False Prophets

[farouk]

A false prophet's doctrines and their fruit are not 2 different things as you assume. People practice what they believe, so the person's doctrines are indicated by their fruit. If a person's fruit is bad, it's because their doctrines are bad. That's why Isa. 8:20 says someone is a false prophet if their doctrines aren't aligned with the Law.
Quoting scripture doesn't mean anything. Satan can quote scripture too. He did it when he tempted Christ, and he still does it today through false prophets.
That is usually the go-to passage for trinitarians, but everything from "in heaven" to "on earth" was inserted by trinitarian translators. It is not in the inspired text, not to mention the fact that this very intentional addition disrupts the entire message John taught throughout his first epistle.
Ecclesiastes says it is the duty of ALL human beings to keep Gods commandments:

"Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind." - Ecc. 12:13

There isn't a single passage where it says it was only the duty of Jews to keep God's commandments, especially because Jews didn't exist as a people until the nation of Israel split into 2 separate kingdoms about 500 years after Moses died. There is also the matter that God says Abraham kept His commandments in Gen. 26:5, and Abraham was not a Jew. As Paul taught in Romans, sin could not exist where God's commandments didn't exist. Seeing as though the Bible says Adam sinned, it obviously means he violated commandments that were already enforced.
A person doesn't have to make outright claims of being a prophet in order for the label to be applied to them. The Bible interchangeably refers to false prophets as being the same as false teachers because both presume to speak on God's behalf and people are led towards the worship of a false god in the process. 2 Pet. 2:1, 1 Jhn 4:1, Matt. 24:11, and Eze. 22:25-28 are just a few examples where this is clearly taught. According to what the Bible says, liars get their guidance from the spirit of error, not the Holy Spirit.
"For by Him(Christ) all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him." - Col. 1:16

"and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;" - Eph. 3:9
Jhn 1:1 clearly describes 2 God Beings who have always existed alongside each other as separate Beings.
No, people have a problem with the orthodox doctrines, traditions, and writings of the "church fathers" because those things clearly contradict the inspired word of God. The "church fathers" were not apostles, nor were they ever given an apostle's authority. And as such, there is no biblical reason to view their writings as having the same amount of authority or more authority than the apostles' writings.

@Desire Of All Nations The New Testament is full of the Triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit: end of Matthew 28; John's Gospel, esp. chapters 13 - 17; Romans 8; John's First Epistle, etc.

 

[APAK]

No, this is what Isaiah said:

6Thus says the LORD, the King and Redeemer of Israel, the LORD of Hosts: “I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God but Me." Isaiah 44:6​

Now compare that to what Jesus says about himself in Revelation:

8“I am the Alpha and the Omega,d” says the Lord God, who is and was and is to come—the Almighty. Revelation 1:8

17 “...Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, 18the Living One. I was dead, and behold, now I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of Death and of Hades." Revelation 1:17-18​

We have a problem Houston....Rev 1:1 introduces the main subject, the author and sole source of the message of his Son, the one LORD God, the Father. He reveals his Son through his angel to John. And then this introduction ends in verse 8 as an ending book end, or a main block of computer code, with again the same main author, the LORD God, the Father of his Son. This is John's logical style of writing. He would have made a great computer programmer.

Now we just picked up a message that verse 8 is deliberately being reinterpreted and hijacked to read his Son is now the original Alpha and Omega, and the Almighty -not that his Son does get this same operational title later on in John's writings. What a mess! Maybe they carelessly connected verse 7 concerning his Son and made him the same subject or person of verse 8. What confusion! Do they understand how John writes his prologues or introductions? I guess not. And further, verse 7 is the main message given originally by his Father in this introduction, between verses 1 and 8. The Father had to sign off somewhere, after revealing the first significant message of his Son. And he did, in verse 8.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

there is no benefit from believing it, right?

I don't know. Maybe someone else has some better insight into that.

I'm of the opinion that God does not explain how it can be true, just that it is true, for the same reason we don't explain to 1st graders how steel can float on air and water, just that it can. And so he understands that some people just aren't going to accept it. I don't think it's a salvation buster. I really don't.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

We have a problem Houston....Rev 1:1 introduces the main subject, the author and sole source of the message of his Son, the one LORD God, the Father. He reveals his Son through his angel to John. And then this introduction ends in verse 8 as an ending book end, or a main block of computer code, with again the same main author, the LORD God, the Father of his Son. This is John's logical style of writing. He would have made a great computer programmer.

Now we just picked up a message that verse 8 is deliberately being reinterpreted and hijacked to read his Son is now the original Alpha and Omega, and the Almighty -not that his Son does get this same operational title later on in John's writings. What a mess! Maybe they carelessly connected verse 7 concerning his Son and made him the same subject or person of verse 8. What confusion! Do they understand how John writes his prologues or introductions? I guess not. And further, verse 7 is the main message given originally by his Father in this introduction, between verses 1 and 8. The Father had to sign off somewhere, after revealing the first significant message of his Son. And he did, in verse 8.

How then do we fit Revelation 22:12-16 into all that?

12“Behold, I am coming soon, and My reward is with Me, to give to each one according to what he has done.
13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”
16“I, Jesus, have sent My angel to give you this testimony for the churches."
​

It's very clearly Jesus talking through an angel about himself. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the almighty God.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Was humanity meant to be taught without human interaction where body language and deeds are less important than words?

At this time in church history, if you want human interaction and body language you're going to have to get that in the narrow theological confines of a local church. And if you want to know more outside of that you'll have to go to another church. And then to another church after that. And so on... The beauty of the internet is all these differing viewpoints get brought to one place for examination and discussion.

Should Jesus have done his ministry on letters only...?

He pretty much has.
Jesus ministered to only a small number of people in person. The vast majority of people in all of New Testament history have been ministered to through his recorded words, and a handful of other people's recorded words.

...and stayed safely at home?

Surely, you know he had to die when he came to earth. That was the plan.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

if winning is the goal than it sounds like ego is the reward.

Ego is not the reward.
Paul plainly says the reward is the person you win over, building them into the building of God, and who makes it through the coming judgment of fire.

"19 ...who is our hope, our joy, our crown of boasting, if it is not you yourselves in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming? 20You are indeed our glory and our joy." 1 Thessalonians 2:19-20

"14 as you have already understood us in part, so that you may boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of our Lord Jesus.c" 2 Corinthians 1:14

"16as you hold forth the word of life, in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor in vain." Philippians 2:16
​

John also speaks of the people you successfully minister to being the reward:

"8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward." 2 John 1:8 KJV​

 

[Wrangler]

Not when you understand that the three are one.

Friend. Singular pronouns do not refer to 3.

 

[Wrangler]

I don't know. Maybe someone else has some better insight into that.

I'm of the opinion that God does not explain how it can be true, just that it is true

Friend. Study dicta. Trinitarians are taking dicta as superseding explicit statements and explicit commands by God that his name is the LORD (not the same as the many lowercase 'lords' in Scripture), and he alone is God, the Father of our Lord Jesus and we are to have no other gods (especially the trinitarian god) before him. Jesus' God is the only God


All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms because we are united with Christ.
Ephesians 1:3 (NLT)

And this is the way to have eternal life—to know you (Father), the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you (the Father) sent to earth.
John 17:3

'For us, there is one God, the Father'
1 Cor 8:6

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Friend. Singular pronouns do not refer to 3.

Why not?
We talk like that all the time:

"Off in the distance I could see the half frozen, fog covered lake. I immediately changed course toward the water."​

The water exists in three states (all at the same time), yet it's perfectly acceptable to refer to them as one, "the water", but not as "the waters", as you would claim one must do because there are three waters present. The three states of the water are referred to in the singular. And it's entirely acceptable to refer to any one of the individual states of the one water—the water, the fog, or the ice. Three as one, referred to as one. Or identified by part, as the need requires.

 

[APAK]

How then do we fit Revelation 22:12-16 into all that?

12“Behold, I am coming soon, and My reward is with Me, to give to each one according to what he has done.
13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”
16“I, Jesus, have sent My angel to give you this testimony for the churches."
​

It's very clearly Jesus talking through an angel about himself. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the almighty God.

No problem mate...

Yes, by this 'time' in the sequence of events, in the reveal of the Christ by his Father, and the things operating in heaven amongst the thrones, that the Christ is given the authority and the reigns of power on behalf of his Father, indeed. It is fitting therefore to give our Savor this same obscure title of his Father, temporarily, of the Kingdom of his Father, as Christ is the 1st born of the new creation, the father of it, and the finisher of it...there is no one besides Christ that fits this bill.

Make no mistake that the Father is the original Alpha and Omega of the entire story of creation and the fall and rise of mankind, in its full glory and restoration back to God, the Father Almighty. He is the the Father of everything. The Son is the father of a critical portion of this entire story -the means for the salvation of mankind.

So Rev 22: 12-16 is cool..it is for the Christ. our Lord and Savior for now until he returns the Kingdom back to his Father.

 

[TLHKAJ]

You are the one that claimed it was a fact rather than a belief.


The revelation that any of us have from God is taught to us by the Holy Ghost within us. Scripture read or spoken without the quickening Spirit is dead. The Book, the Bible may contain the flesh of Jesus but without the Blood of Jesus it has no Life in it. The quickening when it happens, occurs within a person by the Spirit of God.

So if a person reads the Word of God and they see clear facts and Holy Spirit gives them understanding .... it's not true because it doesn't line up with your beliefs??? Idk how anyone can read and see such clear truth and choose to disregard them.

I'm not going to stock around this ridiculous debate, but this os disturbing how many people just want to force scripture to fit their own preferred doctrine.

 

[farouk]

What the term Trinity refers to - God in Three Persons - is definitely - overwhelmingly - in the Bible.

 

[TLHKAJ]

Was humanity meant to be taught without human interaction where body language and deeds are less important than words?
Should Jesus have done his ministry on letters only and stayed safely at home?

Why are you even here discussing these things online if you think it's a bad thing??

 

[TLHKAJ]

'For us, there is one God, the Father'
1 Cor 8:6

Post the whole Scripture, not just part so you can reinterpret it.

1 Corinthians 8:6
[6]But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

 

[GaryAnderson]

Why are you even here discussing these things online if you think it's a bad thing??

My response is an answer to those who think are right. @Ferris Bueller has given some legitimate answers on it.

 

[APAK]

1 Corinthians 8:6 revisited...

Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. (NIV)

So for many that do take the time to carefully analyze this verse, the final phrase in it is the kicker, aye?

Now we know that in observing and analyzing the immediate and remote context of this verse it is definitively NOT speaking of the creation of the earth -Genesis. So what would it be speaking about? What is Paul trying to say? He was speaking to those that live worshipping and providing food, and sacrificing it to idols. Paul speaks to a better way of worship, through God the Father and his Son, as his sacrifice for us.

The key to this verse are two words and two phrases in it. The words 'from' and 'through' and the phrases 'for whom we live' and 'all things.'

It should be obvious that Paul is saying ALL things come from God the Father. These are limited in scope for this context however. For the way we live and for whom regarding true worship. FOR WHOM WE LIVE (for)...we live then for the Father. And how is this possible? 'Through' his Son. All the things we live by came via the Father's Son. The Son's sacrifice on the cross, to redeem all and provide salvation for all if we are selected and willing. And for those that have salvation, we live truly for God the Father because of his Son and his actions; through the Body of Christ (Church) given by his Father for him and us.

Well that was not that bad to figure out....There is but ONE God, the Father, and ONE Son that we live for and through......

 

[amadeus]

So if a person reads the Word of God and they see clear facts and Holy Spirit gives them understanding .... it's not true because it doesn't line up with your beliefs??? Idk how anyone can read and see such clear truth and choose to disregard them.

Without the Holy Spirit leading them, no one can have correct and clear understanding of what they read. That includes me. Each of us must walk with God as we believe that we are led by Him.

"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jerem. 10:23

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26

Who among us is never wrong? Jesus alone as a man walking on planet Earth was never wrong. Every one else has come up short... even after meeting the Master?

Is it possible that person who believes he is being led by the Holy Spirit may be wrong?

Is it possible that a person has been deluded and either never has had or has lost a love for God's Truth?

Is it possible that a person with the Holy Spirit within, too often quenches the Spirit of God and follows his own ways or the ways of some other persons leading?

I'm not going to stock around this ridiculous debate, but this os disturbing how many people just want to force scripture to fit their own preferred doctrine.

Perhaps some are still searching for what God has for them? Do we all already have all that God has for us? Are any of us on any point or points still in error with regard to God and the things of God? Who has all the God's Truth written in his heart and obeys it all precisely all of the time?

 

[Wrangler]

Why not?
We talk like that all the time:

"Off in the distance I could see the half frozen, fog covered lake. I immediately changed course toward the water."
The water exists

Water is a singular pronoun? OK, I'm talking about beings and I think you know that. There are pronouns that refer to singular or plural pronouns. There is no pronoun that refer to 3 - and only 3 - beings.

 

[Wrangler]

Post the whole Scripture, not just part so you can reinterpret it.

I tend to only quote the relevant part of a Scripture verse. For instance, 'iron sharpens iron' may be invoked without quoting the entirety of the verse. Frankly, the subject here is God and the rest of 1 Cor 8:6 talks about things that are not God. 'For us, there is one God, the Father.' This is an explicit Biblical teaching.

If you want to talk about things that are not God, that' perfectly fine. It's just that it is another subject. There are, for instance, many women named Mary and many lords referenced in the Bible - none of them are God as 1 Cor 8:6 makes as clear as can be.

 

[Wrangler]

The water exists in three states (all at the same time), yet it's perfectly acceptable to refer to them as one, "the water", but not as "the waters",

Friend, you are attempting to abuse language to justify your doctrine. Form Less vs. Fewer: Key Differences and Rules to Remember (yourdictionary.com) explains how water is not like a being. An uncountable noun is not the same as a countable noun. Both 1 and 3 are countable.

The Less or Fewer Rule of Thumb
Less and fewer are both adjectives that modify nouns, but they have different uses. The basic rule to remember in less vs. fewer is:

• Less means a smaller amount or "not as much" and is used when describing singular or uncountable nouns.
• Fewer is defined as not as much and is used when describing plural or countable nouns.