Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

[Der Alte]

The point of the above exercise is that the Interpretation of a name does not make the person literally what the name is interpreted as being--regardless of whether it was done by "sinful, fallible men" or by Almighty God Jehovah. And of course your claim that Abraham "literally, actually, historicaly became the father of many nations" is false.

Is this a serious response? "the Interpretation of a name does not make the person literally what the name is interpreted as being [even if] it was done by ... Almighty God Jehovah." That is calling God a liar.

This is the second time you repeated the above fallacy. Abraham did not LITERALLY father many nations. He literally fathered two sons: Ishmael and Isaac. His descendants were not literally fathered by him. That would be like arguing that your grandmother, tenth removed, literally became pregnant with you despite the fact your grandmother, tenth removed, was dead for generations before you were even conceived. Ridiculous.

Your response is a ridiculous fallacy, sems to me that you are calling God a liar.

Gen 17:4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.

Gen 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

Rom 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee [Abraham] a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Rom 4:18 [Abraham]Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.​

God Himself said He changed Abrams name to Abraham because He would be the father of many nations. Therefore what I said was not a fallacy. So Abraham, in the Jewish sense, literally became the father, or progenitor, of many nations. God says what He means and means what He says.

 

[Der Alte]

Perhaps you can dig into one of your WTBS booklets and explain to me what is the difference between "intepretation" and "meaning?" Why would Matthew have to include the interpretation of a Hebrew word for Hebrew speaking Jews? He wouldn't but he might need to explain the meaning of Immanuel to believers who did not speak Hebrew?

If that is your idea of an effective rebuttal, you will have to do better than that. In the future, you might want to go to the nearest online dictionary for the definition of words. I will help you out this time around. Below are the definitions of "interpretation" and "meaning".

DEFINITION OF "INTERPRETATION":
"The action of explaining the meaning of something:
the interpretation of data"
interpretation: definition of interpretation in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

DEFINITION OF "MEANING":
"The definition of meaning is what is intended to be, referred to or understood."
Meaning dictionary definition | meaning defined

You made the mistake of assuming I did not know the answer to my question. I have studied law and have appeared before some high level courts. There is a maxim in law. "Don't ask a queston that you do not know the answer to." Note what I have highlighted. My question again "Why would Matthew have to include the interpretation [explain the meaning] of a Hebrew word for Hebrew speaking Jews?" He wouldn't but he would need to explain the meaning of Immanuel to believers who did not speak Hebrew so they would know that Jesus was God with us. And that is exactly what they understood.

Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202.]Book 3 Chapter 9 [Disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the Apostle]

2. Then again Matthew, when speaking of the angel, says, “The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in sleep.” Of what Lord he does himself interpret: “That it may be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” “Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.”
…
But Matthew says that the Magi, coming from the east, exclaimed “For we have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship Him;” and that, having been led by the star into the house of Jacob to Emmanuel, they showed, by these gifts which they offered, who it was that was worshipped; myrrh, because it was He who should die and be buried for the mortal human race; gold, because He was a King, “of whose kingdom is no end;” and frankincense, because He was God, who also “was made known in Judea,” and was “declared to those who sought Him not.”

Tertullian [A.D. 145-220.] Answer to the Jews Chap. 9

But we, on the contrary, have thought they ought to be admonished to recall to mind the context of this passage as well. For subjoined is withal the interpretation of Emmanuel — “God with us” — in order that you may regard not the sound only of the name, but the sense too. For the Hebrew sound, which is Emmanuel, has an interpretation, which is, God with us. Inquire, then, whether this speech, “God with us” (which is Emmanuel), be commonly applied to Christ ever since Christ’s light has dawned, and I think you will not deny it. For they who out of Judaism believe in Christ, ever since their believing on Him, do, whenever they shall wish to say Emmanuel, signify that God is with us: and thus it is agreed that He who was ever predicted as Emmanuel is already come,​

 

[Alter2Ego]

[1] Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

You are relying on the interpretation of a name as your argument in favor of Christendom's trinity. That is a poor choice of scripture on your part, because in the Bible, not only do Hebrew names have meaning, but some of the names include "Yahweh/Jehovah" or "God" as part of their interpretation. Below are a four examples.

Verses and questions #1-#4, Irrelevant! Irrelevant! Irrelevant! And Irrelevant! Why you might ask. That sinful, fallible men might name their sons with Theophoric names, i.e. names incorporating the name of God, is irrelevant, they have no power to make their sons be or become what the name indicates or anything else. But when God names someone, He means what He says. For example when God changed Abram's name to Abraham, he literally, actually, historicaly became the father of many nations, the "interpretation" or meaning of Abraham.

Abraham did not LITERALLY father many nations. He literally fathered two sons: Ishmael and Isaac. His descendants were not literally fathered by him. That would be like arguing that your grandmother, tenth removed, literally became pregnant with you despite the fact your grandmother, tenth removed, was dead for generations before you were even conceived. Ridiculous.

Your response is a ridiculous fallacy, sems to me that you are calling God a liar.

Gen 17:4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.

Gen 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

Rom 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee [Abraham] a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Rom 4:18 [Abraham]Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.​

God Himself said He changed Abrams name to Abraham because He would be the father of many nations. Therefore what I said was not a fallacy. So Abraham, in the Jewish sense, literally became the father, or progenitor, of many nations. God says what He means and means what He says.

ALTER2EGO -to- DER ALTER:

I agree that Jehovah himself told Abraham he would become many nations. So what? Jehovah was using descriptive language aka describing what would occur in the future. God was not saying that Abraham would impregnate the mothers of all of his future descendants--including those born centuries after Abraham was dead--in order for Abraham to literally become their father. What is it about that don't you get?

The fact that you continue the same nonsensical argument shows to what extent you do not understand the difference between literal and descriptive language.

And to think, you said you have been doing this for decades. In fact, you went so far as "wish me luck" because you are supposedly such an expert at interpreting Scripture after "doing this for several decades." I am quivering in my shoes with fear.

I will address two more of your verses at another time after we have discussed the two examples that I addressed above.

Good luck. I have been doing this for several decades. You should not think that I just thought up these arguments, yesterday. Every argument you could possibly make I have heard and refuted many times before. Something you might think about none of the verses I listed stands or falls on its own, they all form a pattern. Think I can get a haircut on Hard road?

Below is a verse of scripture that you do well to consider.

"Consequently let him that thinks he is standing beware that he does not fall." (1 Corinthians 10:12)

FYI: True Christians do not rely on luck aka the game of chance. I happen to have truth on my side thanks to Jehovah for having taught me how to reason on the scriptures. So for the most part, I understand what I am reading as opposed to merely knowing what the Bible says.

 

[2ducklow]

Matthew 1:23 does not support trinity. Notice the portions your source bolded in light blue. It says the interpretation of the NAME Emmanuel means "God with us."


You are relying on the interpretation of a name as your argument in favor of Christendom's trinity. That is a poor choice of scripture on your part, because in the Bible, not only do Hebrew names have meaning, but some of the names include "Yahweh/Jehovah" or "God" as part of their interpretation. Below are a four examples.

.[/COLOR]

(Rotherham) Matthew 1:23 Lo! a Virgin, shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son,--and they shall call his name Emmanuel; which is, being translated, God with us.

(KJV) Isaiah 9:6
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:
and the government shall be upon his shoulder:
and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God,
The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace



my real name, not 2ducklow, has God's name in it Ja, and I certainly am not Ja.
So they shall Call Jesus name Immanuel. Jesus name is not Immanuel, Jesus name is Jesus, and they shall call Jesus name Immanuel. Jesus name wasn't the everlasting Father, Wonderful, counselor, or the mighty God either. The everlasting Father, the Mighty God was Jesus daddy. But Jesus name was called the everlasting Father, because Jesus had his daddy's name. USW.

I say this because almost everyone misses the part about "his name shall be called". Everyone reads it as if it says He is Immanuel.

You did the same thing with Isaiah 9:6. It clearly says "his name shall be called." It then proceeds to give the various TITLES that are assigned to the Messiah.

I view Immanuel, Everlasting Father, prince of peace, the Mighty God, wonderful, counselor as revelations about who Jesus is. I believe Isa. 9.6 is revelatory. I don't see them as titles for Jesus. To me a title would be something Like King Jesus or Master Jesus. also, there is no record in the NT of anyone calling Jesus Prince of Peace, everlasting father, Immanuel, etc.

Jesus brought God to man because God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. Jesus is the God is with us because God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. Jesus is not the god is with us because God was Christ, but because God was in Christ.


Galatians 3:17 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect

2 Cor 5:19 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.


no verse says God was Christ, 2 verses say God was in Christ. God was Christ contradicts God was in Christ. Logic 101.

so our only disagreement basically is you call them titles and I call them revelation about Jesus in isa 9.6, matthew 1.23. NO biggie. Also I just wanted to share some of my insights on the issue that you may not have heard before.

 

[jamie2014]

no verse says God was Christ, 2 verses say God was in Christ. God was Christ contradicts God was in Christ. Logic 101.

True, and Jesus said, "I in them and thou in me that they may be made perfect in one..." (John 17:23)

 

[Albion]

no verse says God was Christ

No, but many say either that Christ was God or have him saying it himself.

 

[Der Alte]

I agree that Jehovah himself told Abraham he would become many nations. So what? Jehovah was using descriptive language aka describing what would occur in the future. God was not saying that Abraham would impregnate the mothers of all of his future descendants--including those born centuries after Abraham was dead--in order for Abraham to literally become their father. What is it about that don't you get?

This entire post is a exercise in deception and obfuscation, evidently because you cannot refute my argument that when God names someone He means what He says and says what He means.

Here you are misrepresenting scripture. The verse I quoted did not say "Abraham would become many nations." You claim to interpret scriptures better than I do but here you can't even quote it correctly. And now you are misrepresenting what I said. I have never said nor implied that Abraham "would impregnate the mothers of all of his future descendants." That is a violation of the 9th commandment. Perhaps you should try actually reading what I said and reply to that without distortion or exaggeration.

The fact that you continue the same nonsensical argument shows to what extent you do not understand the difference between literal and descriptive language.

Try reading what I said. I think you will find that I said "in the Jewish sense." In whatever sense God meant Abraham would be the father of many nations and in whatever sense the Jews meant Abraham was their father, that is the sense that believe Abraham is the father of many nations, just as God said. And this proves that when God names someone He means what He says, and says what He means.

Luk 1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

Joh 8:53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?

Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Act 7:2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,

Rom 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.​

And to think, you said you have been doing this for decades. In fact, you went so far as "wish me luck" because you are supposedly such an expert at interpreting Scripture after "doing this for several decades." I am quivering in my shoes with fear.

As well you should be since you have shown that you cannot quote me or the scripture correctly.

Below is a verse of scripture that you do well to consider.

"Consequently let him that thinks he is standing beware that he does not fall." (1 Corinthians 10:12)

FYI: True Christians do not rely on luck aka the game of chance. I happen to have truth on my side thanks to Jehovah for having taught me how to reason on the scriptures. So for the most part, I understand what I am reading as opposed to merely knowing what the Bible says.

Do you call misquoting me and scripture, having truth on your side? You have not shown me you understand the scripture. You best be aware of the scripture you quoted yourself.

 

[he-man]

ALTER2EGO -to- DER ALTER: I agree that Jehovah himself told Abraham he would become many nations. So what?.

Hebrews 5:13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. (14) But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Exo 32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom Thou swarest by Thine Own Self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.

Act 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

Gen 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

 

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- DER ALTER:

I agree that Jehovah himself told Abraham he would become many nations. So what? Jehovah was using descriptive language aka describing what would occur in the future. God was not saying that Abraham would impregnate the mothers of all of his future descendants--including those born centuries after Abraham was dead--in order for Abraham to literally become their father. What is it about that don't you get?

This entire post is a exercise in deception and obfuscation, evidently because you cannot refute my argument that when God names someone He means what He says and says what He means.

Here you are misrepresenting scripture. The verse I quoted did not say "Abraham would become many nations." You claim to interpret scriptures better than I do but here you can't even quote it correctly. And now you are misrepresenting what I said. I have never said nor implied that Abraham "would impregnate the mothers of all of his future descendants." That is a violation of the 9th commandment. Perhaps you should try actually reading what I said and reply to that without distortion or exaggeration.

ALTER2EGO -to- DER ALTER:

Of course you implied it. And you continue to imply it each time you persist in your fallacious claim that Abraham literally fathered all of his descendants. God telling Abraham he would become many nations is a figure of speech referring to Abraham's descendants becoming many nations. Figures of speech are never literal. They have a deeper meaning than their face value.

POST 154, PARAGRAPH 2:
WEBLINK: http://www.christianforums.com/t7722699-16/#post65796957

Verses and questions #1-#4, Irrelevant! Irrelevant! Irrelevant! And Irrelevant! Why you might ask. That sinful, fallible men might name their sons with Theophoric names, i.e. names incorporating the name of God, is irrelevant, they have no power to make their sons be or become what the name indicates or anything else. But when God names someone, He means what He says. For example when God changed Abram's name to Abraham, he literally, actually, historicaly became the father of many nations, the "interpretation" or meaning of Abraham.

I reminded you that Abraham literally fathered only two children: Isaac and Ishmael. That was your opportunity to back away from your claim about Abraham literally fathering his millions of descendants. You turned around and suggested that I was calling God a liar, after you had warned me prior to that of your expertise with scripture due to your decades of relying on out-of-context verses, aided by your law degree.


POST 161, PARAGRAPHS 1 & 2:
WEBLINK: http://www.christianforums.com/t7722699-17/#post65817225

Is this a serious response? "the Interpretation of a name does not make the person literally what the name is interpreted as being [even if] it was done by ... Almighty God Jehovah." That is calling God a liar.

Your response is a ridiculous fallacy, sems to me that you are calling God a liar.

POST 154, LAST PARAGRAPH:
WEBLINK: http://www.christianforums.com/t7722699-16/#post65796957

Good luck. I have been doing this for several decades. You should not think that I just thought up these arguments, yesterday. Every argument you could possibly make I have heard and refuted many times before. Something you might think about none of the verses I listed stands or falls on its own, they all form a pattern. Think I can get a haircut on Hard road?

POST 162, PARAGRAPH 1:
WEBLINK: http://www.christianforums.com/t7722699-17/#post65817457

You made the mistake of assuming I did not know the answer to my question. I have studied law and have appeared before some high level courts. There is a maxim in law. "Don't ask a queston that you do not know the answer to." Note what I have highlighted. My question again "Why would Matthew have to include the interpretation [explain the meaning] of a Hebrew word for Hebrew speaking Jews?" He wouldn't but he would need to explain the that Jesus was God with us. And that is exactly what they understood. meaning of Immanuel to believers who did not speak Hebrew so they would know.

What a refreshing show of humility on your part. Fine Christian example for the rest of us sinners.


Truth be told, anyone who rejects your poor interpretation of Scripture is "calling God a liar."

 

[Der Alte]

ALTER2EGO -to- DER ALTER:

Of course you implied it. And you continue to imply it each time you persist in your fallacious claim that Abraham literally fathered all of his descendants. God telling Abraham he would become many nations is a figure of speech referring to Abraham's descendants becoming many nations. Figures of speech are never literal. They have a deeper meaning than their face value.

While you are engaged in personal attack and character assasination you have deceptivley omitted the posts whwere I clarified what I said about Abraham. This reveals the fallacy of your argument. You can't address the topic so you attack me.

You may continue to avoid the topic and attack me but I will ignore this latest attack and return to the topic and reiterate the point I made which has not even been addressed.

Gen 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.​

God Himself named the prophesied Messiah, "shall call his name Immanuel.""his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

When Giod names someone He means waht He says and says what He means. Some grouips such as the WTBS and their minions say that Isa 7:14 and 9:6 have no meaning. God just gave the names for no purpose whatsoever. But I believe that everything God says has a purpose. When God names someone that name has meaning. When God changed Abram's name to Abraham, which means father of many, Abraham historically became the father of many nations just as God said He would, Gen 17:5.

In the same way when God named the Messiah in Isa 7:14, 9:6, God intended that the Messiah would fulfill the meaning of those names, "Immanuel [God with us], Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." just as Abraham fufilled the meaning of His name.

Matthew was writing to Jews and Gentiles he would not have to explain the meaning of "Immanuel" to Jews but Matthew explained the meaning of Immanuel so that non-Hebrew speaking Gentiles would know that Jesus was "God with us." That is how the early church understood Matthew 1;23, 100 years before the Arian heresy, which was revived in the 1870s as the WTBS.

Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202.]Book 3 Chapter 9 [Disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the Apostle]

2. Then again Matthew, when speaking of the angel, says, “The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in sleep.” Of what Lord he does himself interpret: “That it may be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” “Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.”
…
But Matthew says that the Magi, coming from the east, exclaimed “For we have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship Him;” and that, having been led by the star into the house of Jacob to Emmanuel, they showed, by these gifts which they offered, who it was that was worshipped; myrrh, because it was He who should die and be buried for the mortal human race; gold, because He was a King, “of whose kingdom is no end;” and frankincense, because He was God, who also “was made known in Judea,” and was “declared to those who sought Him not.”

Tertullian [A.D. 145-220.] Answer to the Jews Chap. 9

But we, on the contrary, have thought they ought to be admonished to recall to mind the context of this passage as well. For subjoined is withal the interpretation of Emmanuel — “God with us” — in order that you may regard not the sound only of the name, but the sense too. For the Hebrew sound, which is Emmanuel, has an interpretation, which is, God with us. Inquire, then, whether this speech, “God with us” (which is Emmanuel), be commonly applied to Christ ever since Christ’s light has dawned, and I think you will not deny it. For they who out of Judaism believe in Christ, ever since their believing on Him, do, whenever they shall wish to say Emmanuel, signify that God is with us: and thus it is agreed that He who was ever predicted as Emmanuel is already come,​

 

[he-man]

While you are engaged in personal attack and character assasination you have deceptivley omitted the posts whwere I clarified what I said about Abraham. This reveals the fallacy of your argument. You can't address the topic so you attack me.

You may continue to avoid the topic and attack me but I will ignore this latest attack and return to the topic and reiterate the point I made which has not even been addressed.

Gen 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

In the same way when God named the Messiah in Isa 7:14, 9:6, God intended that the Messiah would fulfill the meaning of those names, "Immanuel [God with us], Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." just as Abraham fufilled the meaning of His name.

“That it may be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.”

But we, on the contrary, have thought they ought to be admonished to recall to mind the context of this passage as well. For subjoined is withal the interpretation of Emmanuel — “God with us” — in order that you may regard not the sound only of the name, but the sense too.​

You cant be in two places at once!
Immanuel= BY GOD. Mat 10:32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.

Eph 4:14 That we be no more children, tossed by the sea, and carried about with every wind of instruction, by the game of dice of men, and intelligence, whereby they lie in wait to the pursuit of knowledge

Is 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name appointed by God. Immanuel.

Is 9:6 Because to us a child is born, to us a son is given to become and the rule shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty One, and because of this work of God, The minister of Peace.

Lu 1:28 And entering into her, he said, 'Be joyful, o beautiful one, the Lord is with you.
29 And when she saw him, she was deranged at his word, and speculated in contempt what this kiss was to be
Lu 1:30 And the messenger said to her, 'Fear not, Mary: for you have found favor from God.'
Lu 1:31 and lo, you shall conceive in the belly, and shalt bring forth a son, and
call his name Jesus;
Lu 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord, the God, shall give him the throne of his father David:
Lu 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingship there shall be no end.

Re 1:1 The One who proclaims a calling of Jesus Christ which was given to him by God, to indicate to his slaves to descry wherein to happen shortly; and he sent to signify it by means of his messenger, his slave John:​

 

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Although there are no scriptures in the Bible to support the dogma of a 3-in-1 god, Trinitarians refuse to accept this reality. The result? They isolate a few words from an entire chapter and ignore everything else that is part of the context. Then they insist that the cherry-picked words are proof of Trinity. Never mind that the context says otherwise.

It is the context (surrounding words, verses, and chapters) that enables readers to get the correct understanding of what they are reading.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Trinity makes most sense when people have a living model to experience it with, since we're made in the image and likeness of God, this is possible. But in the sense of the scripture "God will be all and in all" in terms of the judgment, this is the consuming fire of God, and one must live in the question .. is there a sin God cannot purify?

 

[he-man]

Although there are no scriptures in the Bible to support the dogma of a 3-in-1 god, Trinitarians refuse to accept this reality. It is the context (surrounding words, verses, and chapters) that enables readers to get the correct understanding of what they are reading.

deleted

 

[he-man]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Although there are no scriptures in the Bible to support the dogma of a 3-in-1 god, Trinitarians refuse to accept this reality. The result? They isolate a few words from an entire chapter and ignore everything else that is part of the context. Then they insist that the cherry-picked words are proof of Trinity. Never mind that the context says otherwise.

It is the context (surrounding words, verses, and chapters) that enables readers to get the correct understanding of what they are reading.

23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. And John says:
John 17:17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.
New King James Version
That is intrinsically right and true. Therefore a person who is honest, who is willing to speak the truth, who will acknowledge and submit to it when he sees it, will eventually be converted. [/b]

 

[Albion]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Although there are no scriptures in the Bible to support the dogma of a 3-in-1 god, Trinitarians refuse to accept this reality.

Actually, the Bible gives ample evidence of what is termed the "Trinity." While no single verse absolutely nails down the concept of three being one, different verses make that conclusion unavoidable. There is no way that "One God" (strongly asserted in the OT), coupled with the Bible's description of the Father as God, the Son as God, and the Holy Spirit as God, can mean anything else.

 

[he-man]

Actually, the Bible gives ample evidence of what is termed the "Trinity." While no single verse absolutely nails down the concept of three being one, different verses make that conclusion unavoidable. There is no way that "One God" (strongly asserted in the OT), coupled with the Bible's description of the Father as God, the Son as God, and the Holy Spirit as God, can mean anything else.

23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Mar 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

 

[Der Alte]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Although there are no scriptures in the Bible to support the dogma of a 3-in-1 god, Trinitarians refuse to accept this reality. The result? They isolate a few words from an entire chapter and ignore everything else that is part of the context. Then they insist that the cherry-picked words are proof of Trinity. Never mind that the context says otherwise.

It is the context (surrounding words, verses, and chapters) that enables readers to get the correct understanding of what they are reading.

You have not correctly identified any "reality" to accept. I'm not aware of any Christians who has said or implied belief in a "3-in-1 god." May I suggest that you study what Christians who believe in the Trinity actually believe instead of what certain leaders/teachers have told you. Your accusation that Trinitarians "isolate a few words from an entire chapter and ignore everything else that is part of the context" is blatantly false. If you intend to make such accusations you have the obligation to quote such supposedly out-of-context "few words" and show how the context has been ignored.

 

[Job8]

Opposition to the doctrines of the Trinity (which includes opposition to the Deity of Christ) and Hell Fire is generally the mark of a cult. Beware of false prophets and false teachers.

Since the word "Godhead" is in Scripture, "Triune Godhead" would be perfectly Scriptural (1 Jn 5:7 KJV). The Bible reveals that there is only ONE true and living God, eternally existent as THREE Divine Persons, the Father, the Word (the Son) and the Holy Spirit. Since the Lake of Fire is also clearly present in Scripture, and Hell was created for the Devil and his angels, the Devil does not want people to believe that this is true.

 

[he-man]

Opposition to the doctrines of the Trinity (which includes opposition to the Deity of Christ) and Hell Fire is generally the mark of a cult. Beware of false prophets and false teachers. Since the word "Godhead" is in Scripture, "Triune Godhead" would be perfectly Scriptural (1 Jn 5:7 KJV). The Bible reveals that there is only ONE true and living God, eternally existent as THREE Divine Persons, the Father, the Word (the Son) and the Holy Spirit. Since the Lake of Fire is also clearly present in Scripture, and Hell was created for the Devil and his angels, the Devil does not want people to believe that this is true.

Duh? 10) Thereverence of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments.
His praise endures forever another. verse says: 23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Mar 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.Col 2:9 For in him the fullness of divine quality doth tabernacle in a fleshly