."

AND WHAT'S THE DEgREE IT TURNS UN-BENEFICIAL?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "First and foremost the KJV is the most accurate version there is out."

THAT'S UP FOR DEBATE, BUT I ALREADY KNOW THE PROCESS IT WENT THRU TO gET TO WHERE IT'S AT.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "I must reiterate that the text is covered word for word throught the translation process."

SUPPOSEDLY. BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S AS ACCURATE AS THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "It isn't like alot of the other texts that have ommited numerous amounts of scriptures."

WHY HAVE THEY DONE THAT? DID THEY RIgHTFULLY CORRECT SOME MISTAKES THE KJV HAD OR OVERLOOKED OR ARE THEY APOSTATES TAKIN' THANgS OUT THAT SUPPOSE TO BE THERE?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "I can give you all the ommissions that have been made if you like."

SURE, SHOOT.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "I do recall you questioning the KJV because of the Old English language."

NOT ONLY THAT, BUT IT'S FLAWS TO CONVEY THE POPULAR DOgMAS OF THAT TIME. SO WHY SHOULD WE TRY TO UNDERSTAND OLD ENgLISH IF WE DON'T SPEAK LIKE THAT?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "And that we don't speak that way now, however the original text is just as hard to comprehend being that its in Hebrew, Greek and Aramic."

AND THAT'S WHY IT'S BENEFICIAL TO STUDY THOSE LANgUAgES(ATLEAST THE BASICS AND WHAT WAS USED IN SCRIPTURE.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "The method the translators used was called "formal equivalence"."

IS THAT RIgHT? CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THIS.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "So before solely relying on other translations I prefer accuracy of interpretaion vs. connvenience."

THAT'S THE THANg, WHAT IS ACCURATE?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "This bible states this for this passage and for that one it states this etc..... This can lead to a lot of confusion."

THAT'S IF YOU LET IT CONFUSE YOU AND LOSE FOCUS. COMPARIN' JUST gIVES YOU A gLOBAL VIEW OF WHAT'S THERE FROM DIFFERENT ANgLES THEN YOU CAN gET TO THE BOTTOM LINE(IF INDEED YOU TRYIN' TO gET THERE VS. JUST RELYIN' ON YOUR PRE-CONCEIVED IDEAS AND INTERPRETATION)

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Now on the other hand if a scripture in one version is being reafirmed in another version to add emphasis or clarity, I can comprehend this."

NOT IF IT'S DOIN' THAT TO CONVEY A POPULAR DOgMA THAT CONTRADICT OTHA PASSAgES.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "This is the furthest thing from the truth, on the contrary the scriptures from beginning to end attest to the fact that Jesus is God."

IS THAT SO? THEN WHAT'S (gOD)'S NAME? BUT YOU TOO CAUgHT UP IN YOUR BIAS TO LOOK AT THANgS FOR WHAT THEY ARE. YOU MIgHT HAVE TO gET AMNESIA AND START FROM SCRATCH TO PROVE MY POINT, BUT I WOULDN'T WISH THAT UPON YOU.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "I think the JW's are the ones that fight this revalation the most."

I WONDER WHY. BUT TO CALL IT A REVELATION IS ERRONEOUS. CAUSE (gOD) NEVA REVEALED HIMSELF.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "And two entities, thats a stretch, because that is more like a trinitarians perception of God with their being more entities than one. This is definitely not scriptural."

BOY ARE YOU MISTAKEN. JESUS(YESHUA) AND YHWH(JEHOVAH OR YAHWEH OR HOWEVA YOU WANT TO TRANSLATE IT) ARE TWO SEPERATE BEINgS. HOW'S THAT BEIN' CLOSER TO THE TRINITARIAN DOgMA VERSUS TWO THAT ARE THE SAME? YHWH IS ONE JUST LIKE HE HAS PROCLAIMED. JESUS IS ANOTHA AND NEVA HAS BEEN (gOD) JUST LIKE HE PROCLAIMED. I HAVE PROVIDED ENOUgH SCRIPTURE TO BAK THIS UP FOR YOU TO SAY IT'S NOT SCRIPTURAL.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "What is very interesting to me is that their is a great coincendental convenience in conveying this view of Jesus not being God. For one every scripture that the KJV references to show the oneness of God it is somehow flawed or not reliable. And the other texts supposedly do a great job of ommiting these key verses. And its not hard to comprehend why? I have no problem continuing on to reply to the rest of your commentary. And I will get back with you, just as you returned the favor to me."

IT AIN'T NO COINCIDENCE. THERE'S FLAWS, AND QUESTIONS TO YOUR INTERPRETATION. INSTEAD OF TRYIN' TO DEFEND YOUR TRANSLATION, YOU SHOULD LOOK INTO WHAT IS BEIN' STRESSED TO SEE IF WHAT IS CLAIMED TO BE TRUE OR IF IT'S LIES THAT ARE BEIN' UTTERED WITH NO SUBSTANCE BEHIND IT. AND WHAT IS NOT HARD TO COMREHEND WHY?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "I once met this girl who had the same exact replys you have given who happened to be JW."

IS THAT RIgHT? WHAT WAS HER NAME? WHERE IS SHE AT NOW?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "She even had a book they use that even told you what to say when any denomination approached them."

WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE BOOK? SO THE BOOK COMMANDED HER TO SAY THANgS?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Just an interesting observation, that I recall similar to this experience."

HOW IS THIS EXPERIENCE? YOU MAKIN' COMPARISONS, LIKE YOU FELT THEN WHAT YOU FEELIN' NOW. SO HOW IS THIS MAKIN' YOU FEEL OR WHAT?

inferno · Sep 12, 2004

I believe it's benificial to the person who has a hard time with the KJV because of the language. Like I have stated I have never had a problem with it.

It's not up for debate unless one is in denial of its proven accuracy. And if you already know what process it went through, this should further solidify my point. The other translations that followed in the 1800's and 19th century are no comparison.

It's the closest translation to the dead sea scrolls your going to find thats available.

Not neccessarily, They however take scriptures and redo them with modern english of today and delibritely replace key verses of scripture that took away from the substance or diety of Christ. How convienent to the ones who want Jesus to be referenced as just a man, great prophet etc...

The New Testament in the Language of the People
omitts Luke 22:43,44(Christs agony and bloody sweat)
Luke 23:34(Christs prayer for his murderers) John 7:53-8:11(The woman taken in adultery)
New American Standard New Testament
Luke 24:51(Christs ascension)
New American Bible suggest that the book of John was not written by John and Peter not written by himself. Ommisions Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53, 8-11, John 5:7-8

These are just a few, I didn't want to be exhaustive in making a point.

I mentioned previously how they used the word for word and thought for thought process. The translators took the Greek and Hebrew and rendered the closest words in English possible. Unlike other versions which use dynamic equivalence in their translation process. They use a method of paraphrasing, adding taking away etcc.... the NIV and Living Bible are a couple of examples.

Please do show me these flaws, and once again the Old English was not the English spoken in the 17th century it was biblical language.

Covered in above posts.

I completely understand the benefit to cross referencing, my point however is if you have a source that has gone through so much throughly to render the most complete and accurate translation why would you always have to refer to other texts. The convienence is the primary benifit in your case cause we can agree with alot of the passages in the KJV until it goes against your belief system, faith, dogma etc... And my notions are definitely not preconceived seeing how I've studied many religions.

Show me one contradiction and that dogma was popular A.D 33-100 following the church fathers who taught it, not just when it was translated.

Very much so, As you know Gods name in the Old Testament was never revealed, however there is the TETRAGRAMATTON, I understand fully that God always revealed himself to the people in different ways. His name represents his presence, his character his power and authority.

God used names as a means of progressive self revelation. For example, in Exodus 6:3 God said, "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by the name of JEHOVAH was I not known unto them." The name of Jehaovah was its association with redemption and salvation to Israel.

Throughout the Old Testament God used names to express his self revalation. He was Elohim, Adonai Eheyeh asher, I Am Almighty, Everlasting, etc..

The prophet Agur asked about God (Judges 13:18)"What is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" He was looking into the future, trying to see by what name God would reveal himself when he appeared as the son.

Zechariah prophesied that a time would come when the Lord would be king over all the earh, and " in that day shall there be on LORD, and his name one" (Zechariah 14:9)

When the fullness of time came, God did satisfy the longings of His people and revealed Himself in all His power and glory through the name Jesus.

Jesus is the culmination of all the Old Testamen names of God. It is the highes, most exalted name ever revealed to mankind. The name Jesus is the same name of God that He promised to reveal when He said, "Therefore my people shall know my name" (Isaiah 52:6)

Through the name Jesus, God reveals Himself fully. To the extent that we see, know, honor, believe and receive Jesus, to the extent that we know, honor believe and receive God.

Our bodies are the temples of God(1 Corinthians 3:16-17) yet we know Christ dwells in our hearts (Ephesians 3:17)

Thomas confessed Jesus as both Lord and God.
The list goes on with references to his diety.

And lastly I would have to say the mention of Bias would have to be applicable to you if you feel it applies to me because of my strong stance, accurate assesments and most reliable source of translation that is available.

I myself wonder the same thing, and he did reveal himself through Jesus Christ.
BOY ARE YOU MISTAKEN. JESUS(YESHUA) AND YHWH

I think thats why Heresy interjected previously before with the reference to Tritheism. For one you are mistaken. The terms are all different from one another Tritheism, Trinitarianism. Monotheism, Polytheism etcc... They are all references to the perception of how one sees God. The polytheistic view is the closet to the one you believe. It is a belief in more than one God. God being the one and Jesus taking on the subordinate positon of the Godhead. The trinitarians veiw three distinct personalites, entities, etcc.. And you have stated your belief in two entities thats why your comprehension of the Godhead is similar to their view. Last I believe in One God period. Although there are different manifestaions not entities of this one God. Just the same as the analogy of Me being a Father, yet being a son to my Father and being a doctor, lawyer etc.. They are extensions or titles of one person not different entities.

On the contrary Jesus is God, scriptures testify to that from the beginning to end, Now where you have provided enough scriptures is a stretch as well. I never have to prove a point using different bibles that conviently display differences. That will always be the problem we'll face. I'll emphasize a point through this accurate translation and you can just get another version that says otherwise. And theres plenty historical documentaition to prove those versions are flawed.

I will reiterate I have studied for quite sometime now and have not been biased. Just because I can truly rely on a source and not use different one to empasize or stress certain points is irrelavent.

I met her here in Cali. and she still lives here nearby.

I'll have to look to find the book, and yes it would state if you encounter this denomination and they bring up certain issues this is the response etc... I'm sure they probally have them at the JW organization and pass them out.

The experience is nothing new to me as I've encountered many JW"S, Mormons, Catholics etc.. In dealing with the word of God. As for how I feel it't nothing more than the feeling of going in circles and how do you ever move forward if the opposition has many bibles to use to make points. You can always make a reference, but the Mormons have an additional book they refer to as well as the JW's. I don't feel one way or the other to answer the question.

Lastly why did someone make a post entitled the degrees of EDJism?

EDJ · Sep 13, 2004

^WHERE IS THIS POST?

BUT ANSWER MY FIRST REBUTTLE MAN. YOU MORE OUT THERE THAN I THOUgHT PLAYA.

HERESY · Sep 13, 2004

@edj I know what it is. why do you ask?

:hgk:

miggidy · Sep 13, 2004

EDJ,

I haven't found the word "trinity" in the New Testament but I do see the 3 mentioned together through out the New Testament.
The three being the Son, The Father, and the Holy Spirit.

inferno · Sep 13, 2004

It was posted a few days ago or so. I was just curious why someone posted it about you thats all. Its not that deep of a question.

I answered all of your rebuttals in my last post. I will reiterate that it is not profitable to anyone to deal with any subject regarding the bible when the opposition has other bibles or versions for that matter to debate with.

I fully comprehend why HERESY said why he wouldn't continue in any more religous threads. You can just go in circles all day. One, it doesn't really matter how much you prove any point, cause all you have to do is search the web to find a site where it counters the subject your dealing with and there you have it. A person has a rebuttal.

I am firm on my position, not close minded. I have studied and experienced enough to be convinced of my position. I don't mind at all dealing with your previous posts but come on man, when a point is made, all you have to do is state "well the bible im reading say this or that". And I have given you enough for my reasoning by sticking to the KJV. So do you see how it can just become redundant. I know others have.

FAKE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

Sicc OG

JLMACN

Member

Sicc OG

Member

Member

Sicc OG

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Member

Sicc OG

Member

Sicc OG

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Sicc OG

Member