Let's Talk About Hell (4)

[he-man]

It doesn't matter that there are devils and "the devil" one is Satan and one are demons. That is obvious. also you changed your mind from not believing in demons to believing they are in chains when did that happen? Is it because I kept posting these verses?

These imaginary beings would be expressed in English by demon, evil genius, or tutelar deity, all of which belong to Pagan mythology, and have no place in the system of the truth.

"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment," (2 Pet. 2:4 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day," (Jude 6).

Jude 6 says reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
2 Pet 2:4 says in chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
He hath reserved in everlasting chains - That is, in a state of confinement from which they cannot escape.

"The messengers/angels that sinned" thus belongs to the wilderness experiences of Israel Num. 16.

It does not tell of angels being expelled from heaven to engage in marauding expeditions against human interests and divine authority, wherever their caprice might lead them; but of disobedient angels/messengers, not necessarily in heaven, being degraded from their position, and confined in the grave against a time of judgment.

It speaks of them as in custody, "under chains of darkness" —a metaphor highly expressive of the bondage of death—in which they are held, and from which they will emerge, to be judged, at a time when the saints shall sit in judgment (1 Cor. 6:3).

​

What is manifest is that sin and the devil are in their radical relations equivalent terms such as in 1 Tim. 3:11, where the wives of the deacons are forbidden to be
slanderers (the word slanderers in the original is the same word elsewhere rendered Devil). ​

It is a compound of dia through, and ballo to cast, and means to dart or strike through; hence, to slander, to utter falsehood maliciously, to speak lies. Sin, as the great deceiver of mankind, is there well spoken of as the Liar, the Accuser, the Slanderer of God. ​

In its literal aspect, it is, of course, an impersonal thing, tempting without being a conscious tempter, as expressed by James.​

"Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own desires, and enticed; then when desire hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin when it is finished bringeth forth death"
(James 1:14) [Parkhurst Lexicon]​

 

[createdtoworship]

These imaginary beings would be expressed in English by demon, evil genius, or tutelar deity, all of which belong to Pagan mythology, and have no place in the system of the truth.

It does not tell of angels being expelled from heaven to engage in marauding expeditions against human interests and divine authority, wherever their caprice might lead them; but of disobedient angels/messengers, not necessarily in heaven, being degraded from their position, and confined in the grave against a time of judgment.

It speaks of them as in custody, "under chains of darkness" —a metaphor highly expressive of the bondage of death—in which they are held, and from which they will emerge, to be judged, at a time when the saints shall sit in judgment (1 Cor. 6:3).

[/SIZE]What is manifest is that sin and the devil are in their radical relations equivalent terms such as in 1 Tim. 3:11, where the wives of the deacons are forbidden to be
slanderers (the word slanderers in the original is the same word elsewhere rendered Devil). [/LEFT]

It is a compound of dia through, and ballo to cast, and means to dart or strike through; hence, to slander, to utter falsehood maliciously, to speak lies. Sin, as the great deceiver of mankind, is there well spoken of as the Liar, the Accuser, the Slanderer of God. ​

In its literal aspect, it is, of course, an impersonal thing, tempting without being a conscious tempter, as expressed by James.​

"Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own desires, and enticed; then when desire hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin when it is finished bringeth forth death"
(James 1:14) [Parkhurst Lexicon]​

You were hoping that you would not get caught but I see you plagiarized Robert Roberts twice in this small post without giving source information about him. Well let me inform you that Roberts organized and established the Christadelphian movement which currently believes the following

In regards to Jesus, Christadelphianism teaches that....

"Jesus had a sinful nature (The Christadelphians, What They Believe, by Harry Tennant, The Christadelphian, England, p. 74 - this is a Christadelphian book.)
Jesus needed salvation, (Christadelphian Answers, ed. by Frank G. Jannaway, The Herald Press, p. 25 - another Christadelphian book).
Jesus is not God in flesh (Answers, p. 22).
That Jesus' atonement was not substitutionary (Answers, p. 25; What They Believe, p. 71).
Baptism is necessary for salvation (What They Believe, p. 71,72, 207-210)"
And they reject the Trinity http://www.christianlibrary.org.au/cel/documents/cults/04.html#sdfootnote9sym

It is for this reason the christadelphians are considered a cult according to a religious movements study by carm

above from
Is Christadelphianism Christian? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry


Christedelphianism view of Satan is harmful

Satan didn't exist?
"How are we, for example, to understand the temptations of Jesus? Are we to think that the writers of the Gospels were wrong when they indicate that Satan actually spoke to Jesus and tempted Him? The Christadelphian's rejection of the existence of Satan demonstrates their contempt for the Scriptures. For the Bible clearly reveals that the devil is an evil spirit who literally exists. The book of Job speaks of Satan in terms of a real spirit who spoke with God, and accused Job of only loving God for what he could get from Him. Who can read the book of Job and not conclude that there is a personal devil? According to the Bible, Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness being tempted by Satan, during which time Satan actually spoke to Him and tempted Him to do evil. The Bible records that Jesus conducted a conversation with Satan. It is obvious that the Christadelphians do not take the teachings of Scripture seriously, but distort them to fit with their own theories. The Bible leaves us with no question at all regarding the reality of the literal existence of a spirit being called Satan. By their denial of the personality of Satan, the Christadelphians demonstrate how little regard they really have for the integrity of God's word."

from
http://www.christianlibrary.org.au/cel/documents/cults/04.html#sdfootnote9sym

Jude 6 says reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
2 Pet 2:4 says in chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
He hath reserved in everlasting chains - That is, in a state of confinement from which they cannot escape.

"The messengers/angels that sinned" thus belongs to the wilderness experiences of Israel Num. 16. ​

The Angels that sinned with humans - (Genesis 6) are the "Sons of God" that slept with human women...

The strange events recorded in Genesis 6 were understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, as well as the Septuagint translators, as referring to fallen angels procreating weird hybrid offspring with human women-known as the "Nephilim." So it was also understood by the early church fathers.

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5

Peter's comments even establishes the time of the fall of these angels to the days of the Flood of Noah.

Even Peter's vocabulary is provocative. Peter uses the term Tartarus, here translated "hell." This is the only place that this Greek term appears in the Bible. Tartarus is a Greek term for "dark abode of woe"; "the pit of darkness in the unseen world." As used in Homer's Iliad, it is "...as far beneath hades as the earth is below heaven`."22 In Greek mythology, some of the demigods, Chronos and the rebel Titans, were said to have rebelled against their father, Uranus, and after a prolonged contest they were defeated by Zeus and were condemned into Tartarus.

The Epistle of Jude23 also alludes to the strange episodes when these ... creatures intruded themselves into the human reproductive process:

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 6,7

The allusions to "going after strange flesh," keeping "not their first estate," having "left their own habitation," and "giving themselves over to fornication," seem to clearly fit the ...intrusions of Genesis 6. (The term for habitation, oivkhth,rion, refers to their heavenly bodies from which they had disrobed.24)

These allusions from the New Testament would seem to be fatal to the "Sethite" alternative in interpreting Genesis 6. If the intercourse between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were merely marriage between Sethites and Cainites, it seems impossible to explain these passages, and the reason why some fallen angels are imprisoned and others are free to roam the heavenlies.

above from following link on the nephilim
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/#articles​

 

[he-man]

You were hoping that you would not get caught but I see you plagiarized Robert Roberts twice in this small post without giving source information about him. Well let me inform you that Roberts organized and established the Christadelphian movement which currently believes the following And they reject the Trinity

Oops, my bad here is the source:

"The Evil One"​

Bible Teaching Concerning The Devil and Satan
also see:
David Joris (c. 1501–1556, Against this is his rationalist approach to the topic of the devil and supernatural evil. David Joris anticipated the views of Thomas Hobbes, John Epps and Dr. John Thomas in interpreting the devil as an allegory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_teaching_about_the_Devil

Satan didn't exist?
"How are we, for example, to understand the temptations of Jesus? Are we to think that the writers of the Gospels were wrong when they indicate that Satan actually spoke to Jesus and tempted Him?

Luk 4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Spirit returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

So Peter was actually Satan, in disquise?

Mr 8:33 But he turning back, and seeing his disciples, reprimanded Peter, and said, Get back behind me, Satan; because you are not thinking the things of God, but the things of men.

The book of Job speaks of Satan in terms of a real spirit who spoke with God, and accused Job of only loving God for what he could get from Him. Who can read the book of Job and not conclude that there is a personal devil?

Job 27:11 I will teach you by the hand of God: that which is with the Almighty will I not conceal.

Job 2:10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

Job 19:21 Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O ye my friends; for the hand of God hath touched me.

Job 27:22 For God shall cast upon him, and not spare: he would fain flee out of his hand.

Psa 31:5 Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth. [YLT]

What is manifest is that sin and the devil are in their radical relations equivalent terms such as in 1 Tim. 3:11, where the wives of the deacons are forbidden to be
slanderers (the word slanderers in the original is the same word elsewhere rendered Devil).

It is a compound of dia through, and ballo to cast, and means to dart or strike through; hence, to slander, to utter falsehood maliciously, to speak lies. Sin, as the great deceiver of mankind, is there well spoken of as the Liar, the Accuser, the Slanderer of God. [Parkhurst Lexicon]

Jer 25:15 For thus saith the LORD God of Israel unto me; Take the wine cup of this fury at my hand, and cause all the nations, to whom I send thee, to drink it.

2 Cor 12
Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.

Devil is a synonym for Satan / Ha-Satan, which descends from the Middle English devel, from Old English de-ofol, that in turn represents an early Germanic borrowing of Latin diabolus (also the source of "diabolical").

This in turn was borrowed from Ancient Greek diábolos (διαβολο&#962, "slanderer", from diaballein "to slander": dia- "across, through" + ballein "to hurl".
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus

In mainstream Judaism there is no concept of a devil like in mainstream Christianity or Islam. In Hebrew, the biblical word ha-satan means "the adversary" or the obstacle, or even "the prosecutor" (recognizing that God is viewed as the ultimate Judge).

Much "Satanic" lore does not originate from actual Satanists, but from Christians. Best-known would be the medieval folklore and theology surrounding demons and witches.

Satan Sa'tan. The word itself, the Hebrew satan, is simply an "adversary," and is so used in 1 Sam 29:4; 2 Sam 19:22; 1 Kin 6:4; 11:14, 23, 25; Numb 22:22, 33; Psal 109:6 see:
"And David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of
Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries
(SATANS) unto me?" (II Sam. 19:22).

"And the Lord stirred up an adversary (SATAN) unto
Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king's seed
in Edom" (I Kings 11:14).

"And God stirred him up another adversary (SATAN),
Rezon, the son of Eliadah, which fled from his lord
Hadadezer king of Zobah."

"And he was an adversary (SATAN) to Israel all the
days of Solomon" (I Kings 11:23, 25).

This original sense is still found in our Lord's application of the name to St. Peter in Matt 16:23 It is used as a proper name or title only four times in the Old Testament, vis. (with the article) in Job 1:6, 12; 2:1; Zech 2:1 and without the article in 1 Chr 21:1 [Smith's Bible Dictionary]

(The term "satan" was also used to designate human enemies of the Hebrews that Yahweh raised against them.)
[T. J. Wray, Gregory Mobley The birth of Satan pp.66-68]

Carus P. History of the Devil and the Idea of Evil
Thomas Hobbes (1651); Arthur Ashley Sykes (1737); Richard Mead (1755)

Ashdowne, ‘‘AN INQUIRY INTO THE Scripture Meaning of the Word SATAN, AND ITS SYNONIMOUS TERMS, The DEVIL, or the ADVERSARY, and the WICKED-ONE’, page 40, 1794
Burke, J. Christianity in the Witch Hunt Era, 2008

 

[createdtoworship]

Oops, my bad here is the source:

"The Evil One"​

Bible Teaching Concerning The Devil and Satan
also see:
David Joris (c. 1501–1556, Against this is his rationalist approach to the topic of the devil and supernatural evil. David Joris anticipated the views of Thomas Hobbes, John Epps and Dr. John Thomas in interpreting the devil as an allegory

So let me get this right, you quote cultists in order to get around the plethora of verses I give you every time?

Luk 4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Spirit returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

So Peter was actually Satan, in disquise?

Mr 8:33 But he turning back, and seeing his disciples, reprimanded Peter, and said, Get back behind me, Satan; because you are not thinking the things of God, but the things of men.

[/COLOR][/SIZE]

this claim is irrelevant. Obviously peter wasn't mad either so take your pick. I personally believe along with many commentators that Peter was ACTING like satan there not ACTUALLY satan.

Job 27:11

I will teach you by the hand of God: that which is with the Almighty will I not conceal.

Job 2:10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

Job 19:21 Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O ye my friends; for the hand of God hath touched me.

Job 27:22 For God shall cast upon him, and not spare: he would fain flee out of his hand.

Satan asked permission from God to tempt Job don't you remember, this is why Job said "by thy hand"

But without satan it would not have happened at all.

Psa 31:5 Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth. [YLT]

this verse too is irrelevant to our discussion

What is manifest is that sin and the devil are in their radical relations equivalent terms such as in 1 Tim. 3:11, where the wives of the deacons are forbidden to be
slanderers (the word slanderers in the original is the same word elsewhere rendered Devil).

It is a compound of dia through, and ballo to cast, and means to dart or strike through; hence, to slander, to utter falsehood maliciously, to speak lies. Sin, as the great deceiver of mankind, is there well spoken of as the Liar, the Accuser, the Slanderer of God. [Parkhurst Lexicon]


Devil is a synonym for Satan / Ha-Satan, which descends from the Middle English devel, from Old English de-ofol, that in turn represents an early Germanic borrowing of Latin diabolus (also the source of "diabolical").

This in turn was borrowed from Ancient Greek diábolos (διαβολο&#962, "slanderer", from diaballein "to slander": dia- "across, through" + ballein "to hurl".
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus

if Diablos means slanderer, where does that come into play with mental illness? Lunatics are hardly gossipers.

Jer 25:15

For thus saith the LORD God of Israel unto me; Take the wine cup of this fury at my hand, and cause all the nations, to whom I send thee, to drink it.

this verse too is irrelevant to our discussion
2 Cor 12

Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.

I am curious as to your interpretation of this verse. Does this mean Peter was battling with fits of mental illness? Why not say so? There is a word in greek for lunacy (σεληνιάζομαι, seleniazomai) used in Matthew 17:15 (and 4:24&#65279. But neither Christ nor the apostles ever use it in reference to Diablos (the Devil). So this is a sincere problem for your view. Why didn't the Christians just say people were mentally ill in all the cases of demon possession? Wouldn't that be more accurate? Especially since 80% of the demon possessions didn't involve epilepsy, paralysis, or mental illness? Secondly, why is it spoken of "expelling a demon" when Jesus could simply heal the person of mental illness? Why is it necessary to first expel something? Could THAT something be the Devil and his demons?

In mainstream Judaism there is no concept of a devil like in mainstream Christianity or Islam. In Hebrew, the biblical word ha-satan means "the adversary" or the obstacle, or even "the prosecutor" (recognizing that God is viewed as the ultimate Judge).

Well who do they think tempted Job? The boogie man?

Much "Satanic" lore does not originate from actual Satanists, but from Christians. Best-known would be the medieval folklore and theology surrounding demons and witches.

This is a quote found all over the internet, again no source information for this plagiarization.

Satan Sa'tan. The word itself, the Hebrew satan, is simply an "adversary," and is so used in 1 Sam 29:4; 2 Sam 19:22; 1 Kin 6:4; 11:14, 23, 25; Numb 22:22, 33; Psal 109:6 see:
"And David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of
Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries
(SATANS) unto me?" (II Sam. 19:22).


This original sense is still found in our Lord's application of the name to St. Peter in Matt 16:23 It is used as a proper name or title only four times in the Old Testament, vis. (with the article) in Job 1:6, 12; 2:1; Zech 2:1 and without the article in 1 Chr 21:1 [Smith's Bible Dictionary]

(The term "satan" was also used to designate human enemies of the Hebrews that Yahweh raised against them.)
[T. J. Wray, Gregory Mobley The birth of Satan pp.66-68]

Carus P. History of the Devil and the Idea of Evil
Thomas Hobbes (1651); Arthur Ashley Sykes (1737); Richard Mead (1755)

Ashdowne, ‘‘AN INQUIRY INTO THE Scripture Meaning of the Word SATAN, AND ITS SYNONIMOUS TERMS, The DEVIL, or the ADVERSARY, and the WICKED-ONE’, page 40, 1794
Burke, J. Christianity in the Witch Hunt Era, 2008

so what? Just because there are many adversaries in the old testament doesn't mean satan does not exist, who accused Job? The boogie man?

"And the Lord stirred up an adversary (SATAN) unto
Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king's seed
in Edom" (I Kings 11:14).

"And God stirred him up another adversary (SATAN),
Rezon, the son of Eliadah, which fled from his lord
Hadadezer king of Zobah."

"And he was an adversary (SATAN) to Israel all the
days of Solomon" (I Kings 11:23, 25).

Satan isn't the Angel of the Lord, what translation are you using or are you making it up again.

the hebrew word Satan is obviously "adversary"in
Numb 22:22, 33

"Young's Literal Translation
and the anger of God burneth because he is going, and a messenger of Jehovah stationeth himself in the way for an adversary to him, and he is riding on his ass, and two of his servants are with him,"

 

[LutheranMafia]

Secondly, why is it spoken of "expelling a demon" when Jesus could simply heal the person of mental illness? Why is it necessary to first expel something? Could THAT something be the Devil and his demons?

The demons begged Jesus, “If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.”
Matthew 8:31
​

 

[LutheranMafia]

Satan Sa'tan. The word itself, the Hebrew satan, is simply an "adversary," and is so used in 1 Sam 29:4; 2 Sam 19:22; 1 Kin 6:4; 11:14, 23, 25; Numb 22:22, 33; Psal 109:6

Some of these don't say satan at all, such as Numbers 22:33 and 1 Kings 6:4. But the most striking is Numbers 22:22 where the angel of the Lord i.e. God, is the adversary.

But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the LORD stood in the road to oppose him. Balaam was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him.
Numbers 22:22
​

The word oppose is satan in Hebrew.

 

[createdtoworship]

Some of these don't say satan at all, such as Numbers 22:33 and 1 Kings 6:4. But the most striking is Numbers 22:22 where the angel of the Lord i.e. God, is the adversary.

But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the LORD stood in the road to oppose him. Balaam was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him.
Numbers 22:22
​

The word oppose is satan in Hebrew.

Heman likes to make up his own translations....

no translations that I can find state these made up verses:

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against magistracy, against powers, against the rulers of the obscurity of this world, against spiritual guile in high places.

Mark5:29 And at once the fount of her blood was dried up; and she knew that her body was restored from the infest, to a spiritual mind from the scourge.

Quoted by Heman on post 79

 

[he-man]

Much of the popular history of the Devil is not biblical; instead, it is a post-medieval Christian reading of the scriptures influenced by medieval and pre-medieval Christian popular mythology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_teaching_about_the_Devil

this claim is irrelevant. Obviously peter wasn't mad either so take your pick. I personally believe along with many commentators that Peter was ACTING like satan there not ACTUALLY satan. I am curious as to your interpretation of this verse. Why didn't the Christians just say people were mentally ill in all the cases of demon possession? Wouldn't that be more accurate? Well who do they think tempted Job? The boogie man?"

ECHO ECHO ECHO

Sir Isaac Newton: "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane History."​

Newton was also highly religious. He was an unorthodox Christian, and wrote more on Biblical hermeneutics and occult studies than on science and mathematics, the subjects he is mainly associated with. Newton secretly rejected Trinitarianism, fearing to be accused of refusing holy orders.
'In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin'.
Isaac Newton's Life". Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences. 1998. http://www.newton.ac.uk/newtlife.html. Retrieved 28 March 2010

Newton came to believe that the Bible does not teach a literal personal devil or literal personal demons (he had no trouble accepting literal angels). His view on Satan is very similar to the teaching of Judaism that Satan is not a personal being, BUT Rather a personification of the evil inclination (yetzer ha-ra) within the human heart.

For Newton, the demon-possessed people whom Jesus healed were simply mentally or physically ill. It would be a mistake to see Newton’s rejection of a personal devil and personal demons as an example of incipient rationalism, however. Instead, these conclusions were the result of his biblicism and, likely, his strong monotheism that rendered belief in supernatural evil beings a threat to the unchallenged sovereignty of the One God Whom he worshipped.

Why did Newton believe the Trinity was unbiblical? There are several reasons. First, he did not find the doctrine in the Bible. Not only was the term “Trinity” invented years after the closing of the New Testament canon, but Newton could find nothing approaching a formal doctrinal declaration of the Trinity in the Bible — something many modern scholars will affirm. Instead, he believed passages such as 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 and 1 Timothy 2:5 taught that only the Father is God in the absolute sense, while Christ is the Son of God, but not “very God of very God”, to use the language of the Nicene Creed. Newton had astutely observed that the Bible speaks about the Father’s unity with the Son as a unity of will, not substance (see John 10:30 and 17:11, 21-22).

Newton also rejected the immortality of the soul — another litmus test of orthodoxy ..To support his “mortalist” conceptions of the human, Newton turned to passages such as Psalm 6:5, Psalm 115:17 and Ecclesiastes 9:5,10, all of which speak about death as unconscious oblivion.
http://www.galilean-library.org/sit...ws/stephen-d-snobelen-newton-reconsidered-r39

 

[createdtoworship]

Much of the popular history of the Devil is not biblical; instead, it is a post-medieval Christian reading of the scriptures influenced by medieval and pre-medieval Christian popular mythology. Christian teaching about the Devil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ECHO ECHO ECHO

Sir Isaac Newton: "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane History."​

Newton was also highly religious. He was an unorthodox Christian, and wrote more on Biblical hermeneutics and occult studies than on science and mathematics, the subjects he is mainly associated with. Newton secretly rejected Trinitarianism, fearing to be accused of refusing holy orders.
'In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin'.
Isaac Newton's Life". Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences. 1998. Isaac Newton's Life. Retrieved 28 March 2010

Newton came to believe that the Bible does not teach a literal personal devil or literal personal demons (he had no trouble accepting literal angels). His view on Satan is very similar to the teaching of Judaism that Satan is not a personal being, BUT Rather a personification of the evil inclination (yetzer ha-ra) within the human heart.

For Newton, the demon-possessed people whom Jesus healed were simply mentally or physically ill. It would be a mistake to see Newton’s rejection of a personal devil and personal demons as an example of incipient rationalism, however. Instead, these conclusions were the result of his biblicism and, likely, his strong monotheism that rendered belief in supernatural evil beings a threat to the unchallenged sovereignty of the One God Whom he worshipped.

Why did Newton believe the Trinity was unbiblical? There are several reasons. First, he did not find the doctrine in the Bible. Not only was the term “Trinity” invented years after the closing of the New Testament canon, but Newton could find nothing approaching a formal doctrinal declaration of the Trinity in the Bible — something many modern scholars will affirm. Instead, he believed passages such as 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 and 1 Timothy 2:5 taught that only the Father is God in the absolute sense, while Christ is the Son of God, but not “very God of very God”, to use the language of the Nicene Creed. Newton had astutely observed that the Bible speaks about the Father’s unity with the Son as a unity of will, not substance (see John 10:30 and 17:11, 21-22).

Newton also rejected the immortality of the soul — another litmus test of orthodoxy ..To support his “mortalist” conceptions of the human, Newton turned to passages such as Psalm 6:5, Psalm 115:17 and Ecclesiastes 9:5,10, all of which speak about death as unconscious oblivion.
Stephen D. Snobelen: Newton Reconsidered

I repented of my signature regarding newton, will you now repent of using your cult literature (robert roberts the christadelphian)?

 

[createdtoworship]

Hemans made up translation update
This is an update on made up verses quoted by Heman that exist in no translations that I can find, yet here they are:

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against magistracy, against powers, against the rulers of the obscurity of this world, against spiritual guile in high places.

Mark5:29 And at once the fount of her blood was dried up; and she knew that her body was restored from the infest, to a spiritual mind from the scourge.

Luk 7:21 In that same hour from there he cured many people from diseases and afflictions and artful spirits, and many blind he granted sight.

Quoted verbatim by Heman (post 79.)
(let me know if you find them in a translation somewhere)

 

[he-man]

I repented of my signature regarding newton, will you now repent of using your cult literature (robert roberts the christadelphian)?

Did Newton REPENT?
"So let me get this right, you quote cultists in order to get around the plethora of verses I give you every time?"

Sir Isaac Newton: "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane History."​

Newton was also highly religious. He was an unorthodox Christian, and wrote more on Biblical hermeneutics and occult studies than on science and mathematics, the subjects he is mainly associated with. Newton secretly rejected Trinitarianism, fearing to be accused of refusing holy orders.

'In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin'.
Isaac Newton's Life". Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences. 1998. http://www.newton.ac.uk/newtlife.html. Retrieved 28 March 2010

Newton came to believe that the Bible does not teach a literal personal devil or literal personal demons (he had no trouble accepting literal angels). His view on Satan is very similar to the teaching of Judaism that Satan is not a personal being, BUT Rather a personification of the evil inclination (yetzer ha-ra) within the human heart.

For Newton, the demon-possessed people whom Jesus healed were simply mentally or physically ill. It would be a mistake to see Newton’s rejection of a personal devil and personal demons as an example of incipient rationalism, however. Instead, these conclusions were the result of his biblicism and, likely, his strong monotheism that rendered belief in supernatural evil beings a threat to the unchallenged sovereignty of the One God Whom he worshipped.

Why did Newton believe the Trinity was unbiblical? There are several reasons. First, he did not find the doctrine in the Bible. Not only was the term “Trinity” invented years after the closing of the New Testament canon, but Newton could find nothing approaching a formal doctrinal declaration of the Trinity in the Bible — something many modern scholars will affirm.

Instead, he believed passages such as 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 and 1 Timothy 2:5 taught that only the Father is God in the absolute sense, while Christ is the Son of God, but not “very God of very God”, to use the language of the Nicene Creed. Newton had astutely observed that the Bible speaks about the Father’s unity with the Son as a unity of will, not substance (see John 10:30 and 17:11, 21-22).

Newton also rejected the immortality of the soul — another litmus test of orthodoxy ..To support his “mortalist” conceptions of the human, Newton turned to passages such as Psalm 6:5, Psalm 115:17 and Ecclesiastes 9:5,10, all of which speak about death as unconscious oblivion.
http://www.galilean-library.org/site...considered-r39

 

[createdtoworship]

Did Newton REPENT?
"So let me get this right, you quote cultists in order to get around the plethora of verses I give you every time?"

Sir Isaac Newton: "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane History."​

Newton was also highly religious. He was an unorthodox Christian, and wrote more on Biblical hermeneutics and occult studies than on science and mathematics, the subjects he is mainly associated with. Newton secretly rejected Trinitarianism, fearing to be accused of refusing holy orders.

'In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin'.
Isaac Newton's Life". Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences. 1998. http://www.newton.ac.uk/newtlife.html. Retrieved 28 March 2010

Newton came to believe that the Bible does not teach a literal personal devil or literal personal demons (he had no trouble accepting literal angels). His view on Satan is very similar to the teaching of Judaism that Satan is not a personal being, BUT Rather a personification of the evil inclination (yetzer ha-ra) within the human heart.

For Newton, the demon-possessed people whom Jesus healed were simply mentally or physically ill. It would be a mistake to see Newton’s rejection of a personal devil and personal demons as an example of incipient rationalism, however. Instead, these conclusions were the result of his biblicism and, likely, his strong monotheism that rendered belief in supernatural evil beings a threat to the unchallenged sovereignty of the One God Whom he worshipped.

Why did Newton believe the Trinity was unbiblical? There are several reasons. First, he did not find the doctrine in the Bible. Not only was the term “Trinity” invented years after the closing of the New Testament canon, but Newton could find nothing approaching a formal doctrinal declaration of the Trinity in the Bible — something many modern scholars will affirm.

Instead, he believed passages such as 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 and 1 Timothy 2:5 taught that only the Father is God in the absolute sense, while Christ is the Son of God, but not “very God of very God”, to use the language of the Nicene Creed. Newton had astutely observed that the Bible speaks about the Father’s unity with the Son as a unity of will, not substance (see John 10:30 and 17:11, 21-22).

Newton also rejected the immortality of the soul — another litmus test of orthodoxy ..To support his “mortalist” conceptions of the human, Newton turned to passages such as Psalm 6:5, Psalm 115:17 and Ecclesiastes 9:5,10, all of which speak about death as unconscious oblivion.
http://www.galilean-library.org/site...considered-r39

like I said before, your ONLY sources it seems are cultists. Not to mention you quote mined two times, plagiarized twice and quote from an imaginary Bible that you made up.

post 74 are your quote mines
post 82 are your plagiarisms
post 90 is an imaginary Bible that you made up

(it would now seem that Newton was a cultist by His blatant denial of the deity of Christ)

 

[he-man]

like I said before, your ONLY sources it seems are cultists. Not to mention you quote mined two times, plagiarized twice and quote from an imaginary Bible that you made up. (it would now seem that Newton was a cultist by His blatant denial of the deity of Christ)

That would seem to be a blatant excuse when you are posting sources it seems are cultists like Newton. Did you do your homework?

Perhaps a deeper study of the Bible would be more beneficial than trying to attack the credentials with sarcasms of people like Newton, whom you quoted, or like John Thomas, Robert Roberts, David Joris, Thomas Hobbes, and John Epps, rather than addressing the scriptures they quote.

Sir Isaac Newton: "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane History."​

And then, alluding to the proto-Evangelium of Genesis 3:15 and thus emphasizing
the continuity of this theme in the Bible, he writes: “For that old serpent was to continue till ye seed of the woman should bruise his head, that is till Christ should vanquish & stay him”.
A few lines later he confidently concludes that:
the old Serpent was no more a real serpent then ye Dragon in ye Apocalyps is a real Dragon or then the Beasts in John & Daniel are real Beasts. Tis only a symbol of the spirit of delusion & therefore must be the sentence ye curs of this serpent for deceiving Eve must be interpreted accordingly. http://www.isaac-newton.org/pdf/Snobelen%20Newton%20on%20the%20devil%202004.pdf​

​

Show me in GREEK which word you do not agree with in the following:​

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against magistracy1, against powers, against the rulers of the obscurity2 of this world, against spiritual guile3 in high places.

1) G746 αρχή magistracy, principles, doctrine, tenet, precepts, beginning, start, origination
2) G4655 σκότος obscurity, gloom, darkness
3) G4189 πονηριας guile, craft; deceitful cunning; artifice; duplicity; wile; deceit; treachery slyness

12For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places[ASV]

Mr 5:29 And at once the fount1 of her blood was dried up; and she knew2 that her body was restored from the infest3, to a spiritual mind4 from the scourge5.
1) G4077 πηγή derivation, fount, fountain, well, origin, parent, rise, source, spring
2) G3148 μαστίζω μαστειγος infest, plague, scourge, suffering, calamity, affliction
3) G1097 εγνωρισαν γνωσεσθε εγνω, γνώση, γνώσεις knowledge to be aware of, to know
4) G2390 ίάσομαι ίάομαι εαιται to heal, cure, restore to a spiritual mind΄
5) G3148 μαστίζω μαστειγος infest, plague, scourge, suffering, calamity, affliction

Mark 5:29 In a moment the flow of her blood ceased, and she felt in herself that her complaint was cured. (WEY)

Lu 7:21 In that same hour from there he cured many people from diseases and afflictions and artful1 spirits, and many blind he granted sight.
1)G4190 πονηρων πονηρός artful, sly, tricky, sneaky, cunning, foxy, canny, shrewd

 

[LutheranMafia]

Did Newton REPENT?
"So let me get this right, you quote cultists in order to get around the plethora of verses I give you every time?"

Sir Isaac Newton: "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane History."​

Newton was also highly religious. He was an unorthodox Christian, and wrote more on Biblical hermeneutics and occult studies than on science and mathematics, the subjects he is mainly associated with. Newton secretly rejected Trinitarianism, fearing to be accused of refusing holy orders.

'In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin'.
Isaac Newton's Life". Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences. 1998. http://www.newton.ac.uk/newtlife.html. Retrieved 28 March 2010

Newton came to believe that the Bible does not teach a literal personal devil or literal personal demons (he had no trouble accepting literal angels). His view on Satan is very similar to the teaching of Judaism that Satan is not a personal being, BUT Rather a personification of the evil inclination (yetzer ha-ra) within the human heart.

For Newton, the demon-possessed people whom Jesus healed were simply mentally or physically ill. It would be a mistake to see Newton’s rejection of a personal devil and personal demons as an example of incipient rationalism, however. Instead, these conclusions were the result of his biblicism and, likely, his strong monotheism that rendered belief in supernatural evil beings a threat to the unchallenged sovereignty of the One God Whom he worshipped.

Why did Newton believe the Trinity was unbiblical? There are several reasons. First, he did not find the doctrine in the Bible. Not only was the term “Trinity” invented years after the closing of the New Testament canon, but Newton could find nothing approaching a formal doctrinal declaration of the Trinity in the Bible — something many modern scholars will affirm.

Instead, he believed passages such as 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 and 1 Timothy 2:5 taught that only the Father is God in the absolute sense, while Christ is the Son of God, but not “very God of very God”, to use the language of the Nicene Creed. Newton had astutely observed that the Bible speaks about the Father’s unity with the Son as a unity of will, not substance (see John 10:30 and 17:11, 21-22).

Newton also rejected the immortality of the soul — another litmus test of orthodoxy ..To support his “mortalist” conceptions of the human, Newton turned to passages such as Psalm 6:5, Psalm 115:17 and Ecclesiastes 9:5,10, all of which speak about death as unconscious oblivion.
[URL="http://www.galilean-library.org/site...considered-r39"]http://www.galilean-library.org/site...considered-r39[/URL]

He-man, are you arguing that there is no Trinity?

 

[createdtoworship]

trying to attack the credentials with sarcasms of people like Newton, whom you quoted, or like John Thomas, Robert Roberts, David Joris,[/B] Thomas Hobbes, and John Epps,

you only quote Roberts and Newton, both are cultists and reject Jesus deity outright and publicly.

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against magistracy1, against powers, against the rulers of the obscurity2 of this world, against spiritual guile3 in high places.

1) G746 αρχή magistracy, principles, doctrine, tenet, precepts, beginning, start, origination
2) G4655 σκότος obscurity, gloom, darkness
3) G4189 πονηριας guile, craft; deceitful cunning; artifice; duplicity; wile; deceit; treachery slyness

12For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places[ASV]

Mr 5:29 And at once the fount1 of her blood was dried up; and she knew2 that her body was restored from the infest3, to a spiritual mind4 from the scourge5.
1) G4077 πηγή derivation, fount, fountain, well, origin, parent, rise, source, spring
2) G3148 μαστίζω μαστειγος infest, plague, scourge, suffering, calamity, affliction
3) G1097 εγνωρισαν γνωσεσθε εγνω, γνώση, γνώσεις knowledge to be aware of, to know
4) G2390 ίάσομαι ίάομαι εαιται to heal, cure, restore to a spiritual mind΄
5) G3148 μαστίζω μαστειγος infest, plague, scourge, suffering, calamity, affliction

Mark 5:29 In a moment the flow of her blood ceased, and she felt in herself that her complaint was cured. (WEY)

Lu 7:21 In that same hour from there he cured many people from diseases and afflictions and artful1 spirits, and many blind he granted sight.
1)G4190 πονηρων πονηρός artful, sly, tricky, sneaky, cunning, foxy, canny, shrewd[/SIZE]

We are not free to choose which words would best suite our fancy in the Bible. This is what Jehovah's witnesses did with the New World translation and nearly every known cult does it with the word of God. The Bible changes us, we don't change the Bible.

Just in case you didn't know,
let me show how to use a greek dictionary: (the list of words are not synonymous) each word is a DIFFERENT usage and it affected by grammar and by context as to which usage is picked. The words are not meant to be swapped back and forth as though they are just a similar word, sometimes the words are completely different with different definitions. This is where all the scholars degrees come in to play.
The problem with your translation efforts is that NO translation picks the words that you have picked, not one. For example in mark 5:29 nearly every translation picks the word "plague" not "infest." Because an infest can be just a simple sickness and not as severe as a plague. But in your translation you picked "infest" with no translation support whatever (which means it was made up.) In another instance of you making up your own words, you substitute "restored to a spiritual mind" instead of "healed or cured." You don't know what type of mind she was in after she was healed? The Bible doesn't say. So here you swap two of the wrong definitions and make a heretical translation of your own.

Perhaps a deeper study of the Bible would be more beneficial than trying to attack the credentials ...rather than addressing the scriptures they quote.[/I]

So are you saying it's okay to entertain cultists and use cult literature? I am unsure what you are saying here because Jehovah's witnesses and mormons say the same things you are.

and speaking of verses you still haven't answered my verse list of Demon occurances

Here is a comprehensive list of verses that speak of Demon possessions as simply more than "lunacy", "epilepsy" and "paralysis." Even if your theory is true- "that demon possession is a mental disorder" then these would need more explaining on your part:

Ephesians 6:12 states Satan has a hierarchy of "devils" in his kingdom, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (no mental illness, epilepsy or paralysis)

Matthew 9:32-34: Jesus made a demon-possessed mute man speak, the Pharisees said it was by the power of Beelzebub (also Mark 3:20-22). And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? (Mark 3:23)(no mental illness, epilepsy or paralysis)
Matthew 10:1-8: The Twelve Apostles given the authority to drive out evil spirits (also Mark 3:15; 6:7; 6:13; Luke 9:1; 10:17). (no mental illness, epilepsy or paralysis)
Matthew 12:22-32: Jesus healed a demon-possessed blind and dumb man (also Luke 11:14-23; 12:10; Mark 3:20-30).(no mental illness, epilepsy or paralysis)
Matthew 12:43-45: Jesus told an allegory of nasty spirits coming back home, that is, to the human body where they have lived before (also Luke 11:24-26).(no mental illness, epilepsy or paralysis)
Matthew 15:21-28: Jesus expelled a demon from the body of the daughter of a Canaanite woman (also Mark 7:24-30).(no mental illness, epilepsy or paralysis)
Mark 1:21-28: Jesus expelled a nasty spirit from a man (also Luke 4:31-37).(no mental illness, epilepsy or paralysis)
Mark 9:38-40: A non-Christian is seen driving out demons in Jesus' name (also Luke 9:49-50).(no mental illness, epilepsy or paralysis)
Mark 16:9: Jesus had driven seven demons out of Mary Magdalene (also Luke 8:2).(no mental illness, epilepsy or paralysis)
Luke 7:21: Many people are cleansed from evil spirits by Jesus.(no mental illness, epilepsy or paralysis)
Luke 13:10-17: Jesus expelled a spirit of disease from the body of a woman on the Sabbath.(no mental illness, epilepsy or paralysis)
Luke 22:3: Satan entered into Judas Iscariot (also John 13:27).
Acts 5:3: Satan filled the heart of Ananias.(no mental illness, epilepsy or paralysis)
Acts 5:16: The Apostles healed those tormented by evil spirits.(no mental illness, epilepsy or paralysis)
Acts 8:6-8: At the teaching of Philip the Evangelist in Samaria, evil spirits came out of many.(no mental illness, epilepsy or paralysis)
Acts 10:38: St. Peter said Jesus healed all who were under the power of the devil.(no mental illness, epilepsy or paralysis)
Acts 16:16-24: Paul and Silas were imprisoned for driving a future-telling spirit out of a slave girl.(no mental illness, epilepsy or paralysis)
Acts 19:11-12: Handkerchiefs and aprons touched by Paul cured illness and drove out evil spirits.(no mental illness, epilepsy or paralysis)
Acts 19:13-20: Seven sons of Sceva attempted to drive out evil spirits by saying: "In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out." But because they did not have faith in Jesus, they were unsuccessful and were actually driven from that house by the possessed.(no mental illness, epilepsy or paralysis)

 

[createdtoworship]

Hemans made up translation update
This is an update on made up verses quoted by Heman that exist in no translations that I can find, yet here they are:

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against magistracy, against powers, against the rulers of the obscurity of this world, against spiritual guile in high places.

Mark5:29 And at once the fount of her blood was dried up; and she knew that her body was restored from the infest, to a spiritual mind from the scourge.

Luk 7:21 In that same hour from there he cured many people from diseases and afflictions and artful spirits, and many blind he granted sight.

Quoted verbatim by Heman (post 79.)
(let me know if you find them in a translation somewhere)


Go ahead and check up against the Bible databases online and see if above Bible verses are true

here are 100 translations that disagree with this personal made up Bible
http://www.biblegateway.com/

here are more translations that disagree
http://bibref.hebtools.com/

Heman defends his precious translation in post 93 by quoting translations like the ASV and the the WEY translations which both directly prove Him wrong in his own personal translation efforts which he made up out of thin air.

I mean, let me try my own translation for a second: According to HEMAN's methodology, I can pick ANY word I want out of the list of strongs definitions so here we go:

"Why us must needs vibrate not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

AND I ONLY DID IT WITH THE FIRST THREE WORDS OF EPHESIANS 6:12, and this is why God does not want us each making our own Bible translations and ADDING WORDS, and God actually curses any who do this in Revelations :

Revelation 22:18-19
"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

 

[Truth_Warrior]

Hemans made up translation update
This is an update on made up verses quoted by Heman that exist in no translations that I can find, yet here they are:



Quoted verbatim by Heman (post 79.)
(let me know if you find them in a translation somewhere)


Go ahead and check up against the Bible databases online and see if above Bible verses are true

here are 100 translations that disagree with this personal made up Bible
BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages.

here are more translations that disagree
Bible Verse Finder (bibref)

Heman defends his precious translation in post 93 by quoting translations like the ASV and the the WEY translations which both directly prove Him wrong in his own personal translation efforts which he made up out of thin air.

I mean, let me try my own translation for a second: According to HEMAN's methodology, I can pick ANY word I want out of the list of strongs definitions so here we go:

"Why us must needs vibrate not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

AND I ONLY DID IT WITH THE FIRST THREE WORDS OF EPHESIANS 6:12, and this is why God does not want us each making our own Bible translations and ADDING WORDS, and God actually curses any who do this in Revelations :

Revelation 22:18-19
"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Let me get this straight.

1.You believe that Rev. 22:18-19 refer to All the Bible or just Rev.?

If you think its all Gods Word Rev. 22 is refering to I believe you are mistaken.

2.If what you are saying is accurate then any version but the KJV is wrong and actually any translation at all is wrong and should be in Greek or Hebrew.

3. You are making an assumption and then use a verse in your signature that was added into and changed by men.

1 John 5:7-9 (KJV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.​

You quote verses 7-9 yet you pull out of 7-9 the words added by men and don't even quote the whole passage.(IMHO thats the epitomy of deception).
1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (KJV)

Some English versions have a shorter rendition of 1 John 5:7 and 8 than the KJV quoted above. The King James Version has words that support the trinity that most modern versions do not have. How can this be?

The reason that there are different translations of this verse is that some Greek texts contain an addition that was not original, and that addition was placed into some English versions, such as the KJV

(the words added to some Greek texts are in red in the quotation above).

The note in the NIV Study Bible, which is well known for its ardent belief in the Trinity, says, “The addition is not found in any Greek manuscript or NT translation prior to the 16th century.”


I am not advocating that anyone should make up a translation to fit what they believe it means ,but just making an observation that you are playing little games while saying that others are the ones in error.
You said in a previous post.........

"We are not free to choose which words would best suite our fancy in the Bible. This is what Jehovah's witnesses did with the New World translation and nearly every known cult does it with the word of God. The Bible changes us, we don't change the Bible."

You have placed yourself in with the"cultist"

How does that 2x4 feel in your eye?

Games people play at the expense of Gods Word only results in the unsaved seeing those games and become leary of the Gospel.

For the witness to be true we must remain true to what the Truth proclaims and your witness is not truthful IMO.

IMHO people who commit themselves to continueing the errors placed in Gods Word are hindering the Gospel of my Lord Christ Jesus simply for the doctrine to which they are taught will be held accountable at judgement.

I have no respect for ANYONE who alters or condones alterations of Gods perfect matchless Word just to fit a doctrine or creed.

May God help those who commit to such deception.

 

[Truth_Warrior]

IMO if anyone thinks there is no real satan then I think the person with that doctrine is by far the most vulnerable to being decieved.


1Pe 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

 

[createdtoworship]

Let me get this straight.

1.You believe that Rev. 22:18-19 refer to All the Bible or just Rev.?

If you think its all Gods Word Rev. 22 is refering to I believe you are mistaken.

Well let me quote some commentaries on Revelation 22:18-19

"18–19. The message of the Bible is complete and needs no collaboration from anyone. Here is a most solemn warning, one which is true of all the Word of God (cf. Deut 12:32), but especially so here. What a rebuke to those who treat the message carelessly. There is too much at stake here."
KJV Bible Commentary. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1994, S. 2720

"The words of a divinely instituted covenant or book were not to be altered (Deut 4:2; 12:32; cf. Prov 30:5–6). Covenants often included curses against those who broke them; those who followed idols thus invited all the curses of Deuteronomy (29:20, 27)."
Keener, Craig S. ; InterVarsity Press: The IVP Bible Background Commentary : New Testament. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1993, S. Re 22:18

And some commentaries that believe it applies primarily to revelation but ALSO to the entire Bible.

"22:18–21 No additions or subtractions allowed. John ended the report of his visions with the warning not to add to or take from what had been revealed, and stipulated a severe penalty for doing so. While John intended his warning only for this one book, it unquestionably applies to the entire Bible as well (see Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:5–6)."
Willmington, H. L.: Willmington's Bible Handbook. Wheaton, Ill. : Tyndale House Publishers, 1997, S. 807


Secondly, it is quoted that one is a liar that ADDS to the words of the Bible

Proverbs 30:6
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Revelations 21:8b
and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

2.If what you are saying is accurate then any version but the KJV is wrong and actually any translation at all is wrong and should be in Greek or Hebrew.

3. You are making an assumption and then use a verse in your signature that was added into and changed by men.

1 John 5:7-9 (KJV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.​

You quote verses 7-9 yet you pull out of 7-9 the words added by men and don't even quote the whole passage.(IMHO thats the epitomy of deception).
1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (KJV)

I actually just wanted verse seven, I will change it when I get time.

Some English versions have a shorter rendition of 1 John 5:7 and 8 than the KJV quoted above. The King James Version has words that support the trinity that most modern versions do not have. How can this be?

The reason that there are different translations of this verse is that some Greek texts contain an addition that was not original, and that addition was placed into some English versions, such as the KJV

(the words added to some Greek texts are in red in the quotation above).

The note in the NIV Study Bible, which is well known for its ardent belief in the Trinity, says, “The addition is not found in any Greek manuscript or NT translation prior to the 16th century.”


I am not advocating that anyone should make up a translation to fit what they believe it means ,but just making an observation that you are playing little games while saying that others are the ones in error.
You said in a previous post.........

"We are not free to choose which words would best suite our fancy in the Bible. This is what Jehovah's witnesses did with the New World translation and nearly every known cult does it with the word of God. The Bible changes us, we don't change the Bible."


Games people play at the expense of Gods Word only results in the unsaved seeing those games and become leary of the Gospel.

For the witness to be true we must remain true to what the Truth proclaims and your witness is not truthful IMO.

IMHO people who commit themselves to continuing the errors placed in Gods Word are hindering the Gospel of my Lord Christ Jesus simply for the doctrine to which they are taught will be held accountable at judgement.

I have no respect for ANYONE who alters or condones alterations of Gods perfect matchless Word just to fit a doctrine or creed.

May God help those who commit to such deception.

early manuscripts and church fathers attest to the presence of the comma, it was probably erased from the early majority of manuscripts.
here is my proof that the Johannian comma is in the real Bible
Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) - King James Version Today

1 John 5:7-9 (trinity verse) in early christian writings This list is from (study to answer.net) http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html

Priscillian (380 AD) bishop of Avilain in Liber Apologeticus: (This quote as given by A.E. Brooke from Schepps- Vienna Corpus, xviii) "As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.""

and cyprian (one who quoted copiously and textually in the 3rd Century)

"The Lord says "I and the Father are one" and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. "And these three are one.""


168 A.D. Theophilus used the word "trinity" in his letter to Autolycus. Written in Greek. Theophilus became bishop of Antioch.

177 A.D. A writing in Greek---Anti-Nicene Fathers Apologia of Athenagoras presented to Roman emperors. "Who, then, would not be ashamed to hear men speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their distinction in order."

215 A.D. (25:1; CC2, 1195) Tertullian. Adversus Praxean per RB "And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, which three are one entity" refers to the unity of their substance, not to the oneness of their number.

250 A.D. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325 CYPRIAN. De catholicae ecclesiae unitate. (CSEL 3:215) The LORD says "I and the Father are one" and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. "And these three are one." NOTE: Cyprian is regarded as one "who quotes copiously and textually." Further, the interpolation "In Christo Jesu" does not yet appear. note: Cyprian also quoted Acts 8:37

385 A.D. GREGORY OF NAZANZIUS Theological Orations, His fifth oration was "On the Holy Spirit"

390A.D. JEROME prologue to the Canonical Epistles "si ab interpretibus fideliter in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec trinitatis unitate in prima joannis epistola positum legimus, in qua etiam, trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae, sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentes et patris verbique ac aspiritus testimoninum omittentes, in quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur, et patris et filii et spirtus sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur." note: this manuscript also included Acts 8:37

450 A.D. Anchor Bible; Epistle of John, 782 Contra Varimadum 1.5 (CC90,20-21) "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, The Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one."

450 A.D. De divinis Scripturis suie Speculum
(A collection of statements and precepts drawn from the Old Latin Bible (both Old and New Testaments). It has been attributed to Augustine, but this is not likely. Aland dates it c. 427. Except in editions associated with the Alands, it is usually cited as m of the Old Latin. In Paul at least, the text seems to be generally more primitive than the European Latin of the bilingual uncials. In the Catholics, it has many links with the text of Priscillian.)
Latin MS, also known as "m" "and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one."note: this manuscript also included Acts 8:37

484 A.D. Victor of Vita Historia persecutionis Africanae prov. 2.82[3.11], CSEL7, 60

485 A.D. Victor Vitensis Historia persecutionis Africanae Provinciae 3.11 in PL58, 227C per RB "there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."

500 A.D. Beuron 64 known as "r". (Sometimes labeled CODEX MONACENSIS) CODEX FREISINGENSIS "and the three are one which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Spirit and these three are one."

527 A.D. FULGENTIUS
(Considered, after Amiatinus, the best Vulgate manuscript. Copied for and corrected by Victor of Capua. Italian text. The Gospels are in the form of a harmony (probably based on an Old Latin original, and with scattered Old Latin
readings). Includes the Epistle to the Laodiceans.)
Responsio contra Arianos (Ad 10, CC 91) RB "there are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. And the three are one being."

527 A.D. FULGENTIUS Contra Fabianum (frag. 21.4: CC 91A, 797) "There are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Son and the Spirit. And the three are one being."

527 A.D. FULGENTIUS De Trinitate(1.4.1; CC91A 636), per RB "There are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one being."
pre 550 A.D. JEROME prologue to the Catholic Epistles. "Preserved in the Codex Fuldensis (PL 29, 827-31)." per RB. Jerome writes in his prologue that the Comma (1John5:7-8) is genuine but has been omitted by unfaithful translators.

570 A.D. CASSIODORUS Complexionn. in Epistt. Paulinn. "Moreover, in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one God."

583 A.D. CASSIODORUS In Epistolam S. Joannis ad Parthos. (10.5.1; PL 70, 1373A) employs "Son" in place of "Word." NOTE: Cassiodorus cited the Comma in his commentary.

636 A.D. ISIDORE of SEVILLE Testimonia divinae Scripturae 2[PL, 83, 1203C] per RB. "And there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and the three are one."

650 A.D. The Leon Palimpsest, also known as "Legionensis" or Beuron 67 CODEX PAL LEGIONENSIS "and there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."

700 A.D. JAQUB of EDESSA On the Holy Eucharistic Mysteries, Syriac document "The soul and the body and the mind which are sanctified through three holy things; through water and blood and Spirit, and through the Father and the Son and the Spirit."

735 A.D. The year of the decease of Venerable Bede manuscript E (also known as Basiliensis), Greek. Located: Basel, Switzerland. Université Bibliothèque note: this manuscript also included Acts 8:37

750 A.D. harl 2 (also known as "z2" or Harleianus) Latin MS, Beuron 65, Latin Vulgate Bible all the Epistles (that to the Colossians following 2 Thessalonians and 1 John 5 - Jude crowded onto one leaf.)

850 A.D. The Ulmensis manuscript or "U" "Caroline minuscule" hand. Includes Laodiceans. Now in the British Museum. "Likewise, in heaven there are three, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and the three are one."

913 - 923 A.D. "leon 1" or Lemovicensis (dated it in the time of Ordogno II (913-923) Latin MS of the Cathedral of Leon "is a specimen of the Visigoth miniscule, and contains 1 John 5:7 - 8 in varied form."

930 A.D. Church of S. Isidore in Leon Latin MS designated as "leon 2" 1 John 5:7 - 8 is found only in the margin.

988 A.D. CODEX TOLETANUS or "T" Latin MS Note: also contains Acts 8:37a, 8:37 b, 9:5, 9:6 and 1 John 5:7.
Along with cav, the leading representative of the Spanish text. Among the earliest witnesses for "1 John 5:7-8," which it possesses in modified form. Written in a Visigothic hand, it was not new when it was given to the see of Seville in 988.

1120 A.D. An exposition of the Apostle's Creed used by the Waldenses and Albigensians "There are three that bear witness in heaven; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one."

1150 A.D. CODEX DEMIDOVIANUS Latin MS Note: contained also Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7 - 8.

1150 A.D. CODEX COLBERTINUS written in Languedoc, Old Latin Same as the Old Latin c of the Gospels. Often cited as Old Latin elsewhere, but the text is vulgate. The two sections are separately bound and in different hands. The Vulgate portion of the text is considered to be French.

1215 A.D. Acts of the Lateran Council Latin document "because there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."

1250 A.D. CODEX PERPINIANUS or Latin p or Beuron 54 Latin "p"
(Old Latin in 1:1-13:6, 28:16-end. The text is said to be similar to the fourth century writer Gregory of Elvira, and is thought to have been written in northern Spain or southern France. ) "And there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." Note: also contains Acts 8:37
http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html

You have placed yourself in with the"cultist"

How does that 2x4 feel in your eye?

this is something you have to prove, I have proved it with Heman and will to anyone who changes the word of God to suite their own personal agenda.

 

[he-man]

you only quote Roberts and Newton, both are cultists and reject Jesus deity outright and publicly.

like Newton, whom you quoted, or like John Thomas, Robert Roberts, David Joris, Thomas Hobbes, and John Epps, rather than addressing the scriptures they quote.

let me show how to use a greek dictionary:
Ephesians 6:12 states Satan has a hierarchy of "devils" in his kingdom, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

Oops my bad!
Eph 6:12 οτι ουκ εστιν ημιν η παλη προς αιμα και σαρκα αλλα προς τας αρχας προς τας εξουσιας προς τους κοσμοκρατορας του σκοτους τουτου προς τα πνευματικα της πονηριας εν τοις επουρανιοις

Thank you for pointing out my error. Here is the way it should then be translated: Thayer 1a) the term is transferred to the Christian's struggle with the power of evil

Eph 6:12 Eph 6:12 It is not that we struggle1 against flesh and blood, but against magistracy2, against powers, against the rulers of this obscurity3, against spiritual guile4 in high places.

1) G3823 πάλη struggle, battle, grapple, bout, fight, combat, tussle, conflict, wrestle, wrestling, match, strife,

2) G746 αρχή magistracy, principles, doctrine, tenet, precepts, beginning, start, origination

3) G4655 σκότος obscurity, gloom, darkness

4) G4189 πονηριας guile, craft; deceitful cunning; artifice; duplicity; wile; deceit; treachery slyness