Eternal Security

[CoreIssue]

Bible codes? Have not heard that nonsense a long time.

Changed the version or language and you get a different answer.

 

[gadar perets]

I will not hide the fact that I believe in Oneness doctrine as I understand it. It should be obvious since I am also promoting elsewhere baptism in Jesus' name.

However, you have been hiding it ever since I started discussing anything with you. You have never said you believe in the Oneness doctrine. You ALWAYS say you are a trinitarian.

However, Oneness doctrine as I see it in no way contradicts the Athanasian or Apostle's Creeds although it may contradict your Trinity shield: it is the true Trinity from what I see to be biblical understanding.

The Apostles' Creed is acceptable since it does not teach oneness or trinity. The Athanasian Creed is a man made invention of the sixth century that Athanasius never wrote.

The Trinity shield cannot portray it accurately because it is a construct that requires that if something is true one way, then it must also be true the other. In other words, since the Father is not the Son, it concludes that the Son is not the Father. So it breaks down from being perfectly the truth because it is a picture of what someone thinks God is. And God cannot be shown in a picture.

You are forced to say it is not perfect truth because it destroys your belief.

However, it can be shown from scripture (to someone who is not thinking with the natural mind) that the Son is the Father although the Father is not the Son. As a matter of fact, the natural mind rejects the testimony of scripture and attempts to change the words of scripture (more than once) in order to reject the clear testimony of Isaiah 9:6.

Here you say "the Father is not the Son", but you previously said "the Father became the Son". If "the Son is the Father" as you say, then the Father is the Son as well. Your doctrine is so twisted and convoluted that no one can understand it. Why? Because it emanates from your natural mind. It is the natural mind that builds doctrines on English translations without checking what the original texts from which the translation is made actually say. It is also the natural mind that claims only the KJV is the correct translation of all the English translations which vary from each other.

 

[CoreIssue]

Oneness presents confusing and conflicting arguments to try and escape the cult label. But it doesn't work.

They are KJVO because they have to use that version to have any hope of defending their beliefs.

 

[justbyfaith]

However, you have been hiding it ever since I started discussing anything with you. You have never said you believe in the Oneness doctrine. You ALWAYS say you are a trinitarian.

I said:

However, Oneness doctrine as I see it in no way contradicts the Athanasian or Apostle's Creeds although it may contradict your Trinity shield: it is the true Trinity from what I see to be biblical understanding.

.
.
.

The Apostles' Creed is acceptable since it does not teach oneness or trinity. The Athanasian Creed is a man made invention of the sixth century that Athanasius never wrote.

Source?

Let me point out to you that the devil is a liar.

I would also point out to you that whether Athanasius actually penned the creed or not, it developed from his work: of this I am certain; otherwise history would not have attributed the creed to him. Nevertheless it doesn't matter because Athanasius was only a man, and what matters is that his creed was according to sound doctrine and accepted by the church as the definition of Trinitiarian theology.

You are forced to say it is not perfect truth because it destroys your belief.

My belief is not destroyed because it is based on the Bible. The Trinity shield is based on a construct of man; not the Bible.

Your doctrine is so twisted and convoluted that no one can understand it. Why? Because it emanates from your natural mind.

Actually, the natural mind doesn't understand the things of the Spirit of God: not the other way around. To help you to understand a little bit better, what I am saying is that people cannot understand what I am saying because it is from the Spirit of God and they are thinking with their natural minds.

It is the natural mind that builds doctrines on English translations without checking what the original texts from which the translation is made actually say. It is also the natural mind that claims only the KJV is the correct translation of all the English translations which vary from each other.

Actually, it is the natural or carnal mind that has itching ears when it doesn't like what it hears from the kjv and a few other worthy translations (if they exist); and tries to change the meaning of the text in their own mind by looking for a different message than what they want to believe; whether in a faulty Greek or Hebrew text, or in a faulty, watered-down translation based on a faulty text.

Oneness presents confusing and conflicting arguments to try and escape the cult label. But it doesn't work.

They are KJVO because they have to use that version to have any hope of defending their beliefs.

Who says we are trying to escape the cult label? For both of your statements above, I refer you to Acts of the Apostles 24:14 (kjv), Matthew 7:13-14, and Jeremiah 29:13.

New Age translations obviously have a different message than the kjv if they do not prove the same things that the kjv does. It has been trusted for over 400 years. Are you going to try to say that it isn't the word of the Lord? 400 years of people simply didn't have the truth that the "liberated versions" provide to the unregenerated folk? They have a cranto on us because their version is better?

 

[justbyfaith]

Bible codes? Have not heard that nonsense a long time.

Changed the version or language and you get a different answer.

If all the answers turn out to be faithful, how much more is it an evidence of God?

 

[gadar perets]

I said: However, Oneness doctrine as I see it in no way contradicts the Athanasian or Apostle's Creeds although it may contradict your Trinity shield: it is the true Trinity from what I see to be biblical understanding.

That is like me coming on this forum and proclaiming I am a oneness proponent, but really meaning "the true Oneness" of pure monotheism wherein YHWH is the ONLY true Elohim/God. Your words have been deceiving. Were you afraid you would not be accepted on this site because you do not profess the mainline Christian understanding of the trinity wherein the Son is not the Father and vice versa?

Source?

You are the one that brought up the Athanasian Creed. Prove it is written by Athanasius.

Let me point out to you that the devil is a liar.

I know that all too well which is why I will not submit to his lies about the trinity, Sabbath, Feast Days, Dietary Laws, etc.

I would also point out to you that whether Athanasius actually penned the creed or not, it developed from his work: of this I am certain; otherwise history would not have attributed the creed to him. Nevertheless it doesn't matter because Athanasius was only a man, and what matters is that his creed was according to sound doctrine and accepted by the church as the definition of Trinitiarian theology.

So, it doesn't matter if we lie to people by deceiving them into believing Athanasius wrote it? It is that kind of thinking that leads Christian parents to lie to their children about Santa Claus and the Easter bunny. The Spirit in me seeks the truth in all things.

The Trinity shield is based on a construct of man; not the Bible.

I agree. The only reason I used the shield is to show you that you are NOT a trinitarian.

You have yet to explain how the book Moby Dick had the answers asked for. Maybe I should write a future best seller called "The Moby Dick Codes". There are plenty of gullible people who would buy it.

 

[CoreIssue]

I said:

New Age translations obviously have a different message than the kjv if they do not prove the same things that the kjv does. It has been trusted for over 400 years. Are you going to try to say that it isn't the word of the Lord? 400 years of people simply didn't have the truth that the "liberated versions" provide to the unregenerated folk? They have a cranto on us because their version is better?

And here is the KJVO claim it is the only true bible. Which of course means no bible existed its prior to its writing.

The KJV is a bible version with many errors, catholic influence and archaic English that most cannot read accurately.

 

[CoreIssue]

If all the answers turn out to be faithful, how much more is it an evidence of God?

IF?

Of course you base all this on the exclusive use of the KJV. Which is rise to the question of which edition and which language to use.

Ever tried to read the 1611 version?

Does this mean you except the apocrypha as Biblical?

When your own look at your thinking, you're standing in quicksand.

 

[Enoch111]

And here is the KJVO claim it is the only true bible. Which of course means no bible existed its prior to its writing.

That is a GROSS MISUNDERSTANDING if not a misrepresentation. Please read the preface called "The Translators to the Reader". The KJV translators acknowledged the existence of other English translations, but their objective was to make one translation which would be outstanding, and that is what they achieved.

The KJV is a bible version with many errors, catholic influence and archaic English that most cannot read accurately.

This is just ANTI-KJV PROPAGANDA without a shred of truth. The King James Bible continues to be the most accurate and reliable English translation in spite of all the venom thrown at at. As to *archaic* there are now up-to-date versions of the KJV which have already addressed the issue.

The Catholic influence (through Codex Vaticanus) is quite evident in the modern versions. Indeed the RSV is recognized as a Catholic Bible. Revised Standard Version Bible - Catholic Edition | RSV Bible | The Catholic Company

What Christians should understand without the shadow of a doubt is that every modern translation since 1881 represents a corrupted Bible text in Hebrew and Greek. Which means these are counterfeit bibles.

However, there was a conspiracy to overthrown the Authorized Version and replace it with the Revised Version on the basis of a totally different Greek text. There was gross deception involved is making this radical change. Unfortunately, the majority of scholars and theologians in the 19th and 20th centuries went along with this hoax, and now the modern versions are promoted as being superior, when they are in fact inferior. There are several books written by actual textual scholars which provide the full details (for Christians who prefer the truth to propaganda).

 

[CoreIssue]

That is a GROSS MISUNDERSTANDING if not a misrepresentation. Please read the preface called "The Translators to the Reader". The KJV translators acknowledged the existence of other English translations, but their objective was to make one translation which would be outstanding, and that is what they achieved.

I said what the KJVO crowd claims. Not what the 1611 authors said.

It was good at that time but still included a ton of Catholicism, including the apocrypha and easter in example.

You going to argue with that truth?

This is just ANTI-KJV PROPAGANDA without a shred of truth. The King James Bible continues to be the most accurate and reliable English translation in spite of all the venom thrown at at. As to *archaic* there are now up-to-date versions of the KJV which have already addressed the issue.

I disagree.

https://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_kjv.htm

The Catholic influence (through Codex Vaticanus) is quite evident in the modern versions. Indeed the RSV is recognized as a Catholic Bible. Revised Standard Version Bible - Catholic Edition | RSV Bible | The Catholic Company

I don't use the RSV.

Catholic Bibles - Shop Official Catholic Bible Editions


What Christians should understand without the shadow of a doubt is that every modern translation since 1881 represents a corrupted Bible text in Hebrew and Greek. Which means these are counterfeit bibles.

What Bible translation is closest to the original written scriptures?

However, there was a conspiracy to overthrown the Authorized Version and replace it with the Revised Version on the basis of a totally different Greek text. There was gross deception involved is making this radical change. Unfortunately, the majority of scholars and theologians in the 19th and 20th centuries went along with this hoax, and now the modern versions are promoted as being superior, when they are in fact inferior. There are several books written by actual textual scholars which provide the full details (for Christians who prefer the truth to propaganda).

Of course you will not it admit this is all based on your personal feelings, not on any expertise or postable research.

You know I posted information and began this study's back in the seventies because I value facts.

 

[bbyrd009]

Bible codes? Have not heard that nonsense a long time.

Changed the version or language and you get a different answer.

If all the answers turn out to be faithful, how much more is it an evidence of God?

ah, never heard of that done in any but the original, Hebrew?
hmm

 

[gadar perets]

That is a GROSS MISUNDERSTANDING if not a misrepresentation. Please read the preface called "The Translators to the Reader". The KJV translators acknowledged the existence of other English translations, but their objective was to make one translation which would be outstanding, and that is what they achieved.

This is just ANTI-KJV PROPAGANDA without a shred of truth. The King James Bible continues to be the most accurate and reliable English translation in spite of all the venom thrown at at. As to *archaic* there are now up-to-date versions of the KJV which have already addressed the issue.

The Catholic influence (through Codex Vaticanus) is quite evident in the modern versions. Indeed the RSV is recognized as a Catholic Bible. Revised Standard Version Bible - Catholic Edition | RSV Bible | The Catholic Company

What Christians should understand without the shadow of a doubt is that every modern translation since 1881 represents a corrupted Bible text in Hebrew and Greek. Which means these are counterfeit bibles.

However, there was a conspiracy to overthrown the Authorized Version and replace it with the Revised Version on the basis of a totally different Greek text. There was gross deception involved is making this radical change. Unfortunately, the majority of scholars and theologians in the 19th and 20th centuries went along with this hoax, and now the modern versions are promoted as being superior, when they are in fact inferior. There are several books written by actual textual scholars which provide the full details (for Christians who prefer the truth to propaganda).

In light of your stand on the KJV, what do you believe about the "Bible Codes"?

What Christians should understand without the shadow of a doubt is that every modern translation since 1881 represents a corrupted Bible text in Hebrew and Greek. Which means these are counterfeit bibles.

Please elaborate on this statement. Are you saying, for example, that there are no post 1881 translations that use the Masoretic text?

 

[justbyfaith]

Prove it is written by Athanasius.

Prove it isn't. It doesn't matter to me either way. Whether he penned it or not, I believe his work was what brought it about; or history is lying in calling it the "Athanasian" Creed.

That is like me coming on this forum and proclaiming I am a oneness proponent, but really meaning "the true Oneness" of pure monotheism wherein YHWH is the ONLY true Elohim/God. Your words have been deceiving. Were you afraid you would not be accepted on this site because you do not profess the mainline Christian understanding of the trinity wherein the Son is not the Father and vice versa?

True Oneness is that YHWH is the only true God: and Jesus is YHWH. Why is it so hard for you to believe that God became a Man?

In answer to your question: I have to admit that I have been ashamed of the gospel since the truth of it is equated by most to be the theology of a cult. However, I am growing stronger now as I have taken to heart Romans 1:16.

I suppose that you mean that if you came on here as a JW and claimed to be Oneness, you would be rebuked because JW theology is obviously not the same as Oneness theology.

However, my point is that true Oneness theology does not deny the Trinity: people only think it does because we emphasize such verses as Deuteronomy 6:4. We have a true understanding of the Trinity because we have the Holy Ghost per Acts 2:38-39..

It is that kind of thinking that leads Christian parents to lie to their children about Santa Claus and the Easter bunny.

Santa Claus is real. He was a fourth century saint who was very likely an overcomer as one designated Ephesian according to the book of Revelation. I don't see any Christian parent telling their children that the easter bunny is any kind of person except a figment of the imagination that can be a source of fun.

You have yet to explain how the book Moby Dick had the answers asked for.

I already explained that but you did not see it. I told you to think a little harder but I guess you don't want to do that. No skin off my back; it is a peripheral issue to me. if you don't want to believe that God is outside of time then you are simply denying something that should really be obvious to anyone with a thinking mind. The Bible Codes about ten dimensions in reality are not from the kjv I believe but from the Hebrew.

Of course you base all this on the exclusive use of the KJV. Which is rise to the question of which edition and which language to use.

Ever tried to read the 1611 version?

Does this mean you except the apocrypha as Biblical?

When your own look at your thinking, you're standing in quicksand.

My estimation of people who oppose the kjv is that they tend to be hateful towards those who love the kjv and preach from it. Jesus said it would be that way for those who follow Him.

He also said that the way to life is narrow and that there are few who find it.

 

[CoreIssue]

My estimation of people who oppose the kjv is that they tend to be hateful towards those who love the kjv and preach from it. Jesus said it would be that way for those who follow Him.

He also said that the way to life is narrow and there are few who find it.

I became a Christian when the KJV was the only option. The problems with it made obvious it was not a good study bible. So when the NASB and NIV came out, I studied up on them and then moved to the NIV.

So you can forget the mud throwing and accusations. I do not hate the KJV. Im just recognize there's better.

And now you're saying it is the KJV or HELL?

This is from Oneness.

 

[justbyfaith]

There are definite damnable heresies in the NIV and the NASB (I have not studied further than that); and you are going to have to take my word for it on this; because while I have identified these in the past, some anti-kjv people are so adamant about their rejection of the kjv that they actually begin to promote these heresies just so they can hold their view that their translations are still valid over and above the kjv: and I do not want to mention these heresies since the Lord could hold me accountable for promoting them if I talk about them too much. Truly, I do not want to promote them not only because I fear the accountability but because I have love for people and do not want them to be deceived by those heresies. So I am warning people against the NIV and the NASB and you have the option of calling me someone that is not truthful; or you can believe that this is a warning based on the love of the Lord in my heart. If I don't preach sound doctrine to the best of my ability whenever I post, then you can consider me to be a liar. But really, I do preach sound doctrine to the best of my ability so if my position on the kjv is drawing a line in the sand and certain people do not want to be on my side of it, then that will very likely be on the other side of that line in many issues and that could very will place them in the lake of fire ultimately. And that is not my problem.

 

[Enoch111]

In light of your stand on the KJV, what do you believe about the "Bible Codes"?

I have read the books on the Bible Codes found in the Hebrew Torah, and it would appear that there is some validity to that idea that world events are hidden in the codes. A mathematician discovered the codes so it is not some hocus-pocus. It is a complex network or words and phrases hidden beneath the text.

Please elaborate on this statement. Are you saying, for example, that there are no post 1881 translations that use the Masoretic text?

Correct. Kittel's Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensis became the *critical text* for modern scholars and modern bible versions, but it corrupted the Masoretic Text. It included emendations based upon the corrupt Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, the Latin Vulgate, the Peshitta, the Targums as well as the corruptions of heretics such as Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian. Not to mention *conjectural emendations* (another term for the guesses of unbelieving scholars). This is confirmed in the Preface to the NIV:

"For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text as published in the latest editions of Biblia Hebraica, was used throughout. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain material bearing on an earlier stage of Hebrew text. They were consulted, as were the Samaritan Pentateuch and the ancient scribal traditions relating to textual changes. Sometimes a varient Hebrew reading in the margin of the Masoretic Text was followed instead of the text itself. Such instances, being variant within the Masoretic tradition, are not specified by footnotes. In rare cases, words in the consonantal text were divided differently from the way they appear in the Masoretic Text. Footnotes indicate this. The translators also consulted the more important early versions - the Septuagint; Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion; the Vulgate; the Syriac Peshitta; the Targums; and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. Readings from these versions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful and where accepted principles of textual criticism* showed that one or more of these textual witnesses appeared to provide the correct reading. Such instances are footnoted. Sometimes vowel letters and vowel signs did not, in the judgment of the translators, represent the correct vowels for the original consonantal text. Accordingly some words were read with a different set of vowels. These instances are usually not indicated by footnotes."

*The so-called "accepted principles of textual criticism* have been found to be bogus.

 

[CoreIssue]

There are definite damnable heresies in the NIV and the NASB (I have not studied further than that); and you are going to have to take my word for it on this; because while I have identified these in the past, some anti-kjv people are so adamant about their rejection of the kjv that they actually begin to promote these heresies just so they can hold their view that their translations are still valid over and above the kjv: and I do not want to mention these heresies since the Lord could hold me accountable for promoting them if I talk about them too much. Truly, I do not want to promote them not only because I fear the accountability but because I have love for people and do not want them to be deceived by those heresies. So I am warning people against the NIV and the NASB and you have the option of calling me someone that is not truthful; or you can believe that this is a warning based on the love of the Lord in my heart. If I don't preach sound doctrine to the best of my ability whenever I post, then you can consider me to be a liar. But really, I do preach sound doctrine to the best of my ability so if my position on the kjv is drawing a line in the sand and certain people do not want to be on my side of it, then that will very likely be on the other side of that line in many issues and that could very will place them in the lake of fire ultimately. And that is not my problem.

This coming from a Oneness KJVOnliest

 

[gadar perets]

True Oneness is that YHWH is the only true God: and Jesus is YHWH. Why is it so hard for you to believe that God became a Man?

Because Scripture does NOT say God became a man. It says God created a man to be the Saviour of the world.

In answer to your question: I have to admit that I have been ashamed of the gospel since the truth of it is equated by most to be the theology of a cult. However, I am growing stronger now as I have taken to heart Romans 1:16.

Verse 16 must be understood by verses 1-3;

Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Yeshua Messiah, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
Rom 1:2 (Which He [God] had promised afore by His prophets in the holy scriptures,)
Rom 1:3 Concerning His Son Yeshua Messiah our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;​

God has a Son who He made and sent as promised.

Santa Claus is real.

Oy vey!

I don't see any Christian parent telling their children that the easter bunny is any kind of person except a figment of the imagination that can be a source of fun.

Of course they don't say the easter bunny is a person. They say it is a bunny that brings them an easter basket of goodies. They lie, which I suppose to you is fun.

 

[farouk]

This means that when the Son would be given his throne in the future from the writing of Psalm 45, that it would be his forever into the future. It has no relation to eternity past.

This would mean that He became the Son, not that He is the eternal Son.

John 3.16 makes it clear that He Who was given was the Son already.

 

[gadar perets]

This would mean that He became the Son, not that He is the eternal Son.

Correct.

John 3.16 makes it clear that He Who was given was the Son already.

Not so. God sent John as well (John 1:6). Does that mean John was already existing in heaven when YHWH sent him?