Search results

yes orthodox Jews reject this teaching about Jesus. why did i throw that out there, because when Jesus was here teaching the Jews followed Him everywhere, they didnt seem to have a problem with anything He taught, fast forward hundreds of years when we know this doctrine was taught, now Jews...

sounds the same to me as well as most orthodox Jews.

didnt two of these men go down to Sodom where they are identified as angels.

didnt the Canaanites and Babylonians, the ones the Most High said dont be like, have trinities.

with respect these councils have everything to do with these books being as they are the decision makes on it. these councils are the power behind the crusades. these councils are the ones that murdered Giordano Bruno, what was his crime, he believed the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo...

no im not wondering why the Most High does not lie, im wondering why people ignore the example the Most High used to show He does not lie, He is not a man. why is this ignored?

i dont care what the group of men say, the fact remains they are in fact a group of men, i can go out and assemble a group of men. the groups many times have agendas. these groups in question are both Catholic and non Catholic. i mentioned the crusades etc to demonstrate that the councils do in...

yes i get the part that the Most High does not lie, i figured that out from the "that He should lie" part of the scripture. and what example does the scripture provide for us to prove that He does not lie, the part that you guys seem to be blinded to, He is not a man.

Peter calls Pauls writings “letters”, not scripture. So these books are inspired because a group of men say they are inspired. Didnt these same councils give us crusades, inquisitions and burning people alive? If the LXX is such a corrupt translation, why does neither Jesus, the 12 or St Paul...

im curious how you came to this conclusion that these 66 books, and only these 66 books are inspired. even stranger when there are at least 20 additional books mentioned by name within those 66 books of yours.

ohh ok, now i understand what your getting at. according to you the Father is not a man, but the Son is a man/can become a man? this would work if the passage said "Father" however the passage says "G-D". so when the passage says the Most High is not a man, what does that mean?

and where in scripture are we told about this equation and that it is to be processed multiplication and not adding?

so all scripture is inspired by the Most High, ok. lets go back to that Num passage: Numbers 23:19 19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? what does the Most High...

neither the math nor the logic adds up.

so we can use whats written later to undue what was written before? not sure on this one

but that is not one, that would be three.

so the passage, according to you, is a temporary teaching? does this mean we can change the meaning of any passage that we dont like?

in the scripture the Most High is one.

so at the moment Jesus came down to this world, this passage of scripture became invalid? was this a temporary teaching?

you have to call them "persons", if you call them what they are, three gods, thats gonna cause problems.