On the Trinity:

Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,622
What is funny though is that the doctrine of "The Seven Spirits of God" from St John of Patmos' vision didn't become the core Christian doctrine :rolleyes: At least that was explicit.
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,040
As someone who did etymology as an elective course in university this year . . . No, it's not.
You seem like a dedicated student. Don't just believe everything they teach you at University, though. It's good to keep an open mind to other possibilities existing as well.
Which insertions? Everyone knows 1 John 5:7-8 was a late add-in. Which others are you referring to?
That's a good one to start with. Pardon, I don't have a complete list of them with me now. It's been some time (years).

This site (not affiliated) has probably most of them, from what I've seen of them, and gets into the subject at quite some length (although I can't vouch for if they get everything right)
http://www.trinitytruth.org

EDIT - It also depends on which Bible translation you read from. Some are RIDICULOUS in how many "trinity" interpolations and even just plain additions or mistranslations they have decided to include to "support" the trintiy as if it was a just a simple and basic fact (when it's not).

It's very similar to how many versions of the Koran contain open bias towards affirming the hadiths, when hadiths are not scripture, but man-made tradition, similar to the Jewish/Babylonian Talmud.
 
Last edited:

Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
583
You are having problems (like others) making distinctions between the Trinity and various heresies.
Calling Jesus a deity itself is certainly not the Trinity, the Trinity is a specific doctrine, other doctrines (like Sabellianism, Arianism, etc).

You (and others) seem to want to favor anachronism over both properly representing your own doctrine and properly representing the beliefs of the founding fathers of the early church. This does not surprise me.

No, the Holy Spirit is right there in the Old Testament and it's not a part of God, it's more a verb than a noun.
No, but the sources I gave show that the statement that there was no reference whatsoever to either the Trinity or the deity of Christ prior to Nicea is a lie. I also provided sources to make clearer what actually took place there -while sources are scant people tend to be very quick on the draw to say the Trinity was a Nicean invention. Only now the later narrative is that its pagan. But I sure have missed your arrogant replies. ;)

The Greek in the NT refers to the Holy Spirit as a person - Which, if you're familiar with Koine Greek makes for exceptionally poor grammar. It must have been a deliberate linguistic choice on the part of the writers.
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,622
No, but the sources I gave show that the statement that there was no reference whatsoever to either the Trinity or the deity of Christ prior to Nicea is a lie.
Speaking of the supposed 'deity of Jesus' and the doctrine of the Trinity are two completely different things, so is the very diverse amount of views on Jesus, Christology and doctrine and general prior to the Catholic Church.

people tend to be very quick on the draw to say the Trinity was a Nicean invention.
Well it was.
The phrase "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is not the same as professing belief in the Trinity, again, anachronism.
Once we reach around 200CE we have lots of different doctrinal experimentations, none of them are the Trinity, I AM aware of them.

Even when it comes to the Nicene Creed itself, even that is vague without it's Church context explicitly explicated:
"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father."

(Just remember the Trinity is "a mystery", that's literally what it's called.)

But I sure have missed your arrogant replies. ;)
Arrogance? I'm not an exclusivist and I don't believe in a concept of God that can't be demonstrated in reality. I don't believe in "a mystery" over a 'reality'. I don't think emotional obsession qualifies truth or justifies prejudice or even arguing, in actuality.

The Greek in the NT refers to the Holy Spirit as a person - Which, if you're familiar with Koine Greek makes for exceptionally poor grammar. It must have been a deliberate linguistic choice on the part of the writers.
It'd be interested to see your results from doing a proper textual analysis where the "Holy Spirit" in the New Testament is actually mentioned. See how it both does and doesn't contrast for it's mentions in the Old Testament, then reflect on specifying this thing as a distinct part of God is actually a logical conclusion.
 

Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
583
You seem like a dedicated student. Don't just believe everything they teach you at University, though. It's good to keep an open mind to other possibilities existing as well.
I'm weary about that but a soft science like Linguistics is different. Even from a common sense angle it just makes no sense -you can't compare a noun ending indicative of grammatical class to a word that means an entirely different thing in the same language -both are Latin and the latter means a "ring".

That's a good one to start with. Pardon, I don't have a complete list of them with me now. It's been some time (years).

This site (not affiliated) has probably most of them, from what I've seen of them, and gets into the subject at quite some length (although I can't vouch for if they get everything right)
http://www.trinitytruth.org
Ok but That site doesn't give any scriptural insertions. They claim people worship the Holy Spirit and I'm yet to come across anyone who does that. They also claim that the Trinity is the origin of the 666 mark of the beast. So, yeah.

Edit: I only saw your edit later . . . And you will need to provide proof of that claim along with cross-reference to the original manuscripts for that statement to stick. The site you provided shows not a SHRED of evidence, it doesn't even mention pseudo scriptural insertions.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,040
Sites like these... -

"If anyone tries to tell you that Jesus is not God in the flesh close your ears because anyone who believes that blasphemy will not enter into Heaven. Jesus said if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins. If Jesus wasn’t God how could He die for our sins?

Not only your sins or my sins, but everyone in the whole world. God said that He is the only Savior. Can God lie? Scripture clearly says there is only one God so you must believe the Trinity."
https://biblereasons.com/jesus-is-god/

It's saddening to see; because they (and they may be well meaning people) immediately right off the bat, scare people to not even dare to think or be rational, because "anyone who believes that blasphemy will not enter heaven."

This fear tactic has it's origin in the Athenasian Creed (evil roman catholicism).

They may think that they are doing the right thing, but the truth is they are helping no-one and causing great harm.
 
Last edited:

Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
583
Speaking of the supposed 'deity of Jesus' and the doctrine of the Trinity are two completely different things, so is the very diverse amount of views on Jesus, Christology and doctrine and general prior to the Catholic Church.
Like I already said, all I did was provide evidence that counter to what a lot of sentiment in this thread would have people believe, such ideas were not suddenly appearing after the Nicean council. The fact that such ideas even existed before that time is enough to strike out the idea that it is categorically incorrect.

Well it was.
The phrase "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is not the same as professing belief in the Trinity, again, anachronism.
Once we reach around 200CE we have lots of different doctrinal experimentations, none of them are the Trinity, I AM aware of them.

Even when it comes to the Nicene Creed itself, even that is vague without it's Church context explicitly explicated:
"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father."

(Just remember the Trinity is "a mystery", that's literally what it's called.)
No, it wasn't. And of you actually looked at the sources I gave you would see that the council was the attempt to standardize what had already been in circulation for many years.

Arrogance? I'm not an exclusivist and I don't believe in a concept of God that can't be demonstrated in reality. I don't believe in "a mystery" over a 'reality'. I don't think emotional obsession qualifies truth or justifies prejudice or even arguing, in actuality.
Your arrogance in character, not faith.

It'd be interested to see your results from doing a proper textual analysis where the "Holy Spirit" in the New Testament is actually mentioned. See how it both does and doesn't contrast for it's mentions in the Old Testament, then reflect on specifying this thing as a distinct part of God is actually a logical conclusion.
The point is that the Holy Spirit is not coded in the language as an inanimate being. The Greeks had a variety of terms to refer to spirits and they ALWAYS took on a neutral descriptor. Like I said, this was either done intentionally or the writers were just very bad at Greek. Everything that comes after is an attempt to establish exactly who the Holy Spirit is. And I think you have my line of reasoning confused for stringent promotion -when all I am attempting to do is point out that contrary to the belief that there is no scriptural or historical basis for a belief in some kind of trinity, there actually could be. Based on whichever way people are led they can either choose to accept or reject it and fortunately that issue is a separate one from salvation.

Anyway, I have classes starting soon so I'll bid you adieu.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,622
Like I already said, all I did was provide evidence that counter to what a lot of sentiment in this thread would have people believe, such ideas were not suddenly appearing after the Nicean council. The fact that such ideas even existed before that time is enough to strike out the idea that it is categorically incorrect.
Incorrect, the Trinity was the solution created to the problems in all previous versions of Christology, it was not implemented democratically of course, it certainly wasn't revealed by God itself either. The funny thing though is that it's only caused more problems than any of the previous Christologies ever did.

What you're doing is saying "look, this guy had this idea, and this other guy had this other idea, and this other guy had this other idea" then you're missing the logical step in your statement of "and all of that proves this completely other idea later on, so I was right!". It's not logical, you're trying to find things which are not there.

No, it wasn't. And of you actually looked at the sources I gave you would see that the council was the attempt to standardize what had already been in circulation for many years.
Yes, and I already know these sources, I'm not unread.

Your arrogance in character, not faith.
You mean my insistence on reason over your expectation of just arbitrarily agreeing over something. I don't know what this has to even do with character, you haven't talked to me enough to know what my "character" is as a person. :)

The point is that the Holy Spirit is not coded in the language as an inanimate being. The Greeks had a variety of terms to refer to spirits and they ALWAYS took on a neutral descriptor. Like I said, this was either done intentionally or the writers were just very bad at Greek. Everything that comes after is an attempt to establish exactly who the Holy Spirit is. And I think you have my line of reasoning confused for stringent promotion -when all I am attempting to do is point out that contrary to the belief that there is no scriptural or historical basis for a belief in some kind of trinity, there actually could be. Based on whichever way people are led they an either choose to accept or reject it and fortunately that issue is a separate one from salvation.
As I already said: It'd be interested to see your results from doing a proper textual analysis where the "Holy Spirit" in the New Testament is actually mentioned.
 

Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
583
Incorrect, the Trinity was the solution created to the problems in all previous versions of Christology, it was not implemented democratically of course, it certainly wasn't revealed by God itself either. The funny thing though is that it's only caused more problems than any of the previous Christologies ever did.

What you're doing is saying "look, this guy had this idea, and this other guy had this other idea, and this other guy had this other idea" then you're missing the logical step in your statement of "and all of that proves this completely other idea later on, so I was right!". It's not logical, you're trying to find things which are not there.
And you got this from the available sources discussing what actually happened there?

Yes, and I already know these sources, I'm not unread.
Well then I don't know where youn get your assertations from. Just as you so boldly claimed that Ignatius never believed in the deity of Jesus or referred to him as "God" which turned out to be incorrect anyway. Maybe it's just a difference of sources issue.

You mean my insistence on reason over your expectation of just arbitrarily agreeing over something. I don't know what this has to even do with character, you haven't talked to me enough to know what my "character" is as a person. :)
No, I'm talking about the tone of your replies. You seem happy enough to judge and categorise other people's beliefs/faiths without properly taking to them so I apply the same metrics to your person.

As I already said: It'd be interested to see your results from doing a proper textual analysis where the "Holy Spirit" in the New Testament is actually mentioned.
Or you could do it yourself then if you're so invested in it. I've already looked at it with the intention to learn if there is an allowance for the Holy Spirit to be termed some sort of "person" or if it was completely out of the realm of context. You can even create another thread to educate the ignorant Trinitarian Christians if you come to a different conclusion. :) Have fun. Take the last reply if you want, I have to go now anyway.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
Sites like these... -

"If anyone tries to tell you that Jesus is not God in the flesh close your ears because anyone who believes that blasphemy will not enter into Heaven. Jesus said if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins. If Jesus wasn’t God how could He die for our sins?

Not only your sins or my sins, but everyone in the whole world. God said that He is the only Savior. Can God lie? Scripture clearly says there is only one God so you must believe the Trinity."
https://biblereasons.com/jesus-is-god/

It's saddening to see; because they (and they may be well meaning people) immediately right off the bat, scare people to not even dare to think or be rational, because "anyone who believes that blasphemy will not enter heaven."

This fear tactic has it's origin in the Athenasian Creed (evil roman catholicism).

They may think that they are doing the right thing, but the truth is they are helping no-one and causing great harm.
These believe-it-or-you-will-not-go-into-heaven tactics are evil?

From The Way Home or Face the Fire:


Please accept this Book as a gift to ALL of you, without preference; forget your superstitions and religions, unite yourselves into one brotherhood, become“children of God” (by adoption) and bring lasting peace on Earth, and have good-will towards ALL men. PLEASE!!

It is your ONLY chance to survive.

If, after having read and DIGESTED its contents, you choose to disbelieve it, that will have been your own decision and you will have my heartfelt pity, because, very soon, as a result of your decision, you will first be tortured, by what you have done, then burn and die on the Last-Day, as you have been promised and continually reminded of, for thousands of years. You will have missed your LAST chance to survive execution, and it will have been your own FREE choice.
 

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
6,727
You've called your opponents lunatics and scum.
Thank-you for linking your references, so everyone can see you're being dishonest again. Neither of those comments were made toward my "opponents" as you've called them.

What was actually stated was that this is a lunatic asylum prison reform school for the criminally insane, which it is, and that the most insane have risen to the top, as scum always does, and are running the asylum. Please see for yourself (copied and pasted from the paragraph you linked).

-------

Hundreds of Scriptural references have already been provided within this thread, which should leave NO REASONABLE DOUBT to any rationally-minded human+Being that everything stated above is irrefutable. But this is a lunatic asylum prison reform school for the criminally insane, and the most insane, egotistical hypocrites have risen to the top, as scum always does (Isa. 3:12).

-------

What else would one call a planet where EVERYONE is in open rebellion against our Creator despite having a death-sentence hanging over our heads? We call ourselves "sinners", but a sinner is, in fact, a CRIMINAL.

We are all sinners (Rom. 3:10). Sin is breaking The Law (1 John 3:4). Breaking The Law is a crime. People who commit crimes are criminals. Hopefully you're following along so you don't ask to have this repeated to you later.

You call us dishonest while you deliberately avoid answering direct questions because you're afraid it will shake the foundations of your delusional belief. Yet here you are complaining about dishonesty and ad hominems.
When others are dishonest, it's pointed out to them, just as it's been pointed out to you, with the facts that illustrate the dishonesty. Most of what you have said in this thread has been dishonest, whether you realize it or not.

For example, NONE of your direct questions have been avoided. They have, in truth, already been answered IF you take the time to read through the thread. Perhaps it makes you feel like you're in charge though if you can command others to repeat themselves?

Further, it's the foundations of the trinity delusion that have been shaken here, with hundreds of verses cited proving beyond any REASONABLE doubt that it's extra-Biblical, i.e. UNScriptural. In fact, even the Roman Catholic church you espouse has admitted as much (which likewise has been pointed out to you before), and brag on their ability to con the protestant denominations into accepting their completely baseless dogmas, LIKE THE TRINITY.


“Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which
is not explicitly stated in scripture ... But the Protestant Churches have
themselves accepted such dogmas, AS THE TRINITY, for which there is no such
precise authority in the Gospels
,” — (Assumption of Mary, Life magazine, Oct 30,
1950, p. 51)

Source: http://www.trinitytruth.org/the-trinity-doctrine-exposed.html#Part15

From the Athanasian Creed: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is
necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep
whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the
catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity...


...This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he
cannot be saved."

"The doctrine of the Trinity is the central Catholic Dogma, that Catholics are
obliged to believe.

“He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.”
-the Athanasian Creed"

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed

Are you perhaps starting to see just how often you're dishonest with yourself and others?

You said "Christ is not God." You go on to say "Christ is the Lord of Lords." I show you Tanakh scripture (from YOUR king of king's bible) that says "God is Lord of Lords." Therefore, according to your authoritative scripture, Christ must be God. When pressed on this matter, you choose to ignore it.
Except it wasn't really ignored, was it? Did you bother to read the same post you linked above about this being a lunatic asylum?

https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/on-the-trinity.6477/post-252722

If so, then you would know your non-sequitur logical fallacy was addressed. Please take the time to actually read what was written, rather than dishonestly pretending that your question wasn't already answered, when it was.

The Most High God (Father, the "I AM")--Who is Christ's God according to Christ--can assign whatever designation He wishes to any of His Children, including His Firstborn Son. And that's exactly what the Scriptures tell us He is doing with His Firstborn Son: The Messiah/Christ by GIVING Christ the Throne and MAKING Christ the King of kings and Lord of lords (see 1 Cor. 15:23-28).

For anyone to think otherwise is calling Christ a liar, which is not only very foolish, but potentially fatal if not corrected.

You said there was no Gospel of Peter. I showed you the Gospel of Peter. You ignored it.
Because it is an overt fabrication filled with lies that is not found in any canonical text for that very reason. How do we know with absolute certainty it is a FAKE (that was written after Peter's death)?

BECAUSE IT CONTRADICTS CHRIST, WHICH IS ANTICHRIST/CALLING HIM A LIAR.

You said Peter was never in Rome. I showed you the Acts of Peter said otherwise. You ignored it.
It's the Scriptures that tell us Peter was never in Rome because Christ COMMANDED Peter not to go to Rome (Matt. 10:6).

Why would any rationally-minded person not ignore a bunch of blatant lies from yet another FAKE ANTICHRIST MANUSCRIPT? Do you really think it somehow isn't dishonest of you to promote such obvious satanic nonsense, that not only contradicts Christ and His Commands, but also contradicts other parts of Scripture, AND contradicts the available physical evidence as well?

The Muratorian Fragment shows that people always had doubts, and it eventually became clear that it was written well after Peter had died.

Eusebius, in his 4th-century History of the Church, writes "The so-called Acts of Peter, however, and the Gospel which bears his name, and the Preaching and the Apocalypse, as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them."

http://www.bible-researcher.com/eusebius.html

You said Peter wasn't crucified upside down. I showed you the Acts of Peter said otherwise. You ignored it.
Again, it's the Scriptures that tell us Peter was NOT crucified upside down. In fact it was Christ Himself Who prophesied How Peter would die of old age (John 21:17-19). Are you really choosing to believe your FAKE ANTICHRIST MANUSCRIPT over Christ? That's your choice of course, but don't expect anyone else to believe such obvious lies.

You claim the Pharisees fabricated man-made traditions that were in violation of the Law. I asked you which. You ignore it.
Because it had already been answered in post #571.
https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/on-the-trinity.6477/post-252579

So it was YOU who chose again to ignore the answer that had already been provided.

I asked you a direct question if a word could exist without a thought. You saw light shining through the crannies of your antitrinitarian prison and you closed your eyes and looked away.
That question was answered too, without acquiescing to your evil game.
https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/on-the-trinity.6477/post-251981

Why can we be certain that it's an evil game that you're playing? Because if you were genuinely interested in helping me (or others) you would simply share your alleged revelation rather than bait and troll someone for pages and pages.

Even after all of this deceitful behavior on your part, if you wish to share your answers to, and what you feel is important about, your two questions, I'll be glad to discuss it with you, as long as you agree not to take Father's Name in vain again.

Then you have the audacity to call others dishonest.
Sometimes people don't realize they're being dishonest and thus need to have it pointed out to them, for everyone's benefit.

You must be the biggest hypocritical inflated ego I've seen in a long time. Bottom of the pit is where you're at.
Matthew 7:1-4
7:1 Judge NOT, that ye be not judged.
7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye?
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,040
These believe-it-or-you-will-not-go-into-heaven tactics are evil?

From The Way Home or Face the Fire:


Please accept this Book as a gift to ALL of you, without preference; forget your superstitions and religions, unite yourselves into one brotherhood, become“children of God” (by adoption) and bring lasting peace on Earth, and have good-will towards ALL men. PLEASE!!​


It is your ONLY chance to survive.


If, after having read and DIGESTED its contents, you choose to disbelieve it, that will have been your own decision and you will have my heartfelt pity, because, very soon, as a result of your decision, you will first be tortured, by what you have done, then burn and die on the Last-Day, as you have been promised and continually reminded of, for thousands of years. You will have missed your LAST chance to survive execution, and it will have been your own FREE choice.
Not when they are true.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
What else would one call a planet where EVERYONE is in open rebellion against our Creator despite having a death-sentence hanging over our heads? We call ourselves "sinners", but a sinner is, in fact, a CRIMINAL.

We are all sinners (Rom. 3:10). Sin is breaking The Law (1 John 3:4). Breaking The Law is a crime. People who commit crimes are criminals. Hopefully you're following along so you don't ask to have this repeated to you later.
By that standard, Jesus is a criminal.
 

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
6,727
By that standard, Jesus is a criminal.
Why must you continually tell lies? Is it intentional or don't you know when you're doing it?

Your "self"/ego/human may see others pointing out your penchant for telling and promoting lies as an attack, but in truth, your spirit-Being (Soul) should appreciate the correction.

Prince Michael/Christ did NOT fight against Himself in the war that took place in heaven roughly 6000 years ago (Rev. 12:7-9), and thus was NOT banished to the earth for treason against God, as Satan and his angels were.

Revelation 12:7-12
12:7 And there WAS war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon (Lucifer); and the dragon fought and his angels,
12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out to the Earth, and his angels (you - Luke 9:55) were cast out with him (Matthew 25:41).
12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and The Kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their (human) lives unto the death (John 12:25).
12:12 Therefore rejoice, [ye] heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the "earth" and of the "sea"! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time (6,000 years).

Prince Michael/Christ came to Earth VOLUNTARILY 2000 years ago, incarnating the body of Jesus (John 1:14) to serve as a flesh and blood example of how we all need to be, to be able to go home, to heaven.

It should therefore be self-evident that Jesus+Christ was NOT an inmate in this lunatic asylum prison reform school for the criminally insane, but instead was the only one Who's actually sane, and thus able to teach the rest of us (hence His position as The Master/Teacher).

Please think for a moment how it must be for someone who is totally sane and striving to save others to be completely surrounded by lunatics, who don't know the difference between right and wrong, even though they're convinced in their own minds that they do (Deut. 12:8), and thus refuse to listen to common-sense and reasoning. That should hopefully explain why everyone but a very small group were actively seeking to murder Jesus. And even within that small group one betrayed Him.

This is what Christ faces each and every time He has come here. And yet He selflessly does what's needed to save those precious few who truly believe Him (not just "in" Him) and actually strive to DO as we've been COMMANDED to do - keep the Commandments of God (Father's Law).

So no, Jesus wasn't a lunatic by the ONLY Standard which is applies: DOING Father's Will, which begins with keeping His Commandments. Jesus is, in truth, the bench-mark that all of us must eventually achieve before being allowed to leave this prison planet.

Everything that's been shared in this thread has been done for everyone's benefit, including yours, to help free YOU from your own irrational mind. If you would stop allowing your "self" to get in the way, more productive discussions could follow.

The choice, as always, is yours to make.

God Bless.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
Why must you continually tell lies? Is it intentional or don't you know when you're doing it?

Your "self"/ego/human may see others pointing out your penchant for telling and promoting lies as an attack, but in truth, your spirit-Being (Soul) should appreciate the correction.

Prince Michael/Christ did NOT fight against Himself in the war that took place in heaven roughly 6000 years ago (Rev. 12:7-9), and thus was NOT banished to the earth for treason against God, as Satan and his angels were.

Revelation 12:7-12
12:7 And there WAS war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon (Lucifer); and the dragon fought and his angels,
12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out to the Earth, and his angels (you - Luke 9:55) were cast out with him (Matthew 25:41).
12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and The Kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their (human) lives unto the death (John 12:25).
12:12 Therefore rejoice, [ye] heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the "earth" and of the "sea"! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time (6,000 years).

Prince Michael/Christ came to Earth VOLUNTARILY 2000 years ago, incarnating the body of Jesus (John 1:14) to serve as a flesh and blood example of how we all need to be, to be able to go home, to heaven.

It should therefore be self-evident that Jesus+Christ was NOT an inmate in this lunatic asylum prison reform school for the criminally insane, but instead was the only one Who's actually sane, and thus able to teach the rest of us (hence His position as The Master/Teacher).

Please think for a moment how it must be for someone who is totally sane and striving to save others to be completely surrounded by lunatics, who don't know the difference between right and wrong, even though they're convinced in their own minds that they do (Deut. 12:8), and thus refuse to listen to common-sense and reasoning. That should hopefully explain why everyone but a very small group were actively seeking to murder Jesus. And even within that small group one betrayed Him.

This is what Christ faces each and every time He has come here. And yet He selflessly does what's needed to save those precious few who truly believe Him (not just "in" Him) and actually strive to DO as we've been COMMANDED to do - keep the Commandments of God (Father's Law).

So no, Jesus wasn't a lunatic by the ONLY Standard which is applies: DOING Father's Will, which begins with keeping His Commandments. Jesus is, in truth, the bench-mark that all of us must eventually achieve before being allowed to leave this prison planet.

Everything that's been shared in this thread has been done for everyone's benefit, including yours, to help free YOU from your own irrational mind. If you would stop allowing your "self" to get in the way, more productive discussions could follow.

The choice, as always, is yours to make.

God Bless.
Did Jesus break the Law or not?
 

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
6,727
From The Way Home or Face the Fire:


Please accept this Book as a gift to ALL of you, without preference; forget your superstitions and religions, unite yourselves into one brotherhood, become“children of God” (by adoption) and bring lasting peace on Earth, and have good-will towards ALL men. PLEASE!!​


It is your ONLY chance to survive.


If, after having read and DIGESTED its contents, you choose to disbelieve it, that will have been your own decision and you will have my heartfelt pity, because, very soon, as a result of your decision, you will first be tortured, by what you have done, then burn and die on the Last-Day, as you have been promised and continually reminded of, for thousands of years. You will have missed your LAST chance to survive execution, and it will have been your own FREE choice.
Truer words have not been spoken.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
@A Freeman

Re Peter:

Because it is an overt fabrication filled with lies that is not found in any canonical text for that very reason. How do we know with absolute certainty it is a FAKE (that was written after Peter's death)?

BECAUSE IT CONTRADICTS CHRIST, WHICH IS ANTICHRIST/CALLING HIM A LIAR.
There's no contradiction. Your conclusion is drawn from non-sequiturs. Look:

It's the Scriptures that tell us Peter was never in Rome because Christ COMMANDED Peter not to go to Rome (Matt. 10:6).
Your scriptural reference:

Matt 10
5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

This is in the context of the Little Commission where Jesus instructed His disciples to aid in the conversion the lost sheep (Israel). This does not include the Great Commission of the risen Jesus and the dispersion of the Apostles to go and baptize unto all nations:

Matt 28
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Peter obeyed Jesus Christ and went to the Gentile nations, which is testified in the First Epistle of Peter:

1 Peter 1
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:
Grace to you and peace be multiplied.
Why would any rationally-minded person not ignore a bunch of blatant lies from yet another FAKE ANTICHRIST MANUSCRIPT? Do you really think it somehow isn't dishonest of you to promote such obvious satanic nonsense, that not only contradicts Christ and His Commands, but also contradicts other parts of Scripture, AND contradicts the available physical evidence as well?
Really ... "satanic nonsense" (smh). The Knowledge of Good and Evil from a slave of the Law in all its glory! You're the living proof that people's minds are blinded in the reading of the Old Testament (2 Cor 3:14).

Why not show me the satanic content of the Acts of Peter instead of this mindless zealotic slandering.

As we have seen above, Peter going to Rome in no measurable way contradicts the command of Christ for He said "go and baptize unto all nations". Rome was not off-limits.

Eusebius, in his 4th-century History of the Church, writes "The so-called Acts of Peter, however, and the Gospel which bears his name, and the Preaching and the Apocalypse, as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them."

http://www.bible-researcher.com/eusebius.html
That same Eusebius, in that same book, wrote that Peter was crucified at Rome. See below.

Again, it's the Scriptures that tell us Peter was NOT crucified upside down. In fact it was Christ Himself Who prophesied How Peter would die of old age (John 21:17-19). Are you really choosing to believe your FAKE ANTICHRIST MANUSCRIPT over Christ? That's your choice of course, but don't expect anyone else to believe such obvious lies.
Your scriptural reference:

John 21
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?”
And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.”
Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep. 18 Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me.”

The above verses do not say Peter would die of old age, it says he would die in old age. Again, you've made a non-sequitur fallacy, which is weird, since you're the logics expert and all.

Not only does it not say what you said it says, it has symbolic language possibly alluding to Peter's destiny being crucified (stretched out hands, girded (= binded) by another (to a cross?), carried where he doesn't wish to go (place of execution?)). It is typical Christian scripture that is subject to different levels of (non-contradictory!) interpretations. The literal or somatic sense of scripture, that which speaks to the body. The more profound deeper or psychic sense of scripture conveying earthly wisdom, which speaks to the soul. And thirdly, the spiritual or pneumatic interpretation, for those capable of hearing / understanding higher wisdoms, the mysteries of God.

Each one, then, ought to describe in his own mind, in a threefold manner, the understanding of the divine letters — that is, in order that all the more simple individuals may be edified, so to speak, by the very body of Scripture; for such we term that common and historical sense: while, if some have commenced to make considerable progress, and are able to see something more (than that), they may be edified by the very soul of Scripture. Those, again, who are perfect, and who resemble those of whom the apostle says, We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, who will be brought to nought; but we speak the wisdom of God, hidden in a mystery, which God has decreed before the ages unto our glory; — all such as these may be edified by the spiritual law itself (which has a shadow of good things to come), as if by the Spirit. - Origen, De Principiis, Book IV, 1:11.


With regards to Peter's death, the following is by no means conclusive proof, but it sure contrasts your perverted opinion of the Acts of Peter with the possible truth contained within.

+/- 200 AD:

How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! - Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, 36.

At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another, when he is made fast to the cross. - Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15.

Peter appears to have preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the Jews of the dispersion. And at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer in this way. - Eusebius, Church History, Book III, 1.


Written in 1st century AD:
First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (5)
1 But let us pass from ancient examples, and come unto those who have in the times nearest to us, wrestled for the faith.
2 Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death.
3 Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles.
4 Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him.
 
Top