Controversial... Hence debate forum.

[Aunty Jane]

KJV Hebrews 1:8, 12

I believe that the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
You are not listening.....Hebrews 1 is not even close to saying Jesus is God. The interpretation is very flawed. The KJB is the worst when it comes to trinitarian bias...why do you think its so popular? People cling to it as if it was written by God himself.....

The purpose of Bible translation is to take the thoughts of God, originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and put them into the common languages of today. Bible translation makes God’s word a living Book. So genuine Christians read the Bible, not to be entertained by poetic expression, unusual words, or a dramatic turn of phrase, but to learn the will of God. It was for this reason that the King James Version came into existence in the first place, except that the language is now outdated and off-putting for those who are unfamiliar with archaic English.....that was in 1611 and we don't speak like that anymore.

Prior to that there were the works of Wycliffe, Tyndale and Coverdale. There was the Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva Bible of 1560 and the Bishops’ Bible of 1568.
So why are the KJB proponents so keen to hang on to an outdated version that no longer speaks the common language of the people?

Can you tell me why you keep ignoring verse 9 of Hebrews 1....the one spoken about has a God...so how can he be that God.....its absolute nonsense. But its your nonsense not mine. You are welcome to it...I binned it years ago.

Jesus was a prophet in His own right yet He was far different than anyone who had gone before Him. Others could say, in effect, “listen to me and I will tell you what God is like”. Jesus though is the only One who could truly say, “Look at me and I will show you what God is like”. He is the only One who could, without the slightest misrepresentation, declare God. This was John’s intent in his wording of John 1:18. Christ could do this because He is God.

Other prophets had not lived with the Father in heaven for untold eons before the earth was even created.....don't you think that Jesus might have had just a little more acquainted with his Father than any mere human?

John 1:18 does not need you to interpret what he said...its plain enough...

"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (KJB)
Check out the Greek and you will see that the word "Son" is not even there. "Monogenes theos" is "only begotten god" so why did the KJB translators substitute the word "yhios" for "theos" in that verse?....because they didn't want to have to explain how God could be "begotten"....so they made up an explanation for that too.....the excuses never stop. Are they at liberty to substitute words in the Bible to suit their own beliefs?

When John wrote these words it was around the end of the first century (c. AD 96). This was now over 60 years since Christ had returned to His Father in Heaven. John could say therefore that Christ had returned to His rightful place “in the bosom of the Father”.

Jesus returned to his Father in 33C.E, 40 days after his resurrection and when John recorded his Revelation all those years later, Jesus whom we know was in heaven, said...
"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." (KJB)

How many times did Jesus refer to his Father as "my God" in that one verse? Does God worship himself in heaven?
Why do you never even acknowledge these things? You act as if they were never said.

Its a certain kind of blindness that just makes me shake my head.

There is nothing in Scripture that would lead us to conclude that Christ has ever forfeited His Godhead.

There never was a "Godhead"....there is no Godhead mentioned in any passage of scripture....the translators of the KJB made it up to fit their trinity. There was no Godhead to forfeit in the first place.

Even when on earth the Godhead was still His own. He still retained those divine attributes that made Him God. As the apostle Paul wrote of Christ “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”

Only the KJB and its derivatives use that word. I can guarantee that the Jews who wrote the Bible never heard of it.

Paul’s words could only apply to someone who is God. He said that this indwelling was “bodily” (corporeal). This was Christ’s inheritance as the Son of God. He was God from God. Paul had previously written “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;” Colossians 1:19 KJV “For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him” Colossians 1:19 NASB
“For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” NIV

Good grief! How does one part of God give another part of his equal self a reward and an inheritance....do you even read what you write? What is the "fullness of deity" other than God's divine qualities manifest in the human Son of God. Jesus was not a God/man.
Where in all of the Christian scriptures is he ever said to be other than "the Son of God".....

7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

Yes, Jehovah's beloved Son.....not God in a human body.

Leave it now, please....its enough. You can believe Jesus is God if you wish, but you will never be able to plead ignorance on this subject.
I don't need to force my views down your throat, and you will never force yours down mine, so just let it go....Jesus will tell us soon enough. I can wait...what about you?

 

[Aunty Jane]

Sooo, tell me about your relationship with Jesus.

I find it difficult to put into words QT......can you?

My faith does not just revolve around Jesus.....it is more about his Father, just as it was for him.
Jesus came to 'show us the Father'.....which he did. He represented him perfectly. He taught us about him.
To love the son is to be loved by his Father.

You know, the devils have a cognitive understanding of Jesus. Theirs is no doubt far superior to ours seeing they have millennia up their sleeve to study every detail of scripture including Jesus. They could run rings around us mortals and they often do...cognitively.

You make statements like this as if I should know what it has to do with anything.....do you always assume that people are on your wavelength? I am clearly not, so if you are going to make statements out of the blue like that, kindly explain what you mean by it.....and tie it into the conversation otherwise I am left scratching my head.....like "what is he on about now?"
I am not a mind reader.

Anyway, pease tell me about your relationship with Jesus.

On second thought, this is actually a really odd question, and I don't know what you expect me to say.....if I asked you "what is your relationship with Jesus?" I would expect you to basically say..."its none of your business".....

Your relationship with Jesus is none of my business.....so why is my relationship with Jesus any of yours...?

 

[JohnPaul]

I do as a matter of fact, but it pales compared to my love for his Father.....he loves his Father too.....does God love himself?

My faith is not based on emotion...that 'hand waving' 'swaying' "falling down" "Praise the Lord" kind of religion makes my skin crawl TBH.

That kind of display is shallow IMO because it lacks substance and knowledge....Jesus was a teacher, so my faith is based on the word of God and that gives me a connection to Him and an appreciation for the role of his son...."sent" by the Father to bail us out of the debt that Adam left for us. How could we ever be grateful enough...?

We have to "know the only true God and the one whom he sent" (John 17:3).....or our faith is mere performance.

What about you?

Amen Aunty Jane, those types you mention are scam artists and don't believe in God, they just scam their followers for money and wealth.

 

[JohnPaul]

It’s something that they have been taught to accept as the primary doctrine of the “Christian” faith.....but it never was. No Bible writer believed in a trinity because they were all Jewish. That idea would have been thrown out as blasphemy in the first century. No Jew could believe that their Messiah was God incarnate....he was to be a human king and rule in an earthly kingdom....the only piece of the “sacred mystery of the kingdom” (Ephesians 1:9-10; Colossians 1:26-27) that was missing until Pentecost, was that it’s king and his co-rulers would rule the over earth from heaven.

Funny even when I was a practicing Catholic I did not believe in those things, I always had a bad feeling and couldn't grasp the three Gods as one concept.

As there is only one God the Father and only one begotten Son, Christ.

 

[quietthinker]

I find it difficult to put into words QT......can you?

My faith does not just revolve around Jesus.....it is more about his Father, just as it was for him.
Jesus came to 'show us the Father'.....which he did. He represented him perfectly. He taught us about him.
To love the son is to be loved by his Father.


You make statements like this as if I should know what it has to do with anything.....do you always assume that people are on your wavelength? I am clearly not, so if you are going to make statements out of the blue like that, kindly explain what you mean by it.....and tie it into the conversation otherwise I am left scratching my head.....like "what is he on about now?"
I am not a mind reader.


On second thought, this is actually a really odd question, and I don't know what you expect me to say.....if I asked you "what is your relationship with Jesus?" I would expect you to basically say..."its none of your business".....

Your relationship with Jesus is none of my business.....so why is my relationship with Jesus any of yours...?

If you knew the Father AJ you would know Jesus also as he is a witness to and of the Father. It is Jesus who manifests the Father, it is Jesus to whom all the apostles bear witness and they invite us into the fellowship they have with both the Father and the Son.

It is clear to me from your reply that your knowledge is purely cognitive....you know Jesus like you know President Kennedy or Winston Churchill; you can possibly write pages about them but you have no personal relationship with them....no emotional connection.

If you had an intimate relationship with the Father you would understand my language and you wouldn't answer as you have.

Here is an alarming thing....Jesus tells of those who at the end of the age make great noises about doing many things in his name.....Jesus tells them plainly, 'I don't know you'.....in other words, you were never in relationship with me.

 

[Aunty Jane]

If you knew the Father AJ you would know Jesus also as he is a witness to and of the Father. It is Jesus who manifests the Father, it is Jesus to whom all the apostles bear witness and they invite us into the fellowship they have with both the Father and the Son.

It is clear to me from your reply that your knowledge is purely cognitive....you know Jesus like you know President Kennedy or Winston Churchill; you can possibly write pages about them but you have no personal relationship with them....no emotional connection.

If you had an intimate relationship with the Father you would understand my language and you wouldn't answer as you have.

Here is an alarming thing....Jesus tells of those who at the end of the age make great noises about doing many things in his name.....Jesus tells them plainly, 'I don't know you'.....in other words, you were never in relationship with me.

Ummmm...wow QT.....just wow....

I will just leave that there as your testimony and add only perhaps that your last paragraph might just apply to yourself as much as it applies to anyone that you have judged to be as not as worthy as yourself.....

"If you had an intimate relationship with the Father you would understand my language and you wouldn't answer as you have."
Oh dear.... (1 Corinthians 14:8-9)

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

You can basically find two types of Muslim in the world.
One, the radical. He believes everything Islam, believers the only way to spread "the faith" is through politics and/or force.
The other type of Muslim is the one who fervently believes in his faith, believes that prayer and devotion to peace is the right way to interpret the Koran, lives his life with respect to others in business and personal life.
There are two types of Catholic in the world. They follow the same pattern as above. The force aspect of the political Catholic is not so apparent in the western world, however there are many who firmly believe that force ought to be applied should the circumstances be appropriate or legal. There are many Catholic groups in various parts of the world who have even qurite recently waged war on other faiths, just as Islam has.
I don't think the above is all that controversial. I think most of us are aware that those two basic paradigms do indeed exist within those faiths, with of course many individuals who would be somewhere in between. The controversial part lies here....
Are there developing within evangelicalism, that divide? Is evangelicalism being radicalized? Is evangelism in all three faith paradigms now sharing some similar characteristics and traits that reflect the increasing marginalisation of society and the trend toward compulsion on so many fronts? And finally, is that trend, especially within evangelicalism in America, fulfilling prophecy?

Basically two types of Muslim's the ones who Dominate over the rest and the ones who live in fear of that Domination, then their is the ones who come to Australia and prepare the groundwork to undermine Australia and rant and rave 24/7 to undermine our Governments to do their bidding, look they play the cards well ! so that ignorant people will not truly understand, so they make two different types of Muslim ? the good one and the bad one, the one playing nice claims X, Y, Z but when the true Muslim turns up to control the rest will run and give up. This always happens, look at President Biden of late, what did the total moron Biden do ! Now who runs the show ? and that's only one case, such happens all the time.

Islam works to undermine and dominate over all, not to mention plays every trick in the book, it's a art of Warfare ! but the un educated Christian is bate for such as Islam, just as is the majority of Australians who are just carnal dupes, who do not have a clue who they are truly dealing with.
I have a atheist mate who claims that such as him will sort out Islam ? I said you are shadow boxing mate, for you do not have a handle on what you are taking on, they will wipe the floor with people like him ! easy as in due time and they are dominating like wood worm in our Government's.
Not to mention in our defence force now and not to mention the wars that our Governments have taken on with our defence force in the Islamic Lands is pathetic ! our Government do not know who or what they are truly dealing with, nor do they care, it's only simplistic objectives ! a Game that's childish, controlled by morons up top who all are spastics or Satanist.

You want to know who and what you are truly dealing with before you take them on ? not just pig ignorance.

Old mate does not understand the issue in depth, so how is he going to deal with such being an amateur, with his brute force and willpower ? that's like getting idiots to build a House.
The Islamic people understand warfare and are much more smarter in such tactics than most Aussies by far, most Aussies do not have a clue in how to deal with Islam, in fact they back it up ! 100% with the good Muslim How dare you say anything against such at all !
But some Christian Priest from NZ came here and preached outside a Mosque the truth and the Christian Priest was kicked out of Australia directly ! The MSM were furious ! how dare a Christian Priest preach the truth . Boy has Islam got huge power in Australia nowadays !
They even do have radical nuts that they back up in the Legal system, that have a list that is so long of things that they have done wrong here, but get off the hook because such backing them have billions of dollars to fight the system for them. So such as this makes our PM looks like a total moron, but such is all hidden in fact by the MSM but if the MSM were to point it all out, our PM would be kicked out by the people and hung in the street as a traitor ! There is no excuse is harbouring Terrorist like they do. They are not serious, They are in the pockets of Islam, as their money is to big power dominance. So they fear taking on Islam's cunning tactics.

 

[Triumph1300]

Here's a good point someone posted:

A person with oppositional conversational style is a person who,
in conversation, disagrees with and corrects whatever you say.

He or she may do this in a friendly way,
or a belligerent way,
but this person frames remarks in opposition to whatever you venture.

Stop wasting time folks.
There are more important things in life.

 

[Brakelite]

"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (KJB)
Check out the Greek and you will see that the word "Son" is not even there. "Monogenes theos" is "only begotten god" so why did the KJB translators substitute the word "yhios" for "theos" in that verse?....because they didn't want to have to explain how God could be "begotten"....so they made up an explanation for that too.....the excuses never stop. Are they at liberty to substitute words in the Bible to suit their own beliefs?

There had been a long standing dispute over the correct translation with that wording. And it's got nothing to do with the KJ choosing its own way with an agenda to bolster trinitarianism. Many ancient manuscripts are divided on the issue, some have begotten God, others begotten Son. The majority of the 'begotten God' manuscripts originated in Alexandria, the source of the trinitarian doctrine. The KJ translators used the most numerous manuscripts which had begotten Son. What the apostle John originally wrote is not beyond doubt. There are arguments on both sides, and your siding with one particular side because of your biases is unwise.

 

[Brakelite]

@Aunty Jane
If John had wanted to say one and only (unique), it is very strange as to why he should have used the word monogenes. The Greek have a word meaning one or one and only. It is monos. They also have a word for son. It is huios. Why therefore, if John had only wanted to say only son or one and only son did he not simply use monos huios? It would also have avoided all the confusion of monogenes. An even more appropriate word that John could have used (if he had wanted to say only Son or one and only Son) is μονόπαις (monopais). This word actually means an only child. It is found in pre-New Testament literature. This would have suited the “only child” at Luke 9:38 perfectly but Luke used monogenes. To me the writer was emphasising that the child was the only one of the man’s genes – meaning his only offspring. Notice too that the word child is a supplied word. Mark refers to “one son” (see Mark 12:6) but he does not use monogenes. Instead he has heis huios. This is what John could have written if he had only wanted to say of Christ, only Son or one and only Son. By using monogenes though, the stress was on Christ being the only begotten of God (only begotten of that genes). We also need to give consideration to John’s usage of monos. He used this word on a number of occasions (John 5:44, 6:15, 6:22, 8:9, 8:16, 8:29, 12:24, 16:32 [2], John 17:3). It is translated as only and alone. Two very relevant usages are "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only [monos] God? John 5:44 NASB "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only [monos] true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” John 17:3 NASB This leads us to give consideration to something very important. Nowhere in Scripture is the word monogenes applied to God. For this there must be a very good reason. After all, He is referred to at Mark 12:32, Romans 3:30, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6, 1 Timothy 2:5 and James 2:19 as the “one God”. If monogenes conveys only the idea of one and only, why not use it with respect to God? As it is, it is never applied as such. This alone suggests it is meant to convey considerably more than one or one and only. In the Bible, angels are called the sons of God (Job 38:7). Adam was also called the son of God (Luke 3:38). Those who are born again through God’s Spirit (those who experience conversion) are called sons of God (Romans 8:14-15). John needed to differentiate therefore between Christ and these other sons of God. This would be the reason why he used the word monogenes. Thus he said that Christ was the only begotten of God (John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18, 1 John 4:9). This could not be said of any of the other sons of God. None of them were begotten in such a manner of God. Christ therefore, in this sense, is definitely unique. Whilst monos huios or heis huios (or perhaps even monopais) would have conveyed the idea of the only son or one and only son, this would have failed to specifically convey that Christ was the only-begotten of the Father. In other words, it would have concealed Christ’s unique generation from God (“God from God”, “true God from true God” as says the creed of Nicaea). It would therefore have concealed Christ’s unique relationship (Sonship) to God. This idea therefore of monos huios or heis huios, which would be without the idea of generation from God (not begotten), could easily have led to the idea of two Gods, or, if the Holy Spirit was also included, a triad of Gods. If Christ is not literally a son – and we know the Bible continually speaks of Him as a son – then how is He a son? If He is not truly a son then He must be a son metaphorically. This would mean we have two divine beings (the Father and the Son), both of whom, in their own individual right, are God (neither begotten of the other), This would mean we have two Gods. This though is not Scriptural. John therefore chose a word (monogenes) that showed Christ’s true relationship with God therefore avoiding this conclusion. Christ was, and still is, God’s only begotten Son. A literal Son of the same Genus as His Father... Which makes the Son as much deity as His Father

 

[Aunty Jane]

@Aunty Jane
If John had wanted to say one and only (unique), it is very strange as to why he should have used the word monogenes. The Greek have a word meaning one or one and only. It is monos. They also have a word for son. It is huios. Why therefore, if John had only wanted to say only son or one and only son did he not simply use monos huios? It would also have avoided all the confusion of monogenes. An even more appropriate word that John could have used (if he had wanted to say only Son or one and only Son) is μονόπαις (monopais). This word actually means an only child. It is found in pre-New Testament literature. This would have suited the “only child” at Luke 9:38 perfectly but Luke used monogenes. To me the writer was emphasising that the child was the only one of the man’s genes – meaning his only offspring. Notice too that the word child is a supplied word. Mark refers to “one son” (see Mark 12:6) but he does not use monogenes. Instead he has heis huios. This is what John could have written if he had only wanted to say of Christ, only Son or one and only Son. By using monogenes though, the stress was on Christ being the only begotten of God (only begotten of that genes). We also need to give consideration to John’s usage of monos. He used this word on a number of occasions (John 5:44, 6:15, 6:22, 8:9, 8:16, 8:29, 12:24, 16:32 [2], John 17:3). It is translated as only and alone. Two very relevant usages are "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only [monos] God? John 5:44 NASB "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only [monos] true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” John 17:3 NASB This leads us to give consideration to something very important. Nowhere in Scripture is the word monogenes applied to God. For this there must be a very good reason. After all, He is referred to at Mark 12:32, Romans 3:30, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6, 1 Timothy 2:5 and James 2:19 as the “one God”. If monogenes conveys only the idea of one and only, why not use it with respect to God? As it is, it is never applied as such. This alone suggests it is meant to convey considerably more than one or one and only. In the Bible, angels are called the sons of God (Job 38:7). Adam was also called the son of God (Luke 3:38). Those who are born again through God’s Spirit (those who experience conversion) are called sons of God (Romans 8:14-15). John needed to differentiate therefore between Christ and these other sons of God. This would be the reason why he used the word monogenes. Thus he said that Christ was the only begotten of God (John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18, 1 John 4:9). This could not be said of any of the other sons of God. None of them were begotten in such a manner of God. Christ therefore, in this sense, is definitely unique. Whilst monos huios or heis huios (or perhaps even monopais) would have conveyed the idea of the only son or one and only son, this would have failed to specifically convey that Christ was the only-begotten of the Father. In other words, it would have concealed Christ’s unique generation from God (“God from God”, “true God from true God” as says the creed of Nicaea). It would therefore have concealed Christ’s unique relationship (Sonship) to God. This idea therefore of monos huios or heis huios, which would be without the idea of generation from God (not begotten), could easily have led to the idea of two Gods, or, if the Holy Spirit was also included, a triad of Gods. If Christ is not literally a son – and we know the Bible continually speaks of Him as a son – then how is He a son? If He is not truly a son then He must be a son metaphorically. This would mean we have two divine beings (the Father and the Son), both of whom, in their own individual right, are God (neither begotten of the other), This would mean we have two Gods. This though is not Scriptural. John therefore chose a word (monogenes) that showed Christ’s true relationship with God therefore avoiding this conclusion. Christ was, and still is, God’s only begotten Son. A literal Son of the same Genus as His Father... Which makes the Son as much deity as His Father

Backlit, if that is what you choose to believe then who am I to tell you that you are mistaken? Nothing will convince you. Do you understand that God will not correct us, because we have to want the truth enough to give up a false beliefs and replace them with God's truth. Our hearts can tell us what is truth, but it is not always reliable.(Jeremiah 17:9)

Jesus said that Satan was going to sow seeds of false or counterfeit "Christianity" in the world, and we have to have our wits about us if we don't want to be among those who are deceived by him.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12...describing the coming apostasy, inspired by the devil, Paul warned....
"The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

Who is that describing? And if it is a "strong delusion"...would we even know if we were the ones it was sent to?

Don't you see that God is choosing us by the very choices we make about him? He will not 'draw' those who have accepted and believed the lies, he will leave them to stew in those falsehoods, continuing to believe them right to the end.

The greatest lie ever told IMO in the name of Christianity has to be the trinity. Nowhere does the Bible teach that God is three separate persons all squeezed into one "head". So we will have to wait and see what Jesus (the judge of all of us) has to say about this very strongly entrenched teaching. He will leave us in no doubt who has taught the truth and who has promoted the devil's lies.....(Matthew 7:21-23)

But in the case of your belief, the Bible does not teach that there are two that are both God, either.
Jesus never once said anything close to that about his relationship with his God and Father. The apostles never taught that Jesus was God because such a notion would have been blasphemy to any Jew. (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

Before the Catholic church adopted this doctrine, hundreds of years after Christ's death, this belief did not exist in Judaism and therefore it did not exist in first century Christianity. No Jewish Bible writer would have entertained such an idea....all the first Christians were Jews.

So who could be responsible for this teaching that contravened everything that Jesus taught us about his Father and their relationship? The scripture quoted above, I believe answers this question.

The truth we accept is the one that will either condemn us, or reward us, so its a serious question involving the very nature of God himself. We choose what to believe and those choices have consequences....serious ones.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Here's a good point someone posted:

A person with oppositional conversational style is a person who,
in conversation, disagrees with and corrects whatever you say.

He or she may do this in a friendly way,
or a belligerent way,
but this person frames remarks in opposition to whatever you venture.

Stop wasting time folks.
There are more important things in life.

LOL...why do you think this topic is in the debate section...?

You expect oppositional viewpoints in debate....don't you?
The person 'wasting time' is the one who has nothing to add to the subject in question.
Is that you?

 

[Triumph1300]

LOL...why do you think this topic is in the debate section...?

You expect oppositional viewpoints in debate....don't you?
The person 'wasting time' is the one who has nothing to add to the subject in question.
Is that you?

Oh, you assumed this was posted because of you?
Why would you even think so.... lol

 

[Mugre Pinzon]

There are many Catholic groups in various parts of the world who have even quite recently waged war on other faiths, just as Islam has.

I'm not personally aware of this. Do you have any examples?

 

[Brakelite]

Backlit, if that is what you choose to believe then who am I to tell you that you are mistaken? Nothing will convince you. Do you understand that God will not correct us, because we have to want the truth enough to give up a false beliefs and replace them with God's truth. Our hearts can tell us what is truth, but it is not always reliable.(Jeremiah 17:9)

Jesus said that Satan was going to sow seeds of false or counterfeit "Christianity" in the world, and we have to have our wits about us if we don't want to be among those who are deceived by him.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12...describing the coming apostasy, inspired by the devil, Paul warned....
"The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

Who is that describing? And if it is a "strong delusion"...would we even know if we were the ones it was sent to?

Don't you see that God is choosing us by the very choices we make about him? He will not 'draw' those who have accepted and believed the lies, he will leave them to stew in those falsehoods, continuing to believe them right to the end.

The greatest lie ever told IMO in the name of Christianity has to be the trinity. Nowhere does the Bible teach that God is three separate persons all squeezed into one "head". So we will have to wait and see what Jesus (the judge of all of us) has to say about this very strongly entrenched teaching. He will leave us in no doubt who has taught the truth and who has promoted the devil's lies.....(Matthew 7:21-23)

But in the case of your belief, the Bible does not teach that there are two that are both God, either.
Jesus never once said anything close to that about his relationship with his God and Father. The apostles never taught that Jesus was God because such a notion would have been blasphemy to any Jew. (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

Before the Catholic church adopted this doctrine, hundreds of years after Christ's death, this belief did not exist in Judaism and therefore it did not exist in first century Christianity. No Jewish Bible writer would have entertained such an idea....all the first Christians were Jews.

So who could be responsible for this teaching that contravened everything that Jesus taught us about his Father and their relationship? The scripture quoted above, I believe answers this question.

The truth we accept is the one that will either condemn us, or reward us, so its a serious question involving the very nature of God himself. We choose what to believe and those choices have consequences....serious ones.

So to the answer I gave in response to your request that I study the Greek, your only response is, you are free to believe that if you want. Great. Thank you for the conversation.
BTW, the Father and the Son are not two separate Gods. Jesus Himself said, I and My Father are one. They are most assuredly two individual personalities. As you have repeated often, the Son wasn't praying to, nor worshiping, Himself. How are they yet one when they are so clearly two individual personalities? How did the Father bring forth a literal Son who inherited not only the name, but the attributes of deity? We aren't told. But like all sons, the Son of God, begotten of the Father in eternity, received from His Father everything the Father has... Except rank.

 

[Brakelite]

I'm not personally aware of this. Do you have any examples?

Solomon Islands. The Balkans, both during WW2, and in the Balkan war a decade or so ago. Also in India I understand there have been several incidents where Catholic villages have persecuted other faiths.
PS. That's not too suggest that such tensions are institutionalized or systematic.

 

[farouk]

Funny even when I was a practicing Catholic I did not believe in those things, I always had a bad feeling and couldn't grasp the three Gods as one concept.

As there is only one God the Father and only one begotten Son, Christ.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are deeply present in Scripture; end of Matthew 28; John's Gospel, esp. chs. 10 thru 17; Romans 8; John's First Epistle, etc.

 

[Triumph1300]

There have been so many discussions in Christian circles about the "oneness doctrine" and the "trinity"....it could probably fill 100's of books and video presentations, plus 100's of sermons defending both sides of the issue. Many times I heard and saw both sides. Both sides made points.
I doubt belonging to one side or the other will at the end of your life be a condition to your salvation.

 

[Aunty Jane]

There have been so many discussions in Christian circles about the "oneness doctrine" and the "trinity"....it could probably fill 100's of books and video presentations, plus 100's of sermons defending both sides of the issue. Many times I heard and saw both sides. Both sides made points.
I doubt belonging to one side or the other will at the end of your life be a condition to your salvation.

Actually, if we are found worshipping the wrong “god” when the judgment comes, I cannot see that it will go well with those who have put other “gods” in place of “the only true God”, Yahweh. (Exodus 20:3; John 17:3)

When Jesus comes to judge the world, what will he find?
Matthew 7:21-23...
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’” (NASB)

Sounds to me like the “many” have deluded themselves with false beliefs and practices resulting in Jesus’ words of complete rejection. “I never knew you” means that he has not ever regarded these “Christians” as his disciples, despite their claims to the contrary.

What “lawlessness” are they practicing? The Law that says to have “no other gods” but Yahweh.

And they have ignored the scriptural counsel of 2 Corinthians 6:14-18....where the Apostle Paul says...
“Do not be mismatched with unbelievers; for what do righteousness and lawlessness share together, or what does light have in common with darkness? Or what harmony does Christ have with Belial, [the devil] or what does a believer share with an unbeliever? Or what agreement does the temple of God have with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “ I will dwell among them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people . Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord. “ And do not touch what is unclean ; And I will welcome you. And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty.” (NASB)

Adding all manner of pagan celebrations and beliefs under a thin veneer of Christian labeling did not “Christianize” paganism....it “paganized” Christianity. Not only “touching” what is spiritually “unclean” but embracing it. That is NOT the way to to be accepted as God’s “son’s and daughters”.

So I believe that it is a salvation issue....

 

[Triumph1300]

Actually, if we are found worshipping the wrong “god”

Both sides of the issue have accepted what Jesus Christ did at the cross.
The only group adding to what Jesus did at the Cross are some members (not all) belonging to the United Pentecostal Churches.
(Some UPC members believe a person needs to speak in tongues in order to be saved.)