ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Following Man's Doctrines

What is more important to follow? Man's doctrine for churches/creeds, or only God's word the bible? I say the bible, I do not mind being a member of a church, but does not mean I agree with everything the "doctrines" teach, but I believe in God's word.

Join Our Free Singles and Take The False Traditions Bible Quiz
 ---Whitney on 5/31/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (8)

Post a New Blog



'you are free to turn any occurrence of the verb "to be" as merely a description'- strongax.

No, its the noun ('theos') at Jo.1:1 which describes the subject, not the verb.

Bible translator William Barclay: 'Because [John] has no def.article in front of theos it becomes a description... John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.'

Scholar Jason David BeDuhn likewise says: 'In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence [John 1:1c] then your readers will assume you mean 'a god.'

Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version: 'The Logos [or, Word] was divine, not the divine Being himself.'
---David8318 on 10/16/14


"Christian love..." Marc

Should a flag be thrown for David's 'dancing in the end zone' or 'unnecessary roughness' on the field at Marc's expense? Perhaps. But certainly Marc is not suggesting that he is the one to throw it. Really? Suddenly with his apologetic pants down he plays the "where is the love" card?

Marc and his Christian Zionism has been a warm and fuzzy beacon of Love by referring to David and/or me as: "liars, desperate, dishonest, deceptive, black-mailers, paid WT plants, illiterate, cheats, slaves, plagiarists, nonsensical, cultic, heretical, without academic training, authority loving, failed, disingenuous, fallacious and insane".

Christian Zionist love? A true oxymoron.
---scott on 10/15/14


'That is indicative of your lack of grace and thus by their fruits we will know them'- Marc.

You are such a hypocrite.

You know how to kick someone whatever the situation. Your rabid hatred for JW's has been evident throughout.

I've simply highlighted your persistent inconsistencies and deliberate subterfuge designed purely to mislead as you have clearly demonstrated here.

No doubt you would have castigated Jesus for calling false religious teachers of his day, as I do you- "hypocrites... offspring of vipers"- Mt.22:29-33.
---David8318 on 10/14/14


David8318:

You said: As we have already established, Greek grammar at Jo.1:1 describes the logos as 'a god'. Not that logos is God.

No. YOU claim that it "describes". It doesn't say "god describes the word" or "the word was like a god". It says "the word WAS [a?] god". If you are free to turn any occurrence of the verb "to be" as merely a description, it's impossible to tell what most of the Bible says about anything - because it might not be saying anything concrete at all. Was Jesus God, or merely divine? Was David actually a king, or merely regal? Was Solomon David's real son, or merely like a son to him? Etc. etc.
---StrongAxe on 10/14/14


David,

Unknown to you, because you believe you are part of God's only organisation on earth that he has commissioned to be the vehicle for a very limited number of people's salvation, we filthy unsaved make mistakes. However, your response is a seal for me and many here that we could never ever become a JW because of the example of your behaviour. It's so destitute of Christian love and is so poor. When a person is down, you kick them. That is indicative of your lack of grace and thus by their fruits we will know them.

Now, Scott, are you going to come to your mate's rescue?
---Marc on 10/14/14




1Co 11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ, in turn, the head of a woman is the man, in turn, the head of the Christ is God.(NWT)
-Why do JW's use the article "the" with the anarthrous noun "head"?
-FYI David8318 will get the last comment(s) on this blog, as he does every blog he deems worthy of skirting the guidelines.
---micha9344 on 10/14/14


'I made an error'- Marc.

No doubt this is to do with you being inept! ...

JW's are momotheists.
---David8318 on 10/10

very adept.

a momo is slang is a generic insult used to describe one who is irritating, annoying, or an idiot.

david, you are not an idiot, but you are a momotheist.
---aka on 10/14/14


Marc and others. How can you expect to live in the New Earth and see it's wonders if you have not been Born Again?

To see the Kingdom of GOD and the truth you must be Born Again.
John 3:3

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:7

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

In order to truly understand and see you must be Born Again. Are you?


1Peter 1:23

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

It is from the HOLY SPIRIT and the Bible that you must be Born Again.
---Samuelbb7 on 10/14/14


'From The NWT: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This [god] was in the beginning with God...'- Marc.

Marc dispenses with context, Greek grammar and reason, to pursue error incompetence and polytheism.

Little does Marc realise that his NWT quip partly quoted above is in fact what he believes! Marc is that inept he doesn't realise it! As we have already established, Greek grammar at Jo.1:1 describes the logos as 'a god'. Not that logos is God.

Thus Marc's little quip as posted above is in fact what he believes- 'this God was in the beginning with [another] God'.

Marc's blind incompetence condemns him to polytheism.
---David8318 on 10/14/14


'or he is NOT, in fact, 'a god', and the description is flawed, and John 1:1 is just plain wrong'- strongax.

If it is flawed to describe logos is 'a god' then you are forced into the uncomfortable position whereby 'God the logos' is with another God.

If as strongax reasons Jo.1:1 is wrong if logos is described as 'a god', then Acts 28:6 is also flawed and wrong to describe Paul as 'a god'.

The context and Greek grammar at Jo.1:1 and Acts 28:6 both describe the logos (Jesus) and Paul as 'a god'.

'Anyone who has seen my hand or my foot has seen me'- strongax.

This illustration is not used in the Bible with reference to God and Jesus. The Bible uses 'Father and Son'. Who is reading between the lines?
---David8318 on 10/14/14




'I made an error'- Marc.

No doubt this is to do with you being inept! Of course you made an error as you do with everything thing you say about your fly-by-night pagan theology.

'Your quite historically erroneous belief that the 3rd century Christians... adulterated it with their Trinitarian philosophy is a huge misunderstanding'- Marc.

Professor George Howard of the University of Georgia USA has also made the same 'huge misunderstanding' when he wrote: 'When the Hebrew form for the divine name was eliminated in favor of Greek substitutes in the Septuagint, it was eliminated also from the New Testament quotations of the Septuagint... Before long the divine name was lost.'- Biblical Archaeology Review, March1978, page14
---David8318 on 10/14/14


'the LXX, 200 years or so before Christ, was the first to use KYRIOS for YHVH'- Cluny.

Wrong!

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Volume2,p.512) says: 'Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX [Septuagint] translated the tetragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Heb[rew] characters in the G[ree]k text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the O[ld] T[estament] in the first centuries A.D.'

You ask if Jewish scholars who produced LXX were apostate trinitarians? No Cluny, I'm saying apostate trinitarians from the 3rd century corrupted Greek MSS.
---David8318 on 10/14/14


David: "Marc's trinitarian polytheism is confirmed he believes there [were] 2 Gods thoughout eternity sharing 'love'."

John declares the eternal God IS love. This statement only makes sense if, from eternity, there's a target. Love only has meaning and existence when it's received in relationship by another. A God loving when there's no other to receive makes as much sense as saying a shadow's produced by light even when there's no object in its path.

David, your knowledge of philosophy is dilettantish at best. It's said a little knowledge is dangerous. A word of advice: your anti-Trinitarian expostulations linking the Church's theology and Platonism make you appear awfully lumpen in the eyes of a trained philosopher.
---Marc on 10/14/14


'Kurios... which is only used when it refers to God, and [God the] Father'- Marc.

This is a monumental error of research! How many dishonesty pills has Marc taken this morning to come up with this staggeringly pernicious reasoning.

To begin with P46 is not a 1st century manuscript (MS). It is a 3rd century MS, which by then the tetragram was being substituted by kurios or theos.

If Marc wants to persist in his ridiculous argument that kurios was used purely with reference to 'God the Father', then Marc can carry on believing Abraham, Paul and Silas are also 'Jehovah'.

How many GODS does Marc want!
---David8318 on 10/14/14


David8318:

You wrote: Little does Marc realise that his trinitarian understanding of John 1:1 reveals his polytheist bent.

Given that most Christians on this site and elsewhere are trinitarians, this will be a hard sell.

Marc is a duped Neo-Platonist controlled by his trinitarian Christian Zionist overlords.

Would you like to be called "David, a duped Millerite controlled by his Watchtower overlords?" If not, by Jesus's own Golden Rule, you should not throw such slurs at others.
---StrongAxe on 10/13/14


'Only the Trinity explains how both Jesus and the Father are God while retaining monotheism'- Marc.

Marc (trinitarians in general) do this by employing Neo-Platonic philosophy. Plato's philosophy of metaphysics- they are of the same substance so they must be equal. Marc is a duped Neo-Platonist controlled by his trinitarian Christian Zionist overlords.

Marc's trinitarian polytheism is confirmed because he believes there must have been at least 2 Gods thoughout eternity to share 'love' with eachother.

I notice Marc avoids questioning from scott like a stabbed rat. Why does Marc's Christian Zionism teach that poverty is a curse from God?
---David8318 on 10/13/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training


David,

I made an error when I said that P46 had KS only for God. At the time I wrote that I didn't have my Greek texts with me and was relying on memory. On revisiting my books at home I noticed that KS was used for Lord throughout the texts.

Notwithstanding the above, P46, arguably the earliest extant text, already has KS inserted so the Watchtower's belief that Trinitarians in the 3rd century began the substitution is clearly fallacious. Cluny's point is quite a strong argument against yours also.
---Marc on 10/13/14


'Snip, snip, out comes context, in goes the straw man'- Marc.

Marc's ineptness knows no bounds. Little does Marc realise that his trinitarian understanding of John 1:1 reveals his polytheist bent.

John 1:1 tells us that the logos is with God. Marc believes that in addition to that, the logos is also God. 2 GODS with eachother, sharing love throughout eternity. This is clearly a polytheist trinitarian belief.

The NWT avoids Marc's polytheism by observing context and Greek grammar. The predicate noun describes the logos as 'a god', not that he is another God with God as Marc would have us believe.

Context confirms 'no man has seen God'- Jo.1:18. No one has- Jesus was not God.
---David8318 on 10/13/14


\\When the tetragram (YHWH- Jehovah) appeared in the text, apostate trinitarians from the 3rd century onward substituted kurios in place of the tetragram.\\

Can you give the name of one of these, please?

Actually, the LXX, 200 years or so before Christ, was the first to use KYRIOS for YHVH.

Are you saying that the Jewish scholars who produced this translation were apostate trinitarians?

Glory to jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/13/14


Deu 32:39 See now that I, [even] I, [am] he, and [there is] no god with me: I kill, and I make alive, I wound, and I heal: neither [is there any] that can deliver out of my hand.
(NWT) John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.
Isaiah 45:5 I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me...
--How can the JW "god" be with God and yet scripture says otherwise?
--2 gods in heaven?
Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God.
--God is as good as His Word.
---micha9344 on 10/13/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Software


David8318:

If the Logos is "described" as a god, then either he IS, in fact, "a god" (and my point stands), or he is NOT, in fact, "a god", and the description is flawed, and John 1:1 is just plain wrong.

Once again you are left with the choices of trinitarinism, polytheism, or tossing scripture into the trash (or re-interpreting it to say something different than it actually says, to make it fit your pet beliefs).
---StrongAxe on 10/12/14


David,

I knew you wouldn't understand my point about P46. This remnant is most likely from the late 1st century. Already by then Jesus is being written with the early Christian use of a diminutive form of Lord (i.e. KS i.e. Kurios) which is only used when it refers to God, and [God the] Father.

Your quite historically erroneous belief that the 3rd century Christians someone added to the text (?is that what you are ineptly saying??) and adulterated it with their Trinitarian philosophy is a huge misunderstanding of what P46 is a record of.
---marc on 10/12/14


"David8318: // I don't believe this trinitarian polytheism at all. I believe Jo.1:1 says the logos is 'with' the God... the logos is described as 'a god'. //
Those who gave you that JW translation were really not qualified to do such job.
Make your research on this before you call me "names" .
---Adetunji on 10/12/14


'What is your point?'- strongax.

Please try to understand the word 'describe'.
---David8318 on 10/12/14


Shop For Church Fundraisers


//No, its 'the God... and a god'. //

ok. two gods. mono-monotheism.
---aka on 10/12/14


'Kurios - thus mimicking the OT Tetragrammaton'.

'Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord (kurios)'- 1 Peter 3:6, kjv.

'Lords (kurioi), what must I do to be saved'- Acts 16:30, wycliffe.

According to Marc's fallacious reasoning, Abraham, Paul and Silas (plus others) are also "Jehovah". Of course this is typical trinitarian pernicious reasoning.

Kurios (lord) does not mimick the Hebrew tetragram. When the tetragram (YHWH- Jehovah) appeared in the text, apostate trinitarians from the 3rd century onward substituted kurios in place of the tetragram.

But kurios does not mean Jesus is 'Jehovah' anymore than it does when used for Abraham, Paul or Silas.
---David8318 on 10/12/14


From The New World [Mis]Translation: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This [god] was in the beginning with God. All things came into existence through [this god], and apart from [this god] not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence by means of [this god] was life."

David, don't call us "inept". Your own bible mistranslation condemns you as a polytheist.
---marc on 10/12/14


David8318:

You said: You believe Jo.1:1 says 'the God... and the God'. You believe both occurences of 'theos' identify the subject as 'the God'.

Where have I ever actually said that? You are just reading between the lines of what I actually wrote (much as JWs read between the lines of what scripture says).

What I DID do is to point out the inconsistency - if you believe they are different, you have two gods - "the god" and "a god". Given this, you must choose one the three alternatives I had mentioned.

And it's not as if you accept one and repudiate the other as the Jews did (e.g. worshiping Jehovah, while acknowledging but rejecting Baal), because you are for Jesus and not against him, yes?
---StrongAxe on 10/12/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


All pastors must adhere to the denominational doctrines of that particular denomination or they lose their title and their wage. They teach of the doctrines and traditions of man.

Satan has had over two thousand years to divide christian up into over 60,000 diferent denominations each having their own rituals, traditions, ways of living and interpretations of the bible. Aren't christians to be "perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."?

1 Corinthians 1:10-13
"Now I say this, that each of you says, I am of Paul, or I am of Apollos, or I am of Cephas," I am of Catholci, I am of Orthodox, I am of Lutheran, I am of Baptist, etc. Is Christ divided?" Where is the unity?
---Steveng on 10/12/14


David8318:

*I* personally find it to be mostly just splitting hairs. However, trinitarian and oneness theologians will be very insistent that there is a MAJOR difference.

If they are different, then you are teaching polytheism.

My hand is part of me. My foot is part of me. But my hand is NOT my foot.

You have 3 different Gods.

And you have two different gods: Jehovah and Jesus. What is your point?
---StrongAxe on 10/11/14


Strongax- you are laughable. I know you and Marc are inept at understanding John 1:1 just as you are understanding the word 'describe'.

I will agree with you that trinitariansism must be ranked alongside the trash and polytheism. You believe Jo.1:1 says 'the God... and the God'. You believe both occurences of 'theos' identify the subject as 'the God'.

Thus you have 'the God' the logos is with, plus the logos is also 'God'. 2 GODS= polytheism. I don't believe this trinitarian polytheism at all. I believe Jo.1:1 says the logos is 'with' the God... the logos is described as 'a god'. Other translations describe the logos is 'divine' or 'godlike'.

Of the 3 falsehoods you highlight... you've chosen all 3!
---David8318 on 10/12/14


sin:

We all make mistakes, and that's normal. The mistakes become dangerous, however, when we refuse to admit the possibility of our being wrong, when we insist that our way is God's way, when we refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with us, and we call them delusional or damned.
---StrongAxe on 10/11/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders


'These are very different'

'I find the difference to be one of hair-splitting'

- strongax on 10/10/14.

Wow... in the space of a few hours strongax has gone from 'they're very different' to 'its a question of hair-splitting'!! Are they very different or not? Apparently according to strongax I can't 'distinguish them'. It seems neither can strongax.

I would agree it is a question of splitting hairs. There is no light between them.

'trinitarians believe they are one but different'. So the different parts of your triune godhead are not equal. How can they be equal if they are different? If they are different, then you are teaching polytheism. You have 3 different Gods.
---David8318 on 10/11/14


David: "You believe, 'the God and the God'. This is polytheism- you have 2 GODS at Jo.1:1...Paul was described as 'a god' (Acts 28:6)"

Snip, snip, out comes context, in goes the straw man.

These pagans didn't believe "all things were made through [Paul] and without [Paul] nothing was made that was made."

Only the Trinity explains how both Jesus and the Father are God while retaining monotheism. The Watchtower, despite David's denial, posits a second Creator god (read, an angel) to render "[non]sense" to their Johnny-come-lately theology.

Despite their disclaimer, there are 2 Creators (Jesus and the Father), thus 2 gods, and consequently the Watchtower door-knockers tout polytheism.
---Marc on 10/11/14


JWs alter Scripture, changing kurios (Lord) to Jehovah at 2 Cor. 3:16-18. However, they don't change kurios when it's applied to Jesus at Philippians 2:11. A consistent Watchtower rendering should say "all should confess Jesus Christ is Jehovah".

Interestingly, the most ancient manuscript P46 (c. late 1st century) has Philippians addressing Jesus with the NT abbreviation of KS (i.e. Kurios - thus mimicking the OT Tetragrammaton). Of interest also in P46 is 2 Cor 3:16-18's similar abbreviated treatment of Kurios applied to the Father. The early Christians only used this abbreviated "Tetragrammaton" when talking about God. Thus, according to the earliest manuscripts, re Philippians 2,11, Jesus is Jehovah.
---Marc on 10/11/14


David8318:

If Jesus is "a god" but different from "THE God", one has two gods - this is polytheism. If there's only one god, then Jesus isn't one, which doesn't even interpret John 1:1 differently, it shreds it utterly and throws it in the trash. You need to make up your mind, and decide which uncomfortable conclusion you prefer to live with:
1) trinitarianism
2) polytheism
3) throwing the Bible into the trash.
Please choose one.
---StrongAxe on 10/11/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


Not all of us are familiar with scripture enough to know when our own ideas are in error. Thus, it is said, "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." Plain to see, I have not found any who follow the Bible wholly. So Paul says, "Nothing beyond what is written" otherwise translated "Do not go beyond what is written." Jesus frequently asked, "What is written?" and the answer, "It is written."
---sin on 10/11/14


'A God and a god'- aka.

No, its 'the God... and a god'.

You believe, 'the God and the God'. This is blatant polytheism- you have 2 GODS at Jo.1:1.

The NWT avoids your polytheist rendering of John 1:1 by recognising the 2nd occurence of 'theos' is a predicate noun when referring to the logos, meaning it describes the logos. It does not identify the logos as 'the God it is with' or another 'God'.

Clearly, to be described as 'a god' is difficult for you, Marc, strongaxe and trinitarians generally to understand. Just as Paul was described as 'a god' (Acts 28:6), the Word is also described as 'a god'.
---David8318 on 10/11/14


//Lets see what further lies aka can drum up?// -David8318

NWT, John 1:1 reads' "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

A God and a god. Mono-monotheism.

see pages 150, 416 - 417, Reasoning From The Scriptures, 1985 edition published by the Watchtower Society.

i could drum up more lies if you want.
---aka on 10/11/14


'The moderator will not post my initial response'- aka.

What does that tell you aka?

Everyone is fed up with your lies!
---David8318 on 10/11/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair


Lets see what further lies aka can drum up?

---David8318on 10/10/14

I cannot lie anymore. The moderator will not post my initial response.
---aka on 10/10/14


David8318:

You said: So what you're now saying is trinitarians do not believe in 'one' god?

No, I didn't say nor imply it at all. Re-read what I wrote. Both trinitarians and oneness people believe that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are God. The difference is that Oneness people believe that they are all one and the same, while trinitarians believe they are one but different.

Anyone who has seen my hand or my foot has seen me. We are all one, but my hand and my foot are NOT the same. This is how trinitarianism works. Personally, I find the difference to be one of hair-splitting, but most trinitarians and oneness people thinks it's very important.

Besides, JWs have two "legitimate" gods (John 1:1)
---StrongAxe on 10/10/14


David: "Trinitarians believe in three God's. Thank you for clarifying the trinitarian polytheist position."

I see you took an extra dishonesty pill this morning.

JWs believe that "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was a god". They also believe in the existence of YHWH God. Ever since I was about 2 y.o. I understood that 1+1=2.

The dictionary defines polytheism as "belief in more than 1 god." Hey, David, if it quacks like a duck..

BTW David, it isn't God's but Gods.
---Marc on 10/10/14


\\ Trinitarians believe in three God's. Thank you for clarifying the trinitarian polytheist position.\\

No, we don't.

And your saying so is further proof we do not.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/10/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


'trinitarian theology... Oneness theology... these are very different'- strongax.

So what you're now saying is trinitarians do not believe in 'one' god?

That's what I've been saying all along. Trinitarians do not believe in 'one' God... we know that.

Trinitarians believe in three God's. Thank you for clarifying the trinitarian polytheist position.
---David8318 on 10/10/14


Revelation 17:4-6
King James Version (KJV)
4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Where is "trinity" in this passage?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/10/14


'a supreme god that is in charge of many lesser gods including christ (as wts sees it) is polytheism'- aka.

This is another aka lie. Aka now appears to treat lying as if it were a virtue.

The WTS has never said that Christ is a 'lesser god'. I challenge aka to provide any evidence to show where the WTS states Christ is a 'lesser god' presided over by a 'supreme god'. These are lies and misrepresentations promoted by aka.

JW's are momotheists who believe in one Almighty God- Jehovah (Deut.6:4, Ps.83:18 kjv). Jesus Christ is his son... 'the Son of God'- John 1:34.

Lets see what further lies aka can drum up?
---David8318 on 10/10/14


a supreme god, a christ (created by god), and a non-living spirit sounds like a kingdom based on a trinity concept. nevertheless, a supreme god that is in charge of many lesser gods including christ (as wts sees it) is polytheism.

btw,the practice of baptism was widely practiced by pagan cultures way before jws did it. In ancient Babylon, according to the Tablets of Maklu, water was important as a spiritual cleansing agent in the cult of Enke, lord of Eridu. In Egypt, the Book of Going Forth by Day contains a treatise on the baptism of newborn children, which is performed to purify them of blemishes acquired in the womb.

how is it that the practices that other people have is from pagan ritual and the jw practice of baptism is not?
---aka on 10/10/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


\\David

Trinity in Rev.17 vs 4 5 6, Is Bible prophesy & I believe it.\\

There is NO mention of the Trinity or anything resembling it in this passage.

Either you lie or you have not read the passage for yourself.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/10/14


David

Trinity in Rev.17 vs 4 5 6, Is Bible prophesy & I believe it.

You's can ( deny n deny n deny, there's your 3 ) all you's want. It's you's choice. Which are many, Matt.7 v 13.
---Lawrence on 10/10/14


Lawrence:

Despite your repeated protestations, trinity is not mentioned in Rev. 17:4-6 nor Mt. 7:13. You infer it, but it isn't there - any more than "other" is in Colossians 1:16-17 "by means of him all [other] things were made" as Jehovah's Witnesses claim.


David8318:

Among those who believe Son is God, "Father is not Son. Father is not Spirit. Son is not Spirit" is trinitarian theology, while "Father is Son. Father is Spirit. Son is Spirit" is Oneness theology. These are very different, despite the fact that YOU can't distinguish them.
---StrongAxe on 10/10/14


David is, liar liar pants on fire.
I am Not a self condemning triune 3 persons godhead person.

I'm a 1 God Jesus name Acts Church of The Living God person. The Only Church that God Is THE Author of, which are few. Matt.7 v 14. Glory to God The Father which who Is Jesus Christ.

The trinity in Rev.17 vs 4 5 6 which are many, Matt.7 v 13. Destruction, hell n the lake of fire. By their choice.
---Lawrence on 10/9/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


'Father, Son, Holy Ghost IS Only one. Only one all through The Word of God. Only one person, Jesus Christ, Colo. 2 v 9.'- Lawrence.

So Lawrence is a full blown trinitarian believing in the trinity dogma of which he condemns!

Lawrence is a self-condemning trinitarian!

Lawrence- 'jwitness' as you call us believe in Jehovah God (YHWH- Yahweh, Deut.6:4) who is not a man-made god but the Almighty God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Father of Jesus Christ.

Your 'Father, Son, Holy Ghost IS Only one' dogma is the trinity you are eager to castigate.
---David8318 on 10/9/14


Shira

1John 5 vs 7 n 8, are one.

Father, Son, Holy Ghost IS Only one. Only one all through The Word of God. Only one person, Jesus Christ, Colo. 2 v 9.
Glory to God The Father which who Is Jesus Christ.
---Lawrence on 10/9/14


Lawrence, what does 3 mean in the bible?
---shira4368 on 10/9/14


'Almighty God has Nothing to do with'... Lawrence.

Lawrence promotes the original trinitarian dogma. Lawrence's mantra 'Glory to God The Father which who Is Jesus Christ' would have pleased pagan Roman Emperor Constantine who instigated this false theology now promoted by Lawrence. The pagan Roman church didn't accept the holy spirit as the 3rd person of the 'Godhead' until some years after the Council of Nicea.

Lawrence hypocritically complains about manmade doctrines when he is in mutual agreement with pagan Roman Emperor Constantine's man-made belief that 'God the Father... is Jesus Christ'- Rev.17:4-7.
---David8318 on 10/8/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


Lawrence:

Theology comes from Greek "theos" + "logos", i.e. word (or truth) about God. Every single thing we believe about God is theology, whether you like to admit it or not. Some theology is true, and some is false. Unfortunately, there is disagrement about which is which. Even Oneness belief is a theology that some churches believe, but many others don't.

If the Word of God is sufficient to tell us everything we need to know about God, why do you keep using phrases (like "God The Father which who Is Jesus Christ") which aren't in there? Why is the wording that is ACTUALLY in the Word of God sufficient?
---StrongAxe on 10/6/14


S A

Not so that I condemn meself.
Acts Church IS God made. Which are few to find. Matt.7 v 14.

For theology, ideology, orthodoxy is All Manmade under the influence of spiritual darkness. No parallel to The Word of God what soever, you's still trying to deny that The Acts Church existed.
For the trinity in Rev.17 vs 4 5 6, which Are many. Matt.7 v 13. Destruction hell lake of fire. All part of the gates of hell & shall not prevail against The Acts Church of The Living God.

Glory to God The Father which who Is Jesus Christ.
---Lawrence on 10/6/14


Lawrence:

You said: Commandments n doctrines of men, theology, ideology, the trinity in Rev.17 vs 4 5 6, jwitness, those that worship other diff manmade gods etc.
Almighty God has Nothing to do with.


"The Father and the Son are one and the same" is Oneness theology. "The Father and the Son are one but different" is trinitarian theology. Both are theological positions. By condemning ALL theology, you also condemn yourself.
---StrongAxe on 10/4/14


Commandments and doctrines of men, theology, ideology, Oneness/Modalist in Rev.17 vs 4 5 6, jwitness, those that worship other diff manmade gods etc.
Almighty God has Nothing to do with.

Pimp on, Lawrence!

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/3/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


Commandments n doctrines of men, theology, ideology, the trinity in Rev.17 vs 4 5 6, jwitness, those that worship other diff manmade gods etc.
Almighty God has Nothing to do with.
---Lawrence on 10/3/14


The historic creeds are summaries of faith intended for believers, not unbelievers.

They are an expression of faith, as it is written, "I believed, and therefore I spoke."

And if you don't agree with your church's doctrines, isn't it hypocritical to remain a member of a church you don't agree with?
---Jack on 6/28/07


Ruben - Not everyone claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit.
---Helen_5378 on 6/1/06


(Helen is right. Gods Word is the ultimate authority. Read it and the Holy Spirit will give you the interpretation.
---tofurabby on 6/1/06 ) Everyone claims to be guided by the Holy spirit, again whose interpretation is right?
---ruben on 6/1/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


The first maybe 3 generations did not have a 'Bible,' as many as NT 30 books floated about untill 30AD. The Septuagint had 70 book included at the OT. As said before, politics determined what books were included, what were omited. To this day the bible quotes a dozen other books as scripture. The Roman Church was influenced by Constantine and the politics of the time.
---MikeM on 6/1/06


what is more important to follow is gods word, your faith and relationship with God alone. Remember though God did choose ordinary people to start churches like the apostle paul. it's like me giving you a math text book and telling you to return it at the end of the year, finished, without ture understanding one will dought.
---godsArmy on 6/1/06


Catherine -- Jesus is the Rock. And Jesus says to follow Him, not a mere mortal here on earth.
---Helen_5378 on 6/1/06


Helen is right. Gods Word is the ultimate authority. Read it and the Holy Spirit will give you the interpretation.
---tofurabby on 6/1/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


No, I did not say "interpretation" Ruben.
---Helen_5378 on 6/1/06


Helen-( If it is not biblically correct I outright reject it, choosing the infallibility of God's word over man's. ) But does it not make you infallible because you are choosing your interpretation over someone else.
---ruben on 6/1/06


Peter is the Rock. (The Catholic and Eastern Rite Churches trace back to the Apostles.) Nowhere does the Bible say "follow the Bible alone."

2 Thes. 2:15 "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." 2 Thes. 3:6 "We instruct you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself,,, not according to the tradition they received from us."
---Catherine on 6/1/06


Did the first generation of Christians follow the NT?

It hadn't been written down yet.

So what was left but to listen to the ORAL teaching of the Apostles, Bishops, and Prebyters?
---Jack on 6/1/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


jack the creeds were created in order to separate the believes form the gnostic teaching of the day.

the word of GOD is the only thing that is truth.
---willow on 6/1/06


The Word of God as written in the Bible is infallible. Doctrine is mans weak attempt to interpret God's Word, failing miserably, as we see so many efforts world wide in the form of denominationism. How our loving Father must weep at the suspicion and, dare I say it, hatred shown by His children, one to the other.
---Margaretj on 5/31/06


T he bride of christ(the church, the saved people) are the church.For we are one body one in christ the first fruits.So as the church is actually the people who are born again, and destined to sin over and over, who do you think has spoken the truth since before time bagan?
---tom2 on 5/31/06


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.