FAKE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
- Thread starter EDJ
- Start date
^^^ You won't find the word JEHOVA WITNESS in the bible yet people adhere to it's teachings and the label. The point is you're obviously going over something that the majority of people won't and don't care about. Not to mention the slim chance that those who DO care about it, won't and don't agree with you so why continue to talk about it?
The biblical "trinity" does NOT have roots in paganism. In paganism you have TRIADS and basically have a figure of FATHER, WIFE and SON. Which is usually symbolized by SUN (male), MOON (female) and STAR (son) worship. You have COHORTS and companions, stuff like that. In the biblical trinity you don't have a mother figure. You are confusing it with ploytheism/tritheism because thats what arainism (what you follow) teaches.
Is it possible that the "trinity" is real and that it's concept/meaning was perverted and lost over time? Yes.
Think about it. God made man in HIS image. Man is comprised of three parts. Flesh, soul and spirit. Is it hard to see "GOD" as being comprised of 3 parts?
Think of the government. Three parts all working within and around each other yet its ONE government. No its not THREE governments just like its not THREE gods. IT'S *ONE* GOD.
We can talk about how every culture you listed has NOTHING to do with the trinity or trinity concept/doctrine but what will it prove?
Finally are you questioning the Deity of Yeshua/jesus?
The biblical "trinity" does NOT have roots in paganism. In paganism you have TRIADS and basically have a figure of FATHER, WIFE and SON. Which is usually symbolized by SUN (male), MOON (female) and STAR (son) worship. You have COHORTS and companions, stuff like that. In the biblical trinity you don't have a mother figure. You are confusing it with ploytheism/tritheism because thats what arainism (what you follow) teaches.
Is it possible that the "trinity" is real and that it's concept/meaning was perverted and lost over time? Yes.
Think about it. God made man in HIS image. Man is comprised of three parts. Flesh, soul and spirit. Is it hard to see "GOD" as being comprised of 3 parts?
Think of the government. Three parts all working within and around each other yet its ONE government. No its not THREE governments just like its not THREE gods. IT'S *ONE* GOD.
We can talk about how every culture you listed has NOTHING to do with the trinity or trinity concept/doctrine but what will it prove?
Finally are you questioning the Deity of Yeshua/jesus?
"the bible doesn't mention trinity and the word trinity can't be found in the bible"
The bible does not mention J.W.'S as being 144,000 who will make it to heaven. The bible does not mention the watch tower as sacred or authoritive scripture....
BTW how do they take that number as LITERAL but don't take the TRIBES as literal but refer to it as symbolic? Where is the logic in that?
The bible does not mention J.W.'S as being 144,000 who will make it to heaven. The bible does not mention the watch tower as sacred or authoritive scripture....
BTW how do they take that number as LITERAL but don't take the TRIBES as literal but refer to it as symbolic? Where is the logic in that?
HERESY,
YOU STRESSED, "You won't find the word JEHOVA WITNESS in the bible yet people adhere to it's teachings and the label."
NOBODY SAID IT DID. BUT YOU WILL FIND THE TETRAgRAMMATON TRANSLATED IN THE THE FOUR CONSONANTS THAT MAKE UP THE DIVINE NAME, YHWH. SOME TRANSLATE IT AS JEHOVAH AND OTHAS YAHWEH, BUT YAHWEH HAS BEEN SHOWNED TO BE INNACURATE, PEEP:
http://www.divinename.net/
I KNOW YOU gONNA BRINg UP THE FACT THAT THERE AIN'T NO "J'S" IN HEBREW, TO BE TRANSLATED AS "JEHOVAH", BUT SO ARE SOME MANY NAMES IN THE BIBLE. SEE I FIgURE IT HAS TO BE SOMETHIN' CLOSE LIKE YEHOVAH OR SAMETHIN' LIKE THAT. WHY DO YOU SAY IT'S YAHWEH?
WITH THAT BEIN' SAID,PEEP OUT OUT HEBREWS 11:4-12:1 AND PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT TO 12:1. WHY IS IT CALLIN' THEM WITNESSES? IN REV. 3:14, WHO IS THEY TALKIN' BOUT? AND WHAT WAS THEY TALKIN' BOUT IN JOHN 17:6? BUT I BELIEVE THEY ADOPTED THAT NAME IN 1931 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ISAIAH 43:10-12. AND THEY BELIEVE THEIR BELIEFS ARE A RESTORATION OF FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "The point is you're obviously going over something that the majority of people won't and don't care about."
AND WHY IS THAT?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Not to mention the slim chance that those who DO care about it, won't and don't agree with you so why continue to talk about it?"
CAUSE I CAN. PLUS I'M LETTIN' IT BE KNOWN, AND DOWN TO gET TO THE NITTY gRITTY OF SHIT. THIS IS THE gATHERIN' OF MINDS, AIN'T IT? I COULD CARE LESS WHAT OTHAS THINK OF ME. I ALWAYS QUESTION SHIT. AND I'VE BEEN PRESENTED WITH SHIT THAT OPENED MY EYES. IF SOMEBODY CAN CONVINCE ME OTHA WISE, YOU'RE WELCOMED TO DO SO. ALL THIS MAINSTREAM CHURCH DOgMA'S ARE BASED ON PAgAN RITUALS AND I KNOW THEY ORIgINS. YOU THINK I'M gONNA BELIEVE IN THEM, ONCE THEY LIES ARE DISPELLED?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "The biblical "trinity" does NOT have roots in paganism."
I BEg TO DIFFER.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "In paganism you have TRIADS and basically have a figure of FATHER, WIFE and SON. Which is usually symbolized by SUN (male), MOON (female) and STAR (son) worship. You have COHORTS and companions, stuff like that. In the biblical trinity you don't have a mother figure."
WHAT DOES THAT MATTER? THE INFLUENCE IS THERE. PLATO PICCED UP ON IT AND OTHA'S FOLLOWED. AND THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THANg AS A BIBLICAL TRINITY. THE WORD AIN'T EVEN IN SCRIPTURE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "You are confusing it with ploytheism/tritheism because thats what arainism (what you follow) teaches."
BULLSHIT. CAUSE I DON'T FOLLOW ARAINISM OR N-E TYPE OF POLYTHEISM/TRITHEISM.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Is it possible that the "trinity" is real and that it's concept/meaning was perverted and lost over time? Yes."
NOPE. CAUSE IF IT WAS REAL, THE WORD OF (gOD) WOULD CLARIFY N-E PERVERSION OR DEVIATION FROM IT. THE THANg IS, NOT ONLY DOES THE WORD OF (gOD) DON'T SPECIFICALLY MENTION IT, BUT STRESSES THE MONOTHEISM OF YHWH.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Think about it. God made man in HIS image. Man is comprised of three parts. Flesh, soul and spirit."
DONE THOUgHT ABOUT IT, QUESTIONED IT, LOOKED AT OTHAS FOR ANSWERS, RESEARCHED IT, LOOKED AT THE FACTS BEFORE ME, AND CAME UP WITH THE CONCLUSION THAT (gOD) IS ONE AND JESUS IS HIS ONLY BEgOTTEN SON. WHAT YOU STRESSIN' IS SOME PLATONISTIC PHILOSOPHY OF 3, JUST LIKE ALL THE PAgAN RELIgIONS TRY TO DO. WHY DOES (gOD) NEED JESUS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT TO COMPRISE PART OF HIM? A MAN IS COMPRISED OF FLESH AND SPIRIT. HIS SOUL IS HIS SPIRIT IN THE FLESH.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Is it hard to see "GOD" as being comprised of 3 parts?"
IT'S HARD TO COMPREHEND WHY (gOD) WOULD DO THIS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Think of the government. Three parts all working within and around each other yet its ONE government. No its not THREE governments just like its not THREE gods. IT'S *ONE* GOD."
BAD ANALOgY. CAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT WORK WITH THE FATHER'S WILL AS ONE. NOT AS AN ENTITY, BUT ONE IN SPIRIT AND PURPOSE. SO YOUR ANALOgU PROVES MY POINT. JUST LIKE ME AND YOU CAN BE FROM THE SAME HOOD. OUR HOOD IS ONE, BUT WE AIN'T THE SAME MUTHA-FUKA.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "We can talk about how every culture you listed has NOTHING to do with the trinity or trinity concept/doctrine but what will it prove?"
IT WILL PROVE THE ANSWER AND KNOWLEDgE ONCE WE COME OUT WITH WHAT WE gOT. YOU DON'T KNOW IF WHAT I LISTED INFLUENCED THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. I CAN BREAK DOWN WHERE IT CAME FROM AND SHOW YOU SOME RESEARCH. YOU CAN THEN LOOK INTO THE FACTS OR LOOK INTO THE INFORMATION gIVEN.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Finally are you questioning the Deity of Yeshua/jesus?"
WHAT DEITY WOULD THAT BE? THAT HE IS YHWH?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "The bible does not mention J.W.'S as being 144,000 who will make it to heaven."
NOBODY SAID THEY WERE. CAUSE THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES MAKE UP MORE THAN 144,000.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "The bible does not mention the watch tower as sacred or authoritive scripture...."
WHO SAID IT WAS? WHO EVEN MADE IT SEEM LIKE THAT WAS SACRED OR AN AUTHORITIVE SCRIPTURE?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "BTW how do they take that number as LITERAL but don't take the TRIBES as literal but refer to it as symbolic? Where is the logic in that?"
CAUSE THE NUMBER IS THERE BUT THE TRIBES MENTIONED IN REV. 7:4-8 WERE FROM AN EARTHY ISREAL. CAUSE:
1. THERE WAS NEVA A TRIBE OF JOSEPH
X. THE TRIBES OF EPHRAIM AND DAN ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST HERE.
3. THE LEVITES WERE SET ASIDE FOR SERVICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE TEMPLE, BUT WERE RECCONED WITH AS ONE OF THE 12 TRIBES.
YOU STRESSED, "You won't find the word JEHOVA WITNESS in the bible yet people adhere to it's teachings and the label."
NOBODY SAID IT DID. BUT YOU WILL FIND THE TETRAgRAMMATON TRANSLATED IN THE THE FOUR CONSONANTS THAT MAKE UP THE DIVINE NAME, YHWH. SOME TRANSLATE IT AS JEHOVAH AND OTHAS YAHWEH, BUT YAHWEH HAS BEEN SHOWNED TO BE INNACURATE, PEEP:
http://www.divinename.net/
I KNOW YOU gONNA BRINg UP THE FACT THAT THERE AIN'T NO "J'S" IN HEBREW, TO BE TRANSLATED AS "JEHOVAH", BUT SO ARE SOME MANY NAMES IN THE BIBLE. SEE I FIgURE IT HAS TO BE SOMETHIN' CLOSE LIKE YEHOVAH OR SAMETHIN' LIKE THAT. WHY DO YOU SAY IT'S YAHWEH?
WITH THAT BEIN' SAID,PEEP OUT OUT HEBREWS 11:4-12:1 AND PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT TO 12:1. WHY IS IT CALLIN' THEM WITNESSES? IN REV. 3:14, WHO IS THEY TALKIN' BOUT? AND WHAT WAS THEY TALKIN' BOUT IN JOHN 17:6? BUT I BELIEVE THEY ADOPTED THAT NAME IN 1931 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ISAIAH 43:10-12. AND THEY BELIEVE THEIR BELIEFS ARE A RESTORATION OF FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "The point is you're obviously going over something that the majority of people won't and don't care about."
AND WHY IS THAT?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Not to mention the slim chance that those who DO care about it, won't and don't agree with you so why continue to talk about it?"
CAUSE I CAN. PLUS I'M LETTIN' IT BE KNOWN, AND DOWN TO gET TO THE NITTY gRITTY OF SHIT. THIS IS THE gATHERIN' OF MINDS, AIN'T IT? I COULD CARE LESS WHAT OTHAS THINK OF ME. I ALWAYS QUESTION SHIT. AND I'VE BEEN PRESENTED WITH SHIT THAT OPENED MY EYES. IF SOMEBODY CAN CONVINCE ME OTHA WISE, YOU'RE WELCOMED TO DO SO. ALL THIS MAINSTREAM CHURCH DOgMA'S ARE BASED ON PAgAN RITUALS AND I KNOW THEY ORIgINS. YOU THINK I'M gONNA BELIEVE IN THEM, ONCE THEY LIES ARE DISPELLED?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "The biblical "trinity" does NOT have roots in paganism."
I BEg TO DIFFER.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "In paganism you have TRIADS and basically have a figure of FATHER, WIFE and SON. Which is usually symbolized by SUN (male), MOON (female) and STAR (son) worship. You have COHORTS and companions, stuff like that. In the biblical trinity you don't have a mother figure."
WHAT DOES THAT MATTER? THE INFLUENCE IS THERE. PLATO PICCED UP ON IT AND OTHA'S FOLLOWED. AND THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THANg AS A BIBLICAL TRINITY. THE WORD AIN'T EVEN IN SCRIPTURE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "You are confusing it with ploytheism/tritheism because thats what arainism (what you follow) teaches."
BULLSHIT. CAUSE I DON'T FOLLOW ARAINISM OR N-E TYPE OF POLYTHEISM/TRITHEISM.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Is it possible that the "trinity" is real and that it's concept/meaning was perverted and lost over time? Yes."
NOPE. CAUSE IF IT WAS REAL, THE WORD OF (gOD) WOULD CLARIFY N-E PERVERSION OR DEVIATION FROM IT. THE THANg IS, NOT ONLY DOES THE WORD OF (gOD) DON'T SPECIFICALLY MENTION IT, BUT STRESSES THE MONOTHEISM OF YHWH.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Think about it. God made man in HIS image. Man is comprised of three parts. Flesh, soul and spirit."
DONE THOUgHT ABOUT IT, QUESTIONED IT, LOOKED AT OTHAS FOR ANSWERS, RESEARCHED IT, LOOKED AT THE FACTS BEFORE ME, AND CAME UP WITH THE CONCLUSION THAT (gOD) IS ONE AND JESUS IS HIS ONLY BEgOTTEN SON. WHAT YOU STRESSIN' IS SOME PLATONISTIC PHILOSOPHY OF 3, JUST LIKE ALL THE PAgAN RELIgIONS TRY TO DO. WHY DOES (gOD) NEED JESUS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT TO COMPRISE PART OF HIM? A MAN IS COMPRISED OF FLESH AND SPIRIT. HIS SOUL IS HIS SPIRIT IN THE FLESH.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Is it hard to see "GOD" as being comprised of 3 parts?"
IT'S HARD TO COMPREHEND WHY (gOD) WOULD DO THIS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Think of the government. Three parts all working within and around each other yet its ONE government. No its not THREE governments just like its not THREE gods. IT'S *ONE* GOD."
BAD ANALOgY. CAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT WORK WITH THE FATHER'S WILL AS ONE. NOT AS AN ENTITY, BUT ONE IN SPIRIT AND PURPOSE. SO YOUR ANALOgU PROVES MY POINT. JUST LIKE ME AND YOU CAN BE FROM THE SAME HOOD. OUR HOOD IS ONE, BUT WE AIN'T THE SAME MUTHA-FUKA.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "We can talk about how every culture you listed has NOTHING to do with the trinity or trinity concept/doctrine but what will it prove?"
IT WILL PROVE THE ANSWER AND KNOWLEDgE ONCE WE COME OUT WITH WHAT WE gOT. YOU DON'T KNOW IF WHAT I LISTED INFLUENCED THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. I CAN BREAK DOWN WHERE IT CAME FROM AND SHOW YOU SOME RESEARCH. YOU CAN THEN LOOK INTO THE FACTS OR LOOK INTO THE INFORMATION gIVEN.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Finally are you questioning the Deity of Yeshua/jesus?"
WHAT DEITY WOULD THAT BE? THAT HE IS YHWH?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "The bible does not mention J.W.'S as being 144,000 who will make it to heaven."
NOBODY SAID THEY WERE. CAUSE THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES MAKE UP MORE THAN 144,000.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "The bible does not mention the watch tower as sacred or authoritive scripture...."
WHO SAID IT WAS? WHO EVEN MADE IT SEEM LIKE THAT WAS SACRED OR AN AUTHORITIVE SCRIPTURE?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "BTW how do they take that number as LITERAL but don't take the TRIBES as literal but refer to it as symbolic? Where is the logic in that?"
CAUSE THE NUMBER IS THERE BUT THE TRIBES MENTIONED IN REV. 7:4-8 WERE FROM AN EARTHY ISREAL. CAUSE:
1. THERE WAS NEVA A TRIBE OF JOSEPH
X. THE TRIBES OF EPHRAIM AND DAN ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST HERE.
3. THE LEVITES WERE SET ASIDE FOR SERVICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE TEMPLE, BUT WERE RECCONED WITH AS ONE OF THE 12 TRIBES.
MAN I DON'T WANNA GO INTO THIS........
NOBODY SAID IT DID. BUT YOU WILL FIND THE TETRAgRAMMATON TRANSLATED IN THE THE FOUR CONSONANTS THAT MAKE UP THE DIVINE NAME, YHWH. SOME TRANSLATE IT AS JEHOVAH AND OTHAS YAHWEH, BUT YAHWEH HAS BEEN SHOWNED TO BE INNACURATE, PEEP:
http://www.divinename.net/
I KNOW YOU gONNA BRINg UP THE FACT THAT THERE AIN'T NO "J'S" IN HEBREW, TO BE TRANSLATED AS "JEHOVAH", BUT SO ARE SOME MANY NAMES IN THE BIBLE. SEE I FIgURE IT HAS TO BE SOMETHIN' CLOSE LIKE YEHOVAH OR SAMETHIN' LIKE THAT. WHY DO YOU SAY IT'S YAHWEH?
THE LINK YOU GAVE ME PROVIDES ME WITH NO NEW INFORMATION. IT SIMPLY LINKS ME TO BOOK BEING SOLD. I'VE COME ACROSS *HUNDREDS* OF VARIATIONS OF THE NAMES BUT I'LL TELL YOU *ANYTHING* WITH A J IS INCORRECT. I DON'T SAY IT'S YAHWEH IT'S PRONOUNCED HOW IT LOOKS (JUST LIKE THE AUTHOR SAID).
WITH THAT BEIN' SAID,PEEP OUT OUT HEBREWS 11:4-12:1 AND PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT TO 12:1. WHY IS IT CALLIN' THEM WITNESSES? IN REV. 3:14, WHO IS THEY TALKIN' BOUT? AND WHAT WAS THEY TALKIN' BOUT IN JOHN 17:6? BUT I BELIEVE THEY ADOPTED THAT NAME IN 1931 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ISAIAH 43:10-12. AND THEY BELIEVE THEIR BELIEFS ARE A RESTORATION OF FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANS.
I'll look into it.
AND WHY IS THAT?
ask them why they dont care.
CAUSE I CAN. PLUS I'M LETTIN' IT BE KNOWN, AND DOWN TO gET TO THE NITTY gRITTY OF SHIT. THIS IS THE gATHERIN' OF MINDS, AIN'T IT? I COULD CARE LESS WHAT OTHAS THINK OF ME. I ALWAYS QUESTION SHIT. AND I'VE BEEN PRESENTED WITH SHIT THAT OPENED MY EYES. IF SOMEBODY CAN CONVINCE ME OTHA WISE, YOU'RE WELCOMED TO DO SO. ALL THIS MAINSTREAM CHURCH DOgMA'S ARE BASED ON PAgAN RITUALS AND I KNOW THEY ORIgINS. YOU THINK I'M gONNA BELIEVE IN THEM, ONCE THEY LIES ARE DISPELLED?
the majority (not all) of mainstream church dogma/doctrine IS based in paganism. I've ALWAYS said this and you have no opposition here. You say you're letting it be known and you're getting down to teh nitty gritty. My suggestion is to READ and STUDY the languages (hebrew for example) in depth if you havent already.
I BEg TO DIFFER.
You beg to differ after reading internet websites and watch tower doctrine. I say what I say by actually STUDYING *AND* RESEARCHING THE PAGAN RELIGIONS AND THEIR ORIGINS.
WHAT DOES THAT MATTER? THE INFLUENCE IS THERE. PLATO PICCED UP ON IT AND OTHA'S FOLLOWED. AND THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THANg AS A BIBLICAL TRINITY. THE WORD AIN'T EVEN IN SCRIPTURE.
THE SCRIPTURE DOES NOT SAY "THE WATCH TOWER SOCIETY IS THE FAITHFUL SERVENT" NOR DOES IT SAY "144,000 J.W.'S ARE GOING TO HEAVEN" YET THEY BELIEVE IT. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING ISN'T LISTED DOESN'T MEAN IT ISNT THERE. THE SCRIPTURES DON'T MENTION AZRAEL OR SAMSAZEAL (OR SAMZAEL) BUT THEY EXIST.
WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS THE INFLUENCE IS *NOT* THERE ONCE YOU ACTUALLY STUDY THE PAGAN RELIGIONS.
BULLSHIT. CAUSE I DON'T FOLLOW ARAINISM OR N-E TYPE OF POLYTHEISM/TRITHEISM.
IF YOU ADHERE TO THE J.W. DOCTRINE YOU ADHERE TO ARAINISM. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. JOHN 1:1-4 TALKS ABOUT THE WORD BEING WITH GOD, AND STATING THE WORD WAS GOD. IT ALSO STATES THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH. WHY DOES THE NEW TRANSLATION SAY SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF "AND THE WORD WAS *A* GOD"? CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS?
NOPE. CAUSE IF IT WAS REAL, THE WORD OF (gOD) WOULD CLARIFY N-E PERVERSION OR DEVIATION FROM IT. THE THANg IS, NOT ONLY DOES THE WORD OF (gOD) DON'T SPECIFICALLY MENTION IT, BUT STRESSES THE MONOTHEISM OF YHWH.
DOES THE WORD OF GOD CLARIFY SATANS REAL NAME? WHY DOES IT MENTION LUCIFUR IN THE OLD TESTAMENT? THE WORD OF GOD HAS MANY PERVERSIONS. THE FACT THAT WE ARE HAVING THIS TOPIC SHOULD TEACH YOU THAT. TO BE HONEST THE BIBLE DOES *NOT* CLARIFY EVERYTHING AND IT DOES *NOT* CLARIFY EVERY DOCTRINE OR TAINTED BELIEF. WHY DOES THE BIBLE MAKE NO MENTION OF THE WATCH TOWER ORGANIZATION?
DONE THOUgHT ABOUT IT, QUESTIONED IT, LOOKED AT OTHAS FOR ANSWERS, RESEARCHED IT, LOOKED AT THE FACTS BEFORE ME, AND CAME UP WITH THE CONCLUSION THAT (gOD) IS ONE AND JESUS IS HIS ONLY BEgOTTEN SON. WHAT YOU STRESSIN' IS SOME PLATONISTIC PHILOSOPHY OF 3, JUST LIKE ALL THE PAgAN RELIgIONS TRY TO DO. WHY DOES (gOD) NEED JESUS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT TO COMPRISE PART OF HIM? A MAN IS COMPRISED OF FLESH AND SPIRIT. HIS SOUL IS HIS SPIRIT IN THE FLESH.
THE ONLY THING YOU'VE DONE IS HIT A COUPLE OF WEBSITES. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD IS *ONE* (WHICH I DO) AND YOU BELIEVE IN HIS SON THATS GREAT. I HOWEVER DON'T BELIEVE (AND KNOW FOR A FACT) THAT "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON" IS A TITLE. PLEASE STUDY GREEK AND HEBREW FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION. A MANS SOUL IS HIS SPIRIT IN THE FLESH? I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOU'RE STATEMENT. BTW THE BIBLE MAKES A DISTINCTION BETWEEN FLESH, SOUL AND SPIRIT.
IT'S HARD TO COMPREHEND WHY (gOD) WOULD DO THIS.
IT'S ALSO HARD TO SEE WHY HE WOULD ALLOW HIS SON (AS YOU CALL HIM) TO DIE FOR SINS.
BAD ANALOgY. CAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT WORK WITH THE FATHER'S WILL AS ONE.
JUST AS THOSE BRANCHES WORK THE GOVERNMENTS WILL AS ONE.
NOT AS AN ENTITY, BUT ONE IN SPIRIT AND PURPOSE. SO YOUR ANALOgU PROVES MY POINT. JUST LIKE ME AND YOU CAN BE FROM THE SAME HOOD. OUR HOOD IS ONE, BUT WE AIN'T THE SAME MUTHA-FUKA.
SEE THE ABOVE. I'M NOT SAYING YHWH, YESHUA AND RAUCH ARE THE *SAME* BEING. THATS WHAT A PENTACOSTAL WOULD TELL YOU. PLEASE REFER TO JOHN 1 1:14 AND EXPLAIN IT FOR ME.
IT WILL PROVE THE ANSWER AND KNOWLEDgE ONCE WE COME OUT WITH WHAT WE gOT. YOU DON'T KNOW IF WHAT I LISTED INFLUENCED THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. I CAN BREAK DOWN WHERE IT CAME FROM AND SHOW YOU SOME RESEARCH. YOU CAN THEN LOOK INTO THE FACTS OR LOOK INTO THE INFORMATION gIVEN.
YOU CAN BREAK DOWN WHERE IT CAME FROM BY READING BIASED SITES. I CAN BREAK IT DOWN BY FIRST EXPLAINING THE RELIGIONS, WHEN THEY WERE ADOPTED, HOW THE POLITICAL CLIMATE SHIFT ONE GODS WORSHIP TO THE NEXT, ETC ETC ETC. TRUST ME ANYTHING YOU COULD GIVE ME I'VE ALREADY LOOKED INTO.
WHAT DEITY WOULD THAT BE? THAT HE IS YHWH?
NO THATS NOT MY QUESTION AND IF I NEED TO CLARIFY IT FORGET IT.....ARE YOU QUESTIONING THE DEITISHIP OF YESHUA?
NOBODY SAID THEY WERE. CAUSE THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES MAKE UP MORE THAN 144,000.
THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY 144,000 PEOPLE FROM A PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION WILL MAKE IT TO HEAVEN.
WHO SAID IT WAS? WHO EVEN MADE IT SEEM LIKE THAT WAS SACRED OR AN AUTHORITIVE SCRIPTURE?
THE ORGANIZATION ITSELF.....
CAUSE THE NUMBER IS THERE BUT THE TRIBES MENTIONED IN REV. 7:4-8 WERE FROM AN EARTHY ISREAL. CAUSE:
?!?!?! IF THE NUMBERS ARE THERE AND THE TRIBES MENTIONED ARE FROM AN EARTHLY ISRAEL THAT OMITS *ALL* PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT FROM THESE TRIBES. IF THE "ISRAEL" OR TRIBES ARE "SYMBOLIC" YOU SHOULD EXPLAIN WHAT CLAUSE OR BREAKAGE IN SCRIPTURE PROVES THIS TO BE SUCH. IT'S ILLOGICAL TO SAY ONE PART IS SYMBOLIC BUT THE OTHER LITERAL. WHAT ABOUT THE PART WHERE IT SAYS THEY ARE "VIRGINS" AND HAVE NEVER BEEN DEFILED WITH A WOMAN?
1. THERE WAS NEVA A TRIBE OF JOSEPH
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Tribe of Ephraim
TWO TRIBES COMPRISE THE TRIBE OF JOSEPH.
X. THE TRIBES OF EPHRAIM AND DAN ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST HERE.
A MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION TO ASK IS *WHY* THEY ARENT LISTED.
3. THE LEVITES WERE SET ASIDE FOR SERVICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE TEMPLE, BUT WERE RECCONED WITH AS ONE OF THE 12 TRIBES.
ACTUALLY THE LEVITES ARE *OMITTED* WHEN THE TRIBE OF JOSEPH (COMPRISED OF TWO TRIBES) ARE LISTED *SEPERATELY* AND NOT AS ONE.
NOBODY SAID IT DID. BUT YOU WILL FIND THE TETRAgRAMMATON TRANSLATED IN THE THE FOUR CONSONANTS THAT MAKE UP THE DIVINE NAME, YHWH. SOME TRANSLATE IT AS JEHOVAH AND OTHAS YAHWEH, BUT YAHWEH HAS BEEN SHOWNED TO BE INNACURATE, PEEP:
http://www.divinename.net/
I KNOW YOU gONNA BRINg UP THE FACT THAT THERE AIN'T NO "J'S" IN HEBREW, TO BE TRANSLATED AS "JEHOVAH", BUT SO ARE SOME MANY NAMES IN THE BIBLE. SEE I FIgURE IT HAS TO BE SOMETHIN' CLOSE LIKE YEHOVAH OR SAMETHIN' LIKE THAT. WHY DO YOU SAY IT'S YAHWEH?
THE LINK YOU GAVE ME PROVIDES ME WITH NO NEW INFORMATION. IT SIMPLY LINKS ME TO BOOK BEING SOLD. I'VE COME ACROSS *HUNDREDS* OF VARIATIONS OF THE NAMES BUT I'LL TELL YOU *ANYTHING* WITH A J IS INCORRECT. I DON'T SAY IT'S YAHWEH IT'S PRONOUNCED HOW IT LOOKS (JUST LIKE THE AUTHOR SAID).
WITH THAT BEIN' SAID,PEEP OUT OUT HEBREWS 11:4-12:1 AND PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT TO 12:1. WHY IS IT CALLIN' THEM WITNESSES? IN REV. 3:14, WHO IS THEY TALKIN' BOUT? AND WHAT WAS THEY TALKIN' BOUT IN JOHN 17:6? BUT I BELIEVE THEY ADOPTED THAT NAME IN 1931 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ISAIAH 43:10-12. AND THEY BELIEVE THEIR BELIEFS ARE A RESTORATION OF FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANS.
I'll look into it.
AND WHY IS THAT?
ask them why they dont care.
CAUSE I CAN. PLUS I'M LETTIN' IT BE KNOWN, AND DOWN TO gET TO THE NITTY gRITTY OF SHIT. THIS IS THE gATHERIN' OF MINDS, AIN'T IT? I COULD CARE LESS WHAT OTHAS THINK OF ME. I ALWAYS QUESTION SHIT. AND I'VE BEEN PRESENTED WITH SHIT THAT OPENED MY EYES. IF SOMEBODY CAN CONVINCE ME OTHA WISE, YOU'RE WELCOMED TO DO SO. ALL THIS MAINSTREAM CHURCH DOgMA'S ARE BASED ON PAgAN RITUALS AND I KNOW THEY ORIgINS. YOU THINK I'M gONNA BELIEVE IN THEM, ONCE THEY LIES ARE DISPELLED?
the majority (not all) of mainstream church dogma/doctrine IS based in paganism. I've ALWAYS said this and you have no opposition here. You say you're letting it be known and you're getting down to teh nitty gritty. My suggestion is to READ and STUDY the languages (hebrew for example) in depth if you havent already.
I BEg TO DIFFER.
You beg to differ after reading internet websites and watch tower doctrine. I say what I say by actually STUDYING *AND* RESEARCHING THE PAGAN RELIGIONS AND THEIR ORIGINS.
WHAT DOES THAT MATTER? THE INFLUENCE IS THERE. PLATO PICCED UP ON IT AND OTHA'S FOLLOWED. AND THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THANg AS A BIBLICAL TRINITY. THE WORD AIN'T EVEN IN SCRIPTURE.
THE SCRIPTURE DOES NOT SAY "THE WATCH TOWER SOCIETY IS THE FAITHFUL SERVENT" NOR DOES IT SAY "144,000 J.W.'S ARE GOING TO HEAVEN" YET THEY BELIEVE IT. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING ISN'T LISTED DOESN'T MEAN IT ISNT THERE. THE SCRIPTURES DON'T MENTION AZRAEL OR SAMSAZEAL (OR SAMZAEL) BUT THEY EXIST.
WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS THE INFLUENCE IS *NOT* THERE ONCE YOU ACTUALLY STUDY THE PAGAN RELIGIONS.
BULLSHIT. CAUSE I DON'T FOLLOW ARAINISM OR N-E TYPE OF POLYTHEISM/TRITHEISM.
IF YOU ADHERE TO THE J.W. DOCTRINE YOU ADHERE TO ARAINISM. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. JOHN 1:1-4 TALKS ABOUT THE WORD BEING WITH GOD, AND STATING THE WORD WAS GOD. IT ALSO STATES THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH. WHY DOES THE NEW TRANSLATION SAY SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF "AND THE WORD WAS *A* GOD"? CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS?
NOPE. CAUSE IF IT WAS REAL, THE WORD OF (gOD) WOULD CLARIFY N-E PERVERSION OR DEVIATION FROM IT. THE THANg IS, NOT ONLY DOES THE WORD OF (gOD) DON'T SPECIFICALLY MENTION IT, BUT STRESSES THE MONOTHEISM OF YHWH.
DOES THE WORD OF GOD CLARIFY SATANS REAL NAME? WHY DOES IT MENTION LUCIFUR IN THE OLD TESTAMENT? THE WORD OF GOD HAS MANY PERVERSIONS. THE FACT THAT WE ARE HAVING THIS TOPIC SHOULD TEACH YOU THAT. TO BE HONEST THE BIBLE DOES *NOT* CLARIFY EVERYTHING AND IT DOES *NOT* CLARIFY EVERY DOCTRINE OR TAINTED BELIEF. WHY DOES THE BIBLE MAKE NO MENTION OF THE WATCH TOWER ORGANIZATION?
DONE THOUgHT ABOUT IT, QUESTIONED IT, LOOKED AT OTHAS FOR ANSWERS, RESEARCHED IT, LOOKED AT THE FACTS BEFORE ME, AND CAME UP WITH THE CONCLUSION THAT (gOD) IS ONE AND JESUS IS HIS ONLY BEgOTTEN SON. WHAT YOU STRESSIN' IS SOME PLATONISTIC PHILOSOPHY OF 3, JUST LIKE ALL THE PAgAN RELIgIONS TRY TO DO. WHY DOES (gOD) NEED JESUS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT TO COMPRISE PART OF HIM? A MAN IS COMPRISED OF FLESH AND SPIRIT. HIS SOUL IS HIS SPIRIT IN THE FLESH.
THE ONLY THING YOU'VE DONE IS HIT A COUPLE OF WEBSITES. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD IS *ONE* (WHICH I DO) AND YOU BELIEVE IN HIS SON THATS GREAT. I HOWEVER DON'T BELIEVE (AND KNOW FOR A FACT) THAT "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON" IS A TITLE. PLEASE STUDY GREEK AND HEBREW FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION. A MANS SOUL IS HIS SPIRIT IN THE FLESH? I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOU'RE STATEMENT. BTW THE BIBLE MAKES A DISTINCTION BETWEEN FLESH, SOUL AND SPIRIT.
IT'S HARD TO COMPREHEND WHY (gOD) WOULD DO THIS.
IT'S ALSO HARD TO SEE WHY HE WOULD ALLOW HIS SON (AS YOU CALL HIM) TO DIE FOR SINS.
BAD ANALOgY. CAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT WORK WITH THE FATHER'S WILL AS ONE.
JUST AS THOSE BRANCHES WORK THE GOVERNMENTS WILL AS ONE.
NOT AS AN ENTITY, BUT ONE IN SPIRIT AND PURPOSE. SO YOUR ANALOgU PROVES MY POINT. JUST LIKE ME AND YOU CAN BE FROM THE SAME HOOD. OUR HOOD IS ONE, BUT WE AIN'T THE SAME MUTHA-FUKA.
SEE THE ABOVE. I'M NOT SAYING YHWH, YESHUA AND RAUCH ARE THE *SAME* BEING. THATS WHAT A PENTACOSTAL WOULD TELL YOU. PLEASE REFER TO JOHN 1 1:14 AND EXPLAIN IT FOR ME.
IT WILL PROVE THE ANSWER AND KNOWLEDgE ONCE WE COME OUT WITH WHAT WE gOT. YOU DON'T KNOW IF WHAT I LISTED INFLUENCED THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. I CAN BREAK DOWN WHERE IT CAME FROM AND SHOW YOU SOME RESEARCH. YOU CAN THEN LOOK INTO THE FACTS OR LOOK INTO THE INFORMATION gIVEN.
YOU CAN BREAK DOWN WHERE IT CAME FROM BY READING BIASED SITES. I CAN BREAK IT DOWN BY FIRST EXPLAINING THE RELIGIONS, WHEN THEY WERE ADOPTED, HOW THE POLITICAL CLIMATE SHIFT ONE GODS WORSHIP TO THE NEXT, ETC ETC ETC. TRUST ME ANYTHING YOU COULD GIVE ME I'VE ALREADY LOOKED INTO.
WHAT DEITY WOULD THAT BE? THAT HE IS YHWH?
NO THATS NOT MY QUESTION AND IF I NEED TO CLARIFY IT FORGET IT.....ARE YOU QUESTIONING THE DEITISHIP OF YESHUA?
NOBODY SAID THEY WERE. CAUSE THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES MAKE UP MORE THAN 144,000.
THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY 144,000 PEOPLE FROM A PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION WILL MAKE IT TO HEAVEN.
WHO SAID IT WAS? WHO EVEN MADE IT SEEM LIKE THAT WAS SACRED OR AN AUTHORITIVE SCRIPTURE?
THE ORGANIZATION ITSELF.....
CAUSE THE NUMBER IS THERE BUT THE TRIBES MENTIONED IN REV. 7:4-8 WERE FROM AN EARTHY ISREAL. CAUSE:
?!?!?! IF THE NUMBERS ARE THERE AND THE TRIBES MENTIONED ARE FROM AN EARTHLY ISRAEL THAT OMITS *ALL* PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT FROM THESE TRIBES. IF THE "ISRAEL" OR TRIBES ARE "SYMBOLIC" YOU SHOULD EXPLAIN WHAT CLAUSE OR BREAKAGE IN SCRIPTURE PROVES THIS TO BE SUCH. IT'S ILLOGICAL TO SAY ONE PART IS SYMBOLIC BUT THE OTHER LITERAL. WHAT ABOUT THE PART WHERE IT SAYS THEY ARE "VIRGINS" AND HAVE NEVER BEEN DEFILED WITH A WOMAN?
1. THERE WAS NEVA A TRIBE OF JOSEPH
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Tribe of Ephraim
TWO TRIBES COMPRISE THE TRIBE OF JOSEPH.
X. THE TRIBES OF EPHRAIM AND DAN ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST HERE.
A MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION TO ASK IS *WHY* THEY ARENT LISTED.
3. THE LEVITES WERE SET ASIDE FOR SERVICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE TEMPLE, BUT WERE RECCONED WITH AS ONE OF THE 12 TRIBES.
ACTUALLY THE LEVITES ARE *OMITTED* WHEN THE TRIBE OF JOSEPH (COMPRISED OF TWO TRIBES) ARE LISTED *SEPERATELY* AND NOT AS ONE.
First of all I just want to say that I am undecided as to whether the trinity doctrine is true or not. Nevertheless, I don't see a problem if the conclusion of following Jesus is the same.
Consider that perhaps God performs such an act in order for us to have a more personal relationship with Him. By being a distant God the sense of love for God could not develop as far as it did once Jesus came. So it may have been God's mercy that He came as a man.
Is God so limited that He would be unable to come to earth and still reside in Heaven? Although God is One, His Oneness does not rule out variegatedness. That must be a fact otherwise we limit God to a specific place. Does the Bible not speak of His omnipresence?
Consider that perhaps God performs such an act in order for us to have a more personal relationship with Him. By being a distant God the sense of love for God could not develop as far as it did once Jesus came. So it may have been God's mercy that He came as a man.
Is God so limited that He would be unable to come to earth and still reside in Heaven? Although God is One, His Oneness does not rule out variegatedness. That must be a fact otherwise we limit God to a specific place. Does the Bible not speak of His omnipresence?
HERESY,
YOU STRESSED, "THE LINK YOU GAVE ME PROVIDES ME WITH NO NEW INFORMATION. IT SIMPLY LINKS ME TO BOOK BEING SOLD. I'VE COME ACROSS *HUNDREDS* OF VARIATIONS OF THE NAMES BUT I'LL TELL YOU *ANYTHING* WITH A J IS INCORRECT. I DON'T SAY IT'S YAHWEH IT'S PRONOUNCED HOW IT LOOKS (JUST LIKE THE AUTHOR SAID)."
SO HOW IS IT PRONOUNCED IN YOUR PERCEPTION? I ALWAYS THOUgHT YOU YOU ADHERED TO THE YAHWEH RENDITION. THAT'S WHY I ALWAYS BROUgHT THAT LINK UP. DID YOU CHEK ALL THOSE LINKS ON THE LEFT SIDE?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I'll look into it."
DO THAT PLAYA.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "ask them why they dont care."
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO TO ASK, BUT I ALREADY KNOW PEOPLE IN gENERAL IS BRAINWASHED INTO BELIEVIN' N-E-THANg CHRISTIAN OR RELIgIOUS IS BASED UPON MAINSTREAM CHURCH DOgMA(I.E. HEAVEN AS REWARD, HELL AND PURgATORY, AND A CREATOR WITH ONLY A TITLE AND CONFUSED WITH BEIN' JESUS), AND THEY DON'T EVEN READ SCRIPTURE BUT CRITICIZE IT TO JUST BE AN OLD ASS BOOK, WRITTEN BY MEN, TRYIN' TO BRAINWASH OTHA MEN.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "You say you're letting it be known and you're getting down to teh nitty gritty. My suggestion is to READ and STUDY the languages (hebrew for example) in depth if you havent already."
YUP. WHICH BOOK YOU STUDY TO LEARN BIBLICAL HEBREW?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "You beg to differ after reading internet websites and watch tower doctrine. I say what I say by actually STUDYING *AND* RESEARCHING THE PAGAN RELIGIONS AND THEIR ORIGINS."
WHAT'S WRONg WITH INTERNET WEBSITES? THAT AIN'T MY ONLY SOURCE. N-E-THANg WITH KNOWLEDgE IN IT IS gONNA gET LOOKED AT. WHETHA OR NOT IT'S ACCURATE KNOWLEDgE IS THE QUESTION. SO WHAT DO YOU STUDY WITH? WHAT DO YOU CALIBRATE THE KNOWLEDgE YOU FIND WITH? DO YOU LOOK AT THE INFORMATION BEFORE YOU, OR DO YOU KNOK IT CAUSE OF ITS SOURCE?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THE SCRIPTURE DOES NOT SAY "THE WATCH TOWER SOCIETY IS THE FAITHFUL SERVENT" NOR DOES IT SAY "144,000 J.W.'S ARE GOING TO HEAVEN" YET THEY BELIEVE IT. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING ISN'T LISTED DOESN'T MEAN IT ISNT THERE. THE SCRIPTURES DON'T MENTION AZRAEL OR SAMSAZEAL (OR SAMZAEL) BUT THEY EXIST."
THOSE THANgS YOU MENTIONED ARE NOT IN BLAK AND WHITE, BUT DEDUCTED FROM DIFFERENT SCRIPTURES. BUT THE TRINITY IS THE "CENTRAL DOCTRINE OF CHURCH DOgMA, YET AND STILL IT'S NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE. (gOD)'S NAME IS IN SCRIPTURE AND SO IS THE WAY HOW HE WANTS TO BE WORSHIPPED, BUT A FUNDAMENTAL SUPPOSEDLY "HOLY" CENTRAL DOCTRINE AIN'T?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS THE INFLUENCE IS *NOT* THERE ONCE YOU ACTUALLY STUDY THE PAGAN RELIGIONS."
PER YOUR PERCEPTION. YOU STILL AIN'T ELABORATED ON THE PLATO PHIOSOPHIES CONCERNIN' THE TRINITY AND WHAT HE PERCEIVED FROM ALL THE TRINITIES IN PAgANISM.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IF YOU ADHERE TO THE J.W. DOCTRINE YOU ADHERE TO ARAINISM. PLAIN AND SIMPLE."
PER YOUR PERCEPTION. I DON'T ADHERE TO EITHA. NEVA KNEW OF ARIANISM OTHA THAN THAT WHITEBOY BULLSHIT. THE CLOSEST THANg TO WHAT YOU STRESSIN' IS THAT I TAKE ALL INFORMATION BEFORE ME AND DECIPHER THE MUTHA-FUKA.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. JOHN 1:1-4 TALKS ABOUT THE WORD BEING WITH GOD, AND STATING THE WORD WAS GOD. IT ALSO STATES THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH. WHY DOES THE NEW TRANSLATION SAY SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF "AND THE WORD WAS *A* GOD"? CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS?"
IF YOU SCROLL BAK, YOU'LL SEE THAT I WENT IN DEPTH WITH INFERNO ON THIS. BUT I'LL ELABORATE ONCE AgAIN CAUSE I ALREADY KNOW WHERE YOU TRYIN' TO gO WITH THIS. THE QUESTION IS, IS IT TRANSLATED "THE WORD WAS A gOD" OR "THE WORD WAS (gOD)". TO DETERMINE THIS, WE HAVE TO LOOK IN DEPTH WITH THE CONTEXT ITSELF. WHICH TRANSLATION AgREES WITH THE CONTEXT? JOHN 1:18 SAYS: "NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN (gOD)" VERSE 14 CLEARLY SAYS THAT "THE WORD BECAME FLESH AND DWELT AMONg US....WE HAVE BEHELD HIS gLORY." HOW CAN THAT BE?
IN VERSE 1,2 IT SAYS, "IN THE BEgINNIN' HE WAS WITH (gOD). CAN ONE BE "WITH" SOMEONE AND "BE" THAT PERSON?
IN JOHN 17:3, JESUS ADDRESSES THE FATHER AS "THE ONLY TRUE gOD. SO JESUS AS A gOD MERELY REFLECTS HIS FATHERS DIVINE QUALITIES. READ HEBREWS 1:3.
SO IS THE RENDERIN' "A gOD" CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF gREEK gRAMMAR? SOME REFERENCE BOOKS ARgUE STRONgLY AgAINST IT AND THAT IT SHOULD BE TRANSLATED "THE WORD WAS (gOD)". BUT NOT ALL.
PHILIP B. HARNER IN HIS ARTICLE "QUALITATIVE ANARTHROUS PREDICATE NOUNS: MARK 15:39 AND JOHN 1:1" SAYS, "THAT SUCH CLAUSE WITH AN ANARTHROUS PREDICATE PRECEDIN' THE VERB, ARE PRIMARILY QUALITATIVE. THEY INDICATE THAT THE LOgOS HAS THE NATURE OF THEOS." HE SUggESTS: "PERHAPS THE CLAUSE CAN BE TRANSLATED, 'THE WORD HAD THE SAME NATURE AS (gOD).'"(JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, 1973 Pg. 85,87.
THUS THE FACT THAT THE WORD THE*OS' IN IT'S XND OCCURENCE IS WITHOUT THE DEFINITE ARTICLE (HO) AND IS PLACED BEFORE THE VERB IN THE SENTENCE IN gREEK IS SIgNIFICANT. AND WHAT'S INTERESTIN' IS THAT THE TRANSLATORS THAT INSIST THAT THE PASSAgE BE "THE WORD WAS (gOD)" DO NOT HESITATE TO USE THE INDEFINITE ARTICLE(A, AN) IN THEIR RENDERIN' OF OTHA PASSAgES WHERE A SINgULAR ANARTHROUS PREDICATE NOUN OCCURS BEFORE THE VERB. BOTH THE JERUSALEM BIBLE AND KINg JAMES AT MARK 6:70 REFER TO JUDAS ISCARIOT AS "A DEVIL AND AT JOHN 9:17 DESCRIBE JESUS AS "A PROPHET".
JOHN L. MCKENZIE,S.J, IN HIS "DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE" STRESSES, "JOHN 1:1 SHOULD RIgOROUSLY BE TRANSLATED "THE WORD WAS WITH THE gOD[=THE FATHER] AND THE WORD WAS A DIVINE BEIN'".(PUBLISHED WITH NIHIL OBSTAT AND IMPRIMATUR, NEW YORK, 1965 Pg. 317)
SO REFERRIN' TO THE WORD AS "A gOD" IS CONSISTENT WITH THE USE OF THAT TERM IN THE REST OF THE SCRIPTURES. TAKE PSALM 82:1-6 WHERE HUMAN JUDgES IN ISREAL WERE REFERRED TO AS "gODS"(ELO*HIM). AND IN JOHN 10:34 THE SAME HAPPENS BUT THE*OI IS USED. THEY WERE CALLED THAT CAUSE THEY WERE REPRESENTATIVES OF YHWH AND WERE TO SPEAK HIS LAW.
TO BE CONT.......
YOU STRESSED, "THE LINK YOU GAVE ME PROVIDES ME WITH NO NEW INFORMATION. IT SIMPLY LINKS ME TO BOOK BEING SOLD. I'VE COME ACROSS *HUNDREDS* OF VARIATIONS OF THE NAMES BUT I'LL TELL YOU *ANYTHING* WITH A J IS INCORRECT. I DON'T SAY IT'S YAHWEH IT'S PRONOUNCED HOW IT LOOKS (JUST LIKE THE AUTHOR SAID)."
SO HOW IS IT PRONOUNCED IN YOUR PERCEPTION? I ALWAYS THOUgHT YOU YOU ADHERED TO THE YAHWEH RENDITION. THAT'S WHY I ALWAYS BROUgHT THAT LINK UP. DID YOU CHEK ALL THOSE LINKS ON THE LEFT SIDE?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I'll look into it."
DO THAT PLAYA.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "ask them why they dont care."
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO TO ASK, BUT I ALREADY KNOW PEOPLE IN gENERAL IS BRAINWASHED INTO BELIEVIN' N-E-THANg CHRISTIAN OR RELIgIOUS IS BASED UPON MAINSTREAM CHURCH DOgMA(I.E. HEAVEN AS REWARD, HELL AND PURgATORY, AND A CREATOR WITH ONLY A TITLE AND CONFUSED WITH BEIN' JESUS), AND THEY DON'T EVEN READ SCRIPTURE BUT CRITICIZE IT TO JUST BE AN OLD ASS BOOK, WRITTEN BY MEN, TRYIN' TO BRAINWASH OTHA MEN.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "You say you're letting it be known and you're getting down to teh nitty gritty. My suggestion is to READ and STUDY the languages (hebrew for example) in depth if you havent already."
YUP. WHICH BOOK YOU STUDY TO LEARN BIBLICAL HEBREW?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "You beg to differ after reading internet websites and watch tower doctrine. I say what I say by actually STUDYING *AND* RESEARCHING THE PAGAN RELIGIONS AND THEIR ORIGINS."
WHAT'S WRONg WITH INTERNET WEBSITES? THAT AIN'T MY ONLY SOURCE. N-E-THANg WITH KNOWLEDgE IN IT IS gONNA gET LOOKED AT. WHETHA OR NOT IT'S ACCURATE KNOWLEDgE IS THE QUESTION. SO WHAT DO YOU STUDY WITH? WHAT DO YOU CALIBRATE THE KNOWLEDgE YOU FIND WITH? DO YOU LOOK AT THE INFORMATION BEFORE YOU, OR DO YOU KNOK IT CAUSE OF ITS SOURCE?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THE SCRIPTURE DOES NOT SAY "THE WATCH TOWER SOCIETY IS THE FAITHFUL SERVENT" NOR DOES IT SAY "144,000 J.W.'S ARE GOING TO HEAVEN" YET THEY BELIEVE IT. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING ISN'T LISTED DOESN'T MEAN IT ISNT THERE. THE SCRIPTURES DON'T MENTION AZRAEL OR SAMSAZEAL (OR SAMZAEL) BUT THEY EXIST."
THOSE THANgS YOU MENTIONED ARE NOT IN BLAK AND WHITE, BUT DEDUCTED FROM DIFFERENT SCRIPTURES. BUT THE TRINITY IS THE "CENTRAL DOCTRINE OF CHURCH DOgMA, YET AND STILL IT'S NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE. (gOD)'S NAME IS IN SCRIPTURE AND SO IS THE WAY HOW HE WANTS TO BE WORSHIPPED, BUT A FUNDAMENTAL SUPPOSEDLY "HOLY" CENTRAL DOCTRINE AIN'T?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS THE INFLUENCE IS *NOT* THERE ONCE YOU ACTUALLY STUDY THE PAGAN RELIGIONS."
PER YOUR PERCEPTION. YOU STILL AIN'T ELABORATED ON THE PLATO PHIOSOPHIES CONCERNIN' THE TRINITY AND WHAT HE PERCEIVED FROM ALL THE TRINITIES IN PAgANISM.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IF YOU ADHERE TO THE J.W. DOCTRINE YOU ADHERE TO ARAINISM. PLAIN AND SIMPLE."
PER YOUR PERCEPTION. I DON'T ADHERE TO EITHA. NEVA KNEW OF ARIANISM OTHA THAN THAT WHITEBOY BULLSHIT. THE CLOSEST THANg TO WHAT YOU STRESSIN' IS THAT I TAKE ALL INFORMATION BEFORE ME AND DECIPHER THE MUTHA-FUKA.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. JOHN 1:1-4 TALKS ABOUT THE WORD BEING WITH GOD, AND STATING THE WORD WAS GOD. IT ALSO STATES THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH. WHY DOES THE NEW TRANSLATION SAY SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF "AND THE WORD WAS *A* GOD"? CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS?"
IF YOU SCROLL BAK, YOU'LL SEE THAT I WENT IN DEPTH WITH INFERNO ON THIS. BUT I'LL ELABORATE ONCE AgAIN CAUSE I ALREADY KNOW WHERE YOU TRYIN' TO gO WITH THIS. THE QUESTION IS, IS IT TRANSLATED "THE WORD WAS A gOD" OR "THE WORD WAS (gOD)". TO DETERMINE THIS, WE HAVE TO LOOK IN DEPTH WITH THE CONTEXT ITSELF. WHICH TRANSLATION AgREES WITH THE CONTEXT? JOHN 1:18 SAYS: "NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN (gOD)" VERSE 14 CLEARLY SAYS THAT "THE WORD BECAME FLESH AND DWELT AMONg US....WE HAVE BEHELD HIS gLORY." HOW CAN THAT BE?
IN VERSE 1,2 IT SAYS, "IN THE BEgINNIN' HE WAS WITH (gOD). CAN ONE BE "WITH" SOMEONE AND "BE" THAT PERSON?
IN JOHN 17:3, JESUS ADDRESSES THE FATHER AS "THE ONLY TRUE gOD. SO JESUS AS A gOD MERELY REFLECTS HIS FATHERS DIVINE QUALITIES. READ HEBREWS 1:3.
SO IS THE RENDERIN' "A gOD" CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF gREEK gRAMMAR? SOME REFERENCE BOOKS ARgUE STRONgLY AgAINST IT AND THAT IT SHOULD BE TRANSLATED "THE WORD WAS (gOD)". BUT NOT ALL.
PHILIP B. HARNER IN HIS ARTICLE "QUALITATIVE ANARTHROUS PREDICATE NOUNS: MARK 15:39 AND JOHN 1:1" SAYS, "THAT SUCH CLAUSE WITH AN ANARTHROUS PREDICATE PRECEDIN' THE VERB, ARE PRIMARILY QUALITATIVE. THEY INDICATE THAT THE LOgOS HAS THE NATURE OF THEOS." HE SUggESTS: "PERHAPS THE CLAUSE CAN BE TRANSLATED, 'THE WORD HAD THE SAME NATURE AS (gOD).'"(JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, 1973 Pg. 85,87.
THUS THE FACT THAT THE WORD THE*OS' IN IT'S XND OCCURENCE IS WITHOUT THE DEFINITE ARTICLE (HO) AND IS PLACED BEFORE THE VERB IN THE SENTENCE IN gREEK IS SIgNIFICANT. AND WHAT'S INTERESTIN' IS THAT THE TRANSLATORS THAT INSIST THAT THE PASSAgE BE "THE WORD WAS (gOD)" DO NOT HESITATE TO USE THE INDEFINITE ARTICLE(A, AN) IN THEIR RENDERIN' OF OTHA PASSAgES WHERE A SINgULAR ANARTHROUS PREDICATE NOUN OCCURS BEFORE THE VERB. BOTH THE JERUSALEM BIBLE AND KINg JAMES AT MARK 6:70 REFER TO JUDAS ISCARIOT AS "A DEVIL AND AT JOHN 9:17 DESCRIBE JESUS AS "A PROPHET".
JOHN L. MCKENZIE,S.J, IN HIS "DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE" STRESSES, "JOHN 1:1 SHOULD RIgOROUSLY BE TRANSLATED "THE WORD WAS WITH THE gOD[=THE FATHER] AND THE WORD WAS A DIVINE BEIN'".(PUBLISHED WITH NIHIL OBSTAT AND IMPRIMATUR, NEW YORK, 1965 Pg. 317)
SO REFERRIN' TO THE WORD AS "A gOD" IS CONSISTENT WITH THE USE OF THAT TERM IN THE REST OF THE SCRIPTURES. TAKE PSALM 82:1-6 WHERE HUMAN JUDgES IN ISREAL WERE REFERRED TO AS "gODS"(ELO*HIM). AND IN JOHN 10:34 THE SAME HAPPENS BUT THE*OI IS USED. THEY WERE CALLED THAT CAUSE THEY WERE REPRESENTATIVES OF YHWH AND WERE TO SPEAK HIS LAW.
TO BE CONT.......
CONTINUED...
HERESY,
THEN YOU STRESSED, "DOES THE WORD OF GOD CLARIFY SATANS REAL NAME?"
IT JUST TELLS US WHO SATAN IS. HE WAS ONE OF (gOD)'S ANgELS THAT REBELLED.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "WHY DOES IT MENTION LUCIFUR IN THE OLD TESTAMENT?"
TEXT PLEASE. BUT AS I SEE IT, HE WAS THE ANgEL OF LIgHT, BEFORE HE REBELLED AND WAS CALLED SATAN AFTER HE REBELLED.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THE WORD OF GOD HAS MANY PERVERSIONS."
MORE EXAMPLES PLEASE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THE FACT THAT WE ARE HAVING THIS TOPIC SHOULD TEACH YOU THAT. "
THIS TOPIC IS BASED ON TRANSLATION OR MISTRANSLATION OF SCRIPTURE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "TO BE HONEST THE BIBLE DOES *NOT* CLARIFY EVERYTHING AND IT DOES *NOT* CLARIFY EVERY DOCTRINE OR TAINTED BELIEF."
IF YOU STUDY SCRIPTURE ENOUgH, YOU'LL RUN INTO PASSAgES THAT CONTRADICT SUCH BELIEFS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "WHY DOES THE BIBLE MAKE NO MENTION OF THE WATCH TOWER ORGANIZATION?"
HOW YOU KNOW IT'S NOT REFERRED TO AS SOMETHIN' ELSE(LIKE THE FAITHFUL AND DISCRETE SLAVE), AND THEY ADHERE TO THAT?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THE ONLY THING YOU'VE DONE IS HIT A COUPLE OF WEBSITES."
AND YOU SURE ABOUT THAT? BASED ON WHAT? I BELIEVE YOU DO MORE NET SURFIN' THAN ME.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IF YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD IS *ONE* (WHICH I DO) AND YOU BELIEVE IN HIS SON THATS GREAT. I HOWEVER DON'T BELIEVE (AND KNOW FOR A FACT) THAT "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON" IS A TITLE."
BRINg YOUR FACTS. I KNOW FOR A FACT IT AIN'T A TITLE. LET'S TALK ABOUT MO*NO*gE*NES THEN(WHICH YOU REFUSED TO DO SO EARLIER). IN HEBREWS 11:17 IT SPEAKS OF ISAAC AS ABRAHAM'S "ONLY BEgOTTEN SON". AND THAT CAN'T BE A TITLE AND IT WAS USED IN THE SAME SENSE IT WAS APPLIED TO JESUS. AS YOU ARE FAMILIAR THE WORD ONLY-BEgOTTEN IN gREEK IS MO*NO*gE*NES, WHICH IS MO*NOS-MEANIN' "ONLY" AND gI'NOMAI, A ROOT WORD MEANIN' "TO gENERATE" TO BECOME(COME INTO BEIN') ---ACCORDIN' TO THE STRONg EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE. SO MO*NO*gE*NES ACCORDIN' TO "A gREEK AND ENgLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT(BY E. ROBINSON) IS DEFINED AS:"ONLY BORN, ONLY BEgOTTEN, I.E. AN ONLY CHILD." SO JESUS WAS BEgOTTEN BY YHWH, AND THRU HIM ALL OTHA THANgS WERE MADE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "PLEASE STUDY GREEK AND HEBREW FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION"
YUP. YOU TOO.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "A MANS SOUL IS HIS SPIRIT IN THE FLESH? I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOU'RE STATEMENT. BTW THE BIBLE MAKES A DISTINCTION BETWEEN FLESH, SOUL AND SPIRIT."
WHERE? SCRIPTURE PLEASE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IT'S ALSO HARD TO SEE WHY HE WOULD ALLOW HIS SON (AS YOU CALL HIM) TO DIE FOR SINS."
THAT'S EASY. IT'S A SIgN OF TRUE LOVE. HE SACRIFICED HIS ONLY CHILD FOR MANKIND. READ WHAT I SAID TO INFERNO. WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR YOU TO SEE?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "JUST AS THOSE BRANCHES WORK THE GOVERNMENTS WILL AS ONE."
EXACTLY.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "SEE THE ABOVE. I'M NOT SAYING YHWH, YESHUA AND RAUCH ARE THE *SAME* BEING. THATS WHAT A PENTACOSTAL WOULD TELL YOU. PLEASE REFER TO JOHN 1 1:14 AND EXPLAIN IT FOR ME."
WHAT ARE YOU SAYIN'? ARE YOU TALKIN' BOUT 1ST OF JOHN 1:14 OR JOHN 1:14? JOHN 1:14 READS: "SO THE WORD BECAME FLESH AND RESIDED AMONG US, AND WE HAD A VIEW OF HIS gLORY, A gLORY SUCH AS BELONgS TO AN ONLY-BEgOTTEN SON FROM A FATHER; AND HE WAS FULL OF UNDESERVED KINDNESS AND TRUTH."
THAT'S BASICALLY STATES THAT JESUS CAME TO EARTH AND WE SEEN HIS gLORY(WHICH ONLY BELONgS TO HIM CAUSE HE IS HIS FATHER'S ONLY-BEgOTTEN SON).
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU CAN BREAK DOWN WHERE IT CAME FROM BY READING BIASED SITES."
DON'T PUT OFF YOUR gUILT ON ME. I RARELY gO TO SITES(WHILE YOU KEEP IMPLYIN' THAT).
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I CAN BREAK IT DOWN BY FIRST EXPLAINING THE RELIGIONS, WHEN THEY WERE ADOPTED, HOW THE POLITICAL CLIMATE SHIFT ONE GODS WORSHIP TO THE NEXT, ETC ETC ETC. TRUST ME ANYTHING YOU COULD GIVE ME I'VE ALREADY LOOKED INTO."
THEN YOU WOULDN'T MIND LOOKIN' AT IT AgAIN. BUT I'M SPEAKIN' OF DOCTRINES, NOT NECESSARILY RELIgIONS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "NO THATS NOT MY QUESTION AND IF I NEED TO CLARIFY IT FORGET IT.....ARE YOU QUESTIONING THE DEITISHIP OF YESHUA?"
WHY FORgET IT? I KNOW JESUS IS A gOD BUT NOT (gOD) ALMIgHTY. IS THAT WHAT YOU ASKIN'?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY 144,000 PEOPLE FROM A PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION WILL MAKE IT TO HEAVEN."
CAUSE THE BIBLE AIN'T TALKIN' BOUT RELIgIONS BUT IS BASED ON ONE SOURCE, ONE FAITH. THE SCRIPTURES ARE DEDUCED TO COME WITH THOSE CONCLUSIONS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THE ORGANIZATION ITSELF....."
WHERE? SHOW ME. THE WATCHTOWER AIN'T SACRED OR AN AUTHORITIVE SCRIPTURE. THEY NEVA CLAIMED IT TO BE. YOU MAKIN' SHIT UP NOW.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IF THE NUMBERS ARE THERE AND THE TRIBES MENTIONED ARE FROM AN EARTHLY ISRAEL THAT OMITS *ALL* PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT FROM THESE TRIBES."
THEN WHO ARE THESE MUTHA-FUKAS? I SAID IT "WASN'T" AN EARTHLY ISREAL.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IF THE "ISRAEL" OR TRIBES ARE "SYMBOLIC" YOU SHOULD EXPLAIN WHAT CLAUSE OR BREAKAGE IN SCRIPTURE PROVES THIS TO BE SUCH."
EASY, READ ROMANS 2:28,29; 9:6,16 AND gALATIANS 3:26-29
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IT'S ILLOGICAL TO SAY ONE PART IS SYMBOLIC BUT THE OTHER LITERAL."
THE FACT IS AFTER THE MENTION OF THE DEFINITIVE NUMBER OF 144,000, REVELATION 7:9 REFERS TO "A gREAT CROWD, WHICH NO MAN WAS ABLE TO NUMBER." IF 144,000 WAS NOT LITERAL, IT WOULD LAK MEANIN' AS A CONTRAST TO THE "gREAT CROWD".
THEN YOU STRESSED, "WHAT ABOUT THE PART WHERE IT SAYS THEY ARE "VIRGINS" AND HAVE NEVER BEEN DEFILED WITH A WOMAN?"
READ gALATIANS 3:26-29
THEN YOU STRESSED, "A MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION TO ASK IS *WHY* THEY ARENT LISTED."
WHY AIN'T THEY LISTED?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "ACTUALLY THE LEVITES ARE *OMITTED* WHEN THE TRIBE OF JOSEPH (COMPRISED OF TWO TRIBES) ARE LISTED *SEPERATELY* AND NOT AS ONE."
WHY IS THAT?
NINEWUNSIX5150,
YOU STRESSED, "Consider that perhaps God performs such an act in order for us to have a more personal relationship with Him. By being a distant God the sense of love for God could not develop as far as it did once Jesus came. So it may have been God's mercy that He came as a man."
QUIT PHILOSOPHYIN' TO YOUR OWN UNDA-STANDIN' AND COME WITH FACTS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Is God so limited that He would be unable to come to earth and still reside in Heaven? Although God is One, His Oneness does not rule out variegatedness. That must be a fact otherwise we limit God to a specific place. Does the Bible not speak of His omnipresence?"
I AIN'T DOUBTIN' HIS OMNI-PRESENCE. I'M ASKIN' WHY WOULD HE DO THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE? IT DON'T MAKE SENSE.
HERESY,
THEN YOU STRESSED, "DOES THE WORD OF GOD CLARIFY SATANS REAL NAME?"
IT JUST TELLS US WHO SATAN IS. HE WAS ONE OF (gOD)'S ANgELS THAT REBELLED.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "WHY DOES IT MENTION LUCIFUR IN THE OLD TESTAMENT?"
TEXT PLEASE. BUT AS I SEE IT, HE WAS THE ANgEL OF LIgHT, BEFORE HE REBELLED AND WAS CALLED SATAN AFTER HE REBELLED.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THE WORD OF GOD HAS MANY PERVERSIONS."
MORE EXAMPLES PLEASE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THE FACT THAT WE ARE HAVING THIS TOPIC SHOULD TEACH YOU THAT. "
THIS TOPIC IS BASED ON TRANSLATION OR MISTRANSLATION OF SCRIPTURE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "TO BE HONEST THE BIBLE DOES *NOT* CLARIFY EVERYTHING AND IT DOES *NOT* CLARIFY EVERY DOCTRINE OR TAINTED BELIEF."
IF YOU STUDY SCRIPTURE ENOUgH, YOU'LL RUN INTO PASSAgES THAT CONTRADICT SUCH BELIEFS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "WHY DOES THE BIBLE MAKE NO MENTION OF THE WATCH TOWER ORGANIZATION?"
HOW YOU KNOW IT'S NOT REFERRED TO AS SOMETHIN' ELSE(LIKE THE FAITHFUL AND DISCRETE SLAVE), AND THEY ADHERE TO THAT?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THE ONLY THING YOU'VE DONE IS HIT A COUPLE OF WEBSITES."
AND YOU SURE ABOUT THAT? BASED ON WHAT? I BELIEVE YOU DO MORE NET SURFIN' THAN ME.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IF YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD IS *ONE* (WHICH I DO) AND YOU BELIEVE IN HIS SON THATS GREAT. I HOWEVER DON'T BELIEVE (AND KNOW FOR A FACT) THAT "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON" IS A TITLE."
BRINg YOUR FACTS. I KNOW FOR A FACT IT AIN'T A TITLE. LET'S TALK ABOUT MO*NO*gE*NES THEN(WHICH YOU REFUSED TO DO SO EARLIER). IN HEBREWS 11:17 IT SPEAKS OF ISAAC AS ABRAHAM'S "ONLY BEgOTTEN SON". AND THAT CAN'T BE A TITLE AND IT WAS USED IN THE SAME SENSE IT WAS APPLIED TO JESUS. AS YOU ARE FAMILIAR THE WORD ONLY-BEgOTTEN IN gREEK IS MO*NO*gE*NES, WHICH IS MO*NOS-MEANIN' "ONLY" AND gI'NOMAI, A ROOT WORD MEANIN' "TO gENERATE" TO BECOME(COME INTO BEIN') ---ACCORDIN' TO THE STRONg EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE. SO MO*NO*gE*NES ACCORDIN' TO "A gREEK AND ENgLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT(BY E. ROBINSON) IS DEFINED AS:"ONLY BORN, ONLY BEgOTTEN, I.E. AN ONLY CHILD." SO JESUS WAS BEgOTTEN BY YHWH, AND THRU HIM ALL OTHA THANgS WERE MADE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "PLEASE STUDY GREEK AND HEBREW FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION"
YUP. YOU TOO.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "A MANS SOUL IS HIS SPIRIT IN THE FLESH? I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOU'RE STATEMENT. BTW THE BIBLE MAKES A DISTINCTION BETWEEN FLESH, SOUL AND SPIRIT."
WHERE? SCRIPTURE PLEASE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IT'S ALSO HARD TO SEE WHY HE WOULD ALLOW HIS SON (AS YOU CALL HIM) TO DIE FOR SINS."
THAT'S EASY. IT'S A SIgN OF TRUE LOVE. HE SACRIFICED HIS ONLY CHILD FOR MANKIND. READ WHAT I SAID TO INFERNO. WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR YOU TO SEE?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "JUST AS THOSE BRANCHES WORK THE GOVERNMENTS WILL AS ONE."
EXACTLY.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "SEE THE ABOVE. I'M NOT SAYING YHWH, YESHUA AND RAUCH ARE THE *SAME* BEING. THATS WHAT A PENTACOSTAL WOULD TELL YOU. PLEASE REFER TO JOHN 1 1:14 AND EXPLAIN IT FOR ME."
WHAT ARE YOU SAYIN'? ARE YOU TALKIN' BOUT 1ST OF JOHN 1:14 OR JOHN 1:14? JOHN 1:14 READS: "SO THE WORD BECAME FLESH AND RESIDED AMONG US, AND WE HAD A VIEW OF HIS gLORY, A gLORY SUCH AS BELONgS TO AN ONLY-BEgOTTEN SON FROM A FATHER; AND HE WAS FULL OF UNDESERVED KINDNESS AND TRUTH."
THAT'S BASICALLY STATES THAT JESUS CAME TO EARTH AND WE SEEN HIS gLORY(WHICH ONLY BELONgS TO HIM CAUSE HE IS HIS FATHER'S ONLY-BEgOTTEN SON).
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU CAN BREAK DOWN WHERE IT CAME FROM BY READING BIASED SITES."
DON'T PUT OFF YOUR gUILT ON ME. I RARELY gO TO SITES(WHILE YOU KEEP IMPLYIN' THAT).
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I CAN BREAK IT DOWN BY FIRST EXPLAINING THE RELIGIONS, WHEN THEY WERE ADOPTED, HOW THE POLITICAL CLIMATE SHIFT ONE GODS WORSHIP TO THE NEXT, ETC ETC ETC. TRUST ME ANYTHING YOU COULD GIVE ME I'VE ALREADY LOOKED INTO."
THEN YOU WOULDN'T MIND LOOKIN' AT IT AgAIN. BUT I'M SPEAKIN' OF DOCTRINES, NOT NECESSARILY RELIgIONS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "NO THATS NOT MY QUESTION AND IF I NEED TO CLARIFY IT FORGET IT.....ARE YOU QUESTIONING THE DEITISHIP OF YESHUA?"
WHY FORgET IT? I KNOW JESUS IS A gOD BUT NOT (gOD) ALMIgHTY. IS THAT WHAT YOU ASKIN'?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY 144,000 PEOPLE FROM A PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION WILL MAKE IT TO HEAVEN."
CAUSE THE BIBLE AIN'T TALKIN' BOUT RELIgIONS BUT IS BASED ON ONE SOURCE, ONE FAITH. THE SCRIPTURES ARE DEDUCED TO COME WITH THOSE CONCLUSIONS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THE ORGANIZATION ITSELF....."
WHERE? SHOW ME. THE WATCHTOWER AIN'T SACRED OR AN AUTHORITIVE SCRIPTURE. THEY NEVA CLAIMED IT TO BE. YOU MAKIN' SHIT UP NOW.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IF THE NUMBERS ARE THERE AND THE TRIBES MENTIONED ARE FROM AN EARTHLY ISRAEL THAT OMITS *ALL* PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT FROM THESE TRIBES."
THEN WHO ARE THESE MUTHA-FUKAS? I SAID IT "WASN'T" AN EARTHLY ISREAL.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IF THE "ISRAEL" OR TRIBES ARE "SYMBOLIC" YOU SHOULD EXPLAIN WHAT CLAUSE OR BREAKAGE IN SCRIPTURE PROVES THIS TO BE SUCH."
EASY, READ ROMANS 2:28,29; 9:6,16 AND gALATIANS 3:26-29
THEN YOU STRESSED, "IT'S ILLOGICAL TO SAY ONE PART IS SYMBOLIC BUT THE OTHER LITERAL."
THE FACT IS AFTER THE MENTION OF THE DEFINITIVE NUMBER OF 144,000, REVELATION 7:9 REFERS TO "A gREAT CROWD, WHICH NO MAN WAS ABLE TO NUMBER." IF 144,000 WAS NOT LITERAL, IT WOULD LAK MEANIN' AS A CONTRAST TO THE "gREAT CROWD".
THEN YOU STRESSED, "WHAT ABOUT THE PART WHERE IT SAYS THEY ARE "VIRGINS" AND HAVE NEVER BEEN DEFILED WITH A WOMAN?"
READ gALATIANS 3:26-29
THEN YOU STRESSED, "A MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION TO ASK IS *WHY* THEY ARENT LISTED."
WHY AIN'T THEY LISTED?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "ACTUALLY THE LEVITES ARE *OMITTED* WHEN THE TRIBE OF JOSEPH (COMPRISED OF TWO TRIBES) ARE LISTED *SEPERATELY* AND NOT AS ONE."
WHY IS THAT?
NINEWUNSIX5150,
YOU STRESSED, "Consider that perhaps God performs such an act in order for us to have a more personal relationship with Him. By being a distant God the sense of love for God could not develop as far as it did once Jesus came. So it may have been God's mercy that He came as a man."
QUIT PHILOSOPHYIN' TO YOUR OWN UNDA-STANDIN' AND COME WITH FACTS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Is God so limited that He would be unable to come to earth and still reside in Heaven? Although God is One, His Oneness does not rule out variegatedness. That must be a fact otherwise we limit God to a specific place. Does the Bible not speak of His omnipresence?"
I AIN'T DOUBTIN' HIS OMNI-PRESENCE. I'M ASKIN' WHY WOULD HE DO THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE? IT DON'T MAKE SENSE.
YESHUA IS *NOT* "GOD"
YESHUA IS NOT "GOD" THE FATHER. YOU SEE "GOD" AS A PERSON WHERE I SEE GOD AS A TITLE OR POSITION.
SO HOW IS IT PRONOUNCED IN YOUR PERCEPTION? I ALWAYS THOUgHT YOU YOU ADHERED TO THE YAHWEH RENDITION. THAT'S WHY I ALWAYS BROUgHT THAT LINK UP. DID YOU CHEK ALL THOSE LINKS ON THE LEFT SIDE?
I already answered this for you. It's pronounced how it looks. If you don't understand what I mean study hebrew and learn why/how vowels are implied and not written.
DO THAT PLAYA.
I did and due to the fact that problems arise due to translation AND textual. Further explanation will prove futile.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO TO ASK, BUT I ALREADY KNOW PEOPLE IN gENERAL IS BRAINWASHED INTO BELIEVIN' N-E-THANg CHRISTIAN OR RELIgIOUS IS BASED UPON MAINSTREAM CHURCH DOgMA(I.E. HEAVEN AS REWARD, HELL AND PURgATORY, AND A CREATOR WITH ONLY A TITLE AND CONFUSED WITH BEIN' JESUS), AND THEY DON'T EVEN READ SCRIPTURE BUT CRITICIZE IT TO JUST BE AN OLD ASS BOOK, WRITTEN BY MEN, TRYIN' TO BRAINWASH OTHA MEN.
Yeah they do that and take it a step further. They go knocking door to door waking people up, they stand in front of the store holding magazines, they give crazy dates that never come true...wait were talking about the people who don't want to hear about god right?
YUP. WHICH BOOK YOU STUDY TO LEARN BIBLICAL HEBREW?
the same book I've suggested for YEARS now. If you don't know dig up an old post. I've suggested that book over 100 times now. You're either asking to be funny guy or because you didn't pay attention. Regardless of which it is look it up pimp.
WHAT'S WRONg WITH INTERNET WEBSITES? THAT AIN'T MY ONLY SOURCE. N-E-THANg WITH KNOWLEDgE IN IT IS gONNA gET LOOKED AT. WHETHA OR NOT IT'S ACCURATE KNOWLEDgE IS THE QUESTION. SO WHAT DO YOU STUDY WITH? WHAT DO YOU CALIBRATE THE KNOWLEDgE YOU FIND WITH? DO YOU LOOK AT THE INFORMATION BEFORE YOU, OR DO YOU KNOK IT CAUSE OF ITS SOURCE?
Even the biggest of liars tell the truth sometimes. I won't knock it because it came from a particular site. I'll knock it because I'll look into it and find it to be 100% inaccurate. Stop asking me what I study with. I've listed it MANY times now.
THOSE THANgS YOU MENTIONED ARE NOT IN BLAK AND WHITE, BUT DEDUCTED FROM DIFFERENT SCRIPTURES.
So you admit it's basically a combo of different interpretations and views. If it isn't in Black and white why follow it? Your basically saying teh trinity isn't black and white therefore I don't believe, yet you accept things deducted from different scripture?
BUT THE TRINITY IS THE "CENTRAL DOCTRINE OF CHURCH DOgMA, YET AND STILL IT'S NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE.
ACtually the Trinity is NOT the "central dosctrine of church dogma". The central doctrine of church dogma is GRACE, LIFE, DEATH and RESSURECTION of Yeshua/jesus. Please study various church doctrines/dogma origins and beliefs before you make that statement. Why? Because the statement is foolish. MANY churchs don't hold the trinity view but they all will preach GRACE, LIFE, DEATH and RESSURECTION.
YET AND STILL IT'S NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE. (gOD)'S NAME IS IN SCRIPTURE AND SO IS THE WAY HOW HE WANTS TO BE WORSHIPPED, BUT A FUNDAMENTAL SUPPOSEDLY "HOLY" CENTRAL DOCTRINE AIN'T?
SEE THE ABOVE. BTW HOW DOES GOD WANT TO BE WORSHIPPED AND DO *YOU* WORSHIP HIM IN THAT FASHION?
PER YOUR PERCEPTION. YOU STILL AIN'T ELABORATED ON THE PLATO PHIOSOPHIES CONCERNIN' THE TRINITY AND WHAT HE PERCEIVED FROM ALL THE TRINITIES IN PAgANISM.
*EVERYTHING* YOU'VE TYPED IS "PER YOUR PERCEPTION" BRO. YOU HAVE DONE NO STUDIES ON YOUR OWN BUT IF YOU DIG UP OLD THREADS YOU'LL ACTUALLY SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE *CONCEPT* OF THE "TRINITY" AND CONFUSE IT WITH PAGANISM. I'VE GIVEN YOU WORDS TO LOOK INTO SUCH AS TRIAD AND TRITHEISM. I'VE TRIED TO GIVE YOU INFO ABOUT SUN, MOON AND STAR WORSHIP (A FORM OF TRITHEISM) YET YOU OVERLOOK IT.
I'll answer everything else at a later date.
:hgk:
ps I have one more thing to address:
IF YOU STUDY SCRIPTURE ENOUgH, YOU'LL RUN INTO PASSAgES THAT CONTRADICT SUCH BELIEFS.
This is coming from YOU?
YESHUA IS NOT "GOD" THE FATHER. YOU SEE "GOD" AS A PERSON WHERE I SEE GOD AS A TITLE OR POSITION.
SO HOW IS IT PRONOUNCED IN YOUR PERCEPTION? I ALWAYS THOUgHT YOU YOU ADHERED TO THE YAHWEH RENDITION. THAT'S WHY I ALWAYS BROUgHT THAT LINK UP. DID YOU CHEK ALL THOSE LINKS ON THE LEFT SIDE?
I already answered this for you. It's pronounced how it looks. If you don't understand what I mean study hebrew and learn why/how vowels are implied and not written.
DO THAT PLAYA.
I did and due to the fact that problems arise due to translation AND textual. Further explanation will prove futile.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO TO ASK, BUT I ALREADY KNOW PEOPLE IN gENERAL IS BRAINWASHED INTO BELIEVIN' N-E-THANg CHRISTIAN OR RELIgIOUS IS BASED UPON MAINSTREAM CHURCH DOgMA(I.E. HEAVEN AS REWARD, HELL AND PURgATORY, AND A CREATOR WITH ONLY A TITLE AND CONFUSED WITH BEIN' JESUS), AND THEY DON'T EVEN READ SCRIPTURE BUT CRITICIZE IT TO JUST BE AN OLD ASS BOOK, WRITTEN BY MEN, TRYIN' TO BRAINWASH OTHA MEN.
Yeah they do that and take it a step further. They go knocking door to door waking people up, they stand in front of the store holding magazines, they give crazy dates that never come true...wait were talking about the people who don't want to hear about god right?
YUP. WHICH BOOK YOU STUDY TO LEARN BIBLICAL HEBREW?
the same book I've suggested for YEARS now. If you don't know dig up an old post. I've suggested that book over 100 times now. You're either asking to be funny guy or because you didn't pay attention. Regardless of which it is look it up pimp.
WHAT'S WRONg WITH INTERNET WEBSITES? THAT AIN'T MY ONLY SOURCE. N-E-THANg WITH KNOWLEDgE IN IT IS gONNA gET LOOKED AT. WHETHA OR NOT IT'S ACCURATE KNOWLEDgE IS THE QUESTION. SO WHAT DO YOU STUDY WITH? WHAT DO YOU CALIBRATE THE KNOWLEDgE YOU FIND WITH? DO YOU LOOK AT THE INFORMATION BEFORE YOU, OR DO YOU KNOK IT CAUSE OF ITS SOURCE?
Even the biggest of liars tell the truth sometimes. I won't knock it because it came from a particular site. I'll knock it because I'll look into it and find it to be 100% inaccurate. Stop asking me what I study with. I've listed it MANY times now.
THOSE THANgS YOU MENTIONED ARE NOT IN BLAK AND WHITE, BUT DEDUCTED FROM DIFFERENT SCRIPTURES.
So you admit it's basically a combo of different interpretations and views. If it isn't in Black and white why follow it? Your basically saying teh trinity isn't black and white therefore I don't believe, yet you accept things deducted from different scripture?
BUT THE TRINITY IS THE "CENTRAL DOCTRINE OF CHURCH DOgMA, YET AND STILL IT'S NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE.
ACtually the Trinity is NOT the "central dosctrine of church dogma". The central doctrine of church dogma is GRACE, LIFE, DEATH and RESSURECTION of Yeshua/jesus. Please study various church doctrines/dogma origins and beliefs before you make that statement. Why? Because the statement is foolish. MANY churchs don't hold the trinity view but they all will preach GRACE, LIFE, DEATH and RESSURECTION.
YET AND STILL IT'S NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE. (gOD)'S NAME IS IN SCRIPTURE AND SO IS THE WAY HOW HE WANTS TO BE WORSHIPPED, BUT A FUNDAMENTAL SUPPOSEDLY "HOLY" CENTRAL DOCTRINE AIN'T?
SEE THE ABOVE. BTW HOW DOES GOD WANT TO BE WORSHIPPED AND DO *YOU* WORSHIP HIM IN THAT FASHION?
PER YOUR PERCEPTION. YOU STILL AIN'T ELABORATED ON THE PLATO PHIOSOPHIES CONCERNIN' THE TRINITY AND WHAT HE PERCEIVED FROM ALL THE TRINITIES IN PAgANISM.
*EVERYTHING* YOU'VE TYPED IS "PER YOUR PERCEPTION" BRO. YOU HAVE DONE NO STUDIES ON YOUR OWN BUT IF YOU DIG UP OLD THREADS YOU'LL ACTUALLY SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE *CONCEPT* OF THE "TRINITY" AND CONFUSE IT WITH PAGANISM. I'VE GIVEN YOU WORDS TO LOOK INTO SUCH AS TRIAD AND TRITHEISM. I'VE TRIED TO GIVE YOU INFO ABOUT SUN, MOON AND STAR WORSHIP (A FORM OF TRITHEISM) YET YOU OVERLOOK IT.
I'll answer everything else at a later date.
:hgk:
ps I have one more thing to address:
IF YOU STUDY SCRIPTURE ENOUgH, YOU'LL RUN INTO PASSAgES THAT CONTRADICT SUCH BELIEFS.
This is coming from YOU?
HOLD ON I FORGOT THIS
PER YOUR PERCEPTION. I DON'T ADHERE TO EITHA. NEVA KNEW OF ARIANISM OTHA THAN THAT WHITEBOY BULLSHIT. THE CLOSEST THANg TO WHAT YOU STRESSIN' IS THAT I TAKE ALL INFORMATION BEFORE ME AND DECIPHER THE MUTHA-FUKA.
THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD RESEARCH BEFORE YOU BLINDLY FOLLOW A DOCTRINE OR BELIEF.
SINCE YOU LIKE TO HIT WEB SITES SO MUCH:
http://www.monksofadoration.org/arianism.html
AFTER THAT TYPE ARIANISM AND COMPARE IT TO WHAT YOU ARE PROMOTING. IN FACT HERES SOMETHING YOU SAID:
SO JESUS AS A gOD MERELY REFLECTS HIS FATHERS DIVINE QUALITIES. THATS A MAJOR VIEW WHEN IT COMES TO ARIANISM.
IT JUST TELLS US WHO SATAN IS. HE WAS ONE OF (gOD)'S ANgELS THAT REBELLED.
SO IT SIMPLY TELLS US WHAT HE IS BUT GIVES NO CLARIFICATION? LOL. THATS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT....
TEXT PLEASE. BUT AS I SEE IT, HE WAS THE ANgEL OF LIgHT, BEFORE HE REBELLED AND WAS CALLED SATAN AFTER HE REBELLED. ISAIAH 14:12. LUCIFUR IS FOUND IN THE VULGATE NOT THE ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXT. PLEASE RESEARCH THE PLANET VENUS AND PHOSPHRUS.
IN REFERENCE TO SOUL AND SPIRIT YOU TYPED:
WHERE? SCRIPTURE PLEASE.
NEPHESH=LIFE YOU CAN FIND IT IN EXODUS 21:23, JOSHUA 2:13 AND GENESIS 1:20-24. THATS YOUR HEBREW WORD FOR SOUL.
RAUCH=SPIRIT NUMBERS 6:22.
GREEK WORD FOR SPIRIT=PNUEMA
GREEK WORD FOR SOUL=PYSCHE
LOOK INTO HEBREWS 4:12 AND STUDY THE BREAKAGE AND HOW THE WORDS ARE IMPLIED. IT CLEARLY LISTS SPIRIT AND SOUL.
I'LL ANSWER EVERYTHING ELSE LATER.
:HGK:
PER YOUR PERCEPTION. I DON'T ADHERE TO EITHA. NEVA KNEW OF ARIANISM OTHA THAN THAT WHITEBOY BULLSHIT. THE CLOSEST THANg TO WHAT YOU STRESSIN' IS THAT I TAKE ALL INFORMATION BEFORE ME AND DECIPHER THE MUTHA-FUKA.
THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD RESEARCH BEFORE YOU BLINDLY FOLLOW A DOCTRINE OR BELIEF.
SINCE YOU LIKE TO HIT WEB SITES SO MUCH:
http://www.monksofadoration.org/arianism.html
AFTER THAT TYPE ARIANISM AND COMPARE IT TO WHAT YOU ARE PROMOTING. IN FACT HERES SOMETHING YOU SAID:
SO JESUS AS A gOD MERELY REFLECTS HIS FATHERS DIVINE QUALITIES. THATS A MAJOR VIEW WHEN IT COMES TO ARIANISM.
IT JUST TELLS US WHO SATAN IS. HE WAS ONE OF (gOD)'S ANgELS THAT REBELLED.
SO IT SIMPLY TELLS US WHAT HE IS BUT GIVES NO CLARIFICATION? LOL. THATS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT....
TEXT PLEASE. BUT AS I SEE IT, HE WAS THE ANgEL OF LIgHT, BEFORE HE REBELLED AND WAS CALLED SATAN AFTER HE REBELLED. ISAIAH 14:12. LUCIFUR IS FOUND IN THE VULGATE NOT THE ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXT. PLEASE RESEARCH THE PLANET VENUS AND PHOSPHRUS.
IN REFERENCE TO SOUL AND SPIRIT YOU TYPED:
WHERE? SCRIPTURE PLEASE.
NEPHESH=LIFE YOU CAN FIND IT IN EXODUS 21:23, JOSHUA 2:13 AND GENESIS 1:20-24. THATS YOUR HEBREW WORD FOR SOUL.
RAUCH=SPIRIT NUMBERS 6:22.
GREEK WORD FOR SPIRIT=PNUEMA
GREEK WORD FOR SOUL=PYSCHE
LOOK INTO HEBREWS 4:12 AND STUDY THE BREAKAGE AND HOW THE WORDS ARE IMPLIED. IT CLEARLY LISTS SPIRIT AND SOUL.
I'LL ANSWER EVERYTHING ELSE LATER.
:HGK:
HERESY,
YOU STRESSED, "YESHUA IS NOT "GOD" THE FATHER."
NO SHIT. I "NEVA" SAID HE WAS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU SEE "GOD" AS A PERSON WHERE I SEE GOD AS A TITLE OR POSITION."
TALK ABOUT PUTTIN' WORDS IN MUTHA-FUKAS MOUTHS. I SEE (gOD) AS A TITLE. WHY THE FUK YOU THINK I PUT BRACCETS WHEN I USE THE WORD "gOD" LIKE THIS: (gOD). CAUSE "gOD" IS NOT A NAME BUT A TITLE. gET YOU FACTS AND PERCEPTION STRAIgHT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I already answered this for you. It's pronounced how it looks."
WHY THE FUK YOU SOUNDIN' LIKE A ROBOT NIggA? I JUST ASKED YOU A QUESTION THAT YOU DIDN'T gO IN DEPTH WITH. YOU SAID YOU CAME ACROSS OVER 100 VARIATIONS AND I WAS JUST WONDERIN' WHICH ONE IS HOW IT'S LOOKED TO YOU. CAUSE I REMEMBER IN OLD POST YOU WAS PRAISIN YAHWEH.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I did and due to the fact that problems arise due to translation AND textual. Further explanation will prove futile."
NO IT WON'T. TELL ME YOUR UNDA-STANDIN' AND WHY THE FUK YOU FEEL THE WAY YOU DO ABOUT THE TEXT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Yeah they do that and take it a step further. They go knocking door to door waking people up, they stand in front of the store holding magazines, they give crazy dates that never come true...wait were talking about the people who don't want to hear about god right?"
LOL. HELL NAW. IT'S YOUR HATRED gETTIN' THE BEST OF YOU. THIS IS WHY THEY gO DOOR TO DOOR AND AT YOUR SUPERMARKETS MATHEW 24:14
THEN YOU STRESSED, "the same book I've suggested for YEARS now. If you don't know dig up an old post. I've suggested that book over 100 times now. You're either asking to be funny guy or because you didn't pay attention. Regardless of which it is look it up pimp."
THANKS FOR YOUR HELP. I COULD'VE NOT WANTED TO LOOK INTO IT THEN AND NOW I'M REALLY SERIOUS TO LEARN MORE. gOOD WAY TO KEEP ME MOTIVATED. I KNOW YOU USE THE TORAH, LATIN VULgATE, AND THE gREEK LEXICON.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Even the biggest of liars tell the truth sometimes. I won't knock it because it came from a particular site. I'll knock it because I'll look into it and find it to be 100% inaccurate. Stop asking me what I study with. I've listed it MANY times now."
VERY DEFENSIVE NOW. I WASN'T ASKIN' WHAT YOU STUDY WITH. I WAS ASKIN' WHAT YOU CALIBRATE THE KNOWLEDgE WITH.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "So you admit it's basically a combo of different interpretations and views."
NOPE. I'M SAYIN' IT'S LIKE READIN' A MAP. KEY TEXTS SUggEST SHIT AND YOU FOLLOW TO SEE WHERE IT TAKES YOU.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "If it isn't in Black and white why follow it?"
CAUSE THE BIBLE AIN'T AN ASSHOLE OR A ROBOT. THE BIBLE IS CLEAR ON IT'S CONCEPT. BUT ONE TEXT SHOULDN'T BE TOOKEN OUT OF PROPORTION BUT CALIBRATED TO SEE IF IT'S IN HARMONY WITH ALL SCRIPTURE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Your basically saying teh trinity isn't black and white therefore I don't believe, yet you accept things deducted from different scripture?"
NOT NECESSARILY. I'M SAYIN' BEFORE YOU gET A PRE-CONCEIVED IDEA OF A DOgMA, YOU SHOULD LOOK INTO ALL SCRIPTURE. FROM THERE YOU BASE YOUR BELIEFS AND IF THEY IN HARMONY WITH SCRIPTURE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "ACtually the Trinity is NOT the "central dosctrine of church dogma". The central doctrine of church dogma is GRACE, LIFE, DEATH and RESSURECTION of Yeshua/jesus. Please study various church doctrines/dogma origins and beliefs before you make that statement. Why? Because the statement is foolish. MANY churchs don't hold the trinity view but they all will preach GRACE, LIFE, DEATH and RESSURECTION."
MOST CHURCHES IN CHRISTENDOM BELIEVE IT AS SUCH OR gIVE THE ALMIgHTY'S gLORY TO JESUS. THAT'S WHAT I'M REFERRIN' TO.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "BTW HOW DOES GOD WANT TO BE WORSHIPPED AND DO *YOU* WORSHIP HIM IN THAT FASHION?"
ITS ALL IN SCRIPTURE. BUT I DON'T ADHERE TO SCRIPTURE AND AM WILLINgLY SINNIN'(YOU KNOW THAT, SO WHY YOU EVEN ASKIN' ME IF I'M DOIN' (gOD)'S WILL?) I CAN'T BE NO HIPOCRITE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "*EVERYTHING* YOU'VE TYPED IS "PER YOUR PERCEPTION" BRO. YOU HAVE DONE NO STUDIES ON YOUR OWN BUT IF YOU DIG UP OLD THREADS YOU'LL ACTUALLY SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT."
THAT'S SOME BULLSHIT. I PRINTED OUT YOUR ANSWERS AND LOOKED INTO WHAT YOU STRESSIN'. IN OLD POSTS YOU DIDN'T WANT TO CONTINUE AND LABELED ME AND TRIED TO COME SIDEWAYS. THEN YOU LIED ABOUT NOT WANTIN' TO TALK RELIgION AgAIN.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE *CONCEPT* OF THE "TRINITY" AND CONFUSE IT WITH PAGANISM."
AIN'T NOBODY CONFUSIN' SHIT. I UNDA-STAND WHAT MUTHA-FUKAS TRY TO MAKE IT SEEM, AND I SEE IT AS ONE UNDERSTANDIN' PEOPLE WHO DON'T EVEN READ SCRIPTURE ADHERE TO AS THEY CENTRAL BELIEF(THREE IN ONE). WHAT I DON'T UNDA-STAND IS THIS "MYSTERY" PEOPLE ADHERE TO, CAUSE (gOD) AIN'T A gOD OF MYSTERY.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I'VE GIVEN YOU WORDS TO LOOK INTO SUCH AS TRIAD AND TRITHEISM. I'VE TRIED TO GIVE YOU INFO ABOUT SUN, MOON AND STAR WORSHIP (A FORM OF TRITHEISM) YET YOU OVERLOOK IT."
I AIN'T OVERLOOKED SHIT. JUST CAUSE YOU DISH OUT WORDS DON'T MEAN THAT'S gONNA PERSUADE ME TO LOOK AT IT DIFFERENTLY. WHETHA IT'S TRIAD OR TRITHEISM, THE SHIT IS IRRELEVANT. THE THREE IN ONE CONCEPT CREPT INTO CHRISTIANITY AND THAT'S THE POINT. YOU ACT LIKE IT HAS TO BE EXACTLY COPIED AND NOT INFLUENCED.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "This is coming from YOU?"
DAMN SKIPPY. JUST LIKE HEAVEN AS A REWARD CONCEPT IS CONTADICTED BY PSALMS 37:11, AND THE DEAD HAVIN' AN AFTER LIFE CONCEPT IS CONTRADICTED BY ECCLESIASTES 9:5
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD RESEARCH BEFORE YOU BLINDLY FOLLOW A DOCTRINE OR BELIEF."
WHAT YOU MEAN BLINDLY? I LOOK AT SHIT BEFORE ME AND WEIgH THE FACTS. ARIANISM IS NOTHIN' MORE THAN ANOTHA SECT OF THE CHURCH, STARTED BY ARIUS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "SINCE YOU LIKE TO HIT WEB SITES SO MUCH:
http://www.monksofadoration.org/arianism.html"
THANKS CUZZ. ONE QUESTION. IF I LIKE TO HIT WEBSITES SO MUCH, WHY ARE YOU THE ONE WITH THE WEBSITE LINK?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "AFTER THAT TYPE ARIANISM AND COMPARE IT TO WHAT YOU ARE PROMOTING. IN FACT HERES SOMETHING YOU SAID:
SO JESUS AS A gOD MERELY REFLECTS HIS FATHERS DIVINE QUALITIES. THATS A MAJOR VIEW WHEN IT COMES TO ARIANISM."
MAYBE ARIUS WAS ON TO SOMETHIN', DID YOU EVA THINK ABOUT THAT? DISPROVE HIS LOgIC.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "SO IT SIMPLY TELLS US WHAT HE IS BUT GIVES NO CLARIFICATION? LOL. THATS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT...."
HE'S THE RESISTOR. THE ADVERSARY. THE ORIgINAL SNAKE. WHAT YOU WANT, THAT YHWH gET IN DEPTH WITH HOW SATAN DOES HIS THANg AND ENTICE THE READER TO FOLLOW SATAN?
YOU STRESSED, "YESHUA IS NOT "GOD" THE FATHER."
NO SHIT. I "NEVA" SAID HE WAS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU SEE "GOD" AS A PERSON WHERE I SEE GOD AS A TITLE OR POSITION."
TALK ABOUT PUTTIN' WORDS IN MUTHA-FUKAS MOUTHS. I SEE (gOD) AS A TITLE. WHY THE FUK YOU THINK I PUT BRACCETS WHEN I USE THE WORD "gOD" LIKE THIS: (gOD). CAUSE "gOD" IS NOT A NAME BUT A TITLE. gET YOU FACTS AND PERCEPTION STRAIgHT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I already answered this for you. It's pronounced how it looks."
WHY THE FUK YOU SOUNDIN' LIKE A ROBOT NIggA? I JUST ASKED YOU A QUESTION THAT YOU DIDN'T gO IN DEPTH WITH. YOU SAID YOU CAME ACROSS OVER 100 VARIATIONS AND I WAS JUST WONDERIN' WHICH ONE IS HOW IT'S LOOKED TO YOU. CAUSE I REMEMBER IN OLD POST YOU WAS PRAISIN YAHWEH.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I did and due to the fact that problems arise due to translation AND textual. Further explanation will prove futile."
NO IT WON'T. TELL ME YOUR UNDA-STANDIN' AND WHY THE FUK YOU FEEL THE WAY YOU DO ABOUT THE TEXT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Yeah they do that and take it a step further. They go knocking door to door waking people up, they stand in front of the store holding magazines, they give crazy dates that never come true...wait were talking about the people who don't want to hear about god right?"
LOL. HELL NAW. IT'S YOUR HATRED gETTIN' THE BEST OF YOU. THIS IS WHY THEY gO DOOR TO DOOR AND AT YOUR SUPERMARKETS MATHEW 24:14
THEN YOU STRESSED, "the same book I've suggested for YEARS now. If you don't know dig up an old post. I've suggested that book over 100 times now. You're either asking to be funny guy or because you didn't pay attention. Regardless of which it is look it up pimp."
THANKS FOR YOUR HELP. I COULD'VE NOT WANTED TO LOOK INTO IT THEN AND NOW I'M REALLY SERIOUS TO LEARN MORE. gOOD WAY TO KEEP ME MOTIVATED. I KNOW YOU USE THE TORAH, LATIN VULgATE, AND THE gREEK LEXICON.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Even the biggest of liars tell the truth sometimes. I won't knock it because it came from a particular site. I'll knock it because I'll look into it and find it to be 100% inaccurate. Stop asking me what I study with. I've listed it MANY times now."
VERY DEFENSIVE NOW. I WASN'T ASKIN' WHAT YOU STUDY WITH. I WAS ASKIN' WHAT YOU CALIBRATE THE KNOWLEDgE WITH.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "So you admit it's basically a combo of different interpretations and views."
NOPE. I'M SAYIN' IT'S LIKE READIN' A MAP. KEY TEXTS SUggEST SHIT AND YOU FOLLOW TO SEE WHERE IT TAKES YOU.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "If it isn't in Black and white why follow it?"
CAUSE THE BIBLE AIN'T AN ASSHOLE OR A ROBOT. THE BIBLE IS CLEAR ON IT'S CONCEPT. BUT ONE TEXT SHOULDN'T BE TOOKEN OUT OF PROPORTION BUT CALIBRATED TO SEE IF IT'S IN HARMONY WITH ALL SCRIPTURE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Your basically saying teh trinity isn't black and white therefore I don't believe, yet you accept things deducted from different scripture?"
NOT NECESSARILY. I'M SAYIN' BEFORE YOU gET A PRE-CONCEIVED IDEA OF A DOgMA, YOU SHOULD LOOK INTO ALL SCRIPTURE. FROM THERE YOU BASE YOUR BELIEFS AND IF THEY IN HARMONY WITH SCRIPTURE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "ACtually the Trinity is NOT the "central dosctrine of church dogma". The central doctrine of church dogma is GRACE, LIFE, DEATH and RESSURECTION of Yeshua/jesus. Please study various church doctrines/dogma origins and beliefs before you make that statement. Why? Because the statement is foolish. MANY churchs don't hold the trinity view but they all will preach GRACE, LIFE, DEATH and RESSURECTION."
MOST CHURCHES IN CHRISTENDOM BELIEVE IT AS SUCH OR gIVE THE ALMIgHTY'S gLORY TO JESUS. THAT'S WHAT I'M REFERRIN' TO.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "BTW HOW DOES GOD WANT TO BE WORSHIPPED AND DO *YOU* WORSHIP HIM IN THAT FASHION?"
ITS ALL IN SCRIPTURE. BUT I DON'T ADHERE TO SCRIPTURE AND AM WILLINgLY SINNIN'(YOU KNOW THAT, SO WHY YOU EVEN ASKIN' ME IF I'M DOIN' (gOD)'S WILL?) I CAN'T BE NO HIPOCRITE.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "*EVERYTHING* YOU'VE TYPED IS "PER YOUR PERCEPTION" BRO. YOU HAVE DONE NO STUDIES ON YOUR OWN BUT IF YOU DIG UP OLD THREADS YOU'LL ACTUALLY SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT."
THAT'S SOME BULLSHIT. I PRINTED OUT YOUR ANSWERS AND LOOKED INTO WHAT YOU STRESSIN'. IN OLD POSTS YOU DIDN'T WANT TO CONTINUE AND LABELED ME AND TRIED TO COME SIDEWAYS. THEN YOU LIED ABOUT NOT WANTIN' TO TALK RELIgION AgAIN.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE *CONCEPT* OF THE "TRINITY" AND CONFUSE IT WITH PAGANISM."
AIN'T NOBODY CONFUSIN' SHIT. I UNDA-STAND WHAT MUTHA-FUKAS TRY TO MAKE IT SEEM, AND I SEE IT AS ONE UNDERSTANDIN' PEOPLE WHO DON'T EVEN READ SCRIPTURE ADHERE TO AS THEY CENTRAL BELIEF(THREE IN ONE). WHAT I DON'T UNDA-STAND IS THIS "MYSTERY" PEOPLE ADHERE TO, CAUSE (gOD) AIN'T A gOD OF MYSTERY.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I'VE GIVEN YOU WORDS TO LOOK INTO SUCH AS TRIAD AND TRITHEISM. I'VE TRIED TO GIVE YOU INFO ABOUT SUN, MOON AND STAR WORSHIP (A FORM OF TRITHEISM) YET YOU OVERLOOK IT."
I AIN'T OVERLOOKED SHIT. JUST CAUSE YOU DISH OUT WORDS DON'T MEAN THAT'S gONNA PERSUADE ME TO LOOK AT IT DIFFERENTLY. WHETHA IT'S TRIAD OR TRITHEISM, THE SHIT IS IRRELEVANT. THE THREE IN ONE CONCEPT CREPT INTO CHRISTIANITY AND THAT'S THE POINT. YOU ACT LIKE IT HAS TO BE EXACTLY COPIED AND NOT INFLUENCED.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "This is coming from YOU?"
DAMN SKIPPY. JUST LIKE HEAVEN AS A REWARD CONCEPT IS CONTADICTED BY PSALMS 37:11, AND THE DEAD HAVIN' AN AFTER LIFE CONCEPT IS CONTRADICTED BY ECCLESIASTES 9:5
THEN YOU STRESSED, "THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD RESEARCH BEFORE YOU BLINDLY FOLLOW A DOCTRINE OR BELIEF."
WHAT YOU MEAN BLINDLY? I LOOK AT SHIT BEFORE ME AND WEIgH THE FACTS. ARIANISM IS NOTHIN' MORE THAN ANOTHA SECT OF THE CHURCH, STARTED BY ARIUS.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "SINCE YOU LIKE TO HIT WEB SITES SO MUCH:
http://www.monksofadoration.org/arianism.html"
THANKS CUZZ. ONE QUESTION. IF I LIKE TO HIT WEBSITES SO MUCH, WHY ARE YOU THE ONE WITH THE WEBSITE LINK?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "AFTER THAT TYPE ARIANISM AND COMPARE IT TO WHAT YOU ARE PROMOTING. IN FACT HERES SOMETHING YOU SAID:
SO JESUS AS A gOD MERELY REFLECTS HIS FATHERS DIVINE QUALITIES. THATS A MAJOR VIEW WHEN IT COMES TO ARIANISM."
MAYBE ARIUS WAS ON TO SOMETHIN', DID YOU EVA THINK ABOUT THAT? DISPROVE HIS LOgIC.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "SO IT SIMPLY TELLS US WHAT HE IS BUT GIVES NO CLARIFICATION? LOL. THATS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT...."
HE'S THE RESISTOR. THE ADVERSARY. THE ORIgINAL SNAKE. WHAT YOU WANT, THAT YHWH gET IN DEPTH WITH HOW SATAN DOES HIS THANg AND ENTICE THE READER TO FOLLOW SATAN?
No, you asked why God would come as a man as if the idea seemed preposterous. I responded that I have taken no position on whether the trinity was true or not, first of all, and then I gave you a good reason as to why God may do such a thing. Even if the Bible contained hardcore facts holding the trinity concept to be true, how would that satisfy your "why" question?
Nah... You were going on as though if God came to earth He wouldn't be able to reside in Heaven simultaneously.
You said, "WHO WAS UP IN HEAVEN THEN, WHEN HE WAS JESUS? WHO WAS LOOKIN' AFTER THE HEAVENS IF HE WAS DOWN ON EARTH?"
If you understand God's omnipresence then there should be no problem understanding how God can be in multiple places at the same time.
Why God would do such a thing may be harder for you to understand, but why does God do anything? More specifically, why does God act upon this universe? He is not dependent on it. He doesn't need to do certain things in order for Him to be fulfilled in any way. The only reason God acts upon the universe is for the benefit of His creation, i.e.: us. So to get right down to it, God may very well come to earth out of His mercy so that we may have a more personal sense of closeness to Him. Sure, there are many instances when God can act upon the universe without coming Personally, but in any case God is acting for our benefit. What do you think is more beneficial for God's children, that He remain distant and sends us some teachings, or that He comes personally and teaches us to love each other and to love God by posing as a devotee Himself?
Once again, whether or not the trinity doctrine is true I have no stance. But these are just suggestions as to why God would very much do something like this and how it is very much within His capabilities.
Nah... You were going on as though if God came to earth He wouldn't be able to reside in Heaven simultaneously.
You said, "WHO WAS UP IN HEAVEN THEN, WHEN HE WAS JESUS? WHO WAS LOOKIN' AFTER THE HEAVENS IF HE WAS DOWN ON EARTH?"
If you understand God's omnipresence then there should be no problem understanding how God can be in multiple places at the same time.
Why God would do such a thing may be harder for you to understand, but why does God do anything? More specifically, why does God act upon this universe? He is not dependent on it. He doesn't need to do certain things in order for Him to be fulfilled in any way. The only reason God acts upon the universe is for the benefit of His creation, i.e.: us. So to get right down to it, God may very well come to earth out of His mercy so that we may have a more personal sense of closeness to Him. Sure, there are many instances when God can act upon the universe without coming Personally, but in any case God is acting for our benefit. What do you think is more beneficial for God's children, that He remain distant and sends us some teachings, or that He comes personally and teaches us to love each other and to love God by posing as a devotee Himself?
Once again, whether or not the trinity doctrine is true I have no stance. But these are just suggestions as to why God would very much do something like this and how it is very much within His capabilities.
NINEWUNSIX5150,
YOU STRESSSED, "No, you asked why God would come as a man as if the idea seemed preposterous."
IT DO.
THEN YOU STRESSSED, "I responded that I have taken no position on whether the trinity was true or not, first of all, and then I gave you a good reason as to why God may do such a thing."
PHILOSPHYIN'.
THEN YOU STRESSSED, "Even if the Bible contained hardcore facts holding the trinity concept to be true, how would that satisfy your "why" question?"
IF THE BIBLE CONTAINED HARD COLD FACTS ABOUT THE TRINITY BEIN' TRUE, THEN I WOULDN'T QUESTION IT AND HOLD IT AS A TRUTH. BUT IT DON'T AND THEY SUPPORTERS VIEW IT AS A "MYSTERY".
THEN YOU STRESSSED, "Nah... You were going on as though if God came to earth He wouldn't be able to reside in Heaven simultaneously."
IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE TO DO SO. BUT I AIN'T TRYIN' PHILOSOPHY WHAT (gOD) "MIgHT" DO.
THEN YOU STRESSSED, "If you understand God's omnipresence then there should be no problem understanding how God can be in multiple places at the same time."
EXACTLY. BUT WHY WOULD HE? HIM COMIN' DOWN AIN'T PROVIN' SHIT CAUSE WE ALL KNOW HE IS CAPABLE OF N-E-THANg, SO IT WOULDN'T BE NO SACRIFICE CAUSE TO HIM IT AIN'T SHIT.
THEN YOU STRESSSED, "Why God would do such a thing may be harder for you to understand, but why does God do anything? More specifically, why does God act upon this universe?"
YOU ACT LIKE IT'S A FACT, AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT YOU DON'T KNOW IF (gOD) CAME DOWN TO EARTH. I KNOW HE DIDN'T, CAUSE CAN'T NO MAN SEE (gOD) AND KEEP ON LIVIN'.
THEN YOU STRESSSED, "He is not dependent on it. He doesn't need to do certain things in order for Him to be fulfilled in any way. The only reason God acts upon the universe is for the benefit of His creation, i.e.: us. So to get right down to it, God may very well come to earth out of His mercy so that we may have a more personal sense of closeness to Him."
IF THAT'S THE CASE, WHAT THE FUK IS THE PURPOSE OF PRAYER THEN?
THEN YOU STRESSSED, "Sure, there are many instances when God can act upon the universe without coming Personally, but in any case God is acting for our benefit. What do you think is more beneficial for God's children, that He remain distant and sends us some teachings, or that He comes personally and teaches us to love each other and to love God by posing as a devotee Himself?"
AgAIN I STRESS, YOU PHILOSOPHYIN' LIKE HE ACTUALLY CAME DOWN TO EARTH, WHEN THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, THAT THAT IS DEBATABLE. (gOD) DON'T NEED TO COME DOWN TO EARTH TO TEACH US N-E-THANg. WE ALREADY gOT HIS WORD. IF YOU gOT A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM, WHY DO YOU NEED HIM IN THE FLESH?
THEN YOU STRESSSED, "Once again, whether or not the trinity doctrine is true I have no stance. But these are just suggestions as to why God would very much do something like this and how it is very much within His capabilities."
BUT IT AIN'T IN HIS WILL. YOU NEED TO READ MORE SCRIPTURE AND MARINATE OVER (gOD)'S UNIVERSAL LAWS AND STANDARDS BEFORE YOU START PHILOSOPHYIN'.
YOU STRESSSED, "No, you asked why God would come as a man as if the idea seemed preposterous."
IT DO.
THEN YOU STRESSSED, "I responded that I have taken no position on whether the trinity was true or not, first of all, and then I gave you a good reason as to why God may do such a thing."
PHILOSPHYIN'.
THEN YOU STRESSSED, "Even if the Bible contained hardcore facts holding the trinity concept to be true, how would that satisfy your "why" question?"
IF THE BIBLE CONTAINED HARD COLD FACTS ABOUT THE TRINITY BEIN' TRUE, THEN I WOULDN'T QUESTION IT AND HOLD IT AS A TRUTH. BUT IT DON'T AND THEY SUPPORTERS VIEW IT AS A "MYSTERY".
THEN YOU STRESSSED, "Nah... You were going on as though if God came to earth He wouldn't be able to reside in Heaven simultaneously."
IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE TO DO SO. BUT I AIN'T TRYIN' PHILOSOPHY WHAT (gOD) "MIgHT" DO.
THEN YOU STRESSSED, "If you understand God's omnipresence then there should be no problem understanding how God can be in multiple places at the same time."
EXACTLY. BUT WHY WOULD HE? HIM COMIN' DOWN AIN'T PROVIN' SHIT CAUSE WE ALL KNOW HE IS CAPABLE OF N-E-THANg, SO IT WOULDN'T BE NO SACRIFICE CAUSE TO HIM IT AIN'T SHIT.
THEN YOU STRESSSED, "Why God would do such a thing may be harder for you to understand, but why does God do anything? More specifically, why does God act upon this universe?"
YOU ACT LIKE IT'S A FACT, AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT YOU DON'T KNOW IF (gOD) CAME DOWN TO EARTH. I KNOW HE DIDN'T, CAUSE CAN'T NO MAN SEE (gOD) AND KEEP ON LIVIN'.
THEN YOU STRESSSED, "He is not dependent on it. He doesn't need to do certain things in order for Him to be fulfilled in any way. The only reason God acts upon the universe is for the benefit of His creation, i.e.: us. So to get right down to it, God may very well come to earth out of His mercy so that we may have a more personal sense of closeness to Him."
IF THAT'S THE CASE, WHAT THE FUK IS THE PURPOSE OF PRAYER THEN?
THEN YOU STRESSSED, "Sure, there are many instances when God can act upon the universe without coming Personally, but in any case God is acting for our benefit. What do you think is more beneficial for God's children, that He remain distant and sends us some teachings, or that He comes personally and teaches us to love each other and to love God by posing as a devotee Himself?"
AgAIN I STRESS, YOU PHILOSOPHYIN' LIKE HE ACTUALLY CAME DOWN TO EARTH, WHEN THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, THAT THAT IS DEBATABLE. (gOD) DON'T NEED TO COME DOWN TO EARTH TO TEACH US N-E-THANg. WE ALREADY gOT HIS WORD. IF YOU gOT A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM, WHY DO YOU NEED HIM IN THE FLESH?
THEN YOU STRESSSED, "Once again, whether or not the trinity doctrine is true I have no stance. But these are just suggestions as to why God would very much do something like this and how it is very much within His capabilities."
BUT IT AIN'T IN HIS WILL. YOU NEED TO READ MORE SCRIPTURE AND MARINATE OVER (gOD)'S UNIVERSAL LAWS AND STANDARDS BEFORE YOU START PHILOSOPHYIN'.
Why does it?
Then what is the value of your "why" question? If any answer is gonna be "philosophyin", then you better go ask God why.
But how would that satisfy your "why" question? You may accept it because it says in the Bible, but how does, "because it says so" answer your "why" question???
Why wouldn't it make sense to do so? You may not be trying to philosophize what God might do, but your inquiry suggests that God doing such is preposterous, when actually it isn't.
In other words, why are you tryin to philosophize on why God wouldn't come here Personally?
I already answered why He would do anything at all concerning this world. Why in your mind does God's coming down have to prove something??
I act like it's a fact that God can and has good reason to do such. That reason is explained when you understand why God acts upon this universe at all. You cannot limit His mercy. It is His mercy that He sustains this universe. Furthermore, it is also His mercy that He may decide to descend upon the earth in order to please His devotees. Everything God does is out of His mercy and for our benefit. So why does it not make sense for God to come here Personally?
Are you implying that the purpose of prayer is to fulfill God? That God requires our prayer? That He is dependent on it??
Prayer is for you. Prayer brings you closer to God. God doesn't need to be closer to God because He is God, so how does prayer benefit He who is eternally benefitted?
The reason God sends us teachings is the same reason He may come here Personally. That is His mercy. One may have a close relationship with God through the Scriptures, but it can grow even closer from His Personally descending here.
You should not claim to know the extent of His will.
Then what is the value of your "why" question? If any answer is gonna be "philosophyin", then you better go ask God why.
But how would that satisfy your "why" question? You may accept it because it says in the Bible, but how does, "because it says so" answer your "why" question???
Why wouldn't it make sense to do so? You may not be trying to philosophize what God might do, but your inquiry suggests that God doing such is preposterous, when actually it isn't.
In other words, why are you tryin to philosophize on why God wouldn't come here Personally?
I already answered why He would do anything at all concerning this world. Why in your mind does God's coming down have to prove something??
I act like it's a fact that God can and has good reason to do such. That reason is explained when you understand why God acts upon this universe at all. You cannot limit His mercy. It is His mercy that He sustains this universe. Furthermore, it is also His mercy that He may decide to descend upon the earth in order to please His devotees. Everything God does is out of His mercy and for our benefit. So why does it not make sense for God to come here Personally?
Are you implying that the purpose of prayer is to fulfill God? That God requires our prayer? That He is dependent on it??
Prayer is for you. Prayer brings you closer to God. God doesn't need to be closer to God because He is God, so how does prayer benefit He who is eternally benefitted?
The reason God sends us teachings is the same reason He may come here Personally. That is His mercy. One may have a close relationship with God through the Scriptures, but it can grow even closer from His Personally descending here.
You should not claim to know the extent of His will.
NINEWUNSIX5150,
YOU STRESSED, "Why does it?"
CAUSE IT DO. IT gOES AgAINST HIS UNIVERSAL LAW. WHAT gOOD DOES IT DO WHEN WE KNOW (gOD) IS NOT ABLE TO SIN? WHY WOULD HE COME DOWN HIMSELF?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Then what is the value of your "why" question? If any answer is gonna be "philosophyin", then you better go ask God why."
I HAVE, TIME AND AgAIN. MY VALUE OF MY WHY QUESTION ENTAILS ANSWERS BACCED BY SCRIPTURE AND NOT JUST gUESSIN'.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "But how would that satisfy your "why" question?"
EASY. IT WOULD SPECIFICALLY ANSWER MY DOUBTS AND EXPLAIN IT IN FULL DETAIL.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "You may accept it because it says in the Bible, but how does, "because it says so" answer your "why" question???"
YOU gOT ME TWISTED WITH THESE CHRISTIANS OF TODAY. I JUST AIN'T gOIN' ON SOMETHIN' JUST BECAUSE IT SAYS SO(LIKE THIS FAKE TRINITY DOCTRINE), AND IT CAN BE TRANSLATED OUT OF CONTEXT. I'M gOIN' BY HOW SCRIPTURE BREAKS IT DOWN(IF IT WERE TO BREAK IT DOWN, LIKE EXPLAINED IN MY PREVIOUS REPLY).
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Why wouldn't it make sense to do so?"
AIN'T NO POINT IN IT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "You may not be trying to philosophize what God might do, but your inquiry suggests that God doing such is preposterous, when actually it isn't.
In other words, why are you tryin to philosophize on why God wouldn't come here Personally?"
gOOD WAY TO FLIP IT. PROPS ON THAT ONE. BUT YOU FORgETTIN' WHAT HIS WRITTEN WORD SAYS. BUT IT IS PREPOSTEROUS. IT'S LIKE YOU DOIN' SOMETHIN' WITHOUT HAVIN' TO DO SO. THAT'S WHY IT'S PREPOSTEROUS. AND I AIN'T PHILOSOPHYIN' ON MY OWN ACCORD, I'M gOIN' BY WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS, AND QUESTIONIN' WHY WOULD PEOPLE BELIEVE SUCH.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I already answered why He would do anything at all concerning this world. Why in your mind does God's coming down have to prove something??"
CAUSE THERE'S A REASON BEHIND IT ACTUALLY OCCURIN'. IT DON'T MAKES SENSE FOR HIM TO ACTUALLY COME DOWN HIMSELF.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I act like it's a fact that God can and has good reason to do such. That reason is explained when you understand why God acts upon this universe at all. You cannot limit His mercy. It is His mercy that He sustains this universe. Furthermore, it is also His mercy that He may decide to descend upon the earth in order to please His devotees. Everything God does is out of His mercy and for our benefit."
AND HIS MERCY WAS THE SACRIFICE OF HIS ONLY BEgOTTEN SON. THAT IS MORE MERCIFUL THEN JUST COMIN' DOWN YOURSELF, KNOWIN' YOU PERFECT AND AIN'T PRONE TO ERROR.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "So why does it not make sense for God to come here Personally?"
CAUSE FOR ONE, HE HAS NO BUSINESS ON EARTH. N-E-THANg HE DOES, HE CAN DO IT FROM THE HEAVENS. IT SERVES NO PURPOSE FOR HIM TO BELITTLE HIMSELF AND COME IN THE FLESH,
XCONDLY,
IT gOES AgAINST HIS WORD AND UNIVERSAL LAW. (gOD) CANNOT LIE. SO WHEN IT IS WRITTEN THAT NO MAN CAN SEE (gOD) AND LIVE, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HE CAME TO EARTH?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Are you implying that the purpose of prayer is to fulfill God?"
NOPE. QUITE THE CONTRARY. THE PURPOSE OF PRAYER IS TO HAVE A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH (gOD).
THEN YOU STRESSED, "That God requires our prayer?"
IF WE WANT TO BE CLOSE TO HIM, YES.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "That He is dependent on it??"
NAW, I NEVA SAID THAT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Prayer is for you. Prayer brings you closer to God. God doesn't need to be closer to God because He is God"
NO SHIT. BUT YHWH IS (gOD) ALMIgHTY. gET IT RIgHT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "so how does prayer benefit He who is eternally benefitted?"
IT gIVES HIM A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP TO HIS CREATION AND LET'S HIM KNOW THAT HE IS LOVED AND NEEDED.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "The reason God sends us teachings is the same reason He may come here Personally. That is His mercy. One may have a close relationship with God through the Scriptures, but it can grow even closer from His Personally descending here."
YOU TOO STUK ON (gOD) ACTUALLY DESCENDIN' HERE TO BE CLOSE TO US, BUT HIS WILL AIN'T IN THE FLESH. IF HE WANTED TO COME DOWN HERE TO TEACH US HIMSELF, THEN WE WOULDN'T NEED HIS WORD OR PRAYER. BUT HE WOULD OF BEEN A LIAR DOIN' ALL THAT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "You should not claim to know the extent of His will."
I CLAIM WHAT I READ IN SCRIPTURE(SOMETHIN' YOU SHOULD DO MORE OF TO LEARN OF HIS WILL).
YOU STRESSED, "Why does it?"
CAUSE IT DO. IT gOES AgAINST HIS UNIVERSAL LAW. WHAT gOOD DOES IT DO WHEN WE KNOW (gOD) IS NOT ABLE TO SIN? WHY WOULD HE COME DOWN HIMSELF?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Then what is the value of your "why" question? If any answer is gonna be "philosophyin", then you better go ask God why."
I HAVE, TIME AND AgAIN. MY VALUE OF MY WHY QUESTION ENTAILS ANSWERS BACCED BY SCRIPTURE AND NOT JUST gUESSIN'.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "But how would that satisfy your "why" question?"
EASY. IT WOULD SPECIFICALLY ANSWER MY DOUBTS AND EXPLAIN IT IN FULL DETAIL.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "You may accept it because it says in the Bible, but how does, "because it says so" answer your "why" question???"
YOU gOT ME TWISTED WITH THESE CHRISTIANS OF TODAY. I JUST AIN'T gOIN' ON SOMETHIN' JUST BECAUSE IT SAYS SO(LIKE THIS FAKE TRINITY DOCTRINE), AND IT CAN BE TRANSLATED OUT OF CONTEXT. I'M gOIN' BY HOW SCRIPTURE BREAKS IT DOWN(IF IT WERE TO BREAK IT DOWN, LIKE EXPLAINED IN MY PREVIOUS REPLY).
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Why wouldn't it make sense to do so?"
AIN'T NO POINT IN IT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "You may not be trying to philosophize what God might do, but your inquiry suggests that God doing such is preposterous, when actually it isn't.
In other words, why are you tryin to philosophize on why God wouldn't come here Personally?"
gOOD WAY TO FLIP IT. PROPS ON THAT ONE. BUT YOU FORgETTIN' WHAT HIS WRITTEN WORD SAYS. BUT IT IS PREPOSTEROUS. IT'S LIKE YOU DOIN' SOMETHIN' WITHOUT HAVIN' TO DO SO. THAT'S WHY IT'S PREPOSTEROUS. AND I AIN'T PHILOSOPHYIN' ON MY OWN ACCORD, I'M gOIN' BY WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS, AND QUESTIONIN' WHY WOULD PEOPLE BELIEVE SUCH.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I already answered why He would do anything at all concerning this world. Why in your mind does God's coming down have to prove something??"
CAUSE THERE'S A REASON BEHIND IT ACTUALLY OCCURIN'. IT DON'T MAKES SENSE FOR HIM TO ACTUALLY COME DOWN HIMSELF.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "I act like it's a fact that God can and has good reason to do such. That reason is explained when you understand why God acts upon this universe at all. You cannot limit His mercy. It is His mercy that He sustains this universe. Furthermore, it is also His mercy that He may decide to descend upon the earth in order to please His devotees. Everything God does is out of His mercy and for our benefit."
AND HIS MERCY WAS THE SACRIFICE OF HIS ONLY BEgOTTEN SON. THAT IS MORE MERCIFUL THEN JUST COMIN' DOWN YOURSELF, KNOWIN' YOU PERFECT AND AIN'T PRONE TO ERROR.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "So why does it not make sense for God to come here Personally?"
CAUSE FOR ONE, HE HAS NO BUSINESS ON EARTH. N-E-THANg HE DOES, HE CAN DO IT FROM THE HEAVENS. IT SERVES NO PURPOSE FOR HIM TO BELITTLE HIMSELF AND COME IN THE FLESH,
XCONDLY,
IT gOES AgAINST HIS WORD AND UNIVERSAL LAW. (gOD) CANNOT LIE. SO WHEN IT IS WRITTEN THAT NO MAN CAN SEE (gOD) AND LIVE, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HE CAME TO EARTH?
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Are you implying that the purpose of prayer is to fulfill God?"
NOPE. QUITE THE CONTRARY. THE PURPOSE OF PRAYER IS TO HAVE A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH (gOD).
THEN YOU STRESSED, "That God requires our prayer?"
IF WE WANT TO BE CLOSE TO HIM, YES.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "That He is dependent on it??"
NAW, I NEVA SAID THAT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "Prayer is for you. Prayer brings you closer to God. God doesn't need to be closer to God because He is God"
NO SHIT. BUT YHWH IS (gOD) ALMIgHTY. gET IT RIgHT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "so how does prayer benefit He who is eternally benefitted?"
IT gIVES HIM A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP TO HIS CREATION AND LET'S HIM KNOW THAT HE IS LOVED AND NEEDED.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "The reason God sends us teachings is the same reason He may come here Personally. That is His mercy. One may have a close relationship with God through the Scriptures, but it can grow even closer from His Personally descending here."
YOU TOO STUK ON (gOD) ACTUALLY DESCENDIN' HERE TO BE CLOSE TO US, BUT HIS WILL AIN'T IN THE FLESH. IF HE WANTED TO COME DOWN HERE TO TEACH US HIMSELF, THEN WE WOULDN'T NEED HIS WORD OR PRAYER. BUT HE WOULD OF BEEN A LIAR DOIN' ALL THAT.
THEN YOU STRESSED, "You should not claim to know the extent of His will."
I CLAIM WHAT I READ IN SCRIPTURE(SOMETHIN' YOU SHOULD DO MORE OF TO LEARN OF HIS WILL).