1 Tim 4:7- Have nothing to do with godless and silly myths. Train yourself in godliness; 8- for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.
The 'Gospel' and Churchianity
- Thread starter theQuestioneer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- died jesus resurrected
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
No - you question a false version of church dogma which you invented.
That is a straw man.
You have had all this explained to you many times. To continue with it is simply trolling.
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 21,675
- 3,595
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
And only the ignorant would call the Trinity "Triune Polytheism" - especially when it was espoused by Christ Himself . . .
Matt. 28:19
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the FATHER and of the SON and of the HOLY SPIRIT
Mantis
Well-Known Member
I believe that Jesus was the “Angel of the Lord” before his begotten earth born life.
I merely do what moist church-goers FAIL to do; question church dogma.
If you expect me to fall down and cringe to your (and your Church's claims)- BLOCK me.
robert derrick
Well-Known Member
So let's review the rejections of Jesus as the true God:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)
1. They said Jesus therefore had a beginning, as though the Scripture were saying "In the beginning of the Word..."
But then we would have to likewise say: "In the beginning of God..." (Gen 1:1)
So, not work.
2. They then said a 'careful study' of Greek would show why John 1:1 does not really say what it says. So during there careful study, they came up with this: The Reference to the 'Word was God' was only figurative.
That is when they proved themselves to be an unserious people, not to be taken seriously. And of course, if John 1:1 is merely figurative, then Gen 1:1 is merely figurative, and God figuratively created the heaven and the earth.
So, not work.
3. They finally finished their very careful study of the Greek, and came up with this:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Divine." Because the Word was divinely created. (Not even most divinely, but just divinely created)
Once again a childish attempt and insult to intelligence of adults. And of course, they must then say:
"In the beginning the Divine created the heaven and the earth."
But no, only in the last part of the one verse John 1:1, is it proper to translate God as 'The Divine'. Everywhere else in the Bible it is to be translated as 'God'. Unless it suits them otherwise.
So, not work.
4. And then they finally threw out this:
"From the beginning was the Word..." Which of course is just floundering gibberish, because other than being a flip-flop of English, it still makes no difference to the context of the verse: 'From the beginning of creation was God and was the Word with God.
So, in the end, we see an unserious effort to do away with one of the simplest Scriptures in the Bible, akin to Gen 1:1, where the Word was God from everlasting, and the Word was with God in the beginning of creation, and the Word came down from heaven and was made flesh and named Jesus Christ upon the earth.
And what is the response of them that reject Jesus as both Lord and Christ? cAs seen above, childishly insulting gibberish dressed up with a whole bunch of pseudo-Greek study. Carefully done yes, but doesn't even rate as genuine craftiness.
These people have built for themselves a pagan Trojan Horse full of Greek, that they might as corrupted babes continue to milk 'Jehovah' for all it's worth. And since God would never let them through the gate of His heavenly City, as the idiots of Troy did the Greeks of old, they would have to use their greatly puffed up knowledge to try and float over the wall of God's City, which of course is just too high for their silly reaches of rejection.
"And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Rev 21)
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)
1. They said Jesus therefore had a beginning, as though the Scripture were saying "In the beginning of the Word..."
But then we would have to likewise say: "In the beginning of God..." (Gen 1:1)
So, not work.
2. They then said a 'careful study' of Greek would show why John 1:1 does not really say what it says. So during there careful study, they came up with this: The Reference to the 'Word was God' was only figurative.
That is when they proved themselves to be an unserious people, not to be taken seriously. And of course, if John 1:1 is merely figurative, then Gen 1:1 is merely figurative, and God figuratively created the heaven and the earth.
So, not work.
3. They finally finished their very careful study of the Greek, and came up with this:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Divine." Because the Word was divinely created. (Not even most divinely, but just divinely created)
Once again a childish attempt and insult to intelligence of adults. And of course, they must then say:
"In the beginning the Divine created the heaven and the earth."
But no, only in the last part of the one verse John 1:1, is it proper to translate God as 'The Divine'. Everywhere else in the Bible it is to be translated as 'God'. Unless it suits them otherwise.
So, not work.
4. And then they finally threw out this:
"From the beginning was the Word..." Which of course is just floundering gibberish, because other than being a flip-flop of English, it still makes no difference to the context of the verse: 'From the beginning of creation was God and was the Word with God.
So, in the end, we see an unserious effort to do away with one of the simplest Scriptures in the Bible, akin to Gen 1:1, where the Word was God from everlasting, and the Word was with God in the beginning of creation, and the Word came down from heaven and was made flesh and named Jesus Christ upon the earth.
And what is the response of them that reject Jesus as both Lord and Christ? cAs seen above, childishly insulting gibberish dressed up with a whole bunch of pseudo-Greek study. Carefully done yes, but doesn't even rate as genuine craftiness.
These people have built for themselves a pagan Trojan Horse full of Greek, that they might as corrupted babes continue to milk 'Jehovah' for all it's worth. And since God would never let them through the gate of His heavenly City, as the idiots of Troy did the Greeks of old, they would have to use their greatly puffed up knowledge to try and float over the wall of God's City, which of course is just too high for their silly reaches of rejection.
"And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Rev 21)
Last edited:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You confuse the beginning of God's creation with the beginning of the Creatine Days.
With God were the Angels, including God's son (Job 38), whereas the beginning of God's creation was His only-begotten
son~
Micah 5:2- whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.
Col 1:14- He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.
Rev 3:14- the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation
Of course the clergy, to deceive, say they are both TITLES...
You are not questioning church dogma you are giving a false version of church dogma.
robert derrick
Well-Known Member
Next we have the fact that Jesus is the Lord. And there is One Lord (Eph 4).
And their answer was...... The Lord Jehovah is the true Lord, and the Lord Jesus is the little Lord. Tada!
Yes folks, you read that right: The Lilliputians of Scriptural dispute have so determined that there is actually one really BIG Lord Jehovah, and the one teeny tiny little Lord Jesus. So we have been worshipping little lord Fontenoy Jesus all this time. They are the BIG worshippers of the BIG Lord Jehovah, and we are the little worshippers of the little Lord Jesus...
And of course, since there is "but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and (but) one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Cor 8). Then Jehovah must be the really BIG God and Father, while Jesus is the really little Lord and Son.
Nonetheless, we add to the fact that there is one Lord, the Scripture that declares "the Lord He is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else." (Deut 4:39)
And so, we can take Scripture as plainly written and simply conclude that the one Lord Jesus, He is God. Unless you are a bitter-clinger to 'Jehovah' only, then at least we now have the littler Lord Jesus, He is the littler God.
Aside from such silliness, Duet 4:39 is answered when the Word came down from heaven and was made flesh upon the earth, so that in the fullness of time, the Lord was God in heaven above and was upon the earth beneath: Jesus Christ.
God the Father has never been written as standing upon the earth beneath.
""I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth. And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." (Job 19)
The fulfillment of both Deut 4 and Job 19 can only be the Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ, He was God coming in the flesh standing upon the earth beneath, and in that day of the First Resurrection He will be God returning with power to stand upon the earth beneath, and Job will see Him with see Him...
(I suppose this is another place where God must be transformed into merely the divine again, or even the little Divine: yet in my flesh shall I see the little Divine...my very own little redeemer)
And their answer was...... The Lord Jehovah is the true Lord, and the Lord Jesus is the little Lord. Tada!
Yes folks, you read that right: The Lilliputians of Scriptural dispute have so determined that there is actually one really BIG Lord Jehovah, and the one teeny tiny little Lord Jesus. So we have been worshipping little lord Fontenoy Jesus all this time. They are the BIG worshippers of the BIG Lord Jehovah, and we are the little worshippers of the little Lord Jesus...
And of course, since there is "but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and (but) one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Cor 8). Then Jehovah must be the really BIG God and Father, while Jesus is the really little Lord and Son.
Nonetheless, we add to the fact that there is one Lord, the Scripture that declares "the Lord He is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else." (Deut 4:39)
And so, we can take Scripture as plainly written and simply conclude that the one Lord Jesus, He is God. Unless you are a bitter-clinger to 'Jehovah' only, then at least we now have the littler Lord Jesus, He is the littler God.
Aside from such silliness, Duet 4:39 is answered when the Word came down from heaven and was made flesh upon the earth, so that in the fullness of time, the Lord was God in heaven above and was upon the earth beneath: Jesus Christ.
God the Father has never been written as standing upon the earth beneath.
""I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth. And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." (Job 19)
The fulfillment of both Deut 4 and Job 19 can only be the Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ, He was God coming in the flesh standing upon the earth beneath, and in that day of the First Resurrection He will be God returning with power to stand upon the earth beneath, and Job will see Him with see Him...
(I suppose this is another place where God must be transformed into merely the divine again, or even the little Divine: yet in my flesh shall I see the little Divine...my very own little redeemer)
if there are moist churchgoers, the pastor needs to crank up the air conditioning!
if there are moist churchgoers, the pastor needs to crank up the air conditioning!
You have a great sense of humor!
Second to Robert's...
(I have big hands and a small keyboard)
robert derrick
Well-Known Member
"...does it mean that the "Godhead", the "the Trine God", was NAILED UP???"
Notice the cavalier attitude about Jesus being 'nailed up'. It is akin to how they proclaim that God said his name would be "Jehovah" FOREVER. Not "Jesus".
They are all about 'not Jesus', and 'nailing Him up' was just a blip in the greater scheme of things by their 'Jehovah'.
They have given the god of this world the name 'Jehovah', that as an antichrist they get to show us all their heart and mind about Jesus, and we can witness it openly.
"And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies." (Rev 13)
Jehovah is great! Not Jesus... (Allah is great! Not Jesus.)
Notice the cavalier attitude about Jesus being 'nailed up'. It is akin to how they proclaim that God said his name would be "Jehovah" FOREVER. Not "Jesus".
They are all about 'not Jesus', and 'nailing Him up' was just a blip in the greater scheme of things by their 'Jehovah'.
They have given the god of this world the name 'Jehovah', that as an antichrist they get to show us all their heart and mind about Jesus, and we can witness it openly.
"And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies." (Rev 13)
Jehovah is great! Not Jesus... (Allah is great! Not Jesus.)
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Are you a Jehovah's Witness?
Do you reject the Niacene/Constantinople Creed?
Do you reject the Apostle's Creed?
- Status
