Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Depending on which branch of Christianity you follow, the religion is either henotheistic (the trinity) or monothiesitic (god is god). Only in the latter are your questions relevant.

I'd also throw in the idolatry of the cross too.

Okay, let's ignore 1inChrist. Every time someone respongs to him, the thread goes to hell faster then his fictional doomed sinners. But seriously, why are you asking this? You must be familar with the doctrine of the Trinity, right? (In fact, you even mention it)

If you're asking why the Doctrine of the Trinity seems at odd with some Biblical passages, it wasn't around when the Bible was being written.

don't forget that many people think that Jehovah was just Jesus name before He was born.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus Christ is God, God the Son. I have already addressed this query in the above quote. Your constant use of the Bible as a reference is the reason why people don't take you seriously. Did you know that most of us here don't believe in the Bible?

JIA how did you do in college anyways, assuming you went past that. You do not seem to be able the question at hand and answer the question you want to.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
They are still two different persons, Jehovah and Jesus.

Jesus still is a image.... being or not a representation of God and his ways, thoughts, etc...

They constitute one God, not one Person. Jesus is God, God the Son. God is Father, Son, Holy Spirit; that is Who God is. One God revealed in three modes of expression, Father God, Son God (or Son of God), and God Holy Spirit (or the Spirit of God). This does not have to make sense for it to still be true. There are a lot of things in this life that make absolutely no sense whatsoever and you know what? They are still true. The Holocaust, 9/11, Columbine, genocide, racism, etc. make no sense to me and yet these events are still true (it either occurred or is a present-tense reality). So Jesus is worthy of worship because He is God, God the Son you don't have to understand this to believe it. I presume to say that there are a multitude of things that you do not understand and yet you still accept them. If I were to ask you How does the mind do what it does, would you be able to explain this to me in a satisfactory manner?

Ahhh...henotheism.

So much for Christians claiming to be monotheisitic.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
They constitute one God, not one Person. Jesus is God, God the Son. God is Father, Son, Holy Spirit; that is Who God is. One God revealed in three modes of expression. Jesus is worthy of worship because He is God, God the Son.

A gestalt entity eh?

Reminds me of Voltron. Or the Destructicons.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
They are still two different persons, Jehovah and Jesus.

Jesus still is a image.... being or not a representation of God and his ways, thoughts, etc...

But yet you don't get flustered right, you just accept that you have a mind and that it enables you to think, rationalize, move, process information, read, write, etc. Similarly, you don't have to understand how God is one yet reavealed in three Persons, just accept it as though you do the workings of the mind.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But yet you don't get flustered right, you just accept that you have a mind and that it enables you to think, rationalize, move, process information, read, write, etc. Similarly, you don't have to understand how God is one yet reavealed in three Persons, just accept it as though you do the workings of the mind.

That is an... odd... comparison to say the least.

We accept out brains work so we should just accept what you say about the nature of the trinity, despite the fact our working brains, which we just accept, find possible flaws with any theory on the trinity.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
They constitute one God, not one Person. Jesus is God, God the Son. God is Father, Son, Holy Spirit; that is Who God is. One God revealed in three modes of expression, Father God, Son God (or Son of God), and God Holy Spirit (or the Spirit of God). This does not have to make sense for it to still be true. There are a lot of things in this life that make absolutely no sense whatsoever and you know what? They are still true. The Holocaust, 9/11, Columbine, genocide, racism, etc. make no sense to me and yet these events are still true (it either occurred or is a present-tense reality). So Jesus is worthy of worship because He is God, God the Son you don't have to understand this to believe it. I presume to say that there are a multitude of things that you do not understand and yet you still accept them. If I were to ask you How does the mind do what it does, would you be able to explain this to me in a satisfactory manner?

Okay, so they constitute the same one God.

But they still constitute a form of idolatry... God is represented in three images... all of them(the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit) are images and ideas of how God can be manifested.

Here is the definition of Idolatry(taken from wikipedia) : "Idolatry is a major sin in the Abrahamic religions regarding image. In Judaism and Christianity it is defined as worship of an image, idea or object... "

The Father, the Son, and the holy spirit are representations of God, they are images and ideas concerning God, so, they constitute idolatry.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Okay, so they constitute the same one God.

But they still constitute a form of idolatry... God is represented in three images... all of them(the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit) are images and ideas of how God can be manifested.

Here is the definition of Idolatry(taken from wikipedia) : "Idolatry is a major sin in the Abrahamic religions regarding image. In Judaism and Christianity it is defined as worship of an image, idea or object... "

The Father, the Son, and the holy spirit are representations of God, they are images and ideas concerning God, so, they constitute idolatry.

The Godhead is not idolatry. Go back and read the Bible to get a clear understanding of what idolatry is. Idolatry is worship of idols (inanimate objects). Idolatry encompasses the worship of any thing or anyone other than God.

In the New Covenant (or New Testament) idolaltry includes anything that we esteem, admire, or value above or more than God.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The Godhead is not idolatry. Go back and read the Bible to get a clear understanding of what idolatry is. Idolatry is worship of idols (inanimate objects). Idolatry encompasses the worship of any thing or anyone other than God.

In the New Covenant (or New Testament) idolaltry includes anything that we esteem, admire, or value above or more than God.

So, the bible would then be an idol to you.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, the bible would then be an idol to you.

JIA, I am glad that you don't disagree.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus is not a God, He is God.

Jesus is A god. Pull youur head out of your arse.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I have already showed you what idolatry is. If worshipping the Father and/or Son Jesus was idolatry then Jesus would have been a sinner for permitting others to worship Him. Jesus received worship and forgave sins regularly and yet the Bible states that Jesus never sinned. Therefore, I can safely conclude that the worship of Jesus does not constitute idolatry. I also presume that you did not take my advice to read the Word and to learn what idolatry is as defined in context in the Bible. We derive our understanding of what sin is by the guidelines set forth in God's Word. We do not formulate our own preconceived ideas of what sin is and this includes unscriptural notions of what we think idolatry is. Again, get into the Word to find out what idolatry is. Many (if not all) of the characteristics that are ascribed to God the Father are certainly ascribed to the Son Jesus as well. I just read this morning in the Book of Revelation that Jesus Christ is the Almighty. In the same Book just three chapters later this same description is given of the Father. Is this idolatry? Blasphemy? Certainly not. The Scriptures are abundantly clear in revealing that Jesus Christ is God--God the Son.

You really don't read what other people write.

I wonder if he can read?

Now, I wait patiently for those to grab the definitions that are not related to religion to claim that Christianity itself is an idol.

1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear witness in Heaven: the Father, the Word , and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

These Three (i.e. these Three Persons) are one (i.e. one God).

WHOA THE SYMBOLISM IS IDOLATRY

Originally posted by sonnet
You do not have a clue, do you.

More then you do.

Originally posted by sonnet
You do not have a clue, do you.

Feel free to discuss.

Jesus was only VOTED god. Many denominations know this and only worship the Father but give honey dipped cookies or reverence to the Sun, Oops I mean Son. Though in Genesis it says "lets make man in OUR image"...many take that as being the Trinity, but who is to say? It doesnt say. It could mean a whole pantheon of gods........

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Here is one of my posts concerning the definition of idolatry.

So if someone does not agree with you, bash them, bash them, bash them.

JIA doesn't talk to me anymore.........

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Here is one of my posts concerning the definition of idolatry.

And my post is about the definition you used...

I will restate my points again :

Budhha, Brahma, etc... are not idols. They are not inanimate objects or any created thing.... they do not classify as idols...


"You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;"

Based on the verse above, we can conclude :

If paintings, statues,... of anything that is in heaven above is idolatry, so the church, or anyone that uses images commits idolatry since they use them...

Your sig. will be idolatry since it is a image of the legs of Jesus.

^ So will we be posting the same two posts over and over again?

Well... what to do ?

As long as there are the "Us and them' there will never be peace...............Not ever!! We must unite in some way to bring peace everywhere..........other Wise will be in this 2000 turmoil.............eh?

Originally posted by Atlantis001
And my post is about the definition you used...

I will restate my points again :

Budhha, Brahma, etc... are not idols. They are not inanimate objects or any created thing.... they do not classify as idols...


"You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;"

Based on the verse above, we can conclude :

If paintings, statues,... of anything that is in heaven above is idolatry, so the church, or anyone that uses images commits idolatry since they use them...

Your sig. will be idolatry since it is a image of the legs of Jesus.
In the New Covenant (or New Testament) idolaltry includes anything that we esteem, admire, or value above or more than God.

Originally posted by debbiejo
JIA doesn't talk to me anymore......... Beacuse you're an idolatrous heathen

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
In the New Covenant (or New Testament) idolaltry includes anything that we esteem, admire, or value above or more than God.

Verse?

Originally posted by Strangelove
Beacuse you're an idolatrous heathen

And there is something wrong with that?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And there is something wrong with that? to JIA....

Originally posted by Strangelove
to JIA....

Well, I am not sure what I should do about that. It took me a lot of my life to get over what those Christians did to me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And there is something wrong with that? Guess we're in the same boat..... Heathens floating in the middle of Christian......boat

Originally posted by peejayd
* ooopps, sorry, got carried away... i just want to say that the name of God is the tetragrammaton YHWH and not Jehovah... and we should call God as "Father"... so there...

Ok, np.



Good to know....

According to the NT we are graphed into the OLD tree (Jews).......So you should be following EVERYTHING in the OT.

Rom. 11:17-20

17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.

I was just reading that verse in a search...........LOL

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Do you know Jesus Christ Atlantis001?

And I suppose you do ?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well Paul wrote that so I don't pay much attention to that.

* what?

Originally posted by debbiejo
According to the NT we are graphed into the OLD tree (Jews).......So you should be following EVERYTHING in the OT.

Rom. 11:17-20

17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.

* ahem... it's an epistle of Saint PAUL to the Romans... ahem...

Originally posted by peejayd
* what?



* ahem... it's an epistle of Saint PAUL to the Romans... ahem... Yeah, I know...I did it for JIA...........I knew somebody would catch that.....

Originally posted by peejayd
* what?



* ahem... it's an epistle of Saint PAUL to the Romans... ahem...
Actually it is a letter of Paul written to the Christians living in Rome. So it is very much also written to Christians today as are all of his letters to the Christians living in different regions and cities. God used Paul to write to the Christians to give them guidance concerning the will of God on how Christians ( brothers and sisters of the faith) should live and behave.

Then why does Paul condradict so much of Christ?

Why not have Christ write to us instead.

Perhaps Christ was illiterate.

GOD WANTS US TO BE ILLITERATE!

Originally posted by Alliance
Then why does Paul condradict so much of Christ?

Why not have Christ write to us instead.

Perhaps Christ was illiterate.

GOD WANTS US TO BE ILLITERATE!

Why not stop asking idiotic questions.
By the way, Paul does not contradict Christ. If you fully understand the difference between the ministry of Christ and Paul, both annointed by God, then you might let go of that ridiculous notion.

Perhaps my stance is not idiotic in nature?

I thought Christ was the "son" of "god."

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
And I suppose you do ?

Originally posted by Alliance
Perhaps my stance is not idiotic in nature?

I thought Christ was the "son" of "god." That's what I've always thought, so it confused me when people say he's god.

Makes as much sense as Da Rev when he says "Maynard is god".

Originally posted by Alliance
Perhaps my stance is not idiotic in nature?

I thought Christ was the "son" of "god."
Exactly my point. You do not know the scriptures. You have once read it or heard it but you do not KNOW the scriptures and that is why you still do not understand. But then God did say in His word that the mind of the unbeliever cannot understand the things of God for one can only understand it through the spirit. So stop trying.

My point is, that your narrow interpretation of the world fails.

Originally posted by Alliance
My point is, that your narrow interpretation of the world fails.
No, it only fails you because you are not part of the Kingdom of God. God and His word will never fail us that TRULY believe in Him.

Ok. Then can you hurry up an leave this world? If you are only part of the kingdom of god..go there.

"his word will never fail us" his "word" never did anyhting for you.

Originally posted by sonnet
Actually it is a letter of Paul written to the Christians living in Rome. So it is very much also written to Christians today as are all of his letters to the Christians living in different regions and cities. God used Paul to write to the Christians to give them guidance concerning the will of God on how Christians ( brothers and sisters of the faith) should live and behave. Actually Sonnet, the letters from Paul go against Jesus and the OT..................who are you following?

* mr.alliance, never did Saint Paul contradict Christ, ever...

"If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord."
I Corinthians 14:37

* Saint Paul only writes the commandment of the Lord so there is no contradiction whatsoever... Saint Paul is a great apostle of Christ... and Christ is the greatest apostle...

* and it was Christ who commanded His apostles to write, not Him...

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."
Matthew 28:19-20

* and if you're looking for Christ's writings...

"Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you?
You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men;
And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts."
II Corinthians 3:1-3

* the Christians are the letter or epistle of Christ... the REAL Christians that is...

mr.alliance, never did Saint Paul contradict Christ, ever...


super wrong.

What about the books of the Hebrews that are not accepted such as the apocrypha, like the Nag Hammadi and other books... the kabbalah.... or the gnostic scriptures.... They are all branches of the Jewish culture. If they were not accepted, them some branches were indeed cut off...

Originally posted by Alliance
Ok. Then can you hurry up an leave this world? If you are only part of the kingdom of god..go there.

"his word will never fail us" his "word" never did anyhting for you.

And how would you know that His word nas never done anything for me. Like thousands of other people I have testimony of the power of His Word working in my life and in those of others. But wait....it can't be God, it must be some kind of Christian conspiracy....

Originally posted by Atlantis001
What about the books of the Hebrews that are not accepted such as the apocrypha, like the Nag Hammadi and other books... the kabbalah.... or the gnostic scriptures.... They are all branches of the Jewish culture. If they were not accepted, them some branches were indeed cut off...
These books were not included because they were simply not inspired by God and the Spirit of God gave this knowledge to the people who compiled the books of the Bible so that it would stay the divine word of God and not of men. The Jewish branches of culture had nothing to do with the compilation of the Bible and are of no relevance for that matter. God was in fact the spiritual author.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Actually Sonnet, the letters from Paul go against Jesus and the OT..................who are you following?
Actually debbiejo they don't but we have had this discussion before. You are convinced by the lies you read in books written by people who do not believe in the true God or His Word. I am following Jesus Christ who was sent by God to bring us salvation. Paul was a instrument in the hand of God and therefor he wrote important information to the Christians - literally a guide from God. And it still applies today as God said that He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. And if I look at how religions change and adapt I know for sure that they are not from God. Even if changes are brought into Christian churches because people did not like the old way as it was prescribed in the Bible, it is not from God. People fail us not God.

Originally posted by sonnet
These books were not included because they were simply not inspired by God and the Spirit of God gave this knowledge to the people who compiled the books of the Bible so that it would stay the divine word of God and not of men. The Jewish branches of culture had nothing to do with the compilation of the Bible and are of no relevance for that matter. God was in fact the spiritual author.

But the bible says that the Old Laws were supposed to be preserved, and it was not... branches were cut off.

If branches were cut off, then the Law was not preserved.

Originally posted by sonnet
These books were not included because they were simply not inspired by God and the Spirit of God gave this knowledge to the people who compiled the books of the Bible so that it would stay the divine word of God and not of men.

And who the heck determined this?

It sure as heck wasn't god, because if these books weren't inspired by his word, why were they written by him (or indirectly through humans) in the first place?

Originally posted by Alliance
And who the heck determined this?

It sure as heck wasn't god, because if these books weren't inspired by his word, why were they written by him (or indirectly through humans) in the first place?
Don't you read what we write? God determined it. These book have not been inspired by God and it has been proven. the books were written about 100 years after Jesus crusifiction, the authors wrote very litlle or none about the culture and topografics of the places and they did not know Jesus, or any of his disciples or apostles. The books in the NT that were included in the Bible were written by people that lived with and knew Jesus, were disciples or apostles or knew them and had first hand information about what happened. That is why there are so much contradictory stuff in the other books because they did not have a clue when they wrote it. It was certainly inspired by Satan to assist in his plan to corrupt the creation of God.

Originally posted by debbiejo
mr.alliance, never did Saint Paul contradict Christ, ever...

super wrong.

* MEGA wrong... we can go on like this for a long time... or you can show us the "contradictions"...

Originally posted by Alliance
And who the heck determined this?

It sure as heck wasn't god, because if these books weren't inspired by his word, why were they written by him (or indirectly through humans) in the first place?
The NT as we know it is the inspired testimony of apostles of Christ. This is the main way of determining its canon. The gospels of Mark and Matthew along with the letters of Paul were all written within twenty years of his death and resurrection. The books of John (John, John 1 and 2, and Revelation) were written by 90AD by the apostle himself before he died. And Luke's books (Acts and Luke) were written by 80AD. I'm not entirely sure on the dating of James, Peter 1-3, or Jude, so I won't comment. The early date and backing of the apostles make them canon. The Gnostics texts, written around 140AD (despite what some might argue) and most of them after 200AD are not backed by the apostles and were written in a timeframe after the death of Jesus by which myths would have developed. This is how they were so easily left out. Gnosticism is very heretical and can never be accepted as a testimony of Christ.

However, yes, men decided on the canon, and left out parts of the Bible that I personally believe should be apart of it (names the Books of Enoch), and the Protestant church later took out the Apocrypha which could easily have been left in (not really a big deal though). However, I believe that these men were directed and inspired by God in accepting the canon. There right in leaving out the Gnostics texts.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
But the bible says that the Old Laws were supposed to be preserved, and it was not... branches were cut off.

If branches were cut off, then the Law was not preserved.

* here's what i found:

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second."
Hebrews 8:7

"In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."
Hebrews 8:13

* we should NOT cling on the Old Testament that much, for we will be like the Jews who crucified Jesus and never believed on Him... the Old Testament Laws was only for whom?

"Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and ordinances that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel."
Malachi 4:4

* the Old Laws were only for all Israel... in the time of Christ, He amended and perfected these Old Laws to create a New one... for example:

"You shall not kill."
Exodus 20:13

* this law was amended and perfected by Christ...

"You have heard that it was said to the men of old, You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.
But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, You fool! shall be liable to the hell of fire."
Matthew 5:21-22

* if the Old Laws were amended, to whom or what should we listen to?

"He was still speaking, when lo, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him."
Matthew 17:5

* the Father spoke from the heaven and said that we should listen to His Son -> Jesus Christ...

"The time is coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant... It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers..."
"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the Lord. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people... the will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
Jeremiah 31:31-34

Jesus made a new covenant with us through the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on everyone who believes, not just rulers and prophets.

Originally posted by peejayd
* ooopps, sorry, got carried away... i just want to say that the name of God is the tetragrammaton YHWH and not Jehovah... and we should call God as "Father"... so there...



* yes, i do... and the verse mr.jesusisalive gave -> I John 5:7 is NOT included in the original manuscripts of the Bible...

1 John 5:7 - KJV "Errors"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."


First John five-seven is sometimes referred to as a "mis-translation" in the Authorized KJV Bible. It is not a mistranslation. This "error" myth has been perpetuated by some who are under the false impression that this verse (and other KJV texts) is in reference to the Roman Catholic Trinity/Doctrines. In fact, this is one of the most powerful verses in the Bible attesting to the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ as the only true God (I John 5:20). It is said by some that this text is "not part of the original Greek". But the fact of the matter is that this text is indeed found in the original Greek. Scriptural evidence for inclusion of this and other disputed verses is well documented. Manuscripts which pre-date the corrupt Latin Vulgate corroborates the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible. The articles below should help put to rest any misconceptions about this verse and other so-called KJV "errors".



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KING JAMES VERSION "ERRORS"

The Father and The Word and The Holy Ghost Are One - by David Terrell

THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD AGREES - by David Terrell

One Baptism, One God


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Johannine Comma: 1 John 5:7

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)


Having already briefly commented on just a few of the problems with the "Westcott and Hort Methodology", I should now take this opportunity to present the alternative to their errant theories, and then apply this alternative to the Johannine Comma. ("Commata" were the original commas, indicating the end of a phrase. According to James A. Kleist, in "Colometry and the New Testament", Classical Bulletin, iv, 1928, pp. 26, there was no mark like our present comma, but a group of words isolated as a single group was a "comma". Groups of these would be "commata". Hence the classification of the group of words in 1 John 5:7 as a "comma".)

At the same time that WH were doing their research, there was another man doing his own research. He had at his disposal all of the resources available to WH. He devoted the last 30 years of his life to an examination of the false statements being made by the reigning Critics of his day.

He personally examined the Vatican ms B, he travelled to Mt. Sinai to personally examine the mss there, and he made several tours of European libraries, examining and actually collating NT mss as he went. At the same time he was compiling his massive Index of NT Quotations in the Church Fathers which is now deposited in the British Museum. He received B.A., M.A., and B.D., degrees from Oxford University, was appointed professor of divinity at Oxford in 1867, and was appointed Dean of Chichester in 1876. Through all of his works runs his fundamental thought: that the textual criticism of the NT must be according to the analogy of faith, and because of this it must be different from the textual criticism of any other book. As a result of this lifetime of labor and research and travel, John William Burgon set forth what he called the

"Seven Tests of Truth for NT Criticism".

1) Antiquity, or Primitiveness

2) Consent of Witnesses, or Number

3) Variety of Evidence, or Catholicity

4) Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight

5) Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition

6) Evidence of the Entire Passage, or Context

7) Internal Considerations, or Reasonableness

In summary, he says about these Seven Notes, "...although no doubt it is conceivable that any one of the seven might possibly in itself suffice to establish almost any reading practically this is never the case. And why? Because we never meet with any one of these Tests in the fullest possible measure. No Test ever attains to perfection, or indeed can attain. An approximation to the Test is all that can be expected, or even desired. And sometimes we are obliged to put up with a very slight approximation indeed. Their strength resides in their cooperation." The very fact of competing variants means that some of the notes, at least, cannot be satisfied in full measure.

I shall apply these Seven Notes to the Johannine Comma, and by them it will be seen that there is a case for the inclusion of this important verse in the text of our Scriptures. As Burgon states further, "Undeniable as it is, (a) that ancient documents do not admit of being placed in scales and weighed; and (b) That if they did, the man does not exist who is capable of conducting the operation." For this reason, I will apply the Tests to 1 John 5:7 on a "pass or fail" basis.

Again by way of clarification, let me say that I am not defending its inclusion in the TR, but in the KJV. Whethor or not you can divorce the two in your own mind is unimportant - they remain separate, though related. No writer that I know of has claimed infallibility for the TR, although a great many have claimed the same for the KJV.

The Test of Antiquity

Any reading, in order to be a serious candidate for the original, should be old. A word of caution in this respect is quite in order, however. On the surface, the "oldest is best" philosophy has sound reasoning as its basis. The problem is that there is much more to judging the age of the reading than simply ascertaining the actual age of the ms. Or, in other words, the oldest reading does not necessarily reside in the oldest mss. The most significant variants in the mass of textual sources came into being before 200 AD. As one competent judge stated, "It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the NT has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed." As a rule, at least fifty years must be assumed to have transpired between the penning of the inspired originals and the earliest written representation of them now extant. It was precisely in that first age that men would have been least careful or accurate in guarding the source, since most of them probably had no idea that the documents in their hands would prove to be additions to God's written revelation. Thus, while in this age they would have been least critically exact in their quoting of the sources, at the same time the enemy of truth would have been most restless and most assiduous in procuring its depravation. Therefore it comes as no surprise that the earliest shreds and scraps of quotations of the NT scriptures are not only disappointing by reason of their inexactness, their fragmentary character, and their vagueness, but they are often demonstrably inaccurate.

The point in all of this is that it is not the oldest DOCUMENT for which we search, but the oldest READING. That they are often not one and the same must be recognized in order to prevent that mistake from being made. So, in presenting the case for antiquity with regard to 1 John 5:7, my point is that not only can the age of the reading be demonstrated by a single early witness, but also by the agreement of a number of later independent witnesses, since their common source would have to be a good deal earlier.

Now, to specifics, the evidence for the early existence of the Johannine Comma is found in the following sources (some abbreviations are made when quoting the source - if there are questions, I can give the specifics):

1) 200 - Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8)

2) 250 - Cyprian, who writes, "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'and the Three are One'" (Vienna, vol. iii, p. 215)

3) 350 - Priscillian cites the verse (Vienna, vol. xviii, p. 6)

4) 350 - Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 62, col. 359)

5) 350 - Athanasius cites the verse (Gill)

6) 415 - Council of Carthage appeals to the verse as a basic text proving a fundamental doctrine when contending with the Arians (Ruckman, "History of the NT Church", Vol. I, p. 146)

7) 450-530 - several orthodox African writers quote the verse when defending the doctrine of ... against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:

A) Vigilius Tapensis (MPL, vol. 62, col. 243)

B) Victor Vitensis (Vienna, vol. vii, p. 60)

C) Fulgentius (MPL, vol. 65, col. 500)

8) 500 - Cassiodorus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 70, col. 1373)

9) 550 - Old Latin ms r has the verse

10) 550 - The "Speculum" contains the verse

11) 750 - Wianburgensis cites the verse

12) 800 - Jerome's Vulgate includes the verse

13) 1150 - minuscule ms 88 in the margin

14) 1200-1400 - Waldensian Bibles have the verse

15) 1500 - ms 61 has the verse

16) various witnesses cited in Nestle's 26th edition for a replacement of the text as it stands with the Comma: 221 v.l.;2318 vg; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r; and other important Latin mss.

From this it is seen that the case for antiquity extends at the earliest to Tertullian in 200 AD. The importance of Patristic evidence in the consideration of the antiquity of a given passage is significant. As Dean Burgon points out, these men often comment upon, freely quote, and habitually refer to the words of inspiration, especially when defending doctrine from attack. By this it comes to pass that a host of unsuspected witnesses to the truth of scripture becomes producible. They thus testify in ordinary quotations to the existence of the readings in the ms copies they used. Indeed, very often the mss in their hands, which live in their quotations, are older, perhaps centuries older, than any copies that now survive. The antiquity being therefore established, it is seen that the text passes the first test. But antiquity alone does not suffice...

The Test of the Consent of Witnesses

By this is meant the simple counting of the available witnesses. In this case, of course, the witnesses are in the minority against the remaining mass of mss and various other sources. However, this does not prove the case one way or the other. Were there only one or two or three witnesses for the text, then I should say that it would fail. Since there are at least 25 witnesses, it cannot be ruled to have failed this test, although it remains by far in the minority.

The Test of the Variety of Evidence

By variety is meant, in the first place, geographical locations, but also the different kinds of witness; i.e, mss, Fathers, Versions, lectionaries, etc. Burgon states the obvious, saying "Speaking generally, the consentient testimony of two, four, six, or more witnesses, coming to us from widely sundered regions is weightier by far than the same number of witnesses proceeding from the same locality, between whom there probably exists some sort of sympathy, and possibly some degree of collusion." By examining the variety, we are able to render a better judgement as to the independence of the witnesses. Since the above stated witnesses vary geographically from North Africa to Italy to Asia, and vary in source from Fathers to versions to mss, the text passes this test also.

The Test of Continuity

By this is meant to what degree the attestation to a given reading occurs throughout the ages of its transmission. If the history of the transmission of the text was at all normal, we would expect that the original wording would leave traces of its existence and of its use all down the ages. Where there is variety, there is almost always continuity, but the two are not identical. By examining the given list of witnesses, it is seen that the continuity is most pronounced, in that the reading appears consistently throughout history from 200 AD to 1500 AD, before Erasmus compiled the TR. Again, the text passes.

The Test of the Respectability of Witnesses

Whereas the previous four Notes have centered on the reading, this one centers on the witness itself. By it, the credibility of a witness is judged by its own performance. Burgon gives a further description, "Respectability is of course a relative term, but its use and applicability to this department of science will be generally understood and admitted by scholars, although they may not be altogether agreed as to their authorities." Among the witnesses listed, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, the orthodox African writers, and the Waldensian Bibles would stand out as respectable to most objective critics, and some of the Latin as well. On that basis, the text again passes.

The Test of the Evidence of the Entire Passage

This test does not concern itself with what is usually understood by the term "context", but is concerned rather by the behavior of a certain witness in the immediate vicinity of the problem being considered. It is a specific and limited application of the previous Test of Respectability. Burgon says, "As regards the precise form of language employed, it will be found also a salutary safeguard against error in every instance, to inspect with severe critical exactness the entire context of the passage in dispute. If in certain Codexes that context shall prove to be confessedly in a very corrupt state, then it becomes self-evident that those Codexes can only be admitted as witnesses with considerable suspicion and reserve." Under this test then, it is not the general character of the witness that is under examination, but the particular passage in dispute. In that regard, all of the above stated witnesses in ms form exhibit unsullied integrity in these first few verses of 1 John 5.

The Test of Internal Considerations

This note has nothing to do with the "internal evidence" about which WH have been so eloquent. There is nothing so subjective as transcriptional probability and intrinsic probability meant here, but instead has to do with grammatical, geographical, and logical considerations. Or, in other words, the FACTS of the passage. In this particular case, if we omit the Comma, we are faced with tremendous grammatical difficulties. If we leave the verse as it stands in most Greek texts, we are given "witnesses" (hoy marturountes) in verse 7 which are masculine, with three neuter nouns in verse 8 (to pneuma kai to hudor kai to aima), which are then said to agree as one. In other words, by the rule of Greek syntax known as the "power of attraction" which says that the masculines among a group control the gender of a neuter connected with that group, we are given three masculine witnesses which are supposed to agree as one neuter witness. This is a grammatical impossibility. The genders don't match. On the other hand, if you accept the Comma as a part of the text, you would have two masculine subjects (the Father and the Word, "ho patare, ho logos" to agree with the masculine witnesses. (I hated this stuff when I was taking Greek - I can't believe I'm having to deal with it again!) It is therefore seen that on the basis of internal considerations the inclusion of the text is a must in order to avoid violating basic Greek grammar.

As one last consideration which has nothing to do with any of the Tests of Truth, but would actually delve into the intrinsic probability desired by WH in their theories, the formula of the Comma does not lend itself to the idea that it is a trinitarian interpolation which arose from a private interpretation of verse 8. It seems obvious that the phrase "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost," is not at all compatible with the standard trinitarian formula "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Why does it exhibit the singular combination not seen anywhere else in scripture by the use of "Word" instead of "Son"? It is always said that the person who made this up was attempting to buttress the doctrine of the Trinity, yet with this as his main concern it is quite unlikely that he would abandon the time-honored formula and invent an entirely new one.

The fact is that the use of "Word" is consistent with the apostle John's style. In the second place, the omission of the Comma seems to leave the passage incomplete for more reasons than just the grammatical. It is a common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of three or four. See Pr 30, Amos 1:3,6,9,13 etc; the visions of the butler and baker in Ge 40; the combination of the words of Christ in Mt 12:40. It is in accord with Biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in 1 John 5, the formula "there are three that bear witness" will be repeated at least twice.

From the Tests of Truth, and these last observations, it is quite apparent that there is indeed a case for the inclusion of the text in our Bibles. As to how strong a case, I leave to the reader's individual judgement. I do not say that it is all conclusive, but on the other hand by no means can it be said to be conclusive that the text should NOT be included. In the case of the accusation against the KJV, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, whose responsibility it is to prove his case that the inclusion of the verse is a textual error. No such case has been proven. The evidence I have given at the very least is enough to throw the shadow of doubt on the accusation itself, which therefore precludes its ability to be proven. On the basis of the external evidences alone, it is at least possible that the Johannine Comma is a reading that somehow dropped out of the Greek NT text, but was preserved in the Latin text through the usage of the Latin speaking church, and this possibility grows more and more toward probability when the internal evidences are considered.


http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/1John57.html

Originally posted by Nellinator
"The time is coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant... It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers..."
"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the Lord. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people... the will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
Jeremiah 31:31-34

Jesus made a new covenant with us through the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on everyone who believes, not just rulers and prophets.

So technically God does change his mind....I was always taught that God was unchanging, and thinks the SAME every moment of his fictional existance...

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So technically God does change his mind....I was always taught that God was unchanging, and thinks the SAME every moment of his fictional existance...
This was simply his plan the entire time. The Law led to the coming of the Messiah. Moses recognized this. Jesus fulfilled the Law. This was the plan from the beginning. God never changed his mind.

Originally posted by debbiejo
mr.alliance, never did Saint Paul contradict Christ, ever...


super wrong.

Indeed?

Perhaps you wouldn't mind posting some of these "contradictions".


Seeing as how the Bible was "invented by Men" and "controlled", it is remarkable then that you with your vast intellect have some how discovered "contradictions" inside the Bible that all of the people who "put it together" over hundreds of years managed to over look.


Pray-tell what are they?


(having been a supervisor at a Christian bookstore for 2 years, I've done plenty of research, and will be glad to point out to you what is probably just a misunderstood point that Paul was trying to make that you flubbed.)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Indeed?

Perhaps you wouldn't mind posting some of these "contradictions".


Seeing as how the Bible was "invented by Men" and "controlled", it is remarkable then that you with your vast intellect have some how discovered "contradictions" inside the Bible that all of the people who "put it together" over hundreds of years managed to over look.


Pray-tell what are they?


(having been a supervisor at a Christian bookstore for 2 years, I've done plenty of research, and will be glad to point out to you what is probably just a misunderstood point that Paul was trying to make that you flubbed.)

I'm sure that Christian bookstore carried very unbaised books? You misinterpreted debbie's post. She is much more well versed on the subject that I am, I'm shure she'd be happy to point out how she views Paul as a corruptor of Christianity.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
1 John 5:7 - KJV "Errors"

"the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

First John five-seven is sometimes referred to as a "mis-translation" in the Authorized KJV Bible. It is not a mistranslation. This "error" myth has been perpetuated by some who are under the false impression that this verse (and other KJV texts) is in reference to the Roman Catholic Trinity/Doctrines. In fact, this is one of the most powerful verses in the Bible attesting to the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ as the only true God (I John 5:20). It is said by some that this text is "not part of the original Greek". But the fact of the matter is that this text is indeed found in the original Greek. Scriptural evidence for inclusion of this and other disputed verses is well documented. Manuscripts which pre-date the corrupt Latin Vulgate corroborates the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible. The articles below should help put to rest any misconceptions about this verse and other so-called KJV "errors".


* the I John 5:7 of the King James Version is not in the original manuscript...

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
King James Version

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."
Modern King James Version

"Because three are who are testifying Young's Literal Translation

"And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one."
Douay-Rheims Version

"For there are three that bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."
Webster's Bible

"And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth."
American Standard Version

"For there are three that testify:"
New American Standard Bible

"And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth."
Revised Standard Version

"So we have these three witnesses-"
New Living Translation

"For there are three that testify:"
New International Version

"For there are three that testify:"
English Standard Version

"For they that bear witness are three:"
Darby Bible

"For there are three who testify:"
Hebrew Names Version

"There are three witnesses:"
Good News Bible

"In fact, there are three who tell about it."
Contemporary English Version

* notice the inconsistency of the different translations... however, majority of them do not recognize the same account from the King James Version... because it is not in the original manuscript...

Peek a boo

http://answering-christianity.com/paul_baptism.htm

PEEK-A-BOO!

I like your arguments, but I don't have tolearnace for people who post unacreddited websites as fact

Me also...................a good argument is worth much...........An answer for a question............yep of course.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Peek a boo

http://answering-christianity.com/paul_baptism.htm

* peek-a-boo! hi, ms.debbiejo! are you a Muslim now? or are you just using Muslim-dominated websites to disprove the Bible?

Well hey, you use the bible to prove itself....thats worse.

Originally posted by debbiejo
http://answering-christianity.com/paul_baptism.htm
That site was not a good argument at all. Pathetic really. The people on this forum make much better arguments than this site.

Originally posted by Alliance
Well hey, you use the bible to prove itself....thats worse.

* nope, i believe in the Bible... that's why i'm asking her if she is a Muslim...

Originally posted by peejayd
* the I John 5:7 of the King James Version is not in the original manuscript...

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
King James Version

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."
Modern King James Version

"Because three are who are testifying Young's Literal Translation

"And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one."
Douay-Rheims Version

"For there are three that bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."
Webster's Bible

"And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth."
American Standard Version

"For there are three that testify:"
New American Standard Bible

"And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth."
Revised Standard Version

"So we have these three witnesses-"
New Living Translation

"For there are three that testify:"
New International Version

"For there are three that testify:"
English Standard Version

"For they that bear witness are three:"
Darby Bible

"For there are three who testify:"
Hebrew Names Version

"There are three witnesses:"
Good News Bible

"In fact, there are three who tell about it."
Contemporary English Version

* notice the inconsistency of the different translations... however, majority of them do not recognize the same account from the King James Version... because it is not in the original manuscript...

Those inconsistencies are just that "inconsistencies," but they have no bearing on this discussion. I posted an article written by David Terrell that should have cleared this matter up. Did you read it? The issue is original manuscripts not paraphrased translations (which the list that you provided are composed mostly of). The King James version or Authorized Version as it is also referred to as is a literal, word-for-word (as close as possible) translation--not a paraphrase. Can you see this now? You are comparing apples with oranges as they say.

* the King James Version may be literal or yet word-for-word "as-close-as-possible" translation of the original but there are certain passages which should not be included but it is there...

* although i also use KJV, some passages like I John 5:7 does not conform with the other verses, especially those from the words of Christ... i'll just give an example...

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
John 1:3
The King James Version

* this is a blatant mistranslation and does not conform with the other Bible verses... who really created all things? is it the Father or Christ?

"And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever,
The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."
Revelation 4:8-11
The King James Version

* even on the KJV itself, it teaches us that it was the Father who created all things and not Christ...

"God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;"
The Acts 17:24
The King James Version

* now that we already know who is the Creator, what should be more appropriate translation for John 1:3? what is the participation of Christ in the Creation?

"All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made."
The Revised Standard Version

* all things are made by the Father through Christ...

"He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;
For in him all things were created , in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.
For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell,
And through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."
Colossians 1:15-20
The Revised Standard Version

* all things are made by the Father through Christ, in Christ and for Christ...

* i'm not saying that the RSV is perfect, what i'm saying is that the KJV has flaws and you should accept that fact... some translations are more reliable in some instances than KJV...

* and you should not conclude other translations as paraphrased... i believe that the Good News Bible and the Contemporary English Version are paraphrased but RSV and American Standard Version are not, just like KJV...

* there are other KJV flaws and i'm willing to post it, just say so, my friend...

Originally posted by peejayd
* the King James Version may be literal or yet word-for-word "as-close-as-possible" translation of the original but there are certain passages which should not be included but it is there...

* although i also use KJV, some passages like I John 5:7 does not conform with the other verses, especially those from the words of Christ... i'll just give an example...

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
John 1:3
The King James Version

* this is a blatant mistranslation and does not conform with the other Bible verses... who really created all things? is it the Father or Christ?

"And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever,
The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."
Revelation 4:8-11
The King James Version

* even on the KJV itself, it teaches us that it was the Father who created all things and not Christ...

"God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;"
The Acts 17:24
The King James Version

* now that we already know who is the Creator, what should be more appropriate translation for John 1:3? what is the participation of Christ in the Creation?

"All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made."
The Revised Standard Version

* all things are made by the Father through Christ...

"He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;
For in him all things were created , in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.
For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell,
And through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."
Colossians 1:15-20
The Revised Standard Version

* all things are made by the Father through Christ, in Christ and for Christ...

* i'm not saying that the RSV is perfect, what i'm saying is that the KJV has flaws and you should accept that fact... some translations are more reliable in some instances than KJV...

* and you should not conclude other translations as paraphrased... i believe that the Good News Bible and the Contemporary English Version are paraphrased but RSV and American Standard Version are not, just like KJV...

* there are other KJV flaws and i'm willing to post it, just say so, my friend...


The word by and through are very similar in meaning. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary uses this sentence to show how the word by is used in context:


{enter by the door}


In this context the word by means through or through the medium of: VIA

So, as you can see whether the KJV uses the word by or through is of no consequence because in both cases the sense or meaning is the same. All things were made by or through (either word will suffice) Jesus Christ. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were involved in creating all things.

Peejayd, all God the Father wants us to see is that His Son Jesus is as much God as He is God, that is why there are Scriptures in the Bible that reveal that both God the Father and God the Son created all things. There are passages that state that God the Father created all things. But then as you study the Word you will come across passages that state that God made all things by or through Jesus Christ. Peejayd, there is no need to get flustered. Remember, God is one, but manifested in three Persons. So when the Scriptures state that all things were made by or through Jesus Christ there is compete harmony and agreement. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, and are equally responsible for creating all things. What one does, they all are responsible for doing. I don't have any problem understanding this. For example, let's say that a husband and wife bought a house together. The husband is at work talking about the purchase to a coworker. The husband can say that he bought a house recently for x amount over in x neighborhood. The husband and his wife actually purchased the house but he fails to mention that because he is not trying to be technical. He could have said that him and his wife bought the house but what he said originally is just as right. He did buy a house but he did it with his wife's help. Well, God did create all things but He did it by or through Jesus Christ. The Godhead gets the credit together for creating all things because they are one God. I have said this once and I guess I will have to keep on saying it: Everything that is true of God in terms of His infinite power, understanding (i.e. His infinite wisdom, knowledge, and intelligence), and ubiquity is true of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I believe that the Bible mentions many things about Jesus that indicate that He and the Father are one God but at the same time distinct Persons. Moreover, I believe that the same is true of the Holy Spirit. There are many things that are mentioned about the Holy Spirit that demonstrate that He is one with the Father and the Son. These are not flaws, contradictions, nor mistranslations, but instances that allow us to see the oneness of God in all modes of manifestation. God is Father, Son, Holy Spirit; this is God's true nature. You don't have to understand this to be saved, just believe it by faith.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You don't have to understand this to be saved, just believe it by faith.
Now that is the truth of the matter. The Trinity is a difficult concept to wrap one's head around. Ultimately it does entirely matter. What is important is that one acknowledges Jesus as the Savior sent by God.

Originally posted by peejayd
* nope, i believe in the Bible... that's why i'm asking her if she is a Muslim...

Yeah, but the Bible is not proof that it is the word of god.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Now that is the truth of the matter. The Trinity is a difficult concept to wrap one's head around. Ultimately it does entirely matter. What is important is that one acknowledges Jesus as the Savior sent by God.

That's it.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You don't have to understand this to be saved, just believe it by faith.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Now that is the truth of the matter. The Trinity is a difficult concept to wrap one's head around. Ultimately it does entirely matter. What is important is that one acknowledges Jesus as the Savior sent by God.

* i beg to disagree...

"This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
I Timothy 2:3-4

* upon salvation also comes the knowledge of truth...

* our belief or faith is a part or fraction on why we should be saved... another part of salvation is good works...

"For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead."
James 2:26

* good works are very essential... in faith, we need to add so much things, not faith alone...

"But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge,
To knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness,
To godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love .
For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."
II Peter 1:5-8

* the doctrine of Trinity is unbiblical, the passage I John 5:7 is really not in the original manuscript, why? because it contradicts Jesus' statement...

"I and the Father are one ."
John 10:30

* according to Jesus Himself, it is only He and the Father who are one... He should've included the Holy Spirit here if I John 5:7 will be accepted...

* and according also to Jesus, the Father is greater than He (Jesus), and He (Jesus) is greater than the Holy Spirit... so the doctrine of Trinity by which all Three of them are equal in power and authority is utterly destroyed in this concept...

Originally posted by peejayd
* i beg to disagree...

"This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
I Timothy 2:3-4

* upon salvation also comes the knowledge of truth...

* our belief or faith is a part or fraction on why we should be saved... another part of salvation is good works...

"For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead."
James 2:26

* good works are very essential... in faith, we need to add so much things, not faith alone...

"But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge,
To knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness,
To godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love .
For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."
II Peter 1:5-8

* the doctrine of Trinity is unbiblical, the passage I John 5:7 is really not in the original manuscript, why? because it contradicts Jesus' statement...

"I and the Father are one ."
John 10:30

* according to Jesus Himself, it is only He and the Father who are one... He should've included the Holy Spirit here if I John 5:7 will be accepted...

* and according also to Jesus, the Father is greater than He (Jesus), and He (Jesus) is greater than the Holy Spirit... so the doctrine of Trinity by which all Three of them are equal in power and authority is utterly destroyed in this concept...
When one truly accept Jesus Christ as their savior, good works should come naturally. They should know us by our love. Being able to fully understand the doctrine of the Trinity is not essential to salvation, that much is true.

Originally posted by Nellinator
When one truly accept Jesus Christ as their savior, good works should come naturally. They should know us by our love. Being able to fully understand the doctrine of the Trinity is not essential to salvation, that much is true.

Then why do so many Christians, especially in Political Activism, take aim to CONTROL people rather than help those who really need help?

What are you doing to help the poor right now Nellinator? What about YOU Jesusisalive? How bout u Peejayd?

You Holy Holy Loving people

What are you "holier than tho" moral perfectionist Christians doing about AIDS in Africa? About AIDS harming and killing the population of women, gays, blacks, whites, hispanics, young and old ?

What are you guys doing about the MASSIVE poverty that exists in a RICH NATION like this one ?

What about the WAR? What are you guys doing about the innocent lives being taken in this war ?

What are you guys doing about breast cancer ?

What are you guys doing about Global Warming ?

What are you guys doing about Skin Cancer?

What are you doing about Hurricane Katrina aftermath ??????




IF you didn't lift a finger to help out for even ONE, JUST ONE, of these causes, then don't fkn preach and preach here on KMC forums....you guys think you're helping anyone buy wasting hours on KMC ?

Hypocrits....if you TRULY HAD POWERFUL LOVE within your spirit, then you would SHOW IT by helping those in NEED with REAL PROBLEMS...not simply ignoring the suffering that occurs in this world, and continue saying "God loves you" with that empty smurk of your faces !

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then why do so many Christians, especially in Political Activism, take aim to CONTROL people rather than help those who really need help?

What are you doing to help the poor right now Nellinator? What about YOU Jesusisalive? How bout u Peejayd?

You Holy Holy Loving people

What are you "holier than tho" moral perfectionist Christians doing about AIDS in Africa? About AIDS harming and killing the population of women, gays, blacks, whites, hispanics, young and old ?

What are you guys doing about the MASSIVE poverty that exists in a RICH NATION like this one ?

What about the WAR? What are you guys doing about the innocent lives being taken in this war ?

What are you guys doing about breast cancer ?

What are you guys doing about Global Warming ?

What are you guys doing about Skin Cancer?

What are you doing about Hurricane Katrina aftermath ??????




IF you didn't lift a finger to help out for even ONE, JUST ONE, of these causes, then don't fkn preach and preach here on KMC forums....you guys think you're helping anyone buy wasting hours on KMC ?

Hypocrits....if you TRULY HAD POWERFUL LOVE within your spirit, then you would SHOW IT by helping those in NEED with REAL PROBLEMS...not simply ignoring the suffering that occurs in this world, and continue saying "God loves you" with that empty smurk of your faces !
And what if I told you I donated money to Hurricane Katrina relief, am a proponent of environmental reform, provide monetary assistance for the upkeep of single mother shelters, support the food bank,financially support medical relief to African countries, support the starting of small businesses in Vietnam, and Mozambique, helped pay for schools in Africa and Guatemala, and supported my sister while she worked in an orphanage in Cambodia?

How can you call us hypocrites when you don't these kind of things.

Originally posted by Nellinator
And what if I told you I donated money to Hurricane Katrina relief, am a proponent of environmental reform, provide monetary assistance for the upkeep of single mother shelters, support the food bank,financially support medical relief to African countries, support the starting of small businesses in Vietnam, and Mozambique, helped pay for schools in Africa and Guatemala, and supported my sister while she worked in an orphanage in Cambodia?


I'd say keep up the good work. However, I have no idea whether you are being truthful, or just saying that for the sake of argument.

It's kind of like how every single Christian debator says "Oh, but I HAVE GAY FREINDS....and they always tell me it was thier choice"

If you are being honest, then good for you. Although, I find it hard to beleive that you are doing all these good deeds, and still find TIME to debate plenty on KMC...

I bet JIA and Peejayd will make the SAME CLAIMS...I bet they will also claim how "great" they are by making up some BS about how they donate to shelters, cure diseases, and save lives....and still have time to write essays on KMC religion forum....all in effort to pump up thier moral gauge.


Originally posted by Nellinator
How can you call us hypocrites when you don't these kind of things.

How do you know I don't do any of those things? How do I know you DO any of those things you claim ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I'd say keep up the good work. However, I have no idea whether you are being truthful, or just saying that for the sake of argument.

It's kind of like how every single Christian debator says "Oh, but I HAVE GAY FREINDS....and they always tell me it was thier choice"

If you are being honest, then good for you. Although, I find it hard to beleive that you are doing all these good deeds, and still find TIME to debate plenty on KMC...

I bet JIA and Peejayd will make the SAME CLAIMS...I bet they will also claim how "great" they are by making up some BS about how they donate to shelters, cure diseases, and save lives....and still have time to write essays on KMC religion forum....all in effort to pump up thier moral gauge.




How do you know I don't do any of those things? How do I know you DO any of those things you claim ?
Sorry about that last part. That was supposed to be 'when you don't KNOW these kind of things'. Meaning that if you don't know what deeds we do you probably shouldn't have made such a rash claim against us. And yes I have supported all these things at one point or another. Currently my money has been going to homeless shelters as my sister has now returned from Cambodia. I wish I still had connection to the project in Vietnam because it was producing some great results and ending a lot of poverty.

And do you do anything like this? I would be interested to know what causes everyone on the forum is supporting actually.

And why do you do good works?

Originally posted by Alliance
And why do you do good works?
Because I care about people. I believe that everyone should be healthy and given a chance to better themselves instead of being stuck in a downward spiral.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Sorry about that last part. That was supposed to be 'when you don't KNOW these kind of things'. Meaning that if you don't know what deeds we do you probably shouldn't have made such a rash claim against us. And yes I have supported all these things at one point or another. Currently my money has been going to homeless shelters as my sister has now returned from Cambodia. I wish I still had connection to the project in Vietnam because it was producing some great results and ending a lot of poverty.

And do you do anything like this? I would be interested to know what causes everyone on the forum is supporting actually.

I donate to United Way and Children.org

I have donated whatever I could from time to time to research for AIDS/HIV, and to Breast Cancer foundations.

I wrote a report to my Congressman about banning Partial Birth Abortion, but that was long ago, so it means nothing now...

I also support Animal Rights Institutions....

Now keep in mind, I am a full time student, and I make barely above minimum wage....its not easy for me AT ALL to give what I make...in fact, it leaves me with very little in the end....i just have to keep in mind that my efforts made a difference in someone else's life, and in the end that's all that should matter.


While I am alive, i feel I should do all I can to try and make as many people as healthy and happy as possible.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I donate to United Way and Children.org

I have donated whatever I could from time to time to research for AIDS/HIV, and to Breast Cancer foundations.

I wrote a report to my Congressman about banning Partial Birth Abortion, but that was long ago, so it means nothing now...

I also support Animal Rights Institutions....

Now keep in mind, I am a full time student, and I make barely above minimum wage....its not easy for me AT ALL to give what I make...in fact, it leaves me with very little in the end....i just have to keep in mind that my efforts made a difference in someone else's life, and in the end that's all that should matter.


While I am alive, i feel I should do all I can to try and make as many people as healthy and happy as possible.
Its not the amount that you can give that is important, but the heart with which it is given. Good on you then! Money has not ever been in abundant supply for me yet, which is why I usually focus my money on certain projects at a time.
Not as an attack, but I personally feel that financially supporting animal rights is stupid in general as that money is far better spent on humans. That said, I am against animal cruelty and I think animal cruelty is usually some of the most sadistic stuff I've ever heard of.

Well, I'd say athiest charity is superior then.

Because you give out a serious desire to help your fellow men.

A Christians does it so he can get into heavan.

Originally posted by Alliance
A Christians does it so he can get into heavan.
That's poor giving and God hates that. Says so right in the Bible. God cares about the heart of giving not the giving. Neither is superior, however, motivations are superior to others.

Well, I'd like to think what you say is true.

Originally posted by Alliance
Well, I'd like to think what you say is true.
Then why don't you?

Because I don't believe it is in all cases.

Originally posted by Alliance
Because I don't believe it is in all cases.
You don't believe that motivation is what matters most?

Originally posted by Blax X
I'm a Jehovah's Witness, and I'll just say that we believe that Jehovah is god, and Jesus is the first son of God, or otherwise, he was the first angel created by Jehovah.

It is a common misconception that people think we believe that Jesus IS god. He is far from it, he is merely the first angel Jehovah created.
Why do you believe that?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Why do you believe that?

Why shouldn't he? It seems only slightly less supported by the evidence as the people who claim he is, isn't etc.

It seems the Bible was awfully vague on the subject.

Could it be that the people who wrote it were unsure themselves?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Why shouldn't he? It seems only slightly less supported by the evidence as the people who claim he is, isn't etc.

It seems the Bible was awfully vague on the subject.

Could it be that the people who wrote it were unsure themselves?
The Bible never says that Jesus was the first angel created by the Lord or anything near to it. There is no support for that at all as far as I know.

Originally posted by Alliance
Well, I'd say athiest charity is superior then.

Because you give out a serious desire to help your fellow men.

A Christians does it so he can get into heavan.

very well pointed out. The entire Christian perspective is based on selfishness.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Peejayd, with all due respect you are the only person that I know that can be shown an abundance of Scriptures on a subject and still continue to hold to a position even if that stance has been clarified and explained numerous times in the company of other Scriptures.

you don't pay much attention then, do you? No one believes the crap you spew.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Peejayd, with all due respect you are the only person that I know that can be shown an abundance of Scriptures on a subject and still continue to hold to a position even if that stance has been clarified and explained numerous times in the company of other Scriptures.

This just goes to show that the bible is ambigious and contradictory. No mater how "literally" you interpret it, there are always multiple literal interpretations.

Originally posted by Alliance
This just goes to show that the bible is ambigious and contradictory. No mater how "literally" you interpret it, there are always multiple literal interpretations.
Or literal meanings with figurative language. I believe the truth is in the scriptures, it can be difficult to interpret though.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Or literal meanings with figurative language. I believe the truth is in the scriptures, it can be difficult to interpret though.

then i assume you follow the proper procedure before you sell you daughter into prostitution.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
then i assume you follow the proper procedure before you sell you daughter into prostitution.
"Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute"
Leviticus 19:29

Of course.

Originally posted by Nellinator
"Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute"
Leviticus 19:29

Of course.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I bet JIA and Peejayd will make the SAME CLAIMS...I bet they will also claim how "great" they are by making up some BS about how they donate to shelters, cure diseases, and save lives....and still have time to write essays on KMC religion forum....all in effort to pump up thier moral gauge.

* then you lose to your bet on mine... because will not make such claims...

"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
So that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you."
Matthew 6:1-4

* i will just say that REAL Christians are fully equipped to do good works but personally, i won't squeal out the works i do...

Originally posted by peejayd
* being the Only Begotten Son of God, i believe that Christ is a true God...



* that is YOUR interpretation... the Bible did not say that the Holy Spirit is NOT God... it only says that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, and he did not lie to men but to God...

"And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption."
Ephesians 4:30

* the Holy Spirit is NOT God but of God...



"And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done.
And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done."
Revelation 20:12-13

* everyone will be judged according to what they have done... you just misinterpreted what Saint Paul had written... he himself even wrote in his other epistles that Christians are fully equipped and thoroughly furnished to do good works...

* being the Only Begotten Son of God, i believe that Christ is a true God...


Brother, friend, pal...why do you persist on referring to the Lord Jesus Christ as a God when you cannot find one Scripture (not-even-one) that supports this? You know...a true student of God's Word is marked by his/her steadfast, unwavering, commitment to promulgate only that which is in the Bible, and that which is supportable by the Scriptures. In other words, the hallmark of a genuine, authentic, bona fide teacher of God's Word is his attention to detail, strictness in interpretation, and precision in terms of declaring only that which can be effortlessly substantiated with chapter and verse. Friend, pal, comrade...I do not believe that you fit this description. I am nearly speechless at your dogged determination to continue to make statements (regularly mind you) that you cannot support with the Scriptures. I have never done that, no not once. I would be uncomfortable saying anything that I could not provide strong chapter and verse for. Peejayd, this is a formal appeal. I entreat you to show me just one Scripture in the Bible where Jesus Christ is referred to as "a" God. Again, just direct me to one passage of Scripture (i.e. chapter and verse in the Bible) where Jesus the Christ is referred to as "a" God instead of as "God". Jesus Christ was never called "a" God. But Jesus Christ is called "God." There is a big universe-size difference. If you provide this one passage of Scripture, then I will retract everything that I have written. I believe in giving credit where credit is due. But I cannot give you any credit until you fulfill the terms of this simple challenge. Remember:

Just one peejayd.



* the Holy Spirit is NOT God but of God...

The Holy Spirit is God peejayd. I have (and I do currently) labor in unrelenting fashion to show you from the Bible that the Holy Spirit is God. Peter, asked Ananias why had satan filled his heart to lie to the Holy Ghost. Peter unequivocally said that Ananias had not lied to men but to God. There was no need for Peter to even mention Ananias lying to the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit is God the Father. Peter would have just asked Ananias why had satan filled his heart to lie to God. Can you see this? I have told you time and time again that God is very deliberate in everything that He does, especially with respect to how He phrases and communicates His thoughts in the Bible. I believe that the Holy Spirit inspired Peter to say Holy Spirit the first time in speaking to Ananias, but then say God in his next statement so that we could see that the Holy Spirit is God, and so that we could see the connection. To lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to God because the Holy Spirit is God.

* everyone will be judged according to what they have done... you just misinterpreted what Saint Paul had written... he himself even wrote in his other epistles that Christians are fully equipped and thoroughly furnished to do good works...

I haven't yet misinterpreted anything relative to the Bible. Christians are furnished for good works--but not in order to be saved. I firmly believe that this is a truth, a fundamental truth wherein you err in your understanding. We are not saved by our works, but we are saved for good works (there is a difference). Can you see this distinction friend?

Our works don't save us but we through our works bear fruit and evince the fact that we are saved. Through our good works we can demonstrate that we are saved. But our works don't save us. Can you see this distinction friend?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Exodus 21:7-11

If a man sells his daughter as a slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.

If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.

If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.

If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.

If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

As always, Adam does the leg work, while I enjoy the benefits. Or, perhaps he's willing to "revisit" topics, via research, that I have decided to ignore for many years. That happens when you've been raised in a catholic school environment. You'll always look out for me, won't you Burl? That happens when this crap has been drilled into your head and you've decided not to buy into the bullshit. A descision, I might add, that we are all capable of making. It's just that some have decided not to buy it. And others have decided to trade in their dinner fork for bigger spoons.

folsom street, my birthday, Super Tall Ben coming to visit. What else can I do?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Brother, friend, pal...why do you persist on referring to the Lord Jesus Christ as a God when you cannot find one Scripture (not-even-one) that supports this? You know...a true student of God's Word is marked by his/her steadfast, unwavering, commitment to promulgate only that which is in the Bible, and that which is supportable by the Scriptures. In other words, the hallmark of a genuine, authentic, bona fide teacher of God's Word is his attention to detail, strictness in interpretation, and precision in terms of declaring only that which can be effortlessly substantiated with chapter and verse. Friend, pal, comrade...I do not believe that you fit this description. I am nearly speechless at your dogged determination to continue to make statements (regularly mind you) that you cannot support with the Scriptures. I have never done that, no not once. I would be uncomfortable saying anything that I could not provide strong chapter and verse for. Peejayd, this is a formal appeal. I entreat you to show me just one Scripture in the Bible where Jesus Christ is referred to as "a" God. Again, just direct me to one passage of Scripture (i.e. chapter and verse in the Bible) where Jesus the Christ is referred to as "a" God instead of as "God". Jesus Christ was never called "a" God. But Jesus Christ is called "God." There is a big universe-size difference. If you provide this one passage of Scripture, then I will retract everything that I have written. I believe in giving credit where credit is due. But I cannot give you any credit until you fulfill the terms of this simple challenge. Remember:

Just one peejayd.

* a challenge, eh?

"Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,"
Titus 2:13

"Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:"
II Peter 1:1

* i believe that Christ is a God and NOT God...

"Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."
I Corinthians 8:6

* the Father is God... and Jesus as the Only Begotten Son of God has also the same being...

"I and the Father are one."
John 10:30

* the God in the Bible is the Father... His Son, Jesus Christ having the same being of the Father is also a God...

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The Holy Spirit is God peejayd. I have (and I do currently) labor in unrelenting fashion to show you from the Bible that the Holy Spirit is God. Peter, asked Ananias why had satan filled his heart to lie to the Holy Ghost. Peter unequivocally said that Ananias had not lied to men but to God. There was no need for Peter to even mention Ananias lying to the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit is God the Father. Peter would have just asked Ananias why had satan filled his heart to lie to God. Can you see this? I have told you time and time again that God is very deliberate in everything that He does, especially with respect to how He phrases and communicates His thoughts in the Bible. I believe that the Holy Spirit inspired Peter to say Holy Spirit the first time in speaking to Ananias, but then say God in his next statement so that we could see that the Holy Spirit is God, and so that we could see the connection. To lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to God because the Holy Spirit is God.

* to lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to God because the Holy Spirit is OF God...

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I haven't yet misinterpreted anything relative to the Bible. Christians are furnished for good works--but not in order to be saved. I firmly believe that this is a truth, a fundamental truth wherein you err in your understanding. We are not saved by our works, but we are saved for good works (there is a difference). Can you see this distinction friend?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Our works don't save us but we through our works bear fruit and evince the fact that we are saved. Through our good works we can demonstrate that we are saved. But our works don't save us. Can you see this distinction friend?

* what i like to point out is that people will NOT be saved by faith ALONE...

Originally posted by peejayd
* a challenge, eh?

"Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,"
Titus 2:13

"Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:"
II Peter 1:1

* i believe that Christ is a God and NOT God...



I gave you the benefit of the doubt and even ample time to come up with just one chapter and verse to support your position that Jesus Christ is "a" God and not "God" and you could/did not. I presented to you a very simple task and yet you could not compete. All you could resort to is saying that "you believe that Jesus Christ is "a" God
'--but again, without verifying this belief with Scripture. I forever rest my case. There is no longer any need to discuss this issue because you have shown your teaching to be unsupportable by the Bible. The Scriptures that you provided refer to Jesus Christ as either our God and Savior (again, not "a" God) or as or great God and Savior--but never as "a" God as you erroneously allege. Thank you for your time though.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and even ample time to come up with just one chapter and verse to support your position that Jesus Christ is "a" God and not "God" and you could/did not. I presented to you a very simple task and yet you could not compete. All you could resort to is saying that "you believe that Jesus Christ is "a" God
'--but again, without verifying this belief with Scripture. I forever rest my case. There is no longer any need to discuss this issue because you have shown your teaching to be unsupportable by the Bible. The Scriptures that you provided refer to Jesus Christ as either our God and Savior (again, not "a" God) or as or great God and Savior--but never as "a" God as you erroneously allege. Thank you for your time though.

* you cannot even refute the fact that the Trinity is Biblical, all you did was rely on the verse not included in the original manuscript...

* the Father is God, not Christ... Christ is a God because He is the Only Begotten Son of God... you only claim Christ as the God because of the unbiblical doctrine of Trinity, a pathetic excuse...

* you cannot prove in the Bible that the Father, Christ and Holy Spirit are all co-equal in power and ubiquity... the kind of doctrine you preach makes people think that God is cruel...

* according to the Bible, God is NOT omniscient, nor omnipotent, or even omnipresent... plus, the Father is greater than Christ and Christ is greater than the Holy Spirit...

* do you the intent of Saint John why he said that Christ is the true God? don't stop on I John 5:20, continue on verse 21...

"And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
Little children, keep yourselves from idols."
I John 5:20-21

* the intent of Saint John is to keep the Church brethren from false gods and idols and he points them to the true God -> Jesus Christ... but that does not mean that Christ is also the Father, it only means that Christ is a God...

Originally posted by peejayd
* you cannot even refute the fact that the Trinity is Biblical, all you did was rely on the verse not included in the original manuscript...

* the Father is God, not Christ... Christ is a God because He is the Only Begotten Son of God... you only claim Christ as the God because of the unbiblical doctrine of Trinity, a pathetic excuse...

* you cannot prove in the Bible that the Father, Christ and Holy Spirit are all co-equal in power and ubiquity... the kind of doctrine you preach makes people think that God is cruel...

* according to the Bible, God is NOT omniscient, nor omnipotent, or even omnipresent... plus, the Father is greater than Christ and Christ is greater than the Holy Spirit...

* do you the intent of Saint John why he said that Christ is the true God? don't stop on I John 5:20, continue on verse 21...

"And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
Little children, keep yourselves from idols."
I John 5:20-21

* the intent of Saint John is to keep the Church brethren from false gods and idols and he points them to the true God -> Jesus Christ... but that does not mean that Christ is also the Father, it only means that Christ is a God...

I am really tired of going over this with you peejayd (even Jesus got weary: Matthew 8:23-25). Your error is that you fail to heed and acknowledge the Scriptures and other information that I have repeatedly set before you in plain view. I am not the problem and I have not failed to support what I know the Bible teaches. The error, failure, and ineptness in terms of expounding the Scriptures rests with you. But I do commend your sincerity and effort to explain the Bible, but I do not think that you are qualified by the Holy Spirit to do so. I have previously, in times past, and on numerous occasions furnished a number of Scriptures that sufficiently address each and every point of your argument. I will not do so in this post.

* you cannot even refute the fact that the Trinity is Biblical, all you did was rely on the verse not included in the original manuscript...

Why would I desire to refute that which I believe that the Bible teaches? I don't want to refute the Trinity because the reality of it is abundantly evinced in the Bible. I have already shown you that that verse was/is included in the original manuscript (the Textus Receptus) from which the King James Bible was translation was derived. Oh, and I did not rely on just one verse of Scripture but I provided a number of other Scriptures in support of what I believe the Bible reveals concerning the Trinity.

* the Father is God, not Christ... Christ is a God because He is the Only Begotten Son of God... you only claim Christ as the God because of the unbiblical doctrine of Trinity, a pathetic excuse...

This fallacy about Christ being "a" God and not "God" is consistent with the error and false teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses. They (just like you) believe that Jesus is "a" god and not "God." Nevertheless, in times past I have provided a number of Scriptures that blow your heretical belief out of the water. It is not my responsibility or fault that you choose to ignore and dismiss the truth concerning Jesus, for He (Jesus Christ) is God, God the Son.

* you cannot prove in the Bible that the Father, Christ and Holy Spirit are all co-equal in power and ubiquity... the kind of doctrine you preach makes people think that God is cruel...

Care to explain what you mean peejayd? Again, I have done all I know to do but you just simply will not face the music as it were. You don't want to accept the truth, perhaps because you cannot handle it? (Jack Nicholson was right). I am not going to rehash all of my Biblical support for what I believe that the Bible teaches because your mind (or you) are in denial.

* according to the Bible, God is NOT omniscient, nor omnipotent, or even omnipresent... plus, the Father is greater than Christ and Christ is greater than the Holy Spirit...

Your failure is in your ability to rightly divide the Word of God peejayd. That is all there is to it. You know what the Bible says but you don't really know what it means. You don't know how to put all the Scriptures together to arrive at an accurate understanding of the eternal truths therein.

* do you the intent of Saint John why he said that Christ is the true God? don't stop on I John 5:20, continue on verse 21...

Your thought is not complete here so I will not respond to this point.

* the intent of Saint John is to keep the Church brethren from false gods and idols and he points them to the true God -> Jesus Christ... but that does not mean that Christ is also the Father, it only means that Christ is a God...

No that is not what that verse means peejayd...(sighs deeply)....You have just read and quoted a verse of Scripture that refers to Jesus as God (God the Son, not God the Father) and yet you still call Jesus "a" God. Incredible. I cannot truly fathom your rank miscomprehension of the Scriptures, but I can put my finger on it and recognize it. How can you read Scripture after Scripture where Jesus is referred to as "God" not "a" God and still--I repeat--still say, "Jesus is "a" God and not "God?" Brother, you are either deceived or mistaken in your understanding of the Scriptures. Furthermore, your understanding of the Scriptures is consistent with the doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses cult. Nuff said.