QUESTION 1 for YOU - IF YOU BELIEVE JESUS is GOD

[Madad21]

Well define how mainstream Christianity has become Apostate - we know it is - that is obvious!

Yes it is

In a field of wheat are there more weeds than wheat? (speaking of apostate religion)

Matthew 13:24–30
He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’ ”

1 John 2:19 (ESV)
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
.
Arius was such a weed
“In 306, Arius, who had learnt his religious views from Lucian, the presbyter of Antioch, and afterwards the martyr, took sides with Meletius, an Egyptian schismatic, against Peter, Bishop of Alexandria. But a reconciliation followed, and Peter ordained Arius deacon. Further disputes led the Bishop to excommunicate his restless churchman, who, however, gained the friendship of Achillas, Peter's successor, was made presbyter by him in 313, and had the charge of a well-known district in Alexandria called Baucalis. This entitled Arius to expound the Scriptures officially, and he exercised much influence when, in 318, his quarrel with Bishop Alexander broke out over the fundamental truth of Our Lord's divine Sonship and substance. (See ARIANISM.)”
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01718a.htm)

What is Schism?
“Schism, is perversity and is chiefly due to the heresy which forms part of it. In its other aspect and as being purely schism it is contrary to charity and obedience; to the former, because it severs the ties of fraternal charity, to the latter, because the schismatic rebels against the Divinely constituted hierarchy. Anyone becomes a schismatic who, though desiring to remain a Christian, rebels against legitimate authority, without going as far as the rejection of Christianity as a whole, which constitutes the crime of apostasy.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm)


The Arian view dismisses Christ’s divinity with the word “begotten” this word seemingly alluring to the time when Christ was not in existence, making the man Jesus subordinate both in flesh and spirit and not of the same substance as the Father. Furthermore the Holy Spirit being the third person of the trinity is dubbed by the Arians as a type of force not a person but instead the invisible arm of God.
Arius was a professional interpreter of Holy Scripture, looked up to by his followers who quote fervently the words of the apostles and held to what they passionately attribute to as the truth. But Arius much like his view of separation between a Father and his Son, forged division in the church.
It was not in any way the authenticity of Scripture on trial in Nicene but the misinterpretation of it and the subsequent teachings that followed. The same misinterpretation of scripture we see today, now the added bewilderment of adjusting the truth to accommodate the religious heretical agenda behind a lesser god.

The Apostasy subject is difficult for one to objectively speak on especially if you are in the midst of it.

Remember you said it your self

 

[Purity]

Hi Mazda,

See you have been doing a little research. Well done!

The Historical facts:

A synod of nearly one hundred bishops was assembled in Alexandria from both Libya and Egypt, four years before the Council of Nicea. In 321 Arius was condemned for his new and uncommon exegesis. However, he was not ready to give up without a fight. He went to Palestine to seek support from other Eastern bishops, many of whom were Lucian’s former students. As the debate continued and enlarged, it became enflamed, with various councils condemning or approving Arius’s views. Several leading Eastern bishops followed the doctrinal innovator into this divisive Christological territory.

The conflict came to a head when the Emperor Constantine, to safeguard the unity of the empire and the church, convened the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325. The council fathers declared the Son to be of one substance (ὁμοούσιος, or consubstantial) with the Father, equal to the Father from all eternity. The council issued the famous Nicene Creed saying that Christ is “God from God, true God from true God, begotten not created [meaning not a creature but eternally begotten of the Father], of the same essence as the Father.” The Council condemned Arius’s teaching and exiled him to Illyricum.

Can you see your problem?

 

[Floyd]

[SIZE=28pt]Arianism,[/SIZE] [SIZE=16pt]and Arius (4th century CE)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]The history of this movement, and its propagator, is given in the following extraction from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The crux of the matter is the premise by Arius that Jesus was “a” son of God, as opposed to “[/SIZE]The[SIZE=16pt]”[/SIZE] Son of God[SIZE=16pt]. In effect Arius was proposing that Jesus as “Christ” (the Anointed or Elect) was not co-equal to God, [/SIZE]and was not therefore “Divine”.


[SIZE=14pt]Arianism was a Christian heresy first proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius. It affirmed that Christ is not truly divine but a created being. The fundamental premise of Arius was the uniqueness of God, who is alone self-existent and immutable. The Son, who is not self-existent, cannot be God.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]An ascetical, moral leader of a Christian community in the area of Alexandria, Arius attracted a large following through a message integrating Neo-Platonism, which accented the absolute oneness of the divinity as the highest perfection, with a literal, rationalist approach to the New Testament texts. Christ was viewed as the most perfect creature in the material world, whose moral integrity led him to be "adopted" by God as a son but who nevertheless remained a secondary deity, or Logos substantially unlike the eternal, uncreated Father and subordinate to his will. Because the Godhead is unique, it cannot be shared or communicated so that the Son cannot be God. Because the Godhead is immutable, the Son, who is mutable (being represented in the Gospels as subject to growth and change) cannot be God. The Son must, therefore, be deemed a creature who has been called into existence out of nothing and has had a beginning. Moreover, the Son can have no direct knowledge of the Father since the Son is finite and of a different order of existence. This thesis was publicized ~323 through the poetic verse of his major work, Thalia (Banquet), and was widely spread by the tactic of popular songs written for laborers and travelers.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]According to its opponents, especially Athanasius, Arius' teaching reduced the Son to a demigod, reintroduced polytheism (since the worship of the Son was not abandoned), and undermined the Christian concept of redemption since only Christ who was truly God could redeem the world. From the outset, the controversy between both parties took place upon the common basis of the Neoplatonic concept of ousia ("substance" or "stuff"), which was foreign to the New Testament itself.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Following an exchange of condemnations (323-324) between the Arians and various gatherings of clergy in Egypt, Palestine, and Syria, Constantine, eager for unity and peace, sent emissaries to mediate the conflict. This effort failed, and he summoned the Council of Nicaea (the First Ecumenical Council) in May 325, to settle what he termed "a fight over trifling and foolish verbal differences". The bishops issued a creed to safeguard orthodox Christian belief. This creed states that the Son is homoousion to Patri (of one substance with the Father), thus declaring him to be all that the Father is: he is completely divine. When Arius refused to sign the creed, the bishops declared him a heretic and exiled him and the Arian leaders. This seemed to end the controversy, but it was only the beginning of a long-protracted dispute.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Although the Arian leaders were exiled, they tried by intrigue to return to their churches and sees and to banish their enemies. They were partly successful. Influential support from colleagues in Asia Minor and from Constantia, the Emperor's daughter, succeeded in effecting Arius' return from exile and his readmission into the church after consenting to a compromise formula, despite the opposition from Athanasius. Shortly before he was to be reconciled, however, Arius collapsed and died while walking through the streets of Constantinople in 336.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]When Constantine died in 337, Constans became emperor in the West and Constantius II became emperor in the East. The former was sympathetic to the orthodox Christians and the latter to the Arians. At a council held at Antioch (341), an affirmation of faith that omitted the homoousion clause was issued. Another council was held at Sardica in 342, but little was achieved by either council.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]In 350 Constantius II became sole ruler of the empire, and under his leadership the Nicene party (orthodox Christians) was largely crushed. The extreme Arians then declared that the Son was anomoios (unlike) the Father. These Anomoeans succeeded in having their views endorsed at Sirmium in 357, but their extremism stimulated the moderates, who asserted that the Son was homoiousios (of similar substance) with the Father, and conservatives, who asserted that the Son was homoios (like) the Father. Constantius at first supported the Homoiousians but soon transferred his support to the Homoenas, led by Acacius. Their views were approved in 360 at Constantinople, where all previous creeds were rejected, the term ousia ("substance" or "stuff") was repudiated, and a statement of faith was issued stating that the Son was "like the Father who begot him".[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]After Constantius' death in 361, the orthodox Christian majority in the West consolidated its position. The Arian persecution conducted by Emperor Valens (364-378) in the East and the success of the teaching of Basil the Great of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus led the Homoiousian majority in the East to realize its fundamental agreement with the Nicene party. When the emperors Gratian (367-383) and Theodosius I (379-395) took up the defense of orthodoxy, Arianism collapsed. In 381 the Second Ecumenical Council met at Constantinople. Arianism was proscribed and the Nicene Creed was approved.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Although this ended the heresy in the empire, Arianism continued among some of the Germanic tribes to the end of the 7th century. In modern times some Unitarians are virtually Arians in that they are unwilling either to reduce Christ to a mere human being or to attribute to him a divine nature identical with that of the Father. The Christology of the Jehovah's Witnesses is also a form of Arianism; they regard Arius as a forerunner of Charles Taze Russell, the founder of their movement.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]There are still some who claim that Arius was correct, and of course the above mentioned groupings or “Sects” are well known. Some go further, and state that they have “proof” of Arius’s assertion. Proof or otherwise in the temporal sense, could only be ascertained from documentation, which is accepted as “genuine”, and such documentation does apparently exist in the form of “Pshitta”, called by some “A”, which is derived from the “Old Syriacs”. The dating of these is in dispute, and range from just after the execution of Christ, to AD 400 approx.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=16pt]Regarding our western Bibles, one theory holds that these are derived from the “Pshitto”, called by some “O”, translated to the Greek, followed by Latin, and then the languages of Europe. Others maintain that the originals were in Greek. See:[/SIZE] Ancient Aramaic Manuscripts, Pshitta “O” and “A”


[SIZE=16pt]The assertion of Arius, negating the Divinity of Christ, has been possible to be re-examined in the “temporal” sense, since the availability of the “Old Syriac Pshitta A”. Translations have been produced since the 1800s, but only two are recorded using the “A” document. The first by Dr. George Lamsa, (1892-1975), who as a native Turk spoke Syrian Aramaic, and was a member of the Syrian church of the East. His translation has the question mark against it, as to how close Syriac Aramaic is to Palestinian Aramaic. Also, his rendering of Christ’s utterances on the cross are different to the accepted.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]The second is by Victor Alexander, an ancient languages scholar, who has produced a recent translation, see: [/SIZE][SIZE=16pt]Supporters Page : http://www.revelationsmessage.co.uk/Supporters Page.htm [/SIZE][SIZE=16pt](Translation of the Pshitta, by Victor Alexander).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]The interesting point about these translations is the way they treat John 17:14. Victor Alexander’s renders the words of Christ; [/SIZE][SIZE=16pt]“I have given them your Trinity”,[/SIZE][SIZE=16pt] which goes to the heart of the above debate! Lamsa, shows “your word”. Murdock and Etheridge, using the “O” document show, “your word”.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]In the “Spiritual” sense, the “Trinity” is not doubted. This latter translation is timely, as confirmation of what is implicit in both Old and New Testaments, regarding the Triune God. See; [/SIZE][SIZE=16pt]The Triune God; http://www.revelationsmessage.co.uk/Triune God.htm[/SIZE]




Floyd.

 

[Madad21]

Hi Mazda,

See you have been doing a little research. Well done!

The Historical facts:

A synod of nearly one hundred bishops was assembled in Alexandria from both Libya and Egypt, four years before the Council of Nicea. In 321 Arius was condemned for his new and uncommon exegesis. However, he was not ready to give up without a fight. He went to Palestine to seek support from other Eastern bishops, many of whom were Lucian’s former students. As the debate continued and enlarged, it became enflamed, with various councils condemning or approving Arius’s views. Several leading Eastern bishops followed the doctrinal innovator into this divisive Christological territory.

The conflict came to a head when the Emperor Constantine, to safeguard the unity of the empire and the church, convened the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325. The council fathers declared the Son to be of one substance (ὁμοούσιος, or consubstantial) with the Father, equal to the Father from all eternity. The council issued the famous Nicene Creed saying that Christ is “God from God, true God from true God, begotten not created [meaning not a creature but eternally begotten of the Father], of the same essence as the Father.” The Council condemned Arius’s teaching and exiled him to Illyricum.

Can you see your problem?

nope

Alexandria, COUNCILS OF.—In 231 a council of bishops and priests met at Alexandria, called by Bishop Demetrius for the purpose of declaring Origen unworthy of the office of teacher, and of excommunicating him. The opinions of Origen of Alexandria, who lived in the 3d century, one of the most learned of the Greek Fathers. Prominent in his teaching was the doctrine that all created beings, including Satan, will ultimately be saved.

In 306, a council held under St. Peter of Alexandria deposed Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, for idolatry and other crimes.
Apparently as early as during the persecution itself Melitius began to refuse to receive in communion those Christians who had renounced their faith during the persecution and later repented of that choice. Melitius' rigorous stance on this point stood in contrast to the earlier willingness of bishops to accept back into communion those who seemed to have truly repented (a pattern which was addressed during previous similar controversies, including those who had lapsed during the Decian persecution about 50 years earlier).

It is believed by some that Melitius ordained Arius (known for the Arian controversy) as a priest; but scholarship is divided on whether this is the case.
The schism then begun by him lasted fifty years and was the source of much sorrow for the Church of Egypt.

In 321 was held the council that first condemned Arius, then parish priest of the section of Alexandria known as Baucalis. After his condemnation Arius withdrew to Palestine (like the slimy little weasel he was), where he secured the powerful support of Eusebius of Caesarea. At the Council of 326, St. Athanasius was elected to succeed the aged Alexander, and various heresies and schisms of Egypt were denounced

It just looks like their pulling out weeds to me bro.

The Harvest

I spent a few years as a young man in horticulture, I was 19 years old getting $9 an hour to stand on the back of a trailer plough sorting lily bulbs from chunks of dirt. Weeds are no threat to lily bulbs so there was no need for weed killer you just need good soil and NZ is rich with good soil. I can tell you that for every 2 or 3 feet of dirt that came up that conveyor I would have a good 50 or so bulbs in the container I can also tell you that for every 50 bulbs I would pull away maybe 4 or 5 weeds.
You see if you sow a field full of seed you will find that roughly 70-80% of that field will yield a harvest the rest are strangled by weeds or eaten by animals or insects. Jesus in his parable speaks of apostasy in the same way.

Many of you take this pious stance always talking about mainstream Christianity (Trinitarians) in terms of the wide road, but Jesus talks of apostasy in terms of a harvest. Its the secular world that runs down a wide road along with apostates.
Do you think that there will be separate places for heretics buddhists muslims atheists etc etc, of course not, how many is that on the wide path?

What you call mainstream Christianity is very small in comparison to the multitudes running along that wide road with their fingers in their ears and hands over their eyes.

Your right purity i do see my problem, I am a sinner in need of a savior. So i am exceedingly thankful that I have a savior in a God that is bigger then me.

I dont need to be in control of how big God is, wrap him up neatly in a parcel and fit him in to my tiny brain. I dont need to be in charge of who God is posturing smugly in my own piety.

Job 11:7​

"Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?​

​

So yeah I see my problem, unfortunately purity we see yours too.

 

[StanJ]

Stan, you don't know any different.
The Apostasy subject is difficult for one to objectively speak on especially if you are in the midst of it.
"come out from among them" takes on a new challenge for Christians in the last days.
I hope in your private conversations with those you have the respect of losing some ground too you would admit that Christianity is a terrible mess right now.
Those frog like spirits are having a field day throughout all the earth.
Their croaking is almost deafening.

That would be a simply fallacious and reactive response, not surprising coming from someone of your ilk.
Apostasy is never understood by those going through it or those who are NOT Christian. Jesus made this clear ion Matthew 24:36-41. Many will be left with no idea why.
Christianity, the real one, is not in a mess, those who claim to be sheep and are goats, are the ones in a mess, but Jesus promised to separate them on his return. We may not be able to tell who the sheep and the goats are, but Jesus can and will. All we know is that we know His voice, and so we will not perish. John 10:27-30

Stan you just stepped in it again,by contradicting yourself.here is Jesus saying that God has authority over him,The very point i have been trying to make.
I don't drink milk,because milk is for babies.Feed me the word of God.SOLA SCRIPTURA.

Jesus is saying the Father has authority over Him, and as usual unis don't understand the relationship so equivocate about who the Father is.
It is not a problem for us, as we know the Father is the actual Father of Jesus the man. We KNOW the Father/Son/Holy Spirit as the ONE triune God.
This would have been something you could have learned HAD you fed on milk first, but as you refused to feed on the milk of the scriptures, God never gave you meat. Apparently you have never raised a real child either?

 

[Pelaides]

Arius was reading the same bible that we read,and anybody that reads the bible will come to the same conclusions.I see so many people are looking outside of the scripture to support their side of the argument(cut,copyandpaste),because they cant find anything in the bible to support it.Here are 2 more verses.

John14:28

Mark10:18

If you want to argue with Jesus about who he was,and what his mission in the world was then feel free to do so.All i do is quote the word of God.SOLA SCRIPTURA!

 

[StanJ]

Arius was reading the same bible that we read,and anybody that reads the bible will come to the same conclusions.I see so many people are looking outside of the scripture to support their side of the argument(cut,copyandpaste),because they cant find anything in the bible to support it.Here are 2 more verses.

John14:28

Mark10:18

If you want to argue with Jesus about who he was,and what his mission in the world was then feel free to do so.All i do is quote the word of God.SOLA SCRIPTURA!

Another fallacious statement, as I have provided tons, which have mostly been ignored or equivocated on.

 

[Purity]

Arius was reading the same bible that we read,and anybody that reads the bible will come to the same conclusions.I see so many people are looking outside of the scripture to support their side of the argument(cut,copyandpaste),because they cant find anything in the bible to support it.Here are 2 more verses.

John14:28

Mark10:18

If you want to argue with Jesus about who he was,and what his mission in the world was then feel free to do so.All i do is quote the word of God.SOLA SCRIPTURA!

You are correct Pelaides.
That's why every Christian should study the creeds and how and why they came into being.
Enough there to drop the creed doctrine and return to the Bible.
Purity

 

[Floyd]

nope

Alexandria, COUNCILS OF.—In 231 a council of bishops and priests met at Alexandria, called by Bishop Demetrius for the purpose of declaring Origen unworthy of the office of teacher, and of excommunicating him. The opinions of Origen of Alexandria, who lived in the 3d century, one of the most learned of the Greek Fathers. Prominent in his teaching was the doctrine that all created beings, including Satan, will ultimately be saved.

In 306, a council held under St. Peter of Alexandria deposed Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, for idolatry and other crimes.
Apparently as early as during the persecution itself Melitius began to refuse to receive in communion those Christians who had renounced their faith during the persecution and later repented of that choice. Melitius' rigorous stance on this point stood in contrast to the earlier willingness of bishops to accept back into communion those who seemed to have truly repented (a pattern which was addressed during previous similar controversies, including those who had lapsed during the Decian persecution about 50 years earlier).

It is believed by some that Melitius ordained Arius (known for the Arian controversy) as a priest; but scholarship is divided on whether this is the case.
The schism then begun by him lasted fifty years and was the source of much sorrow for the Church of Egypt.

In 321 was held the council that first condemned Arius, then parish priest of the section of Alexandria known as Baucalis. After his condemnation Arius withdrew to Palestine (like the slimy little weasel he was), where he secured the powerful support of Eusebius of Caesarea. At the Council of 326, St. Athanasius was elected to succeed the aged Alexander, and various heresies and schisms of Egypt were denounced

It just looks like their pulling out weeds to me bro.

The Harvest

I spent a few years as a young man in horticulture, I was 19 years old getting $9 an hour to stand on the back of a trailer plough sorting lily bulbs from chunks of dirt. Weeds are no threat to lily bulbs so there was no need for weed killer you just need good soil and NZ is rich with good soil. I can tell you that for every 2 or 3 feet of dirt that came up that conveyor I would have a good 50 or so bulbs in the container I can also tell you that for every 50 bulbs I would pull away maybe 4 or 5 weeds.
You see if you sow a field full of seed you will find that roughly 70-80% of that field will yield a harvest the rest are strangled by weeds or eaten by animals or insects. Jesus in his parable speaks of apostasy in the same way.

Many of you take this pious stance always talking about mainstream Christianity (Trinitarians) in terms of the wide road, but Jesus talks of apostasy in terms of a harvest. Its the secular world that runs down a wide road along with apostates.
Do you think that there will be separate places for heretics buddhists muslims atheists etc etc, of course not, how many is that on the wide path?

What you call mainstream Christianity is very small in comparison to the multitudes running along that wide road with their fingers in their ears and hands over their eyes.

Your right purity i do see my problem, I am a sinner in need of a savior. So i am exceedingly thankful that I have a savior in a God that is bigger then me.

I dont need to be in control of how big God is, wrap him up neatly in a parcel and fit him in to my tiny brain. I dont need to be in charge of who God is posturing smugly in my own piety.

Job 11:7​

"Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?​

​

So yeah I see my problem, unfortunately purity we see yours too.

Your usual rubbish;
answer my questions:


Now that you have placed all that disagree with your non Biblical teaching into the category of "fools"; will you now help the "fools" to understand your deep and special understanding of the Holy Bible (God's Word); which you have special access to; so that we can benefit from your wisdom!

Your past comments state:

You do not accept the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.
You deny the Deity of the Holy Spirit.
You do not accept that the "shema" is reference to The compound entity; Godhead
You deny the existence of Satan.
You deny Satan tempted Eve.
You assert that only your interpretation of Scripture is valid!

This is profoundly tedious heresy; (why don't you complain to the management?)

I ask again; despite your weasel words and attempt to slide side ways by blaming all and sundry for your own devious avoidance of your own teachings;

Purity, on 24 May 2014 - 01:04 AM, said:
Purity, on 24 May 2014 - 01:04 AM, said:
Purity, on 24 May 2014 - 01:04 AM, said:

If only you had 39 books to support your notions but you haven't one.

I only need one; The Bible!

It states clearly that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; which is where your apostasy is!
Watching your weasel words is like reading Gen..and Satan's words to Eve; "surely thou shalt not die"!
Ahh. but of course; you don't believe in Satan do you?
That means he never tempted Eve!
That means in your "theology" God introduced temptation and evil!???
That of course would not hold water! So where now your theology?

You say you "praise God regularly"; that means (if you tell the truth), that you "worship in spirit and in truth ( Jhn.4:23-24), unless the "one" you worship, is one of those that Jesus warned would be evident (false Christ's).
You said in an earlier post that you treat the Holy Spirit in the same way as Christ Jesus; ie deny their Deity!
In that case; you cannot "worship in spirit and in truth"; as "God is Spirit"!???
Floyd.

 

[Madad21]

1

Your usual rubbish;
answer my questions:


Now that you have placed all that disagree with your non Biblical teaching into the category of "fools"; will you now help the "fools" to understand your deep and special understanding of the Holy Bible (God's Word); which you have special access to; so that we can benefit from your wisdom!

Your past comments state:

You do not accept the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.
You deny the Deity of the Holy Spirit.
You do not accept that the "shema" is reference to The compound entity; Godhead
You deny the existence of Satan.
You deny Satan tempted Eve.
You assert that only your interpretation of Scripture is valid!

This is profoundly tedious heresy; (why don't you complain to the management?)

I ask again; despite your weasel words and attempt to slide side ways by blaming all and sundry for your own devious avoidance of your own teachings;

Purity, on 24 May 2014 - 01:04 AM, said:
Purity, on 24 May 2014 - 01:04 AM, said:
Purity, on 24 May 2014 - 01:04 AM, said:

I only need one; The Bible!

It states clearly that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; which is where your apostasy is!
Watching your weasel words is like reading Gen..and Satan's words to Eve; "surely thou shalt not die"!
Ahh. but of course; you don't believe in Satan do you?
That means he never tempted Eve!
That means in your "theology" God introduced temptation and evil!???
That of course would not hold water! So where now your theology?

You say you "praise God regularly"; that means (if you tell the truth), that you "worship in spirit and in truth ( Jhn.4:23-24), unless the "one" you worship, is one of those that Jesus warned would be evident (false Christ's).
You said in an earlier post that you treat the Holy Spirit in the same way as Christ Jesus; ie deny their Deity!
In that case; you cannot "worship in spirit and in truth"; as "God is Spirit"!???
Floyd.

floyd dont use my posts to pin up your comment, hes not going to answer you so get over it, starting to get very annoying, move on!

Arius was reading the same bible that we read,and anybody that reads the bible will come to the same conclusions.I see so many people are looking outside of the scripture to support their side of the argument(cut,copyandpaste),because they cant find anything in the bible to support it.Here are 2 more verses.

John14:28

Mark10:18

If you want to argue with Jesus about who he was,and what his mission in the world was then feel free to do so.All i do is quote the word of God.SOLA SCRIPTURA!

You are correct Pelaides.
That's why every Christian should study the creeds and how and why they came into being.
Enough there to drop the creed doctrine and return to the Bible.
Purity

These guys??

Purity has resorted to swinging blindly in the dark (re especially the last few posts), palaides has no idea whatsoever, I wont even go there.
These guy cant hold up a substantial argument and its getting boring and pathetic there is no challenge here at all.
i think i will move on, find a challenge.

 

[Purity]

These guys??

Purity has resorted to swinging blindly in the dark (re especially the last few posts), palaides has no idea whatsoever, I wont even go there.
These guy cant hold up a substantial argument and its getting boring and pathetic there is no challenge here at all.
i think i will move on, find a challenge.

Thankfully Brakelite is providing some interesting reading in another thread.

This thread "IF YOU BELIEVE JESUS is GOD" should not be the no 1 question it should be "HAVE YOU ACCEPTED THE COMMANDMENTS OF (COUNCIL)MEN?"

Now that would be a thread to participate in.

P.

 

[Pelaides]

Another fallacious statement, as I have provided tons, which have mostly been ignored or equivocated on.

There is nothing deceptive about the words of Jesus.

Your whole argument has been based on big words,opinions and assumptions,and like sand castles they get washed into the sea.

You are correct Pelaides.
That's why every Christian should study the creeds and how and why they came into being.
Enough there to drop the creed doctrine and return to the Bible.
Purity

I think we have them on the run,With their tails between their legs.

 

[Madad21]

There is nothing deceptive about the words of Jesus.

Your whole argument has been based on big words,opinions and assumptions,and like sand castles they get washed into the sea.

I think we have them on the run,With their tails between their legs.

How can anyone debate with you man?
You make these silly fallacious statements and then run away all pleased with yourself as if have somehow stumped us, it truly is moronic my friend.
I offered to debate with you on scripture concerning the identity of Christ I even provided the link, but you turned me down.
So whos running away from you?

I have provided purity with answers to all his arguments and I have received very few back, go back through the thread and see for yourself, there is nothing he has said that has gone unchallenged, but the same cannot be said for him, Ive gotten tired of putting in the effort, just for him to change the subject everytime it gets hard.

Im sorry palaide but you give very little thought to your statements, we have supplied you with the answers to all your foolish challenges but you just continue to to come up with more statements, you like a guy that just shouts from his chair with his fingers in his ears. This is why I say its annoying.

I tell you what palaide, you can go ahead and claim some sort of lame victory, but as far as Im concerned until you can hold down a reasonable argument you stupidity will go ignorred by me.

 

[Purity]

Hi Mazda & Justaname

how are you both this evening?

 

[Madad21]

Hi Mazda & Justaname

how are you both this evening?

Good man, how are you

 

[Purity]

Good man, how are you

Well, just got back from a Bible Class - on John 21.

It awoken a beautiful lesson which I think we could both agree on

You know this verse well no doubt.

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Johns Gospel is very high spiritual (eagle) view of Jesus Christ.

John 1 - 18 = Jesus being the Word made Flesh (putting aside how we interpret that for a moment

John 19- 21 is Jesus the Word made Spirit.

Notice in John 21 how personal the record is?

Jesus' name mentioned 15 times!!!!!

 

[Madad21]

Well, just got back from a Bible Class - on John 21.

It awoken a beautiful lesson which I think we could both agree on

You know this verse well no doubt.

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

absolutely amen

 

[Purity]

All focus in this chapter is upon the LJC.

Read what happens at the end of John 21!

Peter turned around and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them.52 (This was the disciple53 who had leaned back against Jesus'54 chest at the meal and asked,55 "Lord, who is the one who is going to betray you?")56

Joh 21:21 So when Peter saw him,57 he asked Jesus, "Lord, what about him?"
Joh 21:22 Jesus replied,58 "If I want him to live59 until I come back,60 what concern is that of yours? You follow me!"
Joh 21:23 So the saying circulated61 among the brothers and sisters62 that this disciple was not going to die. But Jesus did not say to him that he was not going to die, but rather, "If I want him to live63 until I come back,64 what concern is that of yours?"

Can you see the lesson of Heb 12:2?

John follows the Lord without special invitation –

Clearly John had a genuine affection for the Lord and was doing Heb 12:2!

Peter was rebuked for looking upon the affairs of his brother and not keeping his eye on his Lord. It was a healthy reminder not to be concerned about what the Lord Jesus is doing with his other disciples and maintain eye contact with the Master at all times.

 

[StanJ]

There is nothing deceptive about the words of Jesus.

Your whole argument has been based on big words,opinions and assumptions,and like sand castles they get washed into the sea.

I think we have them on the run,With their tails between their legs.

That's right, there isn't. So when you want to make a point then use His words or at least Words for the NT and stop all this prevarication.
All this type of condescending and dismissive posting does is elicit hostility and is called goading, which is against the ToS here so keep it up and I'll start reporting your posts, then we'll see how long you last.

 

[Jun2u]

Are you saying that the subject of the Lord Jesus and Peter's conversation was the Apostle John? Are you certain?

It is a common belief amongst scholars and Purity that John is the disciple who leaned back against the chest of Jesus, and that he also wrote the Book of John.

Unfortunately, most scholars, if not all and Purity are wrong.

HINT: Search the Scripture for the disciple (not an apostle) whom Jesus loved and you will have found also the writer of the Book of John. I'm aware that the word apostles is also translated as disciples, I'm merely suggesting that the disciple whom Jesus loved was not an apostle.

John 21:23
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

GOING BACK TO THE OP

Jesus does not have to prove He is God! The Father and the Bible testified to that. I have laid down many, many Scripture texts to Nothead in another thread, to prove Jesus' deity, and likewise, those who posted here.

You say God is ONE (numerically) SHEMA. How then do you reconcile the Bible verses below?

1John 5:5-8
5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water
and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.

Matthew 28:19
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name (NOT NAMES) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”

To God Be The Glory