We know 100% Jehovah the Father is the only true God.
Member Comments on Current Debates
- Thread starter Administrator
- Start date
Catholicism translated it to capitol G God at John 1:1=error=100% fact.
civic
Active Member
We know 100% that the Son is the True God and eternal life
The original Greek is all capitals. you have to explain how you believe Jesus is a different god then.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
Jesus is 100% clear at John 17:1-6,26--verse 3- This means eternal life their knowing you( Father) THE ONLY TRUE GOD and the one whom you sent forth Christ Jesus. Thus one must know both. verse 6=YHVH(Jehovah) verse 26: YHVH(Jehovah)-- Its all about the Father( YHVH(Jehovah) to Jesus, thus to his followers as well. They accomplish this daily-John 4:22-24. Even the Lords prayer= all about the Father( YHVH(Jehovah) FIRST, then for things needed for others and self. Its always about the Father to Jesus. Hallowed be your( Father) name.= YHVH(Jehovah).We know 100% that the Son is the True God and eternal life
Yes one goes to Jesus= learns, apply's and obeys - these get sent to the Father in an acceptable condition. = The way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
I have been asked by @Red Baker to comment on this reply from @Peterlag in the debate.
Reply # 204 I stopped debating when you did not tell me why God would come to the earth as a man and then said you already told me.
And to that Red replied #206
@Peterlag
Time for bed.
Side point is Red has replied to that question, I replied to that question in the forums and by DM to him, and 3 or 4 others have replied to him answering that question. All replies were ignored .... by Peter, which I assume were not read for the simple reason at times he would reply with the same question.
So the debate started, The debate that had the title of
And Peter is the one who started it with
Hey @Peterlag . Are you aware that the wording of your question IS confirmation that the one who came to earth, that we all know was Jesus ... is in fact God? Think about it.
Anyway. Back to the reason for posting this.
Peter is using this tactic as a reason to not answer Red's questions as well as others also.
It is obvious that he never intended to honor the spirit of this debate and now looks like he just wants out.
I would like to see @Studyman replace him.... but that is up to the parties involved and Admin and mods.
Thank you for hearing me out
Blessings
Reply # 204 I stopped debating when you did not tell me why God would come to the earth as a man and then said you already told me.
And to that Red replied #206
@Peterlag
I did tell you, you just refused to accept what I said. I said it twice, not just once. That's a cop out. You stop since you cannot address my post to you.. If you stop, then you should get out.
Time for bed.
Side point is Red has replied to that question, I replied to that question in the forums and by DM to him, and 3 or 4 others have replied to him answering that question. All replies were ignored .... by Peter, which I assume were not read for the simple reason at times he would reply with the same question.
So the debate started, The debate that had the title of
The Deity of Jesus Christ True or False?
And Peter is the one who started it with
Now I know, as does anyone else who can read this was a diversion question. Go on the offensive with mis-direction.
Hey @Peterlag . Are you aware that the wording of your question IS confirmation that the one who came to earth, that we all know was Jesus ... is in fact God? Think about it.
Anyway. Back to the reason for posting this.
Peter is using this tactic as a reason to not answer Red's questions as well as others also.
It is obvious that he never intended to honor the spirit of this debate and now looks like he just wants out.
I would like to see @Studyman replace him.... but that is up to the parties involved and Admin and mods.
Thank you for hearing me out
Blessings
Peterlag
Active Member
Nobody answered my question and I did drop out. What you and @Red Baker have done is not show a verse that tells why God would come to the earth. Because there is no such verse. So what you have done is pretend that Jesus is God. And then show me all the verses that say why Jesus came to the earth. And then you said see... we answered you.
So yeah all you got is twisting and spinning. And then you write I must not be able to understand the Bible that's why I can't see your answer. Or you write I have no answers so that's why I stopped.
cc: @Runningman
@Keiw1
@Administrator
Runningman
Active Member
I've also let them know that the first cause of a trinity being described or stated in Scripture is missing from the debate. Of course, that part seems to have gotten skipped over because it's true. The debate can turn circular if I insisted on and demanded this required proof. Otherwise, it'll just turn into a daily grind that really goes nowhere. Also, the most active debater is not a Trinitarian, but is most likely Oneness Pentecostalism (also called Modalism or Sabellianism) @Red Baker
FreeInChrist
Active Member
Before you ever posted in the debate I had PMed you for help to get another to your side so there would be 3 and 3.
You immediately ignored that and hit me with " We are not going to get very far since I have asked only one question that none of them seem able to answer."
I asked you what the question was and you said
"Why did God come to the earth as a man? What did that produce?"
And I replied with a very long detailed answer.... and multiple scriptures.
And you came back with your standard "What I see from you is a rhetorical tactic being deployed here known as the Gish Gallop."
And it went on and on..... until I saw that YOU started the debate and I knew then you were picking my brains for use to be able to counter what anyone replied.....
Now again is your charge of twisting scripture..... but we do not.... none of us ever does that, unlike you who randomly ignore scripture....That charge is on you.
No.... You error because you are in denial of the divinity of the Word, who came to earth as God.
You were 100% correct in your question about God coming to earth... because he did.
No matter how you spin John... it is there in black and white.
The answer to this is found by first understanding the reason why John wrote his gospel. We find his purpose clearly stated in John 20:30-31: “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” Once we understand that John’s purpose was to introduce the readers of his gospel to Jesus Christ, establishing Who Jesus is (God in the flesh) and what He did, all with the sole aim of leading them to embrace the saving work of Christ in faith, we will be better able to understand why John introduces Jesus as “the Word” in John 1:1.
When in the Gospel of John, it is stated in John 20:30-31 that Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not recorded in the book. How do you know... prove to me that... what you are seeking to know is not in the things not recorded.
John wrote Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” you do not need to know anything other then this.
Additionally, John 21:25 mentions that if all the things Jesus did were written down, the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. And you do not need to know anything other then this.
Repeat.... How do you know, that all the things not recorded due to length did not contain what you keep asking or denying.
If all were written then there would be no need for faith,.
By starting out his gospel stating, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” John is introducing Jesus with a word or a term that both his Jewish and Gentile readers would have been familiar with. The Greek word translated “Word” in this passage is Logos, and it was common in both Greek philosophy and Jewish thought of that day. For example, in the Old Testament the “word” of God is often personified as an instrument for the execution of God’s will (Psalm 33:6; 107:20; 119:89; 147:15-18). So, for his Jewish readers, by introducing Jesus as the “Word,” John is in a sense pointing them back to the Old Testament where the Logos or “Word” of God is associated with the personification of God’s revelation. And in Greek philosophy, the term Logos was used to describe the intermediate agency by which God created material things and communicated with them. In the Greek worldview, the Logos was thought of as a bridge between the transcendent God and the material universe. Therefore, for his Greek readers the use of the term Logos would have likely brought forth the idea of a mediating principle between God and the world.
So, essentially, what John is doing by introducing Jesus as the Logos is drawing upon a familiar word and concept that both Jews and Gentiles of his day would have been familiar with and using that as the starting point from which he introduces them to Jesus Christ. But John goes beyond the familiar concept of Logos that his Jewish and Gentile readers would have had and presents Jesus Christ not as a mere mediating principle like the Greeks perceived, but as a personal being, fully divine, yet fully human. Also, Christ was not simply a personification of God’s revelation as the Jews thought, but was indeed God’s perfect revelation of Himself in the flesh, so much so that John would record Jesus’ own words to Philip: Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (John 14:9). By using the term Logos or Word in John 1:1, John is amplifying and applying a concept with which his audience was familiar and using that to introduce his readers to the true Logos of God in Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God, fully God and yet fully man, who came to reveal God to man and redeem all who believe in Him from their sin.~Got Questions.
I will finish with this.
You have said twice above
Nobody answered my question and I did drop out. What you and @Red Baker have done is not show a verse that tells why God would come to the earth. Because there is no such verse. So what you have done is pretend that Jesus is God. And then show me all the verses that say why Jesus came to the earth. And then you said see... we answered you.
So yeah all you got is twisting and spinning. And then you write I must not be able to understand the Bible that's why I can't see your answer. Or you write I have no answers so that's why I stopped.
First: I am not in the debate and I wrote nothing there, nor anything like it when we exchanged sixteen (16) DMs over your question.
You want to stop? Then fine... but either get a replacement like Studyman for yourself or wave the white flad in defeat because
it is obvious the Trin side won
@Red Baker
@Administrator
Runningman
Active Member
Red Baker is not a trinitarian. Lol. See his statement above. He's even a heretic by trinitarian standards. God manifests himself as three different ways, but those three different manifestations are not God? He's a modalist.
Last edited:
Peterlag
Active Member
You got nothing.
The Trinity does not come from Scripture... The Trinity comes from the doctrine of devils that the churches teach. And in most cases it's the first thing they teach and then they begin to look for Scripture that supports such a concept. They do this by taking the verses out of context, or not understanding how the words were used in the culture they were written in, or from a bad translation.
There's reasons why the Bible does not teach the Trinity in one whole paragraph in a few different places or a whole chapter or two on it. There's reasons why there's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. There's reasons why there was never a debate about the Trinity in Scripture like we see with justification by works or who should be circumcised. Such an important subject matter like the Trinity and the Bible is silent on allof it.
And there's the spinning and twisting from the trinitarians who can't come up with one verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Trinitarians who can't come up with one verse that says why God would come to the earth as a man. Trinitarians who have to make up their own words that are not in the Bible. Words like Trinity, Deity, and Incarnated.
If any of this nonsense was true and since it's so important and a huge subject to Christianity and is necessary for salvation like many teach. Then it would have been taughtby someone somewhere. And it is not.
Peterlag
Active Member
What they have done in a nutshell when I ask for a verse on what God would accomplish by coming to the earth is to say Jesus is God. And then from there they list their long posts about what Jesus accomplised.
civic
Active Member
I addressed it with both old and New Testament passages
civic
Active Member
Quote him saying 3 manifestations or modes. Thanks
FreeInChrist
Active Member
You are right. You are self describing.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
@Keiw1 Dont you even know how to do proper research. I suggest you ca skip to the last sentence here because
you are castigating a man who first named God Jehovah.
You are so ----- mentally with the RCC it is frightening.
Yes, "I Am that I Am" is a phrase from the Hebrew scriptures, specifically found in Exodus 3:14, where God reveals His name to Moses. The original Hebrew phrase is "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh," which can be translated in various ways, including "I am who I am" or "I will be what I will be."
As written in Hebrew
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם׃
And God said to Moses, “Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh,” continuing, “Thus shall you say to the Israelites, ‘Ehyeh sent me to you.’”
Pay attention:
William Tyndale was the first to translate the Old Testament from Hebrew into English, although he is best known for his translation of the New Testament. His work laid the foundation for later English translations of the Bible.
AND BEFORE YOPU SCREAM CATHOLIC, READ ABOUT THIS ONE
William Tyndale was an English Biblical scholar and linguist who became a leading figure in the Protestant Reformation in the years leading up to his execution. He translated much of the Bible into English and was influenced by the works of prominent Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther
While initially a priest.....
William Tyndale was initially ordained as a Roman Catholic priest, but he later became a key figure in the Protestant Reformation, advocating for the translation of the Bible into English and challenging Catholic doctrines. His beliefs eventually led to his execution for heresy in 1536
READ THIS PARAGRAPH VERY CAREFULLY
Tyndale's translations were the first English Scriptures to draw directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, the first English translation to take advantage of the printing press, the first of the new English Bibles of the Reformation, and the first English translation to use Jehovah as God's name
and His translations of the Bible into English were seen as a challenge to the Church's authority, leading to his condemnation and execution in 1536.
This man that you claim did Catholic translations translated God into the name Jehovah... which is you religion.
you are castigating a man who first named God Jehovah.
You are so ----- mentally with the RCC it is frightening.
Yes, "I Am that I Am" is a phrase from the Hebrew scriptures, specifically found in Exodus 3:14, where God reveals His name to Moses. The original Hebrew phrase is "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh," which can be translated in various ways, including "I am who I am" or "I will be what I will be."
As written in Hebrew
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם׃
And God said to Moses, “Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh,” continuing, “Thus shall you say to the Israelites, ‘Ehyeh sent me to you.’”
Pay attention:
William Tyndale was the first to translate the Old Testament from Hebrew into English, although he is best known for his translation of the New Testament. His work laid the foundation for later English translations of the Bible.
AND BEFORE YOPU SCREAM CATHOLIC, READ ABOUT THIS ONE
William Tyndale was an English Biblical scholar and linguist who became a leading figure in the Protestant Reformation in the years leading up to his execution. He translated much of the Bible into English and was influenced by the works of prominent Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther
While initially a priest.....
William Tyndale was initially ordained as a Roman Catholic priest, but he later became a key figure in the Protestant Reformation, advocating for the translation of the Bible into English and challenging Catholic doctrines. His beliefs eventually led to his execution for heresy in 1536
READ THIS PARAGRAPH VERY CAREFULLY
Tyndale's translations were the first English Scriptures to draw directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, the first English translation to take advantage of the printing press, the first of the new English Bibles of the Reformation, and the first English translation to use Jehovah as God's name
and His translations of the Bible into English were seen as a challenge to the Church's authority, leading to his condemnation and execution in 1536.
This man that you claim did Catholic translations translated God into the name Jehovah... which is you religion.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
If He had not, you would have no hope for salvation into eternity.
I basically said that when you complained about my scriptures in the DM
Then I made it pithy.
But you wont accepth because this is not word for word from the bible.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
Hey @Keiw1
Have a moment to kill so checking into things.
The translators of the King James Version (KJV) were primarily ordained Church of England priests, representing a range of Protestant beliefs, including both Anglican and Puritan perspectives. This diverse group worked together despite their differing religious backgrounds to create a universally accepted Bible.
Wikipedia
kingjamesbibletranslators.org
Have a moment to kill so checking into things.
The translators of the King James Version (KJV) were primarily ordained Church of England priests, representing a range of Protestant beliefs, including both Anglican and Puritan perspectives. This diverse group worked together despite their differing religious backgrounds to create a universally accepted Bible.
WikipediaReligious Affiliations of the KJV Translators
The translators of the King James Bible (KJV) were primarily affiliated with the Church of England. Here’s a breakdown of their religious backgrounds:Main Religious Group
| Church of England | Most translators were ordained priests in the Church of England. |
[th]
Group
[/th][th]Description
[/th]Other Affiliations
- Puritans: Some translators had Puritan backgrounds, which influenced their perspectives on the translation.
- Diverse Backgrounds: While the majority were from the Church of England, the group included scholars from various religious factions, reflecting the religious tensions of the time.
Notable Points
- The translators were chosen to represent a range of views to promote unity among differing religious factions.
- Their collaborative effort aimed to create a version of the Bible that would be accepted across the religious spectrum in England.
Runningman
Active Member
Done.
Similar threads
