If you are still sinning you do not belong to Jesus Christ

[Commander Xenophon]

When I have altered scripture? I quote from various translations, and I always reference the translation I quote from. This is a false accusation.

You have altered Matthew 28:19 and John 1:3. You claim John 1:3 should read "all life," when if this was the case, it would read panil zoen, rathet than panta; you claim Matthew 28:19 does not say "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" when in fact all Greek manuscripts of it do say that.

At the same time, you claim Mark 16:9-20, which is of doubtful authenticity according to manuscript evidence, is 100% accurate. That's just cherrypicking.

 

[cgaviria]

By who? How can you trust it? I see no reason to believe you are a sinless apostle and many reasons to doubt it, for example, your habitual cruelty to various members who happen to disagree with you. There are a number of people who post on this forum who I don't agree with; in fact, I have differences with nearly everyone who disagrees with you in this thread, but we are able to get by without name calling. So that, by itself, at face value, proves to me that you are not sinless but are rather misled and/or presumptuous.

By God. You can easily prove if what I'm saying is true by the scriptures. Any person that speaks truth will never contradict any scripture. See for yourself that everything I am saying is in the scriptures.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

By God. You can easily prove if what I'm saying is true by the scriptures.

I can't. In fact, the scriptures I have prove what you have said and are saying is incorrect.

Any person that speaks truth will never contradict any scripture. See for yourself that everything I am saying is in the scriptures.

Whose Scriptures? Those accepted as canonical by the Christian church, or the modified set you use?

 

[cgaviria]

You have altered Matthew 28:19 and John 1:3. You claim John 1:3 should read "all life," when if this was the case, it would read panil zoen, rathet than panta; you claim Matthew 28:19 does not say "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" when in fact all Greek manuscripts of it do say that.

At the same time, you claim Mark 16:9-20, which is of doubtful authenticity according to manuscript evidence, is 100% accurate. That's just cherrypicking.

Matthew 28:19 was not altered by me, it was altered by someone else. The reading should say, "in my name". Even Eusebius, who himself was a catholic, quoted it this way. John 1:3, is a mistranslation, and I've provided the interlinear to prove that "all things" is a mistranslation, should read "all", and thus "all" pertains to all living beings, not all things.

 

[royal priest]

I'm off to prayer meeting now. Too bad I'll just be wasting my time since I'm void of the Spirit of grace and supplications, and without help to pray as I ought.

By God. You can easily prove if what I'm saying is true by the scriptures. Any person that speaks truth will never contradict any scripture. See for yourself that everything I am saying is in the scriptures.

the problem is that you only recognize one side of the coin. This renders your theology as useless

 

[cgaviria]

I can't. In fact, the scriptures I have prove what you have said and are saying is incorrect.



Whose Scriptures? Those accepted as canonical by the Christian church, or the modified set you use?

I use the same translations you people use, except I research the original renderings and compare the originals with the renderings, and one rendering from another. I dig deep. I want to know the exact truth as it was originally given, not what some translator who doctrinal bias thinks the text should read. And we see this evident even in John 1:3, with the word "things" added. That is a doctrinal bias, not what was originally stated nor what is truly conveyed in that verse. And there are many more of these biases and mistranslations in the scriptures.

 

[cgaviria]

I'm off to prayer meeting now. Too bad I'll just be wasting my time since I'm void of the Spirit of grace and supplications, and without help to pray as I ought.
the problem is that you only recognize one side of the coin. This renders your theology as useless

Fine, then don't believe me. Your salvation is not my own.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Matthew 28:19 was not altered by me, it was altered by someone else.

No, you altered it. There are no extant manuscripts that read the way you say it should be read. Even the most liberal of textual critics agree with me on this.

The reading should say, "in my name". Even Eusebius, who himself was a catholic, quoted it this way.

Eusebius was not a Catholic, he was a semi-Arian heretic. What is more, we have strong reason to believe that the so-called Alexandrian text type are those Bibles produced in Caesarea to furnish the church in Constantinople. And they have a standard reading of Matthew 28:19.

John 1:3, is a mistranslation, and I've provided the interlinear to prove that "all things" is a mistranslation, should read "all", and thus "all" pertains to all living beings, not all things.

I've provided an interlinear of Acts, where Acts says "all life," which you ignored.

You also haven't provided any evidence why we should accept Mark 16:9-20.

So, you're cherry picking. I would like to know, for reference purposes, what other verses you reject a standard reading of. Just so we know what we're dealing with.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

I use the same translations you people use, except I research the original renderings and compare the originals with the renderings, and one rendering from another. I dig deep. I want to know the exact truth as it was originally given, not what some translator who doctrinal bias thinks the text should read.

Right. And then you ignore what the original text says, in the case of Matthew 28:19.

And we see this evident even in John 1:3, with the word "things" added. That is a doctrinal bias, not what was originally stated nor what is truly conveyed in that verse. And there are many more of these biases and mistranslations in the scriptures.

It's not. "All" and "all things" are synonymous; panta can mean all things. But that's not what you did, either. What you did was try to imply that because Panta can be translated "all," it must mean "all life." Which is nonsense; all life is not Panta; the phrase "all life" appears explicitly in the Greek throughout the LXX and NT, and not as "Panta."

 

[cgaviria]

No, you altered it. There are no extant manuscripts that read the way you say it should be read. Even the most liberal of textual critics agree with me on this.



Eusebius was not a Catholic, he was a semi-Arian heretic. What is more, we have strong reason to believe that the so-called Alexandrian text type are those Bibles produced in Caesarea to furnish the church in Constantinople. And they have a standard reading of Matthew 28:19.



I've provided an interlinear of Acts, where Acts says "all life," which you ignored.

You also haven't provided any evidence why we should accept Mark 16:9-20.

So, you're cherry picking. I would like to know, for reference purposes, what other verses you reject a standard reading of. Just so we know what we're dealing with.

The word is "panta", which means just "all". So to add any word to it, is incorrect. Matthew 28:19 also contradicts 7 other scriptures indicating that all things ought to be done in the name of Jesus alone, so aside from the outside quotes of it that it should say "in my name", even internally in the bible the verse contradicts. So clearly its a forgery.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Fine, then don't believe me. Your salvation is not my own.

Why do you always have to resort to abuse when someone disagrees with you? Why is it that I'm able to get along with a large number of people who I disagree with vehemently on theological issues, and you're not? How does this point to sinlessness on your part?

 

[cgaviria]

Right. And then you ignore what the original text says, in the case of Matthew 28:19.



It's not. "All" and "all things" are synonymous; panta can mean all things. But that's not what you did, either. What you did was try to imply that because Panta can be translated "all," it must mean "all life." Which is nonsense; all life is not Panta; the phrase "all life" appears explicitly in the Greek throughout the LXX and NT, and not as "Panta."

Its not "all things", especially it being that water already existed before Jesus Christ began speaking, so already its pretty obvious that Jesus Christ did not create all "things". Only someone really trying to push a certain doctrine would force the John 1:3 to render as "all things". I can't help but to roll my eyes at you, its like you refuse to accept completely logical arguments.

 

[cgaviria]

Why do you always have to resort to abuse when someone disagrees with you? Why is it that I'm able to get along with a large number of people who I disagree with vehemently on theological issues, and you're not? How does this point to sinlessness on your part?

And somehow this person saying my theology is useless is not abuse? My my my, how one sided to blame me for simply just responding to that statement.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

The word is "panta", which means just "all". So to add any word to it, is incorrect.

No, because all and all things are effectively synonymous. The real problem is not your use of all, but your use of "were."

Matthew 28:19 also contradicts 7 other scriptures indicating that all things ought to be done in the name of Jesus alone, so aside from the outside quotes of it that it should say "in my name", even internally in the bible the verse contradicts. So clearly its a forgery.

Translation: it doesn't say what I want it to say. So clearly it's a forgery.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Its not "all things", especially it being that water already existed before Jesus Christ began speaking, so already its pretty obvious that Jesus Christ did not create all "things".

He does not need to speak in order to create, so your argument is invalid.

Only someone really trying to push a certain doctrine would force the John 1:3 to render as "all things".

No, because even non-Trinitarians like the J/Ws in their own false bible did not tamper with John 1:3. Arius didn't even touch on it.

I can't help but to roll my eyes at you, its like you refuse to accept completely logical arguments.

I accept them when they are logical.

And somehow this person saying my theology is useless is not abuse? My my my, how one sided to blame me for simply just responding to that statement.

His remark addresses your argument, not your person. You are not useless; you, as an image of God, possess intrinsic value. Your theology is objectively useless from a Christian standpoint, however, in that its based entirely on your opinions, contrary to the text of Scripture, and the faith of any known Christians since 33 AD. There is no evidence to support your claim of being a sinless apostle, and much evidence to subgest that you are simply wrong.

 

[cgaviria]

He does not need to speak in order to create, so your argument is invalid.



No, because even non-Trinitarians like the J/Ws in their own false bible did not tamper with John 1:3. Arius didn't even touch on it.



I accept them when they are logical.



His remark addresses your argument, not your person. You are not useless; you, as an image of God, possess intrinsic value. Your theology is objectively useless from a Christian standpoint, however, in that its based entirely on your opinions, contrary to the text of Scripture, and the faith of any known Christians since 33 AD. There is no evidence to support your claim of being a sinless apostle, and much evidence to subgest that you are simply wrong.

Jesus Christ spoke in order to create, hence why he is called the Word of God, because he spoke creation into existence. "Word", or "logos" in the Greek means "speech, talking". So the utterances of God in the Genesis account, were Jesus speaking certain things into existence.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Jesus Christ spoke in order to create, hence why he is called the Word of God, because he spoke creation into existence. "Word", or "logos" in the Greek means "speech, talking". So the utterances of God in the Genesis account, were Jesus speaking certain things into existence.

It means many other things besides speech. For example, reason, intellect, et cetera. We can reasonably say that Jesus can create by mere thought. Or without thought, because thought implies action, which implies change, which is contrary to the immutability of the divine nature, so we might instead say "will," according to the divine will.

 

[cgaviria]

It means many other things besides speech. For example, reason, intellect, et cetera. We can reasonably say that Jesus can create by mere thought. Or without thought, because thought implies action, which implies change, which is contrary to the immutability of the divine nature, so we might instead say "will," according to the divine will.

No, it means the Genesis account utterances, hence why John 1 discusses this word of God as the creator of life. Obvious.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Wisdom that has been granted to me.

In absence of the Holy Spirit?
More importantly, granted by whom?

 

[redleghunter]

No, only a few are chosen. 144,000 to be exact, plus the 3 patriarchs, the 24 elders which are the twelve tribe fathers and the 12 apostles, and of course the lamb of God. These are the elect that will inherit the kingdom to come.

This is exactly what the Jehovah's witnesses believe. Another group known as Shepherds Chapel does so as well.

Do you teach and opine on the "Kenites" and flesh bodies too?