At least those who read the text through the denominations are in much better shape than those who form evil cult teachings.
At least those who read the text through the denominations are in much better shape than those who form evil cult teachings.
If you read the whole Bible you can see the Prophets were never liked by the denominations of their day. They were all laughed at and tortured and even killed. Jesus said the path is small and most will not find it. That puts me in some pretty darn good company. People often say they want to go with what most believe like what the Catholics teach. All though out history the masses have never been right.At least those who read the text through the denominations are in much better shape than those who form evil cult teachings.
There was no trinity before the Catholics invented it. How can I write about it?when you cannot even identify the confirmation of trinity concept before Roman Catholicism, who can start to take you seriously? Scriptures reveals the God is more complex than simplistic minds could understand. I cannot erase enough scripture to see things the way you have shared so far.
did 101G say that or any appearance? so you don't believe or understand scripture. listen carefully. Satan/the devil is not sin, but evil. do you comprehend that. 101G has scripture to back up what he says. .....'I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the LORD do all these things.'
(Isa 45:7)
Hello @101G, [@Peterlag]
The word 'evil' (H7451), in the verse above, has the meaning of catastrophe, (i.e., adversity, affliction), possibly as a consequence of sin (in judgement) but not a cause of it. So it is wrong to say that God creates evil in the sense that you appear to suggest I believe.
Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris
You have some pretty good company among cultists. you otherwise would realize that we do not have prophets like in the OT. Maybe you should join the NT.If you read the whole Bible you can see the Prophets were never liked by the denominations of their day. They were all laughed at and tortured and even killed. Jesus said the path is small and most will not find it. That puts me in some pretty darn good company. People often say they want to go with what most believe like what the Catholics teach. All though out history the masses have never been right.
He's trying to be a "Theologian" that's what they do. A "Theologian skilled in the art can "prove Biblically" that Black = White.Where are you coming up with all these rules you are imposing on what God can and cannot do?
is this not the LORD? Jeremiah 11:20 "But, O LORD of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I revealed my cause."* The risen Lord says:-
' ... ... I Am He which searcheth the reins and hearts:'
(Rev 2:23)
Since it's in the Bible, apparently you're unfamiliar with that source.There was no trinity before the Catholics invented it. How can I write about it?
not to interrupt your conversation but when was the trinity ever taught in the bible? not for argument, but discussion.Since it's in the Bible, apparently you're unfamiliar with that source.
I still do not understand how God could be created by people. Nor is the Roman Catholicism existing as a force in the first four centuries. Nor is Christianity to be assumed to be fully controlled under Roman influence in a top-down sense. So, God existed before Catholicism. I also have shown that Paul, at minimal, expressed the equality of Christ's divinity in the Godhead. I do not see it reasonable to find that Paul is mistaken on this.There was no trinity before the Catholics invented it. How can I write about it?
I hope you get to meet Paul (that is if you make it there) and get to hear him say where the heck did you get these ideas from?I still do not understand how God could be created by people. Nor is the Roman Catholicism existing as a force in the first four centuries. Nor is Christianity to be assumed to be fully controlled under Roman influence in a top-down sense. So, God existed before Catholicism. I also have shown that Paul, at minimal, expressed the equality of Christ's divinity in the Godhead. I do not see it reasonable to find that Paul is mistaken on this.
You have convinced me now.I hope you get to meet Paul (that is if you make it there) and get to hear him say where the heck did you get these ideas from?
The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, and that is supporting evidence that the doctrine is unbiblical, which may be why Trinitarians differ, sometimes greatly in their definitions of the Trinity. The Eastern Orthodox Church differs from the Western Church on the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. Trinitarians who hold to the “classic” definition of the Trinity say Jesus was 100% God and100% man while on the earth believe differently from Kenotic Trinitarians who believe Jesus set aside his godhood while he was a man on the earth. Oneness Pentecostals say the classic formula of the Trinity is completely wrong, and yet all these claim that Christ is God and that the Bible supports their position.Since it's in the Bible, apparently you're unfamiliar with that source.
New Testament Prophets are not received either.You have some pretty good company among cultists. you otherwise would realize that we do not have prophets like in the OT. Maybe you should join the NT.
Nor do they exist of the form of OT prophets. You kind of get these things mixed up.New Testament Prophets are not received either.
A Prophet is a spoke person and in the Old Testament they spoke for God. In the New Testament they speak for the resurrected Christ Jesus.Nor do they exist of the form of OT prophets. You kind of get these things mixed up.
Sure. You just pointed to the Trinity. It is hard to get away from recognition of the Triune nature of GodA Prophet is a spoke person and in the Old Testament they spoke for God. In the New Testament they speak for the resurrected Christ Jesus.
That might be an okay book as long as a person is aware of Jesus' deity before being swayed by the author's bias.