Goshen360: @ Frosbel,

Is tongues also a PAGAN doctrine or teaching......because as you see me, your brother laughing in tongues, you didn't rebuke me o. ....in tongues....

funny guy.

Are you sure you are still laughing?

frosbel:

It depends on what speaking in tongues means to you, if it is 'gibberish' which no one can understand then we have a problem, but if it can be interpreted and is a genuine language spoken but foreign to the speaker then we are in order.

If we look at this verse below, it clearly shows that the disciples spoke in different languages which were correctly understood by others in amazement.

"When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language." - Acts 2:6

It was not all this crazy stuff going on where we hear people saying, mamamama, papapaa, giigigigigigi , gagagagaga , bababababa, nananana and all that nonsense.

lol.

Guy, you have come along way.

frosbel:

It depends on what speaking in tongues means to you, if it is 'gibberish' which no one can understand then we have a problem, but if it can be interpreted and is a genuine language spoken but foreign to the speaker then we are in order.

If we look at this verse below, it clearly shows that the disciples spoke in different languages which were correctly understood by others in amazement.

"When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language." - Acts 2:6

It was not all this crazy stuff going on where we hear people saying, mamamama, papapaa, giigigigigigi , gagagagaga , bababababa, nananana and all that nonsense.

Frosbel, Frosbel. The Apostle who Jesus Goshen360 loves ......no be small crusade you don start o..... . Okay so, no more tithe , no more speaking in tongues, no more trinity, no more miracles, no more manifestation of the Holy Spirit, no more gifts of the Spirit etc.....wetin come remain for inside the body of Christ naw Na to dey read and study bible TILL Jesus returns right . I tire for you o

truthislight:

funny guy.

Are you sure you are still laughing?

My dear brother......am still laughing oooooo, see what I wrote to Frosbel,

Goshen360:

Frosbel, Frosbel. The Apostle who Jesus Goshen360 loves ......no be small crusade you don start o..... . Okay so, no more tithe , no more speaking in tongues, no more trinity, no more miracles, no more manifestation of the Holy Spirit, no more gifts of the Spirit etc.....wetin come remain for inside the body of Christ naw Na to dey read and study bible TILL Jesus returns right . I tire for you o

That's why am still laughing my brother.

truthislight:

i hope you are not deceiving us with this smiling faces?

I some how imagine that you are not smiling right now!!!

i hope you are not deceiving us with this smiling faces?

I some how imagine that you are not smiling right now!!!

If you ASK me, na who I go ASK naw

frosbel:

actually it is not irrelevant, it is presumptuous and almost daring to ignore the harmony of scripture to the support of plain truths.

To ask that we should discard 100 scriptures for the sake of it , even though they all point to ONE TRUTH is dangerous.

I am not saying that we need 100 verses to support a particular truth, but where we have 100 verses in symphony to the understanding of a doctrine , you cannot then use 2 or 3 others , twist them out of context without proper research and condemn the facts at hand.

Bottom line is that the Trinity is a PAGAN doctrine, because it has been church tradition for eons is meaningless, if it does not add up to scripture it MUST be discarded.

People have been killed and tortured , bullied and called heretics for rejecting this falsehood, this in itself goes a long way to tell us what spirit is behind this strange teaching.

People being killed for something does not automatically make it true. Neither does claiming that pagans also have a similar doctrine automatically make your doctrine false. Those are poor reasons to discredit doctrine

Let us look at the scripture shall we?

What do you think of this verse, Who is the verse talking about?

For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
- Isaiah 9:6

[quote author=Mr_Anony]
People being killed for something does not automatically make it true. Neither does claiming that pagans also have a similar doctrine automatically make your doctrine false. Those are poor reasons to discredit doctrine

Actually it does. People who have nothing to hide will not resort to violence and threats , if what they present as truth is challenged.

Historically speaking, it is a known fact that once the Trinity was ratified as a doctrine with the authority of Pagan Emperor Constantine, 'heretics' were rounded up , killed, tortured , kicked out of congregations and branded enemies.

It matters when the party that supports a specific doctrine resorts to intimidation, snides, insults and sometimes even murder , to hold onto what we know now as a Pagan doctrine.

Sorry Sir you are on the wrong side this time.

However I will not descend to the level of some people by saying that you cannot be saved if you believe in this trinity.

Our standard for salvation is :

"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." - Romans 10:9

What do you think of this verse, Who is the verse talking about?

For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
- Isaiah 9:6

1. Trinitarians should admit that this verse is translated improperly just from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Everlasting Father” anywhere else in Scripture. Indeed, Trinitarians correctly deny that Jesus is the “Everlasting Father.” It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed). Thus, if this verse is translated properly, then Trinitarian Christians have a real problem. However, the phrase is mistranslated. The word translated “everlasting” is actually “age,” and the correct translation is that Jesus will be called “father of the [coming] age.”

In the culture of the Bible, anyone who began anything or was very important to something was called its “father.” For example, because Jabal was the first one to live in a tent and raise livestock, the Bible says, “he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock” (Gen. 4:20). Furthermore, because Jubal was the first inventor of musical instruments, he is called, “the father of all who play the harp and flute” (Gen. 4:21). Scripture is not using “father” in the sense of literal father or ancestor in these verses, because both these men were descendants of Cain, and all their descendants died in the Flood. “Father” was being used in the cultural understanding of either one who was the first to do something or someone who was important in some way. Because the Messiah will be the one to establish the age to come, raise the dead into it, and rule over it, he is called “the father of the coming age.”

2. The phrase “Mighty God” can also be better translated. Although the word “God” in the Hebrew culture had a much wider range of application than it does in ours, the average reader does not know or understand that. Readers familiar with the Semitic languages know that a man who is acting with God’s authority can be called “god.” Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot. A better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.” Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles. (For more on the flexible use of “God,” see the notes on Heb. 1:8.

3. A clear example that the word translated “God” in Isaiah 9:6 can be used of powerful earthly rulers is Ezekiel 31:11, referring to the Babylonian king. The Trinitarian bias of most translators can be clearly seen by comparing Isaiah 9:6 (el = “God”) with Ezekiel 31:11 (el = “ruler”). If calling the Messiah el made him God, then the Babylonian king would be God also. Isaiah is speaking of God’s Messiah and calling him a mighty ruler, which of course he will be.

The phrase translated “Mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6 in the NIV in the Hebrew, el gibbor. That very phrase, in the plural form, is used Ezekiel 32:21 where dead “heroes” and mighty men are said, by the figure of speech personification, to speak to others. The phrase in Ezekiel is translated “mighty leaders” in the NIV, and “the strong among the mighty” in the KJV and NASB. The Hebrew phrase, when used in the singular, can refer to one “mighty leader” just as when used in the plural it can refer to many “mighty leaders.”

4. The context illuminates great truth about the verse, and also shows that there is no justification for believing that it refers to the Trinity, but rather to God’s appointed ruler. The opening verse of the chapter foretells a time when “there will be no more gloom for those in distress.” All war and death will cease, and “every warrior’s boot…will be destined for burning” (v. 5). How will this come to pass? The chapter goes on: “for to us a child is born and to us a son is given” (v. 6). There is no hint that this child will be “God,” and reputable Trinitarian scholars will assert that the Jews of the Old Testament knew nothing of an “incarnation.” For them, the Messiah was going to be a man anointed by God. He would start as a child, which of course Yahweh, their eternal God, could never be. And what a great ruler this man would grow to be: “the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty Hero, Father of the Coming Age, Prince of Peace.” Furthermore, “he will reign on David’s throne (v. 7), which could never be said of God. God could never sit on David’s throne. But God’s Messiah, “the Son of David,” could (Matt. 9:27, et al). Thus, a study of the verse in its context reveals that it does not refer to the Trinity at all, but to the Messiah, the son of David and the Son of God.

Buzzard, pp. 45 and 51
Farley, pp. 47-49
Morgridge, pp. 105 and 106
Snedeker, pp. 397-403

Goshen360:

Frosbel, Frosbel. The Apostle who Jesus Goshen360 loves ......no be small crusade you don start o..... . Okay so,

The crusade has just started , I am one of millions who were once part of the apostate establishment , who has been woken up from 'dead' and now on a mission to expose and destroy the lies and deception of the catholic church and her protestant / pentecostal daughters.

no more tithe

Tithe is unbiblical and anyone who preaches it is a charlatan

no more speaking in tongues,

You now add your lie to my words again.

I said speaking in tongues is valid if :

1. It is a valid language

2. has interpretation.

no more trinity,

Yes, no more Pagan trinity

no more miracles,

Another falsehood

no more manifestation of the Holy Spirit, no more gifts of the Spirit etc

Another falsehood.


Brother be careful of slanderous words against a brother and constantly misrepresenting his stance on issues.

frosbel:

1. Trinitarians should admit that this verse is translated improperly just from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Everlasting Father” anywhere else in Scripture. Indeed, Trinitarians correctly deny that Jesus is the “Everlasting Father.” It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed). Thus, if this verse is translated properly, then Trinitarian Christians have a real problem. However, the phrase is mistranslated. The word translated “everlasting” is actually “age,” and the correct translation is that Jesus will be called “father of the [coming] age.”

In the culture of the Bible, anyone who began anything or was very important to something was called its “father.” For example, because Jabal was the first one to live in a tent and raise livestock, the Bible says, “he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock” (Gen. 4:20). Furthermore, because Jubal was the first inventor of musical instruments, he is called, “the father of all who play the harp and flute” (Gen. 4:21). Scripture is not using “father” in the sense of literal father or ancestor in these verses, because both these men were descendants of Cain, and all their descendants died in the Flood. “Father” was being used in the cultural understanding of either one who was the first to do something or someone who was important in some way. Because the Messiah will be the one to establish the age to come, raise the dead into it, and rule over it, he is called “the father of the coming age.”

2. The phrase “Mighty God” can also be better translated. Although the word “God” in the Hebrew culture had a much wider range of application than it does in ours, the average reader does not know or understand that. Readers familiar with the Semitic languages know that a man who is acting with God’s authority can be called “god.” Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot. A better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.” Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles. (For more on the flexible use of “God,” see the notes on Heb. 1:8.

3. A clear example that the word translated “God” in Isaiah 9:6 can be used of powerful earthly rulers is Ezekiel 31:11, referring to the Babylonian king. The Trinitarian bias of most translators can be clearly seen by comparing Isaiah 9:6 (el = “God”) with Ezekiel 31:11 (el = “ruler”). If calling the Messiah el made him God, then the Babylonian king would be God also. Isaiah is speaking of God’s Messiah and calling him a mighty ruler, which of course he will be.

The phrase translated “Mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6 in the NIV in the Hebrew, el gibbor. That very phrase, in the plural form, is used Ezekiel 32:21 where dead “heroes” and mighty men are said, by the figure of speech personification, to speak to others. The phrase in Ezekiel is translated “mighty leaders” in the NIV, and “the strong among the mighty” in the KJV and NASB. The Hebrew phrase, when used in the singular, can refer to one “mighty leader” just as when used in the plural it can refer to many “mighty leaders.”

4. The context illuminates great truth about the verse, and also shows that there is no justification for believing that it refers to the Trinity, but rather to God’s appointed ruler. The opening verse of the chapter foretells a time when “there will be no more gloom for those in distress.” All war and death will cease, and “every warrior’s boot…will be destined for burning” (v. 5). How will this come to pass? The chapter goes on: “for to us a child is born and to us a son is given” (v. 6). There is no hint that this child will be “God,” and reputable Trinitarian scholars will assert that the Jews of the Old Testament knew nothing of an “incarnation.” For them, the Messiah was going to be a man anointed by God. He would start as a child, which of course Yahweh, their eternal God, could never be. And what a great ruler this man would grow to be: “the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty Hero, Father of the Coming Age, Prince of Peace.” Furthermore, “he will reign on David’s throne (v. 7), which could never be said of God. God could never sit on David’s throne. But God’s Messiah, “the Son of David,” could (Matt. 9:27, et al). Thus, a study of the verse in its context reveals that it does not refer to the Trinity at all, but to the Messiah, the son of David and the Son of God.

Buzzard, pp. 45 and 51
Farley, pp. 47-49
Morgridge, pp. 105 and 106
Snedeker, pp. 397-403

Interesting...........
.......let's move on

.....Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God..... Philipians 2:6

What do you think about this verse?

Mr_Anony:
Interesting...........
.......let's move on

.....Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God..... Philipians 2:6

What do you think about this verse?

I am not going to reinvent the wheel.

When you do have some time, go through my previous posts where this same verse has been explained, better still, Google is your friend and you will most likely get a variety of opinions, analyse them and make up your mind on what is TRUTH.

Good luck on your journey.

frosbel:

I am not going to reinvent the wheel.

When you do have some time, go through my previous posts where this same verse has been explained, better still, Google is your friend and you will most likely get a variety of opinions, analyse them and make up your mind on what is TRUTH.

Good luck on your journey.

Not so my friend, I want us to study together. If you've said something about this verse before, just copy and paste it into the reply here and let's move on. i won't really argue with you per say, I'll just bring up verse after verse and allow you to explain them. That's what I really want to do.

After I have exhausted the verses I can think of and you have told me what you understand, then we will have a short discussion according to the bible and if it is true that the Godhead only consists of God the Father alone, then I'll accept it as true.
However, if it is true according to scripture that the Godhead is not God the Father alone, then I hope you will reconsider your stance

..........Now please would you indulge me and tell me what you understand from Philippians 2:6

Sometimes, I wonder if Christianity was supposed to be this complicated. What happens to those who believe but have no access to internet or other books?
What happens when they are "strongly rooted" in "wrong" doctrines?
@Mr. Anony, this was why I had the discussion with you once about the Bible being the word of God.. I still believe that if there's indeed a God, he would imprint his constitution on the heart not pages..

I leave you guys to your arguments..

musKeeto: Sometimes, I wonder if Christianity was supposed to be this complicated. What happens to those who believe but have no access to internet or other books?
What happens when they are "strongly rooted" in "wrong" doctrines?
@Mr. Anony, this was why I had the discussion with you once about the Bible being the word of God.. I still believe that if there's indeed a God, he would imprint his constitution on the heart not pages..

I leave you guys to your arguments..

This is what I hate about you Muskeeto. You are never man enough to discuss and debate your convictions. You are 100% right here but like an atheist with no ballz, you run away from Anony and co.

MacDaddy01:
This is what I hate about you Muskeeto. You are never man enough to discuss and debate your convictions. You are 100% right here but like an atheist with no ballz, you run away from Anony and co.

Lol, of course we all know that the size of macdaddy's balls are legendary......lololol.

musKeeto: Sometimes, I wonder if Christianity was supposed to be this complicated. What happens to those who believe but have no access to internet or other books?
What happens when they are "strongly rooted" in "wrong" doctrines?
@Mr. Anony, this was why I had the discussion with you once about the Bible being the word of God.. I still believe that if there's indeed a God, he would imprint his constitution on the heart not pages..

I leave you guys to your arguments..

I know. When you opened that thread, I was waiting for a few people to comment on it so I could join in but that didn't really happen.

I could discuss with you about it at some point but for now I want to engage frosbel and reach a conclusion with him on this.
Sorry for the sidetracking comment to macdaddy....I just had to do that. The boy amuses me sometimes lol.

musKeeto: Sometimes, I wonder if Christianity was supposed to be this complicated. What happens to those who believe but have no access to internet or other books?
What happens when they are "strongly rooted" in "wrong" doctrines?
@Mr. Anony, this was why I had the discussion with you once about the Bible being the word of God.. I still believe that if there's indeed a God, he would imprint his constitution on the heart not pages..

I leave you guys to your arguments..

friend, dont worry.
The judge that searches the heart man as though it is a computer (C) drive knows those that are ignorant, and those that are wilful defaulters.

No need to worry.

MacDaddy01:

This is what I hate about you Muskeeto. You are never man enough to discuss and debate your convictions. You are 100% right here but like an atheist with no ballz, you run away from Anony and co.

His he your "son" (atheist) ?

truthislight:

His he your "son" (atheist) ?

No, the picture is an internet meme. Notice the grammatical error

I am trying to find other anti-trinitarians who follow Messianic Judaism, is FE leaning, and follow a libertarian political philosophy. I would like to connect with you and pick your brain.