JESUS IS NOT YHWH

[Nihilo]

I'm curious as to whether you even read what I wrote. It's very simple (if a bit long in the tooth).

I am not denying that Paul is not an Apostle. :nono:

It was too long.

I am denying (using God's word as my authority) that he is one of the twelve Apostles over Israel.

There's a reason I quoted Romans 3:4 in my post, Nihilo, and that's because God (through the authors) wrote the Bible.

Something that the Catholic faith believes and teaches also.

If Scripture says that Matthias was appointed the twelfth Apostle after Judas committed suicide, then that scripture takes precedence over what any man says, even if that man is a teacher, pastor, bishop, pope, etc.

Except where the Church began within the lifetimes of the Apostles, and it is this Church that teaches that Paul is the Twelfth Apostle.

LET GOD BE TRUE, and every man a liar.

We all believe that.

I showed you where Matthias was appointed to be the twelfth. So who should I believe is the twelfth apostle? Matthias? or Paul?

Paul. There were and are Twelve Apostles.

Who should I believe, or in other words, who has more authority on scriptural matters, you or Luke?

False dilemma. Believe who the Bible tells us to believe, the pastors of the Church that the Lord Jesus built upon Peter.

Are you attempting to place man's authority over scripture's by saying this?

False dilemma. Sacred Scripture tells us to believe the pastors of the Church, who are (all) men.

The Bible says let God be true and every man a liar for a reason, Nihilo. That reason is that anything that goes against what God says is false teaching.

No disagreement.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It was too long.

There's your problem. Please go read it. And this post too. Otherwise you'll miss my point, and your arguments will have nothing to do with what I say.

Something that the Catholic faith believes and teaches also.

Except where the Church began within the lifetimes of the Apostles, and it is this Church that teaches that Paul is the Twelfth Apostle.

Nihilo, what does Acts 1:15-26 say?

We all believe that.

Paul.

What does Acts 1:15-26 say?

There were and are Twelve Apostles.

There were twelve. Then God appointed Paul to be the thirteenth. See Acts 9.

False dilemma. Believe who the Bible tells us to believe, the pastors of the Church that the Lord Jesus built upon Peter.

No, not a false dilemma. Based on Romans 3:4, if what the church says goes against scripture or God, then what the church says is wrong, not God or scripture.

Taking into consideration that what Luke wrote in Acts is considered Scripture, and is therefore God-breathed, I ask you, Nihilo, to state who's authority takes precedence, yours or Luke's.

False dilemma. Sacred Scripture tells us to believe the pastors of the Church, who are (all) men.

No, not a false dilemma. You said:

It doesn't matter what you say that Sacred Scripture says, and the reason for that is right in the Bible. There are men who are the official Church's official teachers of the Church's one faith (Eph4:5KJV).

And in doing so, you placed man over Scripture.

Yet the Bible says to let God (and therefore His word) be true, and every man (yes, even pastors, popes, bishops, teachers etc) a liar. If something that a man says contradicts scripture, then he is a liar, and God remains true. The man is a false teacher if he contradicts God with his teachings.

See 2 Peter 2 for teaching on False teachers/prophets.

No disagreement.

Good, then you should read and agree with Acts 1:26.

 

[Nihilo]

There's your problem. Please go read it. And this post too. Otherwise you'll miss my point, and your arguments will have nothing to do with what I say.



Nihilo, what does Acts 1:15-26 say?



What does Acts 1:15-26 say?



There were twelve. Then God appointed Paul to be the thirteenth. See Acts 9.



No, not a false dilemma. Based on Romans 3:4, if what the church says goes against scripture or God, then what the church says is wrong, not God or scripture.

Taking into consideration that what Luke wrote in Acts is considered Scripture, and is therefore God-breathed, I ask you, Nihilo, to state who's authority takes precedence, yours or Luke's.



No, not a false dilemma. You said:

And in doing so, you placed man over Scripture.

Yet the Bible says to let God (and therefore His word) be true, and every man (yes, even pastors, popes, bishops, teachers etc) a liar. If something that a man says contradicts scripture, then he is a liar, and God remains true. The man is a false teacher if he contradicts God with his teachings.

See 2 Peter 2 for teaching on False teachers/prophets.



Good, then you should read and agree with Acts 1:26.

You defy the pastors that the Lord Jesus provides for us, the Church. The pastorship of the Church is in Scripture. You are placing your own self, over Scripture.

I'm not doing that.

 

[freelight]

Custom theology.................

Custom theology.................

And Paul was an Apostle, you can't get away from that in the Bible, nor with what the Bible reads plus what actually happened (recorded history). He is the Twelfth Apostle.

Could you show in the NT where any of the original apostles of Jesus called Paul expressly an 'apostle' in the same standing with the original apostles in Jerusalem? Most of Paul's claim of 'apostleship' was from his own mouth,...see how many of the epistles attributed to him (not all are authentic, some are pseudographical) are his own claim. That Mattias was chosen is clearly stated, although not too much is further shared about this man and his work in the ministry, as far as I know. If he was officially chosen 'by lot' (an acceptable form of divination, mind you) - then he would be numbered among the 'original 12 apostles' of the Lamb,...and Paul is NOT given this honor or appointment.

While I do not deny any divine inspiration or insights given to him (as a teacher of the Christ- archetype and inner divinity, whereby 'Christ' in us, is the spirit of God working in man, transforming him into the 'new man', 'new creation', etc.),...most of his 'gospel' is allegorical teachings received by personal revelation, which he accredits to Jesus (more of a cosmic-Christ figure who is a life giving spirit), and even his Damascus Road experience, is a kind of 'visionary' experience, there being differing accounts.

Paul basically appointed himself to be the apostle to the gentiles, and was in trouble (butting heads with the apostles of Jesus from the Jerusalem Assembly) more than once, most notably his incident with Peter shared in Galations (and oh his boasting!), and that in general the traditional orthodox Jews tried to throw Paul out of the Temple grounds as one who taught against Moses (the law, prophets, customs, etc.) - Paul was a major heretic to the orthodox who spun his own gospel and created his own 'Christology' as it were, with some Gnostic groups claiming him as their teacher of the 'inner secret teachings' (see Valentinian Gnosticism, as one branch). But we could go on all day about Paul......

Oh, by the way,...so far no one has proved Jesus is YHWH, and there appears to be plenty of support that Jesus is not YHWH in the OT, if indeed the YHWH in those texts was/is actually Our Benevolent Loving Heavenly Father. If YHWH is our Heavenly Father, then Jesus could NOT be him of course (even by rule and creed of orthodoxy, being careful NOT to 'con-fuse' the persons). However as I noted earlier, some of the actions/commands of yhwh appear to be quite contrary to a god of mercy, love, grace and compassion. - but then again, maybe war, genocide, blood sacrifice, slavery can be justified by a 'god' who deems his own actions 'right', because after all,...he is 'God'. ( on this count, how many are merely making 'god' in their own 'image'?....just 'like' themselves). All are engaged in this in one form or another to varying degrees,....and even now at any moment in time, we are holding a 'theology' that suits us. One may grow tired of a particular 'suit' and try another, or find another more 'orthodox' - and so points of view are subject to change.

So hoot and holler as you like,..."the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. And after you say this 3 times",...maybe your head will spin.

 

[freelight]

I am pure 'meta' underneath the forms, images and language symbols. All is One.

I am pure 'meta' underneath the forms, images and language symbols. All is One.

May I say that it is very kind to try and soft-pedal the stances of the many different groups of religious thought, but I have seen evidence that freelight, for one, sees the disparity between and among the various groups and observes that there are plain advantages over all opinions by one particular expression, deduced directly from the Scriptures. Is Jesus God, or is he YHWH? No. freelight sees what the Scriptures actually say. Therefore, I wonder why it is so important to give credence to ALL religious thought. Isn't there one true God? Doesn't He have certain characteristics and certain requirements? How could ALL denominations be acceptable to Him? There is either a fiery hell or there is not. He is either three or He is ONE. He takes everybody to heaven when they die or He does not. He isn't all things, as freelight's theology would suggest. There has to be ONE way to believe, because God is a Person, with certain specific qualities and desires. How can He be expected to accept every creed that men can dream up?

I see One Universal Reality as the Creative Source of all life, call it 'God', 'Deity' or whatever 'name' or 'symbol' that you deem most 'suitable'. I try to look out from this Universal One, which is a universal unity, which is all pervading and all transcending at once, being that which is truly INFINITE. This 'infinity' is pure Spirit, it is pure consciousness, from whose essence all existence, all forms, all creation springs. It is One; It is All. This Deity-Source which is the Heart of all, is the essence of life itself; IT is even Nameless, because its reality is prior to words, thoughts, concepts, images, form. - of course man has given 'God' many different names, or have religious records where 'God' claims to reveal his name(s).

Now as to Jesus being YHWH, that is a matter of opinion, perspective, cult and creed. - this is why I propose on a practical level a Unitarian view, and challenge Trinitarians with what advantage, benefit or higher truth does their 'view' afford, apart from being a 'relational model', where 3 personalities exist in one essential 'Godhead'. Even from a more liberal Unitarian perspective,...the Spirit of God is the One in which the many inhere, so 'God' is still metaphysically...as a 'Manifold One',....since the multiplicity of Creation arises within the Infinity of the Creator. 'Elohim' is a plural unity, an indivisible One, yet all divisions, dualities, multiples derive their existence and generation from within the ONE. - you can cut your 'metaphysics' in so many ways,....:surf:

Always, no matter what theology or Christology you hold,...the Universal Father is the Infinite ONE, the First Source and Center of all things and beings,....nothing surpasses the PRIMACY of The FATHER, since there is no other that is the source, the Sole Progenitor of all. This Deity is INVISIBLE, as pure Spirit, Mind, Energy, Soul,...incorporeal, indivisible in essence, but multiple in form. The One can extend or divide itself into '3', '7', '12' and so on.....since all multiples derive their numerical values, equations and relations...from One ('1').

~*~*~

So how do you think your responses on the OP have done so far?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Delete

 

[JudgeRightly]

I see One Universal Reality as the Creative Source of all life, call it 'God', 'Deity' or whatever 'name' or 'symbol' that you deem most 'suitable'. I try to look out from this Universal One, which is a universal unity, which is all pervading and all transcending at once, being that which is truly INFINITE. This 'infinity' is pure Spirit, it is pure consciousness, from whose essence all existence, all forms, all creation springs. It is One; It is All. This Deity-Source which is the Heart of all, is the essence of life itself; IT is even Nameless, because its reality is prior to words, thoughts, concepts, images, form. - of course man has given 'God' many different names, or have religious records where 'God' claims to reveal his name(s).

Now as to Jesus being YHWH, that is a matter of opinion, perspective, cult and creed. - this is why I propose on a practical level a Unitarian view, and challenge Trinitarians with what advantage, benefit or higher truth does their 'view' afford, apart from being a 'relational model', where 3 personalities exist in one essential 'Godhead'. Even from a more liberal Unitarian perspective,...the Spirit of God is the One in which the many inhere, so 'God' is still metaphysically...as a 'Manifold One',....since the multiplicity of Creation arises within the Infinity of the Creator. 'Elohim' is a plural unity, an indivisible One, yet all divisions, dualities, multiples derive their existence and generation from within the ONE. - you can cut your 'metaphysics' in so many ways,....:surf:

Always, no matter what theology or Christology you hold,...the Universal Father is the Infinite ONE, the First Source and Center of all things and beings,....nothing surpasses the PRIMACY of The FATHER, since there is no other that is the source, the Sole Progenitor of all. This Deity is INVISIBLE, as pure Spirit, Mind, Energy, Soul,...incorporeal, indivisible in essence, but multiple in form. The One can extend or divide itself into '3', '7', '12' and so on.....since all multiples derive their numerical values, equations and relations...from One ('1').

~*~*~

So how do you think your responses on the OP have done so far?

Now, obviously it's not scripture, but given your religious beliefs, I don't think you'll mind too much.

How does a unitarian solve Euthyphro's Dilemma?

"1) Is something (like humility) good because God recognizes it as good? Or,
2) Is something good because God commands that it is good (as Socrates put it, because God loves it)?"

Answer? He can't.

kgov.com/euthyphro

 

[JudgeRightly]

You defy the pastors that the Lord Jesus provides for us, the Church. The pastorship of the Church is in Scripture.

Does that mean that they have authority above the scriptures?

No, it does not.

So if they contradict scripture, then they are the ones who are wrong, not scripture.

You are placing your own self, over Scripture.

I'm not doing that.

I am simply quoting scripture to support what I'm saying, and what I'm saying does not contradict scripture. What you say, however, DOES contradict scripture, therefore you are wrong, not because I said so, but because Romans 3:4 says so.

What does Acts 1:26 say, Nihilo, does it say that Matthias was appointed the twelfth Apostle? Or does it say that Paul was appointed the twelfth?

If scripture is wrong when it says that Matthias was made an apostle, then how can we believe anything that it says?

But scripture is not wrong, it is accurate in every way. Therefore if someone contradicts scripture, then they are wrong, not scripture.

 

[Nihilo]

Could you show in the NT where any of the original apostles of Jesus called Paul expressly an 'apostle' in the same standing with the original apostles in Jerusalem? Most of Paul's claim of 'apostleship' was from his own mouth,...see how many of the epistles attributed to him (not all are authentic, some are pseudographical) are his own claim. That Mattias was chosen is clearly stated, although not too much is further shared about this man and his work in the ministry, as far as I know. If he was officially chosen 'by lot' (an acceptable form of divination, mind you) - then he would be numbered among the 'original 12 apostles' of the Lamb,...and Paul is NOT given this honor or appointment.

While I do not deny any divine inspiration or insights given to him (as a teacher of the Christ- archetype and inner divinity, whereby 'Christ' in us, is the spirit of God working in man, transforming him into the 'new man', 'new creation', etc.),...most of his 'gospel' is allegorical teachings received by personal revelation, which he accredits to Jesus (more of a cosmic-Christ figure who is a life giving spirit), and even his Damascus Road experience, is a kind of 'visionary' experience, there being differing accounts.

Paul basically appointed himself to be the apostle to the gentiles, and was in trouble (butting heads with the apostles of Jesus from the Jerusalem Assembly) more than once, most notably his incident with Peter shared in Galations (and oh his boasting!), and that in general the traditional orthodox Jews tried to throw Paul out of the Temple grounds as one who taught against Moses (the law, prophets, customs, etc.) - Paul was a major heretic to the orthodox who spun his own gospel and created his own 'Christology' as it were, with some Gnostic groups claiming him as their teacher of the 'inner secret teachings' (see Valentinian Gnosticism, as one branch). But we could go on all day about Paul......

Oh, by the way,...so far no one has proved Jesus is YHWH, and there appears to be plenty of support that Jesus is not YHWH in the OT, if indeed the YHWH in those texts was/is actually Our Benevolent Loving Heavenly Father. If YHWH is our Heavenly Father, then Jesus could NOT be him of course (even by rule and creed of orthodoxy, being careful NOT to 'con-fuse' the persons). However as I noted earlier, some of the actions/commands of yhwh appear to be quite contrary to a god of mercy, love, grace and compassion. - but then again, maybe war, genocide, blood sacrifice, slavery can be justified by a 'god' who deems his own actions 'right', because after all,...he is 'God'. ( on this count, how many are merely making 'god' in their own 'image'?....just 'like' themselves). All are engaged in this in one form or another to varying degrees,....and even now at any moment in time, we are holding a 'theology' that suits us. One may grow tired of a particular 'suit' and try another, or find another more 'orthodox' - and so points of view are subject to change.

So hoot and holler as you like,..."the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. And after you say this 3 times",...maybe your head will spin.

First of all, TL ; DR

Second of all, you don't even believe that He rose from the dead, why would I care what your opinion is on whether or not He is the Maker?

And finally, weighing in on matters that only concerns the Church, people who do believe in the Good News that He is risen, and what we might discuss, in an internal, familial issue like this, is something I'd advise keeping your nose out of, if you don't like getting nasty responses like this one.

:idunno:

 

[freelight]

tit for tat...........

tit for tat...........

First of all, TL ; DR

okay, whatever that stands for

Second of all, you don't even believe that He rose from the dead, why would I care what your opinion is on whether or not He is the Maker?

What I share is pertinent, on topic, or related therein, exploring the different aspects, dimensions and implications or our propositions....we've already been thru the 'resurrection', historically and 'figuratively' speaking. The matter of Jesus being the 'Creator' of this world or local universe is another matter, but it TOO is a matter of 'faith', if you choose to believe such, or whatever 'Christology' SUITS you. You do have a 'choice' in the matter.

And finally, weighing in on matters that only concerns the Church, people who do believe in the Good News that He is risen, and what we might discuss, in an internal, familial issue like this, is something I'd advise keeping your nose out of, if you don't like getting nasty responses like this one.

Really? Not all subscribe to your particular 'church politics or tradition' (RCC or otherwise). Don't forget the subject here is about Jesus being YHWH which many of the Unitarians have provided ample logics and 'proof-texts' to show that Jesus is not YHWH, if by 'YHWH' we mean the identity of the Father. Remember, not to confuse the persons, even though they are all 'merged' together as one ethereal essence (you know the drill). - those church fathers and others just melded together greek philosophical concepts and pagan intuitions from the schools of universal wisdom from antiquity and formulated (hypothesized) a Trinitarian compound of sorts and branded it 'orthodox', a 'creed' befitting her purposes so that the 'church' and her charter could carry on and prosper. If it works for you, go for it,...but your program, concept, or paradigm is not the only one in the cosmos 'working' so to speak. - and still John 3:16 works for everyone.

I don't consider your response 'nasty', just opinionated like any others, since we all come to the table with our own biases, preconceptions and personalized theology, since we are all individuals experiencing 'religion' in different ways, having various ideas and ideals further influenced by personal experience, education, background, programming, culture, etc. while anything that can be 'conditioned' is always subject to change anyways. Its a wonderful world, I'll grant it that.

Since Jesus is not here physically in the flesh, so you could have an in depth interview with him, or have a chance to live with intimately in personal close quarters,...you don't really know him 'that way',...but are only going on an idea, image or concept, besides some 'spiritual presence' which you assume is Jesus, hence the venture of FAITH that it is. This goes for Jesus flying thru the air too, ascending in the heavens, which could also be a metaphor for the soul ascending into the heights of 'God-consciousness', since many of our religious stories and images are figurative, since everything we process anyways is done within in the subjectivity of mind.

You know what you might get with freelight, but always be ready for a few surprises too

Jesus is who you make him out to be, and its this 'fact' that underscores the Christological debates thru-out the centuries, since so much seems to be riding on this, at least from a religionists point of view.

Lighten up

 

[freelight]

Just a quickie

Just a quickie

Now, obviously it's not scripture, but given your religious beliefs, I don't think you'll mind too much.

How does a unitarian solve Euthyphro's Dilemma?

"1) Is something (like humility) good because God recognizes it as good? Or,
2) Is something good because God commands that it is good (as Socrates put it, because God loves it)?"

Answer? He can't.

kgov.com/euthyphro

I've been a bit busy with moving recently, so things are hectic til after the end of the month. This you know may deserve its own thread, as I'd have to revisit and contemplate some answers here. I'd say 'God' if such is the source of all that is,...must be the source of all, allowing all potentials and possibilities to exist, so that the duality of 'good/evil' that we see in creation is a reflection of those potentials/possibilities. On another level, since 'good' and 'evil' are relative designations,....consciousness itself recognizes the 2 in their distinct qualities and attributes. They are what they are in 'contrast' to each other. We recognize 'good' and call it 'good' by our own ability to deem it such, via constrast within duality, so it is 'God' doing the 'recognizing' and 'calling'. 'God' doesn't necessarily need to 'command' something to be good, we are the ones who 'name' and 'call' things what they are thru the light of God within us (conscience, reason, logic, intelligence, intuition, etc.).

 

[oatmeal]

Acts 14:14

Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Add the name Barnabas to the list of the apostles.

Hebrews 3:1

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

Don't forget to add Christ Jesus to the list of apostles.

Who is to say that there were not many other apostles. Apostles whose names were not recorded in scripture?

 

[Nihilo]

Don't forget to add Christ Jesus to the list of apostles.

Who is to say that there were not many other apostles. Apostles whose names were not recorded in scripture?

You can make the word/homonym apostle mean whatever you'd like (especially in the vacuum of any historical acknowledgement of what the Church actually did, taught, and believed), but there is a particular homonym Apostle that means Twelve; there were and there are Twelve Apostles, and Paul is the Twelfth. These are those Paul mentions (including himself) in Ephesians 2:20 (KJV), and they are none other.

 

[Nihilo]

[MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION] TL ; DR again.

You don't believe that He is risen Freelight (Mt28:6KJV Mk16:6KJV Lk24:6KJV Ac4:33KJV Ro10:9KJV 1Co15:4KJV 2Ti2:8KJV), so that puts you outside camp. When you speak of Him, you're taking His name in vain, because you're outside the camp and don't acknowledge the camp either. You spin your yarns about Who He is and Who He is not, and Who He may be, but you're not talking about our Lord Jesus Christ, and you're not talking about our God; you're taking His name in vain.

 

[freelight]

Well for heaven's sake......

Well for heaven's sake......

[MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION] TL ; DR again.

Again, whatever that means :idunno: - can I buy a clue?

You don't believe that He is risen Freelight (Mt28:6KJV Mk16:6KJV Lk24:6KJV Ac4:33KJV Ro10:9KJV 1Co15:4KJV 2Ti2:8KJV), so that puts you outside camp. When you speak of Him, you're taking His name in vain, because you're outside the camp and don't acknowledge the camp either. You spin your yarns about Who He is and Who He is not, and Who He may be, but you're not talking about our Lord Jesus Christ, and you're not talking about our God; you're taking His name in vain.

That's a mighty stretch,...I don't take God's name in vain (assuming you know his or her name and names, for 'God' goes by many), but certain religious opinions and assumptioins can be quite 'vain'

 

[Zeke]

[MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION] TL ; DR again.

You don't believe that He is risen Freelight (Mt28:6KJV Mk16:6KJV Lk24:6KJV Ac4:33KJV Ro10:9KJV 1Co15:4KJV 2Ti2:8KJV), so that puts you outside camp. When you speak of Him, you're taking His name in vain, because you're outside the camp and don't acknowledge the camp either. You spin your yarns about Who He is and Who He is not, and Who He may be, but you're not talking about our Lord Jesus Christ, and you're not talking about our God; you're taking His name in vain.

Na you're the one who doesn't grasp the spiritual meaning of the risen Christ within, the outer meaning is where you have pitched that tent, 2Cor 3:6, 2Peter 1:19, 1Cor 3:16, Acts 17:24, Galatians 4:24, Matt 11:11, etc...

 

[Nihilo]

Na you're the one who doesn't grasp the spiritual meaning of the risen Christ within, the outer meaning is where you have pitched that tent, 2Cor 3:6, 2Peter 1:19, 1Cor 3:16, Acts 17:24, Galatians 4:24, Matt 11:11, etc...

I'm also going to throw a handful of random, unrelated verses at you; but instead of going through the work of picking them, I'm going to make you do that yourself.

 

[keypurr]

You defy the pastors that the Lord Jesus provides for us, the Church. The pastorship of the Church is in Scripture. You are placing your own self, over Scripture.

I'm not doing that.

How can you believe that your Pastors, Priests were sent by God to lead us when they molested children, burned people at the stake, hunted down the folks who disagreed with them to kill them. Tried to change the Law of God and disagree with what Christ taught us? These are not God's agents friend.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Acts 14:14

Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Add the name Barnabas to the list of the apostles.

.



Hebrews 3:1

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

Don't forget to add Christ Jesus to the list of apostles.

Who is to say that there were not many other apostles. Apostles whose names were not recorded in scripture?

Not including Christ,there are 16 apostles recorded in the NT

Paul put it that he was level with all the apostles--

2Co 11:5 For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.

but he also said he was the least of them, probably in regard to his personal self.

1Co 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

LA

 

[Lazy afternoon]

How can you believe that your Pastors, Priests were sent by God to lead us when they molested children, burned people at the stake, hunted down the folks who disagreed with them to kill them. Tried to change the Law of God and disagree with what Christ taught us? These are not God's agents friend.

We will see just who they are soon when they unite with the Jew and many fallen churches in Jerusalem.

Failure to unite with them will be fatal.

LA