The Trinity

[Rosenritter]

Hear say that many have disputed as being unreliable which weighs against the historic trinity even being viable except to those still caught in that Roman matrix, The kingdom of God is within Luke 17:20-21 and the stories if spiritual deal with NOW! not the past or future which is the observable lie being debated by all indoctrinated converts to Romes scheme.

The only people I hear say that the gospels are unreliable are people with an axe to grind and an agenda as you do. As typical the claims are made without evidence or substantiation. If the gospels were really unreliable they should have been challenged by people when they were first produced, when the authors were alive and could have been made to answer, when actual events were still fresh. But they weren't. You are about 2000 years too late to be making claims like that. The gospels would be accepted in a court of law under the same rules that govern accepted historical documents of antiquity (see the essay by lawyer Simon Greenleaf.)

http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/simon_greenleaf.html

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

 

[daqq]

The only people I hear say that the gospels are unreliable are people with an axe to grind and an agenda as you do. As typical the claims are made without evidence or substantiation. If the gospels were really unreliable they should have been challenged by people when they were first produced, when the authors were alive and could have been made to answer, when actual events were still fresh. But they weren't. You are about 2000 years too late to be making claims like that. The gospels would be accepted in a court of law under the same rules that govern accepted historical documents of antiquity (see the essay by lawyer Simon Greenleaf.)

Then look at yourself in the mirror because you essentially just got through saying, in a round-about way, that Mark 13:6 and Luke 21:8 are not reliable enough for you and therefore you employ Matthew 24:5 by conflation to interpret them so as to make them say what you think they should say, (the same thing that the KJV does with those passages by inserting "Christ" in Mark and Luke when it is nowhere to be found in the actual manuscripts). However there are many instances in the Gospel accounts where other information is stated or new information is given in what appear to be companion passages but that does not mean such passages all need to be harmonized, (which was a great problem in the early stages of the writings once scribes began to make copies). Just because two or three passages appear to be companion passages does not mean that they all teach the same exact thing and need to be harmonized. In some places one author might record half of a statement or discourse while another author may record the other half or even the whole with the other half included. By your own statement then you apparently have an axe to grind. I wonder if it is Oneness axe?

 

[Lon]

I already told you I am not a Mormon. Others can see that right away.
What is wrong with you Lon? You need to go seek psychiatric help.

:sigh: As already stated, you already said so. Spelling it out: "...already said he wasn't a Mormon."

Again showing your elitist psychopathic mentality that goes hand in hand with Calvinism.

Well, it's the Lord's day. You really shouldn't be doing ad hominins having nothing to do with the thread. Worship Him. Calvinism is none of your actual business. Academic prowess Sure.

You know better than the sheeple so they just need to sit down shut up and listen to you. :rotfl:

Again, the Lord's day. Let's pick this up on the morrow. Give some time to worshipping Him, whoever He happens to be to you.

 

[Rosenritter]

Then look at yourself in the mirror because you essentially just got through saying, in a round-about way, that Mark 13:6 and Luke 21:8 are not reliable enough for you and therefore you employ Matthew 24:5 by conflation to interpret them so as to make them say what you think they should say, (the same thing that the KJV does with those passages by inserting "Christ" in Mark and Luke when it is nowhere to be found in the actual manuscripts). However there are many instances in the Gospel accounts where other information is stated or new information is given in what appear to be companion passages but that does not mean such passages all need to be harmonized, (which was a great problem in the early stages of the writings once scribes began to make copies). Just because two or three passages appear to be companion passages does not mean that they all teach the same exact thing and need to be harmonized. In some places one author might record half of a statement or discourse while another author may record the other half or even the whole with the other half included. By your own statement then you apparently have an axe to grind. I wonder if it is Oneness axe?

No, "I am Christ" (with Christ in italics) is because "I am" is not a complete sentence under English rules of grammar. There isn't evidence enough to substantiate that it was "I AM" because of the corroboration of the third gospel. What makes sense in Greek doesn't always grammatically translate to English without a little assistance.

 

[Zeke]

The only people I hear say that the gospels are unreliable are people with an axe to grind and an agenda as you do. As typical the claims are made without evidence or substantiation. If the gospels were really unreliable they should have been challenged by people when they were first produced, when the authors were alive and could have been made to answer, when actual events were still fresh. But they weren't. You are about 2000 years too late to be making claims like that. The gospels would be accepted in a court of law under the same rules that govern accepted historical documents of antiquity (see the essay by lawyer Simon Greenleaf.)

http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/simon_greenleaf.html

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

I have heard all these arguments about the court of law theory, And even pushed them before I woke up to the scam, yet even scholars from Israel admit there is no evidence for the historic version to be plausible, its a phantom that gained ground long after the period shed little to no support for the Roman concoction of a carnal Jesus, What it does tell is the doctrine was esoteric and dealt with the kingdom of God that resides within man. Matt 11:11 and the whole of Galatians support the Esoteric doctrine that Jesus represented the spirit in man, that Rome perverted into a human sacrifice for a angry god who has more in common with the carnal traditions of men who demand revenge while being blind and naked themselves about the truth of the ancient stories that where handed down through the ages.

 

[Zeke]

:sigh: As already stated, you already said so. Spelling it out: "...already said he wasn't a Mormon."




Well, it's the Lord's day. You really shouldn't be doing ad hominins having nothing to do with the thread. Worship Him. Calvinism is none of your actual business. Academic prowess Sure.

Again, the Lord's day. Let's pick this up on the morrow. Give some time to worshipping Him, whoever He happens to be to you.

Lon you have yet to grasp Matt 11:11 along with Luke 17:20-21 concerning where the true Kingdom is located, nor the truth about that worldly ID you carry that makes you a willing slave to this worlds kingdom while pretending to be a follower of Christ at the same time, serving two masters and it would have been better if you hadn't been told because you have no more excuses, think of me every time you have to use that strawman phony.

 

[daqq]

:sigh: As already stated, you already said so. Spelling it out: "...already said he wasn't a Mormon."

Well, it's the Lord's day. You really shouldn't be doing ad hominins having nothing to do with the thread. Worship Him. Calvinism is none of your actual business. Academic prowess Sure.

Again, the Lord's day. Let's pick this up on the morrow. Give some time to worshipping Him, whoever He happens to be to you.

You are the one that started with the ad hominem attacks after I stated my position on a topic which three of you were already discussing in this thread; and what is or are "ad hominins"? Is that supposed to be a plural form of ad hominem? Hominins are chimps and apes, (hominid). What happened to that extremely superior IQ you were just bragging about? As for Shabbat you are a day late in my Book. As for Calvinism being my business it surely is when you are here spewing it and Hitler was the most famous psychopath out of all of you and yours and probably loved Luther for his anti-Semitic writings as much as you do. That is indeed what Calvinism leads to: look it up, do your own homework, I already showed your fellow elect one, Dialm the Nazi sympathizer, and do not see the need to go wading through your background again. Happy first day of the week.

 

[daqq]

You really shouldn't be doing ad hominins having nothing to do with the thread. Worship Him. Calvinism is none of your actual business.

This is the opening of your immediate response to me after I posted on this topic in this thread:

:doh: :nono: This is amateur hour again on your part. You are prognosticating your ignorance in favor of your pet cult understanding. All cults are shallow. God can reach through the dross of ignorance, but try to do your part and follow His leading. Pray for guidance. Ask Him if perhaps I'm right and you are wrong on this point. I can show, academically, that I'm correct, given half a trust. This passage is talking about false-teachers whose prediction/prophecies and teaching are blatantly wrong. How do we know? Because Jesus says they will deceive about the end-times, specifically. EVERY cult that has predicted an end time is to be treated as false prophets and false ministries. The old way to handle a false prophet was to eliminate them. We don't do that today, but it is a deal breaker.

FULL OF AD HOMINEM, full of condescension, and not only that but you immediately begin to make snide insinuations like, "The old way to handle a false prophet was to eliminate them", but of course you qualify it with, "We don't do that today, but it is a deal breaker", just so you do not have to go into your own mindset of elimination for those who do not agree with your perversions. As for the "end times" being what Yeshua speaks of that is only your faulty opinion because if what you say were true it would not comply with Deuteronomy 18:15-22. Your very own concocted version of Messiah is therefore a false prophet because according to your interpretation some of the things Yeshua stated in the Olivet Discourse have still not yet come to pass even after almost 2000 years now. However at the full end of the discourse Yeshua answers the question of "when" which the disciples had asked him, as in Matthew 24:3, but your kind neither have the attention span nor the reading comprehension to understand when and where he answers the question. You are the one who is brainwashed into a cult and for that you even paid a hefty sum of eye of Horus greenbacks to get what you feel you deserve. :chuckle:

 

[keypurr]

:sigh: As already stated, you already said so. Spelling it out: "...already said he wasn't a Mormon."




Well, it's the Lord's day. You really shouldn't be doing ad hominins having nothing to do with the thread. Worship Him. Calvinism is none of your actual business. Academic prowess Sure.

Again, the Lord's day. Let's pick this up on the morrow. Give some time to worshipping Him, whoever He happens to be to you.

May be you should consider worshiping him of the Sabbath, for he is Lord of the Sabbath. Then you might get to see where the church fathers took the wrong road.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Rosenritter]

May be you should consider worshiping him of the Sabbath, for he is Lord of the Sabbath. Then you might get to see where the church fathers took the wrong road.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

Do you even realize what that means? Let me help please:

Exodus 20:11 KJV
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is , and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The Lord of the Sabbath... Is Jesus. Let that sink in for a moment. The LORD of the Sabbath... Is JESUS.

For in six days JESUS made heaven and earth... And He blessed the day and hallowed it.

 

[keypurr]

Do you even realize what that means? Let me help please:

Exodus 20:11 KJV
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is , and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The Lord of the Sabbath... Is Jesus. Let that sink in for a moment. The LORD of the Sabbath... Is JESUS.

Yep, and the seventh day is his day of rest. Most will not enter his rest. You are most likely content to ignore his commandments.
Babylon is falling friend, get out while you can.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Rosenritter]

Yep, and the seventh day is his day of rest. Most will not enter his rest. You are most likely content to ignore his commandments.
Babylon is falling friend, get out while you can.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

If you recognize Jesus as Lord and God, you also recognize that he has the prerogative to say who he wants to command and when. Gentile peoples were never given the law of Moses. Abraham did not keep the Sabbath. Noah was originally vegetarian but could eat pigs after the flood.

Then consider the text of Christ's statement. The priests profane the Sabbath in service of the temple. And are blameless. If we serve Him who is greater than the temple then should we also be blameless?

 

[meshak]

Again, truth is VERY elitist.

Most churches elitism is plain arrogance; claiming to saved and born again or elect.

Jesus does not approve of arrogance.

 

[Bright Raven]

Most churches elitism is plain arrogance; claiming to saved and born again or elect.

Jesus does not approve of arrogance.

So what are you saying? Be specific!

 

[keypurr]

If you recognize Jesus as Lord and God, you also recognize that he has the prerogative to say who he wants to command and when. Gentile peoples were never given the law of Moses. Abraham did not keep the Sabbath. Noah was originally vegetarian but could eat pigs after the flood.

Then consider the text of Christ's statement. The priests profane the Sabbath in service of the temple. And are blameless. If we serve Him who is greater than the temple then should we also be blameless?

Rose, we differ on this. Christ taught us how to show our love for his God and our God. There is a big gap between God and Lord. The Lord has a God, his Father does not. Learn that and it might open your eyes to much more.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Rosenritter]

Rose, we differ on this. Christ taught us how to show our love for his God and our God. There is a big gap between God and Lord. The Lord has a God, his Father does not. Learn that and it might open your eyes to much more.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

If Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath he called himself God Almighty creator of heaven and earth.

 

[keypurr]

If Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath he called himself God Almighty creator of heaven and earth.

I you could see Christ as I do you would understand that he was not calling himself God. He came to do the will of his God.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Rosenritter]

I you could see Christ as I do you would understand that he was not calling himself God. He came to do the will of his God.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

If you could see God as I do you would understand why He is our Christ.

 

[Lon]

Most churches elitism is plain arrogance; claiming to saved and born again or elect.

Jesus does not approve of arrogance.

:nono: I, a part of His body, love you, for instance. I said "Truth" is elitist. It has to be because everything else necessarily has to be wrong, no?

Remember too, I am not the one attacking unit-arians on their website. They, you attack us here. We 'defend' because we are called to give reason for the hope within us. I don't go door-to-door to fight with cultists. Always try to look at the 3 accusatory fingers pointing back, Meshak. Those three fingers are projection. Remember Jesus talking about what comes out of a man/woman comes from his heart? Love God/Love man. -Lon

 

[Lon]

Do you even realize what that means? Let me help please:

Exodus 20:11 KJV
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is , and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The Lord of the Sabbath... Is Jesus. Let that sink in for a moment. The LORD of the Sabbath... Is JESUS.

For in six days JESUS made heaven and earth... And He blessed the day and hallowed it.

I have him on ignore...
:sigh:

May be you should consider worshiping him of the Sabbath, for he is Lord of the Sabbath. Then you might get to see where the church fathers took the wrong road.

Romans 14:5,6,10 John 4:20,21