Can One Be Christian and Not Believe In The Trinity?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

HealthyShape

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2025
1,827
673
113
Northeast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Not if it is relating to people, rather than time. The Lord's own, referring to the Disciples, of the Lord. You see, you have to read into what you want, not read it for what it says. You are interpolating to justify your a prioric. I have no need to do that.
Again, we need to take into consideration all other sources at once, not just one in isolation. We know it meant Sunday. This is the conclusion of the mainstream scholarship - the first church left Sabbaths and celebrated Sunday, instead. So, we do not need to speculate what "kyriaké" could possibly mean.
 
Last edited:

HealthyShape

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2025
1,827
673
113
Northeast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It's like you did not read my book (Pro. 18:13,17 KJB), and the source material therein at all. I address this beginning on page 155 (both the longer and shorter forms which do not agree, and do not say what you think it does in Greek; there is no word "hemera" there at all, it's interpolated into it, incorrectly) - The 7th Day The Sabbath - The Rest Of His Eternal Story (by Aaron Earnest) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Ignatius (supposedly), in The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, the shorter & longer forms:

“... [Greek] [Cap. ix (9); shorter] IX 1. Εἰ οὖν οἱ ἐν παλαιοῖς πράγμασιν ἀναστρα. φέντες εἰς καινότητα ἐλπίδος ἦλθον, μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες, ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυριακὴν ζῶντες, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν ἀνέτειλεν δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ὅν τινες ἀρνοῦνται, δι’ οὗ μυστηρίου ἐλάβομεν τὸ πιστεύειν, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὑπομένομεν, ἵνα εὑρεθῶμεν μαθηταὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ μόνου διδασκάλου ἡμῶν· ...” - Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians: Shorter and Longer Versions

“... [Greek; page 43] [Cap. ix (9); longer] Aὐτὸς ἥξει καὶ σώσει ἡμᾶς; μηκέτι οὖν σαββατίζωμεν ἰουδαϊκῶς καὶ ἀργίαις χαίροντες· Ὁ μὴ ἐργαζόμενος γὰρ μὴ ἐσθιέτω· καὶ πάλιν· Ἐν ἱδρῶτι γὰρ τοῦ προσώπου σου φάγῃ τὸν ἄρτον σου, φασὶ τὰ λόγια. ἀλλ' ἕκαστος ὑμῶν σαββατιζέτω πνευματικῶς, μελέτῃ νόμων χαίρων, οὐ σώματος ἀνέσει, δημιουργίαν θεοῦ θαυμάζων, οὐχ ἕωλα ἐσθίων καὶ χλιαρὰ πίνων καὶ μεμετρημένα βαδίζων καὶ ὀρχήσει καὶ κρότοις νοῦν οὐκ ἔχουσι χαίρων· καὶ μετὰ τὸ σαββατίσαι ἑορταζέτω πᾶς φιλόχριστος τὴν κυριακήν, τὴν ἀναστάσιμον, τὴν βασιλίδα, τὴν ὕπατον πασῶν τῶν ἡμερῶν, ἣν περιμένων ὁ προφήτης ἔλεγεν· Eἰς τὸ τέλος, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὀγδόης·ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν ἀνέτειλεν, καὶ τοῦ θανάτου γέγονε νίκη ἐν Χριστῷ· ὃν τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἀπωλείας ἀρνοῦνται ...” - https://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/Ignatius of Antioch_PG 05/extras/PG_05-Ignatios_Antioch_epist.doc

Show me the word "hemera" after "kyriaken". It doesn't exist.
I will not read your book, I am not interested in Seventh Day Adventist books, I do not consider them trustworthy. Also, you are advertising for it too much, it is in almost half of your posts.
 

Taken

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2018
29,996
15,757
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You are gods....enigmatic

Some do struggle with that topic when straying off context.

In brief;
* God, creator AND maker; SUPERIOR MASS AUTHORITATIVE POWER, worshipped AND revered “Above” ALL, persons, places, things.
* a god, power and authority small scale. Not worshiped.



Glory to God,
Taken
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
17,514
8,609
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Gender
Female
@Adventageous

Can't remember if I've asked you this.

Why is this so important?
Paul said that we shouldn't allow ourselves to be criticized as to the day of a festival.

Some of the first Christians kept worshipping on Saturday, but that came to a stop very soon.

They were banned from the synogague at a certain point,,before 70AD if I remember correctly.

Also, they had understood that this was a new religion and they wished to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus,,,which they called The Day of the Lord. Precisely to worship Jesus more.

The early Christians were Jews.
They knew to commandments of God better than we do...
they lived them.

They broke bread on Sunday to show the change from THE LAW to GRACE/FAITH.
It was an intentional change.
 

Adventageous

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2022
887
297
63
Noneya
archive.org
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Are you serious A??

What I would like to see is a LIST of some MAN-MADE doctrine of the CC.

And I already know that I won't be agreeing with some of it.

But, know what, EVERY single denomination has something wrong.
Know which one has THE MOST wrong of alll?
The Reformed.
They change the very character of God.

I don't see so much hate for that "denomination" as I do for the Catholic.

Jesus said those that follow His teachings will be persecuted.
Matthew 5 The Sermon on the Mount

Interesting, isn't it?

Maybe they DO have the truth.
You have a confusion about my responses. I am not against the "-ic" (person), per se, but the "-ism" (faith & practices) which are in error.

I hate Catholicism, as the Bible says I ought to (Psa. 119;104,128; Rev. 2:6,15 KJB), since it brings men to perdition / destruction (2 Thes. 2:3; Rev. 17:8 KJB)

I do not hate the Catholic since the Bible says I ought to love them, and in so loving them I am to tell them what the Bible says about their incorrect '-isms'. My own immediate family is Roman Catholic. My own aunts (late) were Catholic, whom I loved dearly.

If you study Roman Catholic history, read their own histories (even by people like Lord Acton on the St. Bartholomew's day Massacre, and then compare it to a more protestant history, say by Maximilian de Bethune, you will see they pretty much agree on the attrocities carried out by Catholicism, in that time period, and that is just a brief horrid glimpse into the massive tower of blood and bones that that system has built, and I can document those things in detail, having read their history, read their writings).

No, Roman Catholicism does not have the truth (Deu. 32:4; Psa. 25:10, 119:142,151; Jhn. 14:6, 17:17; 1 Jhn. 5:6 KJB), since the Bible clearly defines it.

When you say, "EVERY single denomination has something wrong", you would have to be more specific, as individuals can have something wrong even within the church of Jesus (as Peter did, as Judas did, &c.), but as a whole, it is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15 KJB) since it keeps the truth of Jesus as a whole (Rev. 12:17, 14:6-12, &c.)

We (Seventh-day Adventists) do not persecute the Catholic, but clearly speak about the errors of Catholicism. It is truly Catholicism, and many (not all) Catholics who have and still do persecute those not of its faith & practice. It is built right into their 'two swords' (Augustine, Aquinas, &c) dogma / doctrine. It is built into their still active Inquisitorial Office (renamed to "The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now known as the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith", but was previously the Office of the Inquisition, and is still in the exact same building, and has the exact same purpose and function to this day. It has not changed, and I can cite from their own sources on this.

Maybe re-read Matthew 5:

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Romanism clearly states that it has the authority (audacity) to change God's laws. Do you need me to cite that for you from their hightest sources, in Latin and in English? I will. Just ask, but if you do not ask, I know you are not interested in learning about such things, and prefer to speak from a position of not knowing for certain. I, however, do not desire to speak from such a position as that. This is not to be harsh, but to simply state, I prefer knowledge over ignorance, I prefer truth and documentation and evidence over my opinions.
 
Last edited:

Adventageous

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2022
887
297
63
Noneya
archive.org
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Why is this so important?
Paul said that we shouldn't allow ourselves to be criticized as to the day of a festival.
Because it is the center of God's law. The heart of it. The reason for obeying any of it.

That is a misreading of Romans 14 & Colossians 2. Please read here (Rom. 14) - The 7th Day The Sabbath - The Rest Of His Eternal Story (by Aaron Earnest) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Here (Col. 2) - The 7th Day The Sabbath - The Rest Of His Eternal Story (by Aaron Earnest) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
17,514
8,609
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Gender
Female
You have a confusion about my responses. I am not against the "-ic" (person), per se, but the "-ism" (faith & practices) which are in error.

I hate Catholicism, as the Bible says I ought to (Psa. 119;104,128; Rev. 2:6,15 KJB), since it brings men to perdition / destruction (2 Thes. 2:3; Rev. 17:8 KJB)

I do not hate the Catholic since the Bible says I ought to love them, and in so loving them I am to tell them what the Bible says about their incorrect '-isms'. My own immediate family is Roman Catholic. My own aunts (late) were Catholic, whom I loved dearly.

I never said you hate Catholics.
I'm referring to Catholic doctrine,,,just as YOU are.

You said some doctrine are man-made.
I'm asking WHICH?

I AGREE that some are man-made.
I'm wondering if we agree as to which.
Which are the "isms" you speak of?

I'm just curious.
I fail to understand why there is such hatred for the CC.

If you study Roman Catholic history, read their own histories (even by people like Lord Acton on the St. Bartholomew's day Massacre, and then compare it to a more protestant history, say by Maximilian de Bethune, you will see they pretty much agree on the attrocities carried out by Catholicism, in that time period, and that is just a brief horrid glimpse into the massive tower of blood and bones that that system has built, and I can document those things in detail, having read their history, read their writings).
We all know atrocities have been carried out by corrupt Popes and Priests.
Ditto for Protestants. drowing persons, burning them alive.

There's plenty of blame to go around.

I'd like to stick to DOCTRINE.

Also, I'm thankful to the CC for the fact that we do not speak ARABIC.
No, Roman Catholicism does not have the truth (Deu. 32:4; Psa. 25:10, 119:142,151; Jhn. 14:6, 17:17; 1 Jhn. 5:6 KJB), since the Bible clearly defines it.
We would need to know what YOU think the CC teaches compared to the verses you've mentioned BUT HAVE NOT POSTED.

When you say, "EVERY single denomination has something wrong", you would have to be more specific, as individuals can have something wrong even within the church of Jesus (as Peter did, as Judas did, &c.), but as a whole, it is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15 KJB) since it keeps the truth of Jesus as a whole (Rev. 12:17, 14:6-12, &c.)

It's the CC that is the pillar and kept the truth.
What denomination was present in the early chuch and kept heresies out of it??

And what do I mean by the fact that there is some wrong doctrine in all denominations?
I'm not speaking about individuals...I'm talking about DOCTRINE.

The Nazarene church I used to attend (for 10 years) taught that we could be perfect.
The Assembly of God church teaches that we must spek in tongues for proof of the Holy Spirit.
The CC teaches that we can pray FOR dead persons.
The Word of Faith movement teaches that God is Santa Clause.
The SDA teach that Sabbath worship is mandatory at the risk of ending up in hell.

I think tha's enough.
We (Seventh-day Adventists) do not persecute the Catholic, but clearly speak about the errors of Catholicism. It is truly Catholicism, and many (not all) Catholics who have and still do persecute those not of its faith & practice.
What?
It is built right into their 'two swords' (Augustine, Aquinas, &c) dogma / doctrine. It is built into their still active Inquisitorial Office (renamed to "The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now known as the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith", but was previously the Office of the Inquisition, and is still in the exact same building, and has the exact same purpose and function to this day. It has not changed, and I can cite from their own sources on this.
This is crazy and I will not be responding to this.
The Dicastry for the Doctrine of the Faith is just that.
Unfortunately, they're going through much change now and there's much confusion...
but it seems to be passing since the previous Pope died.

Maybe re-read Matthew 5:

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
What does it mean that OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS MUST EXCEED that of the Pharisees?
This will speak to Sabbath worship.

Is it of LAW or is it of GRACE?
TO FULFILL means to COMPLETE, TO END, TO SATISFY.

Romanism clearly states that it has the authority (audacity) to change God's laws. Do you need me to cite that for you from their hightest sources, in Latin and in English? I will. Just ask, but if you do not ask, I know you are not interested in learning about such things, and prefer to speak from a position of not knowing for certain. I, however, do not desire to speak from such a position as that. This is not to be harsh, but to simply state, I prefer knowledge over ignorance, I prefer truth and documentation and evidence over my opinions.
Yes sir. Since I know Catholic Doctrine rather well, I'd require you to state which of God's laws they've changed that would cause such hatred that some feel toward that church.

Latin will not be necessary.
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
17,514
8,609
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Gender
Female
Because it is the center of God's law. The heart of it. The reason for obeying any of it.

That is a misreading of Romans 14 & Colossians 2. Please read here (Rom. 14) - The 7th Day The Sabbath - The Rest Of His Eternal Story (by Aaron Earnest) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Here (Col. 2) - The 7th Day The Sabbath - The Rest Of His Eternal Story (by Aaron Earnest) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Here's how I'm trained:

A person makes a statement.
They support it with scripture.

POSTED scripture NOT MENTIONED scripture.

It's impossible to reply to the above.

I stated:

The Sabbath is part of the Ten Commandments.

HOWEVER,,,it is part of the Ceremonial Law and only the Moral Law remains intact.
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
17,514
8,609
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Gender
Female
They did so daily:

Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

Our daily bread ... which links to the OT.
I've been stating that SOLA SCRIPTURA is NOT SUFFICIENT.

Ignatius spoke about worhsipping on Sunday. about 100AD
Mathetes also about 130AD
Justin Martyr about 155AD

It just takes to much time to look for their writiings.
Anyway, you don't accept extra-biblical writings so it would be a waste of time.

Iganatius was taught by John and Peter
Justin Martyr was taught by Irenaeus -- by Polycarp ... by John

I trust what these persons taught.
They knew the Apostles.

Ellen White did not.
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
17,514
8,609
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Gender
Female
They did so daily:

Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

Our daily bread ... which links to the OT.
A
Just fell on this when I came here to close down for the day.
It reminded me of when i used to teach kids about the manna...
how it lasted only one day.
How the bread jesus offers to us lasts forever.
How we need to feed both our body and our spirit.

I miss teaching our faith to kids.
 
  • Like
Reactions: talons

Seeding Loving

New Member
Apr 4, 2025
76
12
8
Clanton
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If change is allowed,,,then we cannot know, even now, if the revelation we have is correct....
or if it could be changed at any moment.

So the Trinity is one of the way God has revealed Himself?
I agree.

Could that change?


Just to clarify.

Thanks for taking the time to respond, my comment was not very in dept and I am glad you noticed.

Your ask me specifically concerning the Trinity..... we see that the scripture never describes the Son as eternal the Eternal Son but but rather -- the Son himself has been given Eternal life and Eternal Life is in the Son

eternal life is in his Son.
Believing on the Son and in his name and accepting his sacrifice on calvary as atonement for our sin - this is the true God, and eternal life.

1Jn 5:11 and verse :13 and verse :20 - says that we have Eternal Life that is in the Son by believing in his name, but

the name of the Son is not eternal


with this faith in his name we have salvation, however, the scripture says that the Son will be given a new name


Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

so this aspect of the Son will be changed - would effect the Trinity for some Christians who may understand the Trinity in in a specific way ?

we know with the son, there are spiritual aspects of the Son, as the word or as the LOGOS " that are eternal, as the LOGOS that was with God,
this LOGOS, was God, and this LOGOS was made flesh

is the Son described as being "The Eternal Son " ? ?

or is the Son, Jesus, described the word / " LOGOS , - as eternal purpose - as eternal glory - as eternal spirit - as eternal purpose and as eternal power ?


we see in - 1Jn 5:7 - :7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

where is the Son ?


so when the son says that he is in heaven and also here on earth too { at the same time } and that he descended - OUT OF HEAVEN - - down from heaven - here in - Joh 3:13


:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

he would not be explaining how that he existed as the word, as the very same eternal God himself, before he was born on earth as the son ?

we notice


– in John 8:42 – Jesus says three things here, about his identity.

i COME - “ εκ EX / OUT FROM THE GOD –
i COME NOT FOR FROM / OF - MYSELF –
i COME NEITHER MYSELF I - SENT –


1. we have the Son's name that will be changed to a new name in the future. - - does this effect the trinity for some ?

2. a Son whom was not previously sitting in the right of God - - does this effect the trinity for some ?

3 a Son whom is relocated and commanded to sit in the right of God for such and such a time. - - does this effect the trinity for some ?


Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, ,,,,, sat down on the right hand of God;
:13 FROM HENCEFORTH EXPECTING UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE HIS FOOTSTOOL.

So this is NOT Jesus forever sitting on the right hand of God. He is commanded to sit there until such and such a time.....

is this changing the trinity for a certain percentage of Christians ?

Mar 12:36 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy enemies thy footstool.
Luk 20:42 Sit thou ON my right hand, - UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Act 2:34 Sit thou ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy foes thy footstool.
Heb 1:13 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool?

4, we have a son whom here in - Heb 10:12 - is forever sat down on the right hand of God.

- a son whom was not ON the right hand of God before Jesus is being commanded to be re- positioned, re - located, moved from one position of status and rank of authority progressing and changing his seating order.

5.
we have the Son whom had not yet obtained the salvation before he was born as the son - does this effect the trinity for some ?

6. the Son whom had not yet previously fulfilled God's eternal purpose, glory, spiritual plan and eternal purpose and eternal power ?

-
does this change of the eternal son in the trinity have an effect upon the trinity for some ?

7, we have a son whom here in - Heb 1:13 Sitting ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool?

8. a son who is sitting on the right hand of God for some Christians who favor him there and for others who favor him somewhere else

the Son can be changed and altered and repurposed and elevated and descended, in a many, many ways


8. we have a son whom had glory with the father before the world was created and looses this glory and asked to receive this again

John 17:5 - So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was


If the Son - who existed before the world was created, had with glory of the father, he then, LOST ALL THIS GLORY AND WAS STRIPPED OF ALL this glory immediately, just after the EARTH was created -

' only to regain the glory again with a progression and development --- the Son is moving, changing, progressing back and forth / up and down - moving through stages of power and glory - loosing and regaining his glory -

the son - LOST ALL OF THIS GLORY - IMMEDIATELY after the world was created, and then came to be born on earth -

THEN HE RESURRECTS AND ASCENDS TO HEAVEN TO AGAIN RECEIVE AGAIN THE SAME GLORY THAT HE HAD LOST, FOR APROX 4000 YEARS, SINCE BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE EARTH.



in conclusion, what I believe is that - regarding the Son, any change that may be ongoing for different forms of trinitarians and regardless of what the Trinity may be or what the Trinity may not be for different brothers and sisters in Christ


the word was with God and was God, and this word was made flesh

Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever, as eternal purpose of God, his eternal glory, eternal spirit, eternal anointing and eternal power, the word abideth forever



1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
:24 For all flesh is as grass....................... But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. ........
 
Last edited:

Seeding Loving

New Member
Apr 4, 2025
76
12
8
Clanton
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In - Heb 10:12 - it is very interesting about the Trinity Doctrine in how that the Catholic Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate contradict and disagree with the contrasting Protestant K.J.V.



1. Firstly - Let's look at - Heb 10:12 - from the - Catholic Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate

Heb 10:12 But this man, offering one sacrifice for sins,,,,,,, , for ever sitteth on the right hand of God,



2. and now - the Protestant K.J.V.

Heb 10:12
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever,,,,,,, , sat down on the right hand of God;


what we see here -
is an enormous contradiction and massive difference between these two translations, the Catholic Translation states that Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins, - then a comma “ , , ,

" Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins,, , -
( FOLLOWED BY A COMMA PUNCTUATION MARKING )


then the Catholics say - ,,, sat down on the right hand of God; - the Catholic translations go on to say that Jesus truly - - " for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, " - -

so
the Catholics explain the Trinity to say, ok - for sure – Yes - we believe that Jesus - - for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, however, the contradiction and difference is that the
Protestant K.J.V. places a comma after the word " forever ",,,

, - to say that Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins for ever,,,,, then the comma " , " ,

followed by - ,, sat down on the right hand of God.

The K
.J.V removes the message that says that Jesus for ever sitteth on the right hand of God because their translation expressly says that Jesus is NOT forever sitting on the right hand of God.

Nor was Jesus previously sitting on the right hand of God, as it explains in the next verse - -

:
13 FROM HENCEFORTH EXPECTING UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE HIS FOOTSTOOL.

and
Mar 12:36 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy enemies thy footstool.
Luk 20:42 Sit thou ON my right hand, - UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Act 2:34 Sit thou ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy foes thy footstool.
Heb 1:13 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool?

the translators later translating the
Protestant K.J.V. make this change to intend to fix or repair this enormous Catholic contradiction by moving and shuffling the punctuation to move the - " comma > - NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE


P
rotestant K.J.V. - - After he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever ,,,,, - sat down ON the right hand of God.

vs the Catholic

C
atholic Douay Rheims and Latin Vulgate - - Offering one sacrifice for sins,,,,, - for ever sitteth ON
the right hand of God.
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
17,514
8,609
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Gender
Female
In - Heb 10:12 - it is very interesting about the Trinity Doctrine in how that the Catholic Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate contradict and disagree with the contrasting Protestant K.J.V.



1. Firstly - Let's look at - Heb 10:12 - from the - Catholic Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate

Heb 10:12 But this man, offering one sacrifice for sins,,,,,,, , for ever sitteth on the right hand of God,



2. and now - the Protestant K.J.V.

Heb 10:12
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever,,,,,,, , sat down on the right hand of God;


what we see here -
is an enormous contradiction and massive difference between these two translations, the Catholic Translation states that Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins, - then a comma “ , , ,

" Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins,, , -
( FOLLOWED BY A COMMA PUNCTUATION MARKING )


then the Catholics say - ,,, sat down on the right hand of God; - the Catholic translations go on to say that Jesus truly - - " for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, " - -

so
the Catholics explain the Trinity to say, ok - for sure – Yes - we believe that Jesus - - for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, however, the contradiction and difference is that the
Protestant K.J.V. places a comma after the word " forever ",,,

, - to say that Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins for ever,,,,, then the comma " , " ,

followed by - ,, sat down on the right hand of God.

The K
.J.V removes the message that says that Jesus for ever sitteth on the right hand of God because their translation expressly says that Jesus is NOT forever sitting on the right hand of God.

Nor was Jesus previously sitting on the right hand of God, as it explains in the next verse - -


:13 FROM HENCEFORTH EXPECTING UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE HIS FOOTSTOOL.

and
Mar 12:36 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy enemies thy footstool.
Luk 20:42 Sit thou ON my right hand, - UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Act 2:34 Sit thou ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy foes thy footstool.
Heb 1:13 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool?

the translators later translating the
Protestant K.J.V. make this change to intend to fix or repair this enormous Catholic contradiction by moving and shuffling the punctuation to move the - " comma > - NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE


P
rotestant K.J.V. - - After he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever ,,,,, - sat down ON the right hand of God.

vs the Catholic

C
atholic Douay Rheims and Latin Vulgate - - Offering one sacrifice for sins,,,,, - for ever sitteth ON
the right hand of God.
I'm not really replying to thee above...

I just want to say that both the KJV and especially the douay rheims bible versions leave much to be desired.
The DR was translated from the Latin...so we're already a step away from the Greek.

It's my believe, and scholars will agree, that the newer versions are much more accurate in their translation.

For instance. I do have a current Catholic Bible here,,,,It's the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible.
Second Edition
2010


Here is the translation for

Hebrews 10:12
12But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God, then to wait for His enemies to be made a footstool for His feet.

I do believe I'm not understanding the point you're making...
and most probably will be out of my field of interest.

Welcome to the Forum !
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
17,514
8,609
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Gender
Female
Thanks for taking the time to respond, my comment was not very in dept and I am glad you noticed.

Your ask me specifically concerning the Trinity..... we see that the scripture never describes the Son as eternal the Eternal Son but but rather -- the Son himself has been given Eternal life and Eternal Life is in the Son

eternal life is in his Son.
Believing on the Son and in his name and accepting his sacrifice on calvary as atonement for our sin - this is the true God, and eternal life.

1Jn 5:11 and verse :13 and verse :20 - says that we have Eternal Life that is in the Son by believing in his name, but

the name of the Son is not eternal


with this faith in his name we have salvation, however, the scripture says that the Son will be given a new name


Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

so this aspect of the Son will be changed - would effect the Trinity for some Christians who may understand the Trinity in in a specific way ?

we know with the son, there are spiritual aspects of the Son, as the word or as the LOGOS " that are eternal, as the LOGOS that was with God,
this LOGOS, was God, and this LOGOS was made flesh

is the Son described as being "The Eternal Son " ? ?

or is the Son, Jesus, described the word / " LOGOS , - as eternal purpose - as eternal glory - as eternal spirit - as eternal purpose and as eternal power ?


we see in - 1Jn 5:7 - :7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

where is the Son ?


so when the son says that he is in heaven and also here on earth too { at the same time } and that he descended - OUT OF HEAVEN - - down from heaven - here in - Joh 3:13


:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

he would not be explaining how that he existed as the word, as the very same eternal God himself, before he was born on earth as the son ?

we notice


– in John 8:42 – Jesus says three things here, about his identity.

i COME - “ εκ EX / OUT FROM THE GOD –
i COME NOT FOR FROM / OF - MYSELF –
i COME NEITHER MYSELF I - SENT –


1. we have the Son's name that will be changed to a new name in the future. - - does this effect the trinity for some ?

2. a Son whom was not previously sitting in the right of God - - does this effect the trinity for some ?

3 a Son whom is relocated and commanded to sit in the right of God for such and such a time. - - does this effect the trinity for some ?


Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, ,,,,, sat down on the right hand of God;
:13 FROM HENCEFORTH EXPECTING UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE HIS FOOTSTOOL.

So this is NOT Jesus forever sitting on the right hand of God. He is commanded to sit there until such and such a time.....

is this changing the trinity for a certain percentage of Christians ?

Mar 12:36 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy enemies thy footstool.
Luk 20:42 Sit thou ON my right hand, - UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Act 2:34 Sit thou ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy foes thy footstool.
Heb 1:13 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool?

4, we have a son whom here in - Heb 10:12 - is forever sat down on the right hand of God.

- a son whom was not ON the right hand of God before Jesus is being commanded to be re- positioned, re - located, moved from one position of status and rank of authority progressing and changing his seating order.

5. we have the Son whom had not yet obtained the salvation before he was born as the son - does this effect the trinity for some ?

6. the Son whom had not yet previously fulfilled God's eternal purpose, glory, spiritual plan and eternal purpose and eternal power ?

-
does this change of the eternal son in the trinity have an effect upon the trinity for some ?

7, we have a son whom here in - Heb 1:13 Sitting ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool?

8. a son who is sitting on the right hand of God for some Christians who favor him there and for others who favor him somewhere else

the Son can be changed and altered and repurposed and elevated and descended, in a many, many ways


8. we have a son whom had glory with the father before the world was created and looses this glory and asked to receive this again

John 17:5 - So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was


If the Son - who existed before the world was created, had with glory of the father, he then, LOST ALL THIS GLORY AND WAS STRIPPED OF ALL this glory immediately, just after the EARTH was created -

' only to regain the glory again with a progression and development --- the Son is moving, changing, progressing back and forth / up and down - moving through stages of power and glory - loosing and regaining his glory -

the son - LOST ALL OF THIS GLORY - IMMEDIATELY after the world was created, and then came to be born on earth -

THEN HE RESURRECTS AND ASCENDS TO HEAVEN TO AGAIN RECEIVE AGAIN THE SAME GLORY THAT HE HAD LOST, FOR APROX 4000 YEARS, SINCE BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE EARTH.



in conclusion, what I believe is that - regarding the Son, any change that may be ongoing for different forms of trinitarians and regardless of what the Trinity may be or what the Trinity may not be for different brothers and sisters in Christ


the word was with God and was God, and this word was made flesh

Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever, as eternal purpose of God, his eternal glory, eternal spirit, eternal anointing and eternal power, the word abideth forever



1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
:24 For all flesh is as grass....................... But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. ........
Just saw this.

Pretty long !
Will have to wait till after lunch.

If you see this first...

seems by the last sentences that I've read that you DO believe that THE WORD was made flesh.
Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
And that His word endures forever.

Agreed on all.

Later.
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
17,514
8,609
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Gender
Female
Thanks for taking the time to respond, my comment was not very in dept and I am glad you noticed.

Hi Seeding
Maybe the following is TOO in depth!
We'll see.

I had to go back and read my post to you.
My points were these:

1. Jesus is the ultimate revelation.
2. Christian dogmatic doctrine cannot be changed.
I use the word dogmatic to say that there are some basic/core doctrine of the Christian religion..that are the very essence of the Christian belief system.


The reason I brought this up is due to my recent concern about those that would change the very definiton of Christianity, or I should say, the Christian religion.

I mention the Trinity because some that define themselves as being Christian do not even believe in the Trinity...
or they change the meaning of it.
Your ask me specifically concerning the Trinity..... we see that the scripture never describes the Son as eternal the Eternal Son but but rather -- the Son himself has been given Eternal life and Eternal Life is in the Son

I caught your last sentences and the above seems to contradict.
Scripture does explain the Son as being eternal.
If we believe and accept, which we should, John 1:1 and John 1:14 there can be no doubt.

John 1:1, 14
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

14 And the Word became flesh, and [a]dwelt among us
,



eternal life is in his Son.
Believing on the Son and in his name and accepting his sacrifice on calvary as atonement for our sin - this is the true God, and eternal life.

1Jn 5:11 and verse :13 and verse :20 - says that we have Eternal Life that is in the Son by believing in his name, but

the name of the Son is not eternal


with this faith in his name we have salvation, however, the scripture says that the Son will be given a new name


Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

What will that new name be?
I'm not very good with eschatology.
so this aspect of the Son will be changed - would effect the Trinity for some Christians who may understand the Trinity in in a specific way ?

we know with the son, there are spiritual aspects of the Son, as the word or as the LOGOS " that are eternal, as the LOGOS that was with God,
this LOGOS, was God, and this LOGOS was made flesh

is the Son described as being "The Eternal Son " ? ?

Absolutely the Son is eternal.
This is the Trinity 101.

You say the aspect of the Son will be changed and refer to Revelation (which I know very little about)...
so are you saying that Jesus will be seen in a different way when He returns the second time?
If so, then I do agree.
He will return as a reigning King and will have all authority on earth, over His Kingdom

You're asking if this would affect the Trinity?
There won't be any need for the understanding at that time....
We will all know everything...
we will have infused knowledge, just as Adam had.

Sorry for being ignorant of your affirmations.
Need affirmation - I like to make sure I understand.

or is the Son, Jesus, described the word / " LOGOS , - as eternal purpose - as eternal glory - as eternal spirit - as eternal purpose and as eternal power ?

The LOGOS is eternal.
How could it not be?

The logos is the very reason and thought process of God.
The logos cannot be separated from God.

I tried to find a fast definition of logos...
to make sure we agree on the definition.

I came up with the from Gemini:

  • Agent of Creation: All things were made through the Logos. It is the rational, organizing principle of the universe.
  • Revelation of God: The Logos is how God makes Himself known. It signifies God’s wisdom and will.
Contextual Meaning
  • Jewish thought: It builds on the Hebrew concept of God's Word (e.g., "Let there be light") and Divine Wisdom.
  • Greek Philosophy: It refers to the Logos as the divine reason or ordering principle of the universe, which John aligns with Jesus


we see in - 1Jn 5:7 - :7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

where is the Son ?

The WORD = The SON


page 1 of 3
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
17,514
8,609
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Gender
Female
page 2 of 2


so when the son says that he is in heaven and also here on earth too { at the same time } and that he descended - OUT OF HEAVEN - - down from heaven - here in - Joh 3:13

:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

he would not be explaining how that he existed as the word, as the very same eternal God himself, before he was born on earth as the son ?

OK
You're asking for an explanation of how God did something.
I proffer that we cannot undersand everything God did, but just must accept it.

The Son is the Word/Logos of God.
This is accepted Christian theology and I don't feel the need to prove it.

I cannot state it any more clearly than John did.

The word was with God, the word was God, the word became flesh.

"In the beginning"
Seeding....there is no beginning....Time is eternal...
it's just a way we have of speaking something that is not understandable.

we notice

– in John 8:42 – Jesus says three things here, about his identity.

i COME - “ εκ EX / OUT FROM THE GOD –
i COME NOT FOR FROM / OF - MYSELF –
i COME NEITHER MYSELF I - SENT –

I come out of God.....This is what I understand the best.
Jesus was WITHIN God.
He is GENERATED and NOT created.

If something comes out of something, that means it was always part of that something.

I come NOT for from Myself...but He sent Me..

This will be referring to the atonement.
It is GOD FATHER who planned (reasoned) from the beginning that He would atone for the sin of Adam which effected all of mankind.


1. we have the Son's name that will be changed to a new name in the future. - - does this effect the trinity for some ?
I'm not sure I fully understand.
Whatever name is given to Jesus in the future will NOT affect the fact that He is the 2nd Person of the Trinity.

2. a Son whom was not previously sitting in the right of God - - does this effect the trinity for some ?
No. I can only repeat that Jesus was always the Son.
Sitting at the right hand of God has a very specific meaning and does not take away from the fact that He is the 2nd Person of the Trinity.

I wish you'd post what YOUR understanding of this is.
(sitting at the right hand of God)
3 a Son whom is relocated and commanded to sit in the right of God for such and such a time. - - does this effect the trinity for some ?
Do YOU believe it would affect the Trinity?
Clearly, this is more of a philosophical discussion and I'm afraid I won't be discussing at that level.
But I'll give it my all !

It would be helpful, maybe, if we discussed the meaning of sitting at the right-hand of God.
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, ,,,,, sat down on the right hand of God;
:13 FROM HENCEFORTH EXPECTING UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE HIS FOOTSTOOL.

So this is NOT Jesus forever sitting on the right hand of God. He is commanded to sit there until such and such a time.....

is this changing the trinity for a certain percentage of Christians ?

Mar 12:36 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy enemies thy footstool.
Luk 20:42 Sit thou ON my right hand, - UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Act 2:34 Sit thou ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy foes thy footstool.
Heb 1:13 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Agreed.
The sitting happened AFTER the resurrection.
You apparently have an idea about this...
pleasse post it.


1 of 3
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
17,514
8,609
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Gender
Female
3 of 3


4, we have a son whom here in - Heb 10:12 - is forever sat down on the right hand of God.

- a son whom was not ON the right hand of God before Jesus is being commanded to be re- positioned, re - located, moved from one position of status and rank of authority progressing and changing his seating order.
Repositioned....
Jesus is now sitting at the right hand of God ....
what does it mean?

It means His work of atonement is finished.
Being at the right hand is a sign of power, authority.
Perhaps, I'd say, over His CURRENT Kingdom, which is spiritual.
5. we have the Son whom had not yet obtained the salvation before he was born as the son - does this effect the trinity for some ?

Actually, the sacrifice of Jesus is eternal.
The death of Jesus was valid to save those in the OT also,,,
and those all over the world who were saved from the very beginning of the time here on earth...
from Adam.
6. the Son whom had not yet previously fulfilled God's eternal purpose, glory, spiritual plan and eternal purpose and eternal power ?

-
does this change of the eternal son in the trinity have an effect upon the trinity for some ?

7, we have a son whom here in - Heb 1:13 Sitting ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool?

8. a son who is sitting on the right hand of God for some Christians who favor him there and for others who favor him somewhere else

the Son can be changed and altered and repurposed and elevated and descended, in a many, many ways
The Son's role will change AFTER the end of the world.
I should say. one of His functions.

He cannot be changed in many many ways...depending of course what you mean by this.

8. we have a son whom had glory with the father before the world was created and looses this glory and asked to receive this again

John 17:5 - So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was


If the Son - who existed before the world was created, had with glory of the father, he then, LOST ALL THIS GLORY AND WAS STRIPPED OF ALL this glory immediately, just after the EARTH was created -

' only to regain the glory again with a progression and development --- the Son is moving, changing, progressing back and forth / up and down - moving through stages of power and glory - loosing and regaining his glory -

the son - LOST ALL OF THIS GLORY - IMMEDIATELY after the world was created, and then came to be born on earth -

THEN HE RESURRECTS AND ASCENDS TO HEAVEN TO AGAIN RECEIVE AGAIN THE SAME GLORY THAT HE HAD LOST, FOR APROX 4000 YEARS, SINCE BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE EARTH.
Oh no.
Jesus never lost his glory.

Jesus asks God to glorify Him to show those around Him that He was who He said He was...
God.

He means for His actions to glorify God.

When Lazarus was raised from the dead...
Jesus clearly states that He did everything for the glory of God and for belief as to who He was.

John 11:41-42
41 So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me.
42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.”




in conclusion, what I believe is that - regarding the Son, any change that may be ongoing for different forms of trinitarians and regardless of what the Trinity may be or what the Trinity may not be for different brothers and sisters in Christ


the word was with God and was God, and this word was made flesh

Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever, as eternal purpose of God, his eternal glory, eternal spirit, eternal anointing and eternal power, the word abideth forever



1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
:24 For all flesh is as grass....................... But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. ........
The Trinity cannot have differing explanations or it will lose all meaning.

This is the exact purpose for this thread.
Christianity cannot change it's core doctrine/dogma.

All you've written above....to say that we can change the meaning of the Trinity?
 

Seeding Loving

New Member
Apr 4, 2025
76
12
8
Clanton
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
thanks again for taking the time to reply, it is a honor to have opportunity to reply.

my comment was to explain how the Trinity doctrine has many, multiple meanings and applications to many different organizations in the Christian community. Many Christians see the Trinity in a vastly different way.

This is not something that I support as a good thing - nor do I wish it to have been this way.

I agree with you that Christian Doctrine should be a uniform agreement between all believers.



A couple of the main reasons that i do believe that the Trinity is confusing across the Christian world was very clearly explained in my previous comments. If anyone wishes to address these passages in the translation i would be happy to continue the discussion.


There are thousands of Bible versions globally, with over 3,700 versions - -

and over 450 known versions of the Bible just in English alone - -

this reality is reflected in the way that we Christians discuss the Bible and we can see this everywhere, for me , the question is, what do the manuscripts say exactly in their originality .

i was just trying to explain..... simply

1. one translated passages declares that the Son will altered in his positioning to sit on the right hand of God = until a certain time - and was not located there originally .

2. another translated passages declares that the Son will positioned to sit on the right hand of God = forever.

3. the majority of Christians i see here in this forum seem to submit a narrative or a standard of faith that the Son was always on the right hand of God = and will always remain on the right hand of God forever

that is the statement of faith i see from Christians but I do not see this explained in the Scripture

I am a Christian too - - - but as Christians can we honestly say that the Trinity is one of the things about God we cannot understand and apply and point this this lack of understanding to the way the Scriptures describe the Father, Son and Spirit ?

or are the scripture perfectly clear regarding this. ?
 

Seeding Loving

New Member
Apr 4, 2025
76
12
8
Clanton
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-------

if we could take a look at something

I come out of God.....This is what I understand the best.
Jesus was WITHIN God.
He is GENERATED and NOT created.

If something comes out of something, that means it was always part of that something.

I come NOT for from Myself...but He sent Me..

This will be referring to the atonement.
It is GOD FATHER who planned (reasoned) from the beginning that He would atone for the sin of Adam which effected all of mankind.


please consider - - - referring to John 8:42 – - where Jesus says three things about his identity.

the Greek word ἀπό - Apo =means - “ off ” of - away from something -- off away from .. also - Apo =mean can also describe - (out) of - from, denoting separation, departure,


- ἀπό / Apo - is contained in the Greek word - ἀπόόστολος / Apostle


Apostle
means = " sending off or - " sending away from " sent off, out, away from .


the Greek word does not generally mean because of or for reason of, nor - because of.


ἀπό = simply means = " off - of - away from - off - out away from. This Greek word is used 649 total times in the manuscripts,


here is how it is applied in the manuscripts in meaning

Mat 8:30 - And there was a good way off - ἀπό / Apo
Mat 26:58 + Mar 14:54 ..... - followed him afar off - ἀπό / Apo
Mat 27:55 + Mrk 15:40 - beholding afar off - ἀπό / Apo
Luk 16:23 - seeth Abraham afar off - ἀπό / Apo
Rev 18:10 + Rev 18:15 + Rev 18:17 - Standing afar off - ἀπό / Apo​


does not the message clarify that Jesus did not for come for off himself - He was not sent away out away from himself and that he came out of the God - for it was out of the God that he came out from - and came not for of himself ?


this is the way i always understood this passage to say, hey !
I came out of God and did not come of myself and i did not send myself either.
He sent me.

I agree that his coming was to provide the atonement but I don't understand why this specific passage would be necessarily be an explanation of the exemption of himself regarding the atonement.

are these a set of statements, reasons, or details designed to clarify something about the atonement ?
i believe we both are correct .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.