Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,952 Excellent

About Botzwana

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

7,764 profile views
  1. For all those that are confused - The Governor of the CBI - DR. Allak - is referring to the restriction placed on citizens with respect to currency exchanges. Please recall - $3,000.00 dollars is all that they could exchange for when travelling abroad.I am sure there were other restrictions placed on business and others to limit the demand for the dollar thus allowing the CBI to stabilize the currency reserves.As a result the demand for the dollar on the black market rose and created a MCP environment. Now that the war is ending - the CBI can lift the restrictions and further lower the demand for the dollar on black market. In addition, citizens are being forced to use the banks - have MasterCards and are being paid electronically.It will put the currency dealers in the black market out of business.THIS DOES NOT mean that the restrictions on the currency has been lifted from an international standpoint. - Dinar is NOT international!!!!!! above is a comment from recraps
  2. The Trinity

    I should take responsibility for someone giving me 5 negatives for a post early this year that says Go RV? Um no. They have an agenda. As far as other christians here I see them all the time in the gun forum...Talking about war etc. So I leave you with the following. Ask yourself who is the true religion. I think the answer is quite obvious. The term "Jehovah's Witness" is a Scriptural description for True Christians (Isa.43:10-12). When you compare two religions who both claim to be Christian you must use Scriptural evidence to identify the true Christians. These evidences are not complicated. Scriptures say true worshipers could be identified in at least three main ways: Love, Truth (Jn.4:23; 17:17), and Fruitage (Mt.7:16ff). Conversely, by these we can also identify the false. The True religion would be primarily known for it's love toward all (Jn.13:34,35; 1Jn.3:10-12; 4:7, 8). This would include their enemies (Mat.5:44-48; Rom.12:17-20; 1Pet.2:21-23; 3:8- 9). It would not participate in or condone carnal war (2Cor.10:3,4; Isa.2:4). Apply this basic evidence to what happened in both world wars and current conflicts. People of the same religions met on battlefields and slaughtered one another because of nationalistic differences. Each side claimed to be Christian, and each side was supported by its clergy, who claimed that God was on their side. The definition of a "Christian" is "one who does what Christ would do": WWJD (1 Pet.2:21). That slaughter of "Christian" by "Christian" is rotten fruitage. It is a denial of any claim to being the true Church (cf. Mat.26:52). No Christian would continue to associate with these religions (Rev.18:4). What is the historical record of Catholics and Protestants regarding warfare? Jehovah’s Witnesses have never participated in warfare. Another evidence is that the true religion would be made up of people who would all be in agreement on doctrine. It would not have members who believe differently on abortion, war, homosexuality or morals. Its members would not "agree to disagree" (1Cor.1:10; 2Cor.13:11; Phil.1:27). True Christians would be separated from the world by "truth" from God's Word the Bible (Jn.17:17; 4:23). All its teachings would be based on the Bible (2 Tim. 3:14-16; Gal. 1:8, 9). The true religion would have a reputation for promoting exceptional morality in its members (1Cor.6:9,10; Eph.5:3-5; 2 Pet.3:14; 2Cor.7:1; 2Tim.3:5). Does a religion *require* their congregation members to live moral lives, not allowing practicers of homosexuality, fornication, or adultery to be accepted members of their congregation? Or do they turn a blind eye? If so, their "fruitage" would show they are not true Christians. True Christians would be associated with God's name: (Jn.17:3,6,26; Acts 15:14/Isa.55:5; 1 Peter 2:9/Ex.19:4- 5; Ps.83:18). They would not use Bibles which have removed the Most Holy Divine Name of God. Replacing the Divine Name with the common noun "Lord" cannot be justified by any translational principles so it is a blatant "subtraction" from God's word which brings a curse on anyone who approves it (Rev.22:18). The true Church would be engaged in an unprecedented teaching activity (Matthew 24:14, 28:19, 20). Witnesses right now are performing the greatest Bible education work ever done in all human history! There are more scripture evidences, however these are plenty to show which religion meets the requirements of being the True religion. Apostate Christianity has neither the spiritual strength nor the support of God's holy spirit to motivate people to follow the truthful teachings of Jesus Christ. For this reason, the result in Christendom is not true Christianity but counterfeit believers, "weeds" unfit for the Kingdom.-Mat13:24ff. When you examine most religions you find that they cannot meet any of the other requirements of true Christianity. Their historical record is of bloodthirsty wars, immorality, sectarian violence and factional splits (Mat.7:21- 23; 2Tim3:5; Gal.5:19-23). Today Catholics continue to kill Catholics and Protestants kill Protestants, something true Christians would not do (1Jn.3:10,15; 4:8). Our hearts tell us that any religion who is willing to shoot their own members in warfare cannot possibly be trusted to teach Biblical truth. I have found only one group which has presented absolute evidence of truly being Christian: Jehovah's Witnesses. This is the testimony of the Holy Spirit (1Cor. 6:9-11; Gal.5:19-22).
  3. The Trinity

    So I am being limited in my choice of how I debate. So first giving me negatives and now this. I must be making too much sense....My 2 cents- I wiped the floor with you guys. You guys had no answers to any of the 54 points I made. So after now saying I am breaking forum rules and with 10 negatives today. I will say Adios to this. My links are here for anyone really wanting the truth. Seek those. The Christians here fail to see that the Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Espicopalians believe just like them. Which has the truth? They all cannot have it. If they all have it then the cramped and narrow road is HUGE! And that is not according to the Bible so...
  4. The Trinity

    That is a load of bullcrap. Those are excellent questions backed up by scripture as to why the Trinity is wrong. Just because you do not acknowledge it doesn´t make it noise. I already went over your answers in the other thread. Why should I retype them? Don´t be lazy, go look them up. JESUS AS GOD: o Unlimited in knowledge o No growth in knowledge o Knew time of His coming · JESUS AS MAN: o Limited in knowledge o Growth in knowledge o Did not know time of His coming What you state right there is TOTAL suppostion. You have no scripture to back up these claims. Christ was not created but has co-existed with the Father and the Holy Spirit for all eternity as the Triune God. St. Paul states, “He created all things”(Colossians 1:16) You totally miss verse 15 that says he is the first born of all creation. Jesus HAD a beginning. God did not. Numbers23:12 God is not a man. Therefore Jesus could NEVER be God or the scriptures would be lying. “has the fullness of the Godhead” (Colossians 2:9 This entire link refutes that. Scholars agree too. Christians believe the Holy Spirit is a person and is equal in the Triune Godhead essence. Um yeah, not a person. 1 The evidence used by some trinitarians to "prove" that the Holy Spirit is not only aperson (rather than an impersonal force from God) but a person who is equally God with the Father in heaven usually consists of 4 main parts:(A.) Paragraphs 9-20 of this study will address the so-called 'proof' that - "The Holy Spirit is referred to as a Person in the masculine genderthroughout the New Testament." - p. 70, KOTC, 1985, W. Martin. (B.) Paragraphs 21-25 of this study will address the so-called 'proof' that - "Only a person can be directly quoted and can call himself 'I', first person singular [as the Holy Spirit does].... When the Bible personifies things it does not directly quote them." (C.) Paragraphs 26-32 of this study will address the so-called 'proof' that - "Not only does Jesus show the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son to be God at Matthew 28:19, but he also shows that there is only one personalname (singular) for all 3 of them!" (D.) Paragraph 33 of this study will address the so-called 'proof' that - "When Ananias lied to the Apostles in Acts 5, he also was lying to the HolySpirit (Acts 5:3). And since Acts 5:4 says Ananias 'lied not to men, but toGod,' our only possible conclusion must be that the Holy Spirit is God!" 2 Before examining these points, a sincere Bible student should be aware of the alternate view held throughout recorded history by the Hebrews and by the first Christians (for the first two hundred years, at least - see theHIST and CREEDS studies) and by Jehovah's Witnesses today.They believe that the Father alone is the Most High, only true God (John 17:1, 3) and he alone is named Jehovah (Ps. 83:18 KJV). The first Christians (and Jehovah's Witnesses today) further said that Jesus was thevery first creation by Jehovah (and the only one directly by God) and was, and is, the second most important individual in existence and the highest of all created things.They further say that ALL things thereafter were created BY the Father (Who, alone, is Jehovah) through Jesus who, following Jehovah's will and spoken commands, used Jehovah's special active force (the impersonalinvisible force called Holy Spirit) to bring all other things (angels included) into existence. This Holy Spirit can be used to create, to motivate, to observe, communicate, etc. Although far from a perfect analogy, we might compare the many things electricity and radiant energy can do.Electricity is used to communicate, create, destroy, operate (as in remote control devices), and motivate (as used by man in heart pacemakers, artificial hands, and as found naturally in man's and animal's nervous systems, etc.). Lasers (which use a form of radiant energy) can also perform similarly varied tasks. Holy Spirit, of course, is infinitely greater than these two puny examples familiar to humans.3 In the Old Testament (OT) it is clear that the inspired Bible writers intended holy spirit to be understood as an invisible, powerful force from God. Even many trinitarian scholars will admit that.(We can even see the same understanding when the word "spirit" is used for the activating power or force used by other creatures. For example, Ezekiel 1:19, 20, speaking about the angels or cherubim who control the movement of God's chariot, says literally, "and when the living creatures went, the wheels went beside them; and when the living creatures rose from the earth, the wheels rose .... for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels." - RSV. It is clear that this means the controlling power of the cherubim moved the wheels. In fact the very trinitarian Good News Bible(GNB) paraphrases this to read: "the wheels did exactly what the creatures did, because the creatures controlled them.")For example, p. 269, The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1976, admits: "In the OT the Holy Spirit means a divine power ..."And the New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984, pp. 1136, 1137, says:"Spirit, Holy Spirit. OT, Heb. ruah 378 times...; NT, Gk. pneuma 379 times." And "Divine power, where ruah is used to describe...a supernaturalforce...."And, "At its [the Old Testament's concept of God's spirit] heart is the experience of a mysterious, awesome power - the mighty invisible force of the wind, the mystery of vitality, the otherly power that transforms - allruah, all manifestations of divine energy." And "at this early stage [pre-Christian] of understanding, God's ruah was thought of simply as a supernatural power (under God's authority) exerting force in some direction." The Encyclopedia Americana tells us:"The doctrine of the Holy Spirit [as a person who is God] is a distinctly Christian one.... the Spirit of Jehovah [in the OT] is the active divine principle in nature. .... But it is in the New Testament [NT] that we find the bases of the doctrine of the Spirit's personality."And, "Yet the early Church did not forthwith attain to a complete doctrine; nor was it, in fact, until after the essential divinity of Jesus had received full ecclesiastical sanction [in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicaea] that thepersonality of the Spirit was explicitly recognized, and the doctrine of the Trinity formulated." Also, "It is better to regard the Spirit as the agencywhich, proceeding from the Father and the Son, dwells in the church as the witness and power of the life therein." - v. 14, p. 326, 1957. And Britannica agrees:"The Hebrew word ruah (usually translated 'spirit') is often found in texts referring to the free and unhindered activity of God, .... There was, however, no explicit belief in a separate divine person in Biblical Judaism; in fact, the New Testament itself is not entirely clear in this regard...."The definition that the Holy Spirit was a distinct divine Person equal in substance to the Father and the Son and not subordinate to them came at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381...." - Encyclopedia BritannicaMicropaedia, 1985, v. 6, p. 22.4 Yes, not only did God's people, as described in the OT, believe the holy spirit was an active force and not a person, but that same belief prevailed from the time of the NT writers up until at least 325 A. D. when the Roman Church officially accepted and began promoting its new doctrine. To bolster this NEW doctrine they went to the NT to find "proof." That vague, ambiguous "proof" is what we will investigate in this study.Many historians and Bible scholars (many of them trinitarians) freely admit the above truth. For example:"On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the Spirit as a divine energy or power."Dictionary.CatholicA "The majority of NT texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone" -New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 575, Vol. 13, 1967."It is important to realize that for the first Christians the Spirit was thought of in terms of divine power." - New Bible Dictionary, p. 1139, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984."The emergence of Trinitarian speculations in early church theology led to great difficulties in the article about the Holy Spirit. For the being-as-person of the Holy Spirit, which is evident in the New Testament as divinepower...could not be clearly grasped.... The Holy Spirit was viewed not as a personal figure but rather as a power" - The New EncyclopediaBritannica."The true divinity of the third person [the holy spirit] was asserted...finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381 A. D." - A Catholic Dictionary.5 Yes, the Council of Constantinople (381 A. D.) first officially decreed "the personality of the Holy Spirit". - Cairns, pp. 142, 145; also seeEncyclopedia Britannica, v. 6, p. 22, 1985 ed.Famed trinitarian Church historian Neander notes in History of Christian Dogma:"Though Basil of Caesarea [famed late 4th century trinitarian bishop - one of the 'Three Cappadocians' who were instrumental in further developingthe trinity doctrine to the final form adopted at the council of Constantinople in 381 A. D. - An Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 794; and p. 237, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1990 printing] wished to teach the divinity [deity] of the holy spirit in his church, he only ventured to introduce it gradually."6 There was a very good reason for the reluctance of the early Christians to accept this new doctrine of the Spirit: "In the N[ew] T[estament] there is no direct suggestion of a doctrine of the Trinity. The spirit is conceived as an IMPERSONAL POWER by which God effects his will through Christ." - An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945, p. 344.In fact, Gregory of Nazianzus (another of the 'Three Cappadocians' whom trinitarian historian Lohse praises as being essential to the final defeat of the Arians at the Council of Constantinople),"declared that it was the destiny of his time [381 A. D.] to bring to full clarity the mystery which in the New Testament was only dimly intimated." - p. 64, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, Fortress Press, 1985.Trinitarian Gregory also admitted,"But of the wise men amongst ourselves [Christians], some have conceived of him as an Activity, some as a Creature, some as God; and some have been uncertain which to call Him, out of reverence for Scripture, they say, as though it did not make the matter clear either way. And therefore they neither worship Him nor treat Him with dishonor, but take up a neutral position, or rather a very miserable one, with respect to Him. And of those who consider Him to be God, some are orthodox in mind only, while others venture to be so with the lips also." - "The Fifth Theological Oration," section 5 (page 616, Vol. 7, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, The Master Christian Library, Version 5 (software).7 Noted Bible scholar Joseph H. Thayer gives these 5 meanings for the NT Greek word Pneuma ("spirit"):"1. a movement of air, (gentle) blast.".... "2. The spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated.".... "3. a spirit [person], i.e., a simple essence, devoid of all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting...." [This definition includes] "c. a spirit[person] higher than man but lower than God, i.e. an angel." "4. The Scriptures also ascribe a [pneuma] to GOD, i.e. God's power and agency, - distinguishable in thought...from God's essence [included in definition #3 above] in itself considered, - manifest in the course of affairs, and by itsinfluence upon souls productive in the theocratic body (the church) of all the higher spiritual gifts and blessings." [And] "5. Univ. the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of ANY ONE; the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc." - pp. 520-523.Obviously, Holy Spirit is placed by Thayer under definition #4 above: "God's power" not "God's essence"! On p. 522, Thayer further defines this Spirit:"The Holy Spirit is a dunamis [Gr. - 'power'], and is expressly so called in Lk. xxiv. 49, and ... Lk. I. 35."Thayer also explains the occasional personification of this POWER from God:"In some pass[ages] the Holy Spirit is rhetorically ['used without regard to some actual condition or negating the literal significance of the statement' - p. 1946, Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary, 1962 ed.] represented as a Person...Jn. xiv. 16 sq. 26; xv. 26; xvi. 13-15 (in which pass[age] fr[om] Jn. the personification was suggested by the fact that the Holy Spirit was about to assume with the apostles the place of a person, namely of Christ)" [In other words the HS was personified in these passages because it was taking the place of a person in some respects.] - p. 522, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House, 1977 (10th printing, August 1984).8 The following two trinitarian (Protestant) publications present the process that led to acceptance by the Church of a doctrine that finally included the holy spirit as a person equal to God:"Trinity, a word not found in Scripture but used to express the doctrine of the unity of God as subsisting in 3 distinct persons. Not only is the word 'Trinity' not in scripture, but there is no isolated exposition on this attribute of God in either testament. It is an inferred doctrine, gatheredeclectically from the entire Canon." - p. 630, Today's Dictionary of theBible, Bethany House Publishers, 1982."The word Trinity is not found in the Bible.... It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century .... Although scripture does not give us a formulated doctrine of the Trinity, it contains all the elements out of which theology constructed the doctrine." - TheIllustrated Bible Dictionary. (For a detailed account about the period when the church eclectically chose elements of the scriptures and "constructedthe doctrine" in the 4th century A. D., see the HIST study.)(A.) Is the Holy Spirit Really a Person in the Masculine Gender? 9 Now let's look at some of the eclectic gatherings "from the entire Canon" that were used as a basis for the "inferred doctrine" of the trinitarian Holy Spirit.(A.) Is the Holy Spirit really "referred to as a person in the masculine gender throughout the New Testament" as Walter Martin insists? - KOTC, 1985.[1]It is true that the word for God (theos) in the New Testament ismasculine, and masculine pronouns ("he," "him," "himself") are always used with it. The word "Father" is also in the masculine gender in the original Greek of the NT, and masculine pronouns are always used with it. The word "Son" is also in the masculine gender in the NT Greek, and masculine pronouns are always used with it. Certainly this is not surprising since God (Jehovah, the Father alone) has always been represented to his people as a living, conscious being, and Christ (Jesus, the Son) is always represented as a living, conscious person. It would be very strange, indeed, if they were not so described!But "Holy Spirit" in the original Greek is neuter and therefore the neuterpronouns "it," "itself" are used with it in the original NT Greek! Any strictly literal Bible translation would have to use "it" for the holy spirit (since it is really not a person, but God's active force, a literal translation would be helpful in this case).As the trinitarian New American Bible (Catholic), 1970 ed. admits:"The Greek word for 'spirit' is neuter, and while we [trinitarians] use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek manuscripts employ 'it.'" - New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., (footnote for John 14:17).And the revised NAB of 1991 has actually changed "he/him" back to the literal "it"!Also see An American Translation by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed which uses "itself" and "it" for the holy spirit at Romans 8:16, 26, 27.10 Here are the rules of Greek grammar that govern this situation. Professor Machen, writing in his New Testament Greek For Beginners, tells us:"(II.) The noun for which a pronoun stands is called its antecedent. Thus in the sentence, 'I see the disciple and teach him', the antecedent of 'him' is 'disciple.'(III.) A pronoun agrees with its antecedent in GENDER and number."Examples: (a) Bleto ton matheten kai didasko auton, [is translated] 'I see the disciple and teach him.' Here matheten ['disciple'] is the antecedent ofauton ['him'], and since matheten is of masculine gender and singular number, auton is also masculine singular."(b) Meno en to oiko kai ginosko auton [is rendered in English as] 'I remain in the house and know it.' Here oiko ['house'] is the antecedent of auton ['him' in the original NT Greek] and since oiko is of masculine gender and singular number auton also is masculine singular [in the NT Greek]. In English the neuter pronoun 'it' is used, because the noun 'house' like all nouns denoting inanimate objects, is neuter in English. But in Greek the word for house is masculine, and therefore the masculine pronoun is used in referring to it. Hence the translations, 'he,' 'she,' etc...for the masculine and feminine of the Greek pronoun of the third person are correct only when the antecedents are denoting persons. In other cases, the pronouns will be neuter in English even when they are masculine or feminine in Greek." - pp. 47-48.In other words, even if the Greek words for 'holy spirit' were in the masculine gender (and, therefore, the Greek masculine pronouns would be used with it), it still would not indicate that the holy spirit must be a person! Just as in many other languages things are often given feminine and masculine genders in Bible Greek.However, since its literal title ("holy spirit") is really neuter in the NT Greek and really uses the neuter pronoun ("it") and takes the neuterdefinite article (Gr. to), there is the extremely high probability, from grammar alone, that it is not a person.11 If we search through a concordance that shows the gender of Biblical Greek words, we will see that, in the vast majority of cases, words that are used mainly to literally describe persons use the appropriate gender for that person [similar to Spanish and other languages]: "husband" (masculine), "wife" (feminine), "daughter" (feminine), "son" (masculine), etc.Often the same basic Greek word is used for both sexes, but it will be given a feminine ending when applied to female persons and a masculine ending when applied to male persons: For example, "god" (theos - masculine) and "goddess" (thea - feminine), "prophet" (prophetes - masculine) and "prophetess" (prophetis - feminine), "king/queen," etc.And even when, on occasion, we find a word that is applied equally to men or women, the gender of that individual is still shown by the gender of the article or pronoun used with it: For example, "doorkeeper" (thuroros) can be used for both men and women, but, when it is used in the NT for a male, the masculine article (ho) comes before it: ho thuroros (John 10:3), and when it is used in the NT for a female, the feminine article (h - looks like an elongated n in the Greek and pronounced 'hay.' ) comes before it: hthuroros (John 18:17). - Compare Mark 13:34 and John 18:16.So, you see, in the vast majority (if not all) of cases a person's gender is shown by the gender of the Greek words and titles that literally[2] describe that person and/or by the gender of the article and pronouns that go with that Greek word.[3]12 But not only is the literal "Holy Spirit" neuter in the original Greek, but so are the article (to - p. 34, Machen) and the pronouns (auto ['it'] and o[with two small breathing marks above it meaning 'which']- pp. 19, 68, Marshall) which go with it! [4]- See John 14:17 and 1 Cor. 12:4, 11 in any interlinear Bible or Greek text, for example. Cf. Ro. 8:16 in KJV, AT, andThe Interlinear Bible, Jay P. Green, Baker Book House, 1982.The only exception to this that I have found deals with very young, immature persons and animals. Young children sometimes are calledpaidion ("young child" - Matt. 2:8) and brephos ("infant" - Luke 1:41). These two Greek words are neuter and so are the article and pronouns that usually accompany them! Why these words are exceptions, I'm not certain. Perhaps one was not considered fully a person (at least as far as gender is concerned) until he reached maturity. (At any rate, the Holy Spirit would certainly be considered mature if it were really a person!)It is quite clear, though, (from going through a New Testament Bible concordance that shows gender and examining an interlinear text) that it is extremely rare, if ever, that a mature person is not distinguished by a noun (or its article and pronouns) which shows the appropriate gender. And, although the word for an impersonal thing is often given a neuter ending, it is also very common for an impersonal thing to be given a masculine or feminine gender in all those areas!Most trinitarian Bibles, then, go against the bulk of the literal grammatical evidence when they use "he," "him," etc. in translating the original Greek neuter pronouns with "holy spirit" as their antecedent. There are a very few places, however, where the Greek appears to use the masculine article and pronouns with "holy spirit."If, when you examine the Greek text (as found in interlinear Greek-English New Testament Bibles), you occasionally find a masculine pronoun seeming to refer to the holy spirit, you will find that the actual antecedent is not "holy spirit" but some other noun (which, although representing a thing, does have the masculine gender assigned to it in NT Greek).Even modern English is similar. If, for example, we have been speaking about death (an impersonal thing) and suddenly begin using the common personified figure for death, "the Grim Reaper," even in modern English we properly change pronouns from "it" to "he." E.g., "Death was fast approaching Mary. She could feel it coming. But when the Grim Reaper actually placed his hand on her and said, 'it's time, Mary,' she drew on her inner strength, pushed him back, and said, 'not yet!' She wasn't ready to accept it [death]."13 The Greek word paraclete, parakleto", (rendered "comforter" in KJV; "helper" in some other translations) is in the masculine gender. So whenparaclete is the actual antecedent (even though we understand that it mayfiguratively represent the holy spirit), its pronoun in the Greek must also be masculine.We know that the masculine paraclete may be figuratively applied to an impersonal (neuter) thing as is so frequently done by the Jews in the languages used in the Bible. (See p. 37, Barclay's Letters of John and Jude, "The Daily Study Bible Series," The Westminster Press, Revised Edition, 1976.)[5]See John 14:16, 26; and 16:7 for all the uses of "comforter" (paraclete - masculine) applied to holy spirit. You can see that the masculine pronoun(auton) does follow "comforter" after the word was introduced as the antecedent in John 16:7 (remember, the Greek pronoun, as well as the article, must agree with its antecedent in gender in NT Greek).Sometimes it is not easy to determine what the actual antecedent is, as it may have been introduced sentences earlier.[6] If we look at John 14:16, for example, we see that paraclete is introduced. This means that, in spite of the introduction of "the spirit" (neuter) in John 14:17, the pronouns in that verse could have referred back to paraclete in verse 16 as their antecedent, and, in that case they would have to be masculine in the Greek! Instead, they obviously refer to the neuter "spirit" in verse 17 and, therefore, must be the neuter auto ('it').[7] - see AT, Ro, Byington, and The ZondervanParallel New Testament in Greek and English (literal translation).Just the opposite may be occurring at John 16:7, 13. Although paraclete is introduced in verse 7 and “spirit” is introduced in verse 13 itself, the masculine demonstrative pronoun ekeinos in verse 13 refers back toparaclete in verse 7 as its antecedent. Therefore, “he” is grammatically accurate in verse 13. In any case, there is no real reason to regard the holy spirit as a person because of the figurative use in a very few places of the masculineparaclete.[8] (It's too bad paraclete wasn't feminine in the Greek, as it could just as well have been. The feminine verbs and pronouns that would have resulted in the Greek would not have been literally translated then!) The much more frequent use of the neuter "holy spirit" and its neuterarticle and pronouns more strongly indicates just the opposite! (This is similar to the figurative use of the neuter "Lamb" in Rev. 5:6; 5:12; and 6:1 for Jesus. The masculine "Jesus" and "Christ," etc. of his literal name and descriptions show that he is a male person in spite of the neuter articles and pronouns that must be used in the NT Greek to agree with the neuter"Lamb.")When we combine the gender use for the holy spirit in the New Testament Greek with the gender use for the holy spirit in the Old Testament Hebrew, we have a doubly significant statement.14 The inspired Hebrew writers of the Old Testament also used masculine and feminine gender for impersonal nouns. "In Hebrew onlymasculine and feminine gender are distinguished. There is normally no neuter." - Handbook of Biblical Hebrew, LaSor, p. 75, v. 2, 1979."a 1. The Hebrew, like all Semitic languages, recognizes only two genders in the noun, a masculine and a feminine. Inanimate objects and abstract ideas, which other languages sometimes indicate by the neuter, are regarded in Hebrew as masculine or feminine, more often the latter [feminine]"! -Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, p. 222, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1910. (Emphasis added.)Therefore, if the inspired Hebrew writers had understood the "third person of the 'trinity'" to be equally God (masculine-Hebrew) with the Father (masculine-Hebrew) and the Son (masculine-Hebrew) or Messiah (masculine-Hebrew), they would have given the spirit a personal name, andliteral titles and descriptions in the masculine gender!Do we see a masculine designation and relationship for the holy spirit (as typified by "Father" and "Son" for the other "persons of the 'trinity'")? No, the holy spirit in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament is feminine! - Gesenius, Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, pp. 571, 760. (Cf. W. E. Vine, p. 1077.)This can be clearly seen merely by looking at the literal translations found in The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament (Zondervan Publ., 1985). For example, Nu. 11:26 is literally translated by this respected trinitarian reference work as: "And she [the Spirit] rested on them." (Cf. Judges 3:10; 6:34; 1 Sam. 10:6; 11:6; Is. 11:2; 63:14; etc.)[9]So, we can either take the feminine gender "spirit" in Hebrew to meanneuter (a thing), or we can take it literally to mean that "the trinity" has as its third "person" a Mother Goddess!But how can we take the neuter holy spirit of the inspired Greek of the New Testament manuscripts and the feminine holy spirit of the inspired Hebrew of the Old Testament and insist that it is a person and that it should be interpreted as a person in the masculine gender?15 Just as most trinitarian Bible translators don't literally render the Greek as written by the inspired New Testament Bible writers as "it" for the holy spirit but instead render it "he," they also don't literally render the Hebrew as written by the inspired Old Testament Bible writers as "she." Instead, many of them use the only other proper alternative: "it"!At Numbers 11:17 we see: "I will take [some - NRSV, NJB] of the Spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them" - ASV (compare KJV, RSV, NRSV, AT, LB, NEB, REB, NAB, JB, NJB, Beck). The same usage is found at Numbers 11:25 in those trinitarian Bibles: "IT." (Compare the Septuagint.) This is God's Holy Spirit - Numbers 11:29. (Notice how the NKJV has avoided this truth.)At Is. 34:16 the King James Version and the ASV render it: "my mouth, it hath commanded, and his Spirit, it hath gathered them."So, you see, even many trinitarian translations prefer the use of "it" in the OT to the only other honest pronoun alternative: "she"/"her." Some trinitarian translations, however, care no more for the proper translation of the pronouns for the Spirit in the Old Testament than they do for it in the New Testament. So, some trinitarian translations such as the NASB and theMLB actually use "he"/"him" at those places in the Old Testament!16 But there is something that is even more certain than the use of the gender with pronouns, articles, etc. associated with the holy spirit. That is the question of its/his personal name.There is absolutely no doubt as to the extreme importance of a personal name in both the New and Old Testaments. A personal name took on an importance to the individual who bore it that we don't totally comprehend today. If one were to die and his name be forgotten, this was considered much more horrible than the mere death itself! One's personal name must be honorable, and it must be known and remembered!We are urged over and over in the OT to know and respectfully use God's personal name. Likewise, as important as the spirit is (whether it is God or not), if it is a person, it must have a personal name and we must know it! How could we even begin to know God - John 17:3 - and not even know his personal name(s)?The literal title "High Priest" may be used as an excellent example. The title itself is masculine in the NT Greek to match the gender of the person holding that title. MASCULINE pronouns and articles always accompany that literal title. Being a title only it is often clarified by a personal name, especially if the person himself is considered to be of any importance. For example, the high priest is a nobody when compared with God Himself, and the term "high priest" is not used nearly as frequently in the Bible as "Holy Spirit." And yet the "High Priest" is frequently further identified by hispersonal name: 2 Ki. 22:4; 2 Chron. 26:20; Ezra 7:5; Neh. 3:1; Jer. 52:24; Zech. 3:8; Matt. 26:57; Acts 24:1.Surely, if the holy spirit were a person (especially a person who is God) he would be properly identified in at least one of the hundreds of scriptures which speak of the holy spirit! (We might also compare the title "God" [masculine form], which simply means "Mighty One." This person is further identified nearly 7000 times, more than any other name, by the personal name "Jehovah" [masculine form] in the Holy Scriptures. We can also compare the title "Christ" and its further identification hundreds of times by "Jesus".)17 But, although we search both Testaments microscopically, we find nopersonal name for the neuter holy spirit. The personal name of God ("Jehovah" - the Father alone) is the most used personal name (by far) in the entire Bible! There can be no doubt about the extreme importance of the Messiah's (or the Son's) personal name ("Jesus") and the frequency of its use by the inspired writers of the New Testament. But not once is the neuter holy spirit given a personal name! If those three are truly God, then the holy spirit has been grossly ignored and insulted by the inspired Bible writers!But, some trinitarians insist, that is his personal name: "The Holy Spirit." However, if we examine all the personal names in the New Testament, we will see that this is an impossible interpretation unless it is a "personal" name of an impersonal thing. (Some things are given proper names, for example: The Titanic, The Superchief, The Holy Grail.)All actual personal names (compare the genders of hundreds of personal names listed in A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies, 1971) are given a gender that agrees with the gender of the person bearing that personal name as found in the New Testament scriptures - see Moulton, Vol. II, p. 152. 18 So the name "Jesus," for example, is in the masculine form in the New Testament Greek, and "Mary" is in the feminine form. God Himself is a spirit person in heaven whose literal descriptive title ("God") is masculine and whose name ("Jehovah") is masculine. The spirit persons who serve him in heaven have the literal descriptive title ("angels") which is masculine, and all those angels whose names have been revealed to us have masculine personal names. (E.g. the Archangel [literal title - masculine form in NT Greek] has the personal name "Michael" [masculine form].) This is certainly not intended to indicate that they are masculine in a fleshly sense, but that they are truly individual persons of importance.But "holy spirit," as we have already seen, is in the neuter form. Therefore, if "holy spirit" is a "personal" name, that "person" has to be a neuter thing(or, in other words, "holy spirit" cannot be a personal name, but it could be a proper name for a special thing.)There is no way around it. Either the holy spirit has no personal name(in which case it cannot be an extremely important person in Bible usage, and certainly not God Himself) or its proper name shows it to be a neuterthing. And, although 'holy spirit' is obviously a literal description, nevertheless, even if someone should insist that the neuter "holy spirit" is merely a figurative description of a person (such as Jesus being figuratively called "the Lamb" - Rev. 14:1 or "the Light" - Jn 8:12 - which are neuter), then, again, the holy spirit is never given a personal name and cannot be God whose personal name must be known, remembered, and respectfully used!"Poured Out"19 Let's also examine Acts 2:17, 18 where God pours out [ekxeo] from[apo] his Spirit upon all people. This should be clear enough that the Holy Spirit is not a person. However, let's look at all other uses of ekxeo used in the NT as listed in Young's Exhaustive Concordance.Mt. 9:17, the wineskins burst and wine pours ['runneth,' KJV] out [ekxeo]. (Mark 2:22 does not use ekxeo in the best manuscripts.) John 2:15, "poured out [ekxeo] the coins of the money changers." Acts 2:17, 18, God "pours out[ekxeo] from [apo] His Spirit upon all people." Acts 2:33, "he has poured out [ekxeo] this (thing) [touto, neut.] which you see." Acts 22:20, the blood of Stephen was poured out [ekxeo]. Ro. 3:15, Feet swift to shed ("pour out" -ekxeo) blood. Titus 3:6, "Holy Spirit which he [God] poured out [ekxeo]upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior" (RSV).[This is also translated by noted trinitarian Beck as "He poured a richmeasure of this Spirit on us through Jesus Christ our Savior" (Beck NT)]. Rev. 16:1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 17, pour out [ekxeo] (the contents of) the bowls of the wrath of God. In other words "wrath" was being poured out. Rev. 16:6, they poured out [ekxeo] the blood of saints and prophets. Certainly in all other cases ekxeo ("poured out") refers to things. It would be unreasonable to insist that this is not the case in Acts 2 (and Titus 3:6) also. We can see that if we pour out something from something, it can mean one of two things. If we said we poured out from our bowl, for instance, we actually mean we poured from a container which contained some substance (thing). We may have poured some of it or all of it. But if we said we poured out from our wine onto your roast beef, it can only mean that we poured a portion of our wine (out of some container, of course) onto the meat. We would not say we poured from our wine if we had poured it all out.20 What was it that God poured out from his Spirit? Well, what did the people receive when God poured out from his Spirit? Acts 2:4, 33 tells us they received Holy Spirit! If, then, God poured Holy Spirit from his Holy Spirit as described in Acts 2:17, 18, it means he poured out a portion of his Holy Spirit, as rendered in the very trinitarian translations of the NewAmerican Bible (1970 and 1991 editions), the New English Bible, and theRevised English Bible. (It is similar to our pouring out some wine from our wine.) So God poured out some of his spirit here, some of it there, but certainly he still kept an infinite supply.Also see Numbers 11:17, 25."[Jehovah] came down in the cloud and spoke to [Moses], and took someof the spirit that was upon him and put it upon the seventy elders; and when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied." - Nu. 11:25, RSV.The literal "from the Spirit" here in the inspired Hebrew Bible language (see the trinitarian The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament, Zondervan Publ.) also means "a portion" of God's Spirit was taken from one person and given to others, making them prophets in this case. See these trinitarian translations of Num. 11:17, 25: RSV, NEB, GNB, AT, NAB,JB, NRSV, REB, NJB, Mo, and Byington.World-renowned trinitarian scholar, writer, minister, and Bible translator, Dr.William Barclay, discusses John 3:31-36 on pp. 144-146 of his book, The Gospel of John, Vol. 1, revised edition. He comments on Jn 3:34("[Jesus] speaks the words of God, for [God] does not partially measure[metron] out the Spirit upon him." - p. 144): "John goes on: we can believe what Jesus says, because on him God poured out the Spirit in full measure, keeping nothing back. Even the Jews themselves said that the prophets received from God a certain measure of the Spirit. The full measure of the Spirit was reserved for God's own chosen one." - From the popular The Daily Study Bible Series, The Westminster Press, 1975.This is the proper interpretation of John 3:34, and even many other trinitarians will admit it. Some, however, realizing the importance of the meaning of metron here, attempt other renderings. But even the highly respected trinitarian authority, the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, admits that Dr. Barclay's translation "best fits the context." - p. 403, vol. 3.Yes, metron here means "A measure (of length or capacity)" - Young's Analytical Concordance, p. 650, Eerdmans Publ., 1978 printing. AndStrong's Exhaustive Concordance tells us about metron: "a measure('metre'), lit. or fig.; by implication a limited portion (degree)"- #3358, Abingdon Press, 1974 printing.Spirit, then, is a thing that may be poured out, measured out, or given out in portions - you simply do not pour out a person in measured portions upon other persons! As far as your question of atonement..... If Jesus is God, wouldn't that mean that Jesus was never really dead in the first place and therefore his sacrificial death never really happened? Even if it did, would God's death really be "a corresponding ransom"? "Are you not from of old, O Lord my God, my Holy One? You shall not die." (Hab. 1:12) NRSV (If Jesus really were God, and God is immortal, Jesus could not have died.) The argument that only the human part of Jesus died is a denial that God died for us. So the doctrine of the double nature of Christ not only conflicts with Scripture, it conflicts with other trinitarian dogma: A comparable difficulty faces Trinitarians when they assert that only the human part of Jesus died. If Jesus were God, and God is immortal, Jesus could not have died. If Jesus is the whole person and Jesus died, he cannot be immortal Deity. It appears that Trinitarians argue that only Deity is sufficient to provide the necessary atonement. But if the divine nature did not die, how on the Trinitarian theory is the atonement secured? God's Law to ancient Israel required "soul for soul [or, life for life]." (Exodus 21:23) So the death covering mankind's transgressions would have to equal what Adam had lost. Only the death of another perfect man could pay the wages of sin. 1 Timothy 2:6 & Romans 5:16, 17 outline that Jesus was such a man. Jesus was "a corresponding ransom" for the saving of all redeemable mankind descended from Adam. Jesus, no more and no less than a perfect human, became a ransom that compensated exactly for what Adam lost—the right to perfect human life on earth. So Jesus could rightly be called “the last Adam” by the apostle Paul, who said in the same context: “Just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45) The perfect human life of Jesus was the “corresponding ransom” required by divine justice—no more, no less. A basic principle even of human justice is that the price paid should fit the wrong committed. If Jesus, however, were part of a Godhead, the ransom price would have been infinitely higher than what God’s own Law required. (Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:19-21) It was only a perfect human, Adam, who sinned in Eden, not God. So the ransom, to be truly in line with God’s justice, had to be strictly an equivalent—a perfect human, “the last Adam.” Therefore, when God sent Jesus to earth as the ransom, he made Jesus to be what would satisfy justice, not an incarnation, not a god-man, but a perfect man, “lower than angels.” (Hebrews 2:9; compare Psalm 8:5, 6.) How could any part of an almighty Godhead—Father, Son, or holy spirit—ever be lower than angels?
  5. The Trinity

    Nope. I already posted about it. IN this thread. You do not get to make the rules of how I answer. If Jesus is Almighty God... 1. Then why is "God head of Christ just as Christ is head of man"? (1 Cor. 11:3) 2. Then why does Scripture consistently phrase Jesus as a separate person from God? (John 20:17; John 14:1; Mark 10:18; John 17:1-3; etc. Also in heaven, 1 Cor. 11:3; Luke 22:69; etc.) 3. Then how can Jesus have a God? Could Almighty God have a God? (Mic. 5:4; Ps. 45:6, 7; 89:26; John 20:17; Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph 1:3; Col 1:3; Mark 15:34; John 17:1-3; Also in heaven, Rev. 1:6; 3:2, 12) 4. Then why does Scripture say he was born and is part of Creation? (Col. 1:15) 5. Then why does Rev. 3:14 say that Jesus is "the beginning of the creation of God"? 6. Then why is he subject to GOD, like we're subject to him? (1 Cor. 15:27, 28; Eph. 1:17) 7. Then why does Micah 5:2 say that Jesus' ORIGIN was “from early times”? 8. Then why does Jesus not know what God knows? (Matt. 24:36, Rev.1:1; Luke 8:45) 9. Then why is Jesus still subject to God when he is as high as he will ever be? (1 Cor. 15:27, 28) 10. Then why does Proverbs 8:22-31 show that the Messiah was CREATED / PRODUCED by God? 11. Then why is he not powerful enough to subject things to himself? (1 Cor. 15:27, Eph. 1:17, 22) 12. Then why would he have to be given any power and authority? (Mt. 28:18; 11:27; Jn. 5:22; 17:2; 3:35; 2 Pet. 1:17) 13. Then why did he have to learn anything? (Heb. 5:8; John 5:19; 8:28) 14. Then why is speaking against him not as bad as speaking against the Holy Spirit? (Mt. 12:31,32; Luke 12:10) 15. Then why did Jesus call the "Father...the only true God"? (John 17:3) 16. Then why did he need to be saved? (Heb. 5:7; John 12:27) 17. Then why did he have to be exalted to Leader and Savior? (Acts 5:31) 18. Then how could he be exalted and given a higher name than he had? (Phil. 2:9-11; Heb. 1:2-4) 19. Then why did he have to be given life in himself? (John 5:25,26) 20. Then how can the Father be greater than he? (John 14:28) 21. Then how could Jesus be tempted by Satan when God cannot be tempted with evil? (James 1:13) 22. Then why did he worship the Father? (John 4:22) 23. Then why can he not do anything on his own? (John 5:19; 6:38) 24. Then why would he pray to anybody? (Luke 22:44; John 17:1,2; Heb. 5:7) 25. Then why do John 1:18 and 1 John 4:9 say that Jesus is God's "only BEGOTTEN Son"? ASV 26. Then how can he be God's servant? (Acts 4:26,27,30) 27. Then how could he receive strength from an angel? (Luke 22:43) 28. Then how could he be a mediator between God and man? (1 Tim. 2:5) 29. Then how could he be with God (ton theon)? (John 1:1) 30. Then how can he be God's image? (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3) 31. Then why is he called the agency (dia) of creation and not the Originator (ek)? (1 Cor. 8:6; John 1:1-3; Prov. 8:30; Heb. 2:10; Col. 1:15,16) 32. Then why did Jesus say GOD was "good" in a way that Jesus was not? (Mark 10:18) 33. Then why does he have an archangel's voice instead of God's voice? (1 Thess. 4:16) 34. Then why is the only "worship" given to him the same given to humans? (Heb. 1:6, cf. Mt. 18:26; Rev. 3:9 - "Proskuneo") 35. Then why do many who believe this rely on a few selected, so-called 'proof-texts' instead of the context of the consistent teaching of the entire Bible? 36. Then how could he be commanded to do anything? (John 12:49; Deut. 18:18) 37. Then why did Steven see two separate entities, GOD and Jesus, and not just one God or three persons? (Acts 7:55) 38. Then how could he be seen at GOD's right hand? (Luke 22:69; Acts 7:55; Rom. 8:34) 39. Then how could Jesus be exalted (not to become God Himself, but) to the position of the "right hand OF God"? (Acts 2:33) 40. Then why would he have to receive a revelation from God? (Rev.1:1) 41. Then why is he called God's "begotten" Son before he came to earth? (John 3:16; Gal. 4:4; 1 John 4:9) 42. Then how could he have a Father? (John 20:17) 43. Then how could he come in flesh? (1 Kings 8:27; Acts 17:24,25) 44. Then why did he not come in his own name? (John 5:41-44) 45. Then why did Jesus "come down from heaven to do" God's will and not his own will? (Luke 22:42; John 6:38; John 5:30; John 8:42) 46. Then how could he appear before GOD? (Heb. 9:24) 47. Then how could he die? Can God die? Can part of God die? (Rom. 5:10; Acts 5:30; 1 Cor. 15:3; Hab.1:12; cf. 1 Tim. 6:16; Num. 23:19; Ps. 90:2; Dan. 6:25-26) 48. Then why is it that God resurrected Jesus? (Acts 2:32) 49. Then why can we see him if "no man has seen God at any time"? (John 1:18) 50. Then why is there not one clear Scripture where Jesus is called "God the Son," (equal to those declaring "God, the Father)? 51. How is it that the Jews rounded up some false witnesses to make up lies to obtain a death sentence for Jesus, but neither the Jewish officials nor even one of these false witnesses made a claim that he was God or equally God? (Matt. 26:59-67) 52. John summed up his whole Gospel by saying that it was written that we may believe "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." Why is there is no mention in that summary of the entire Gospel of what would be the most important thing of all - that Jesus is God? (John 20:31) 53. How could Jesus teach in the Jewish synagogues and the temple? This would never happen if any of the authorities believed he claimed to be God (or that his followers believed such a thing). - Matt. 26:55; John 7:14, 28. Matt. 4:23. 54. How could Jesus' followers teach in Jewish synagogues after Jesus' death and for the remainder of that first century (at least)? Again, this would not have been allowed if there were any suspicion that they believed Jesus to be God. Acts 9:20; 13:5, Acts 13:13-15. If the Holy Spirit is Almighty God... 1. Then why do quotes from Trinitarians admit that the Holy Spirit is not God but rather is a force from God? 2. Then why would Jews instructed in the Old Testament scriptures and in the teachings of John the Baptist, NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS? (Acts 19:2) 3. Then why isn't the Holy Spirit given equal description in the Bible? 4. Then why didn't Jesus ever teach that the Holy Spirit was God along with the Father and Son? 5. Then why does the Bible describe the Holy Spirit as an "it"? (Is. 34:16 ASV, KJV; Numbers 11:17, 25 ASV, KJV, RSV, NRSV, AT, LB, NEB, REB, NAB, JB, NJB; and Romans 8:16, 26 in the KJV.) 6. Then why does the Bible describe the Holy Spirit as a thing that can be poured out into portions? (Acts 2:17, 18, 33; Numbers 11:17, 25) 7. Then why is the holy spirit nameless and indistinguishable from all of the other holy spirits? 8. Then why did the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD disregard the Holy Spirit as a member of the Godhead when they made Jesus 'God' in 325 AD? Why did they wait until the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD to include the Holy Spirit in the formula? 9. Then wouldn't the water and blood be persons too according to Trinitarian reasoning and 1 John 5:8? 10. Then why is the Holy Spirit sandwiched between a list of QUALITIES at 2 Cor. 6:6? 11. Then why does the NT Greek Lexicon describes the Holy Spirit as "this" at Acts 2:33? 12. Then why is it that nowhere in the Bible is the Holy Spirit ever said to be an equal member of a trinity? 13. Then why is it that nowhere is it mentioned in the Bible the words, "God, the Holy Spirit," or "The Holy Spirit is God"? 14. Then why is it that there is never mentioned a vision, dream or clear description in scripture wherein God and the Holy Spirit are shown as the same person? If the Trinity Doctrine is a Bible teaching... 1. Then why do NUMEROUS encyclopedias agree that "... the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; that it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity"? – p. 34, The Church of the First Three Centuries, Alvan Lamson, D.D. 2. Then why do many encyclopedias, dictionaries and other sources (including Sir Isaac Newton) agree that the "Trinity was a pagan corruption imposed on Christianity in the fourth century by Athanasius"? 3. Then why does the Bible consistently identify God by singular person pronouns: "I, "Me," "He, and "Him" instead of "We", "Us", "They" or "Them"? 4. Then why does 2 Cor. 13:14 say that the Lord Jesus Christ is one individual, the Holy Spirit is another individual (whether a person or a thing), and that "GOD" IS ANOTHER DIFFERENT INDIVIDUAL? 5. Then why is there not even one Scripture which clearly defines the Trinity? 6. Then why is there not even one Scripture of a vision, dream, or CLEAR description wherein God is shown as three persons? 7. Then why is there not even one Scripture where God is described using the word "three"?
  6. The Trinity

    Sorry. Cannot find the number 3 there. Could you point it out to me? Could God have been talking to the angels? Could God have been talking only to Jesus? Since there is no number, we cannot say for sure. Skeetdog, Good advice!
  7. The Trinity Several non witness videos by Christendom even saying the Trinity is not biblical. Ya gonna take the fight to them Synop or only to me because I am an easy target here?
  8. The Trinity

    Nope. You asked what Christendumb was. I told you. Now you defend them. You cannot say they are false but you can about me. HAHA. I love it. What a coward! Again find me purgatory, etc. in the bible. The catholics believe this. Yet you have too much cowardice to admit so. I am bold. I am a true man. I am taking on all of you while you gang up on me. Who has the courage here? Me. I am all by my lonesome on this forum. I have already proved multiple times that the Trinity is manmade junk. Shall I do it again? You won´t even investigate the scriptures I bring so what good is it? You are dead set in your false belief. Oh as a good ole Christian do you celebrate Christmas? Ten bucks says you do.
  9. The Trinity

    I am trying to get you to say it Synop. Admit it. Since you so FREELY say my religion and beliefs are wrong. Say it. Tell me the Catholic church is false too. If you do not, I will know you have a bias only against me and not others that do not teach what you believe.
  10. The Trinity

    Nope. You defended Christendom. That means all of their teachings. Take responsibility for your stance. You only post scripture for your beliefs...Well then, I hate to say it...but you are not a good teacher then. Remember the Ethopian Eunuch? He had no idea what he was reading. NONE. Not a clue. Phillip was led by God to find him and....EXPLAIN it to him. The fact that you ignore this biblical command tells me all I need to know.
  11. The Trinity

    Ya know Synop, you do not have to quote the entire Bible in a post. One or two scriptures will suffice for us to discuss them. When you get past that it takes a long time to type... So you think Christendom has the truth huh? You believe in a purgatory like the Catholics then. After all you JUST said that Christendom has the truth. Really? I cannot believe you believe in infant baptism. Please show me the scripture on that one. Show me the scripture on purgatory while you are at it. SHOW me where it says in the Bible we have to wear the Giant Catholic hats! Show me where true Christians are supposed to go to war and kill each other. Afterall, YOU just said you totally believed in Christendom. These tennants fall under Christendom. I will await your answer. I have already covered the scriptures you quoted before in other posts. I don´t know why you want to see my explanation again...
  12. The Trinity

    Oh I call Christendom....christendumb. It was done on purpose. It is the worldwide empire of false religion.
  13. The Trinity

    Sorry Mark...but you guys are on the broadway. 8 million is a drop in the bucket compared to Christendumb. Witnesses are the only ones actually doing the lord´s work. The only ones going door to door with regularity of all ages. Mormons do it but only for 2 years. Did you notice the 20 million at that link that attend our memorial once a year?
  14. The Trinity

    Actually Synopsis.... 8,340,982 Jehovahs Witnesses agree with me.
  15. The Trinity

    Would love to debate you on this but because of everytime I post some MONUMENTALLY petty people have decided to go on a witch hunt and negative everything I say...wheather it is about this topic or not. I got a few negatives for a post of GO RV. Now that is frickin petty. I got 25 negatives the first day, 18 the next, 15 the next for OLD posts of mine that had nothing to do with this subject. Some people that cannot throw their hat into the debate ring are trying to be cowards and just get me banned yet they cannot see the correlation that people would hate God´s people in this modern age. Who is being persecuted? Myself or them? Anyways... Any questions you have Mr. Hayduke refer to the link above. It destroys every argument that there could be a Trinity. To LGD and his cohorts- yeah I stole that from him because he can communicate with vip members and thus...actually have cohorts to negative me into oblivion. Adios!

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.