Mt 27:46

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Believe it or not, recently there was someone who went so far as to claim "...nor is there any such thing as 'true disciples'" even though the words of Jesus say otherwise. I know, it beggars belief. But true all the same..

There is a big difference between being "truly" a disciple, and someone talking about "true disciples™". As you well know.
Good effort though.

Originally posted by divegeester
There is a big difference between being "truly" a disciple, and someone talking about "true disciples™". As you well know.
Good effort though.

What exactly is this "big difference"?

Not surprised that you side-stepped the rest of my post which follows in italics. It's what you do when faced with a truth that you find distasteful: For example, you've been side-stepping the quoted words of Jesus from John 8 for a while now.

Actually, in each example I cited they are logically mutually exclusive, but in yours they are not. No surprise that you don't seem to understand the difference.

In fact, since the Bible is littered with inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions, people end up having to pick and choose the verses and passages that support their beliefs and "ignore" those that don't. Ultimately they end up "BOTH cit[ing] one scripture and ignor[ing] another".

Of course, there seem to be more than a few who manage to delude themselves into believing that they "believe the entire Bible", but "pick and choose" all the same.

For example, there are many who "ignore" the following:

John 8
34Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.
31...If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free...
36...So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed..
51...Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death”.

You wouldn't know anybody like that would you?

Originally posted by FMF
You have just stated that you believe that many of the Christians here have been infested with lies by Satan. Is that you exhibiting "good sense"? Is that you demonstrating that you are "no judge of anyone"?

That's the Bible speaking, believe it or not.

Originally posted by divegeester
It makes complete sense. In fact TOO makes good sense in his arguments all the time, I just don't agree with him.

You on the other hand make little sense, largely because your pinhole perspective is, like all cult members, hugely restricted. For example your OP: "how can Jesus be god when Jesus cried out to god"? How do interpret the scripture that s ...[text shortened]... is so obvious, so simple, so perfect that I cannot understand it when Christians cannot see it.

Well,at least you have a Scripture to base your misunderstanding on.
Most responses are just twaddle.
If you had a more modern translation it would make it easier for you too understand.
(Colossians 2:9) because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.

Originally posted by FMF
Where does the Bible state that your fellow Christians - who have some doctrinal differences with you - "have been infested with lies by Satan"? What are the verses that support this specific claim you are making about this specific disagreement about doctrine?

The fact that there are false teachings in their religions and they accept them is what judges them. It's not a matter of doctrinal differences, They believe things that are not in reputable Bibles.
For Scriptures Re 17:1-6 would easily suffice.
Along with Eze 16:25-35 and Eze 23:16-27

Originally posted by roigam
None of that makes sense.
What makes sense is that Jehovah God worked through His first-born son
to accomplish the making of His name sacred.
Just as Jehovah God worked through faithful men of old like Moses.
(Exodus 14:16) As for you, lift up your rod and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it, so that the Israelites may go through the midst of ...[text shortened]... gh men.........but in no case did it make them God.
They were used to accomplish God's purpose.

And yet Jesus was God long before he came to earth as a man.

Why do you disavow his existence before he became a man?

Oh, yeah, it's your man-made dogma. I suppose that's why you had to remake the Bible in your own image. Just like you make God into your own image.

"Only a man."

Not exactly.

Originally posted by divegeester
This is an unequivocal scripture. It states there in the Bible that the entire entity of God the father, Jehovah himself, his very being, dwelt in bodily form on earth. It is impossible to misinterpret it.

and

The truth is that Jehovah, the father, in his FULLNESS dwelt in the flesh in Jesus. They are in essence the same spiritual being. Jesus is ...[text shortened]... all in all, everything we need of God because he is God. He is God on earth in a veil of flesh.

Okay, now we're going somewhere.

This is more than you've given us in the past in this forum concerning your "deviation" from the Trinity concept. I didn't understand until just now how your belief differed from the Trinity concept.

I can't say that I agree with it, but I do understand it now. I agree now that this is NOT the Trinity concept.

I have some questions. How do you square this with such passages which speak of Jesus sitting at the right hand of God? How can he sit at his own "right hand"? Was Jesus only Jesus while on earth? Is he now back to being "God the Father"? Or is Jesus just God's "earth name"? And what about the Holy Spirit? Is Jesus the Holy Spirit too? Or is the Holy Spirit (the "Comforter" ) not exactly as "deific" as Jesus?

I'm not trying to make fun. I want to more fully understand why you believe this. I'm not sure that I've ever encountered this exact belief before. It's kind of fascinating, it's like the Trinity, but not. Something actually new under the sun, if you will.

Originally posted by roigam
The fact that there are false teachings in their religions and they accept them is what judges them. It's not a matter of doctrinal differences, They believe things that are not in reputable Bibles.
For Scriptures Re 17:1-6 would easily suffice.
Along with Eze 16:25-35 and Eze 23:16-27

"Reputable Bibles."

You mean your Bible, of course.

Originally posted by roigam
Well,at least you have a Scripture to base your misunderstanding on.
Most responses are just twaddle.
If you had a more modern translation it would make it easier for you too understand.
(Colossians 2:9) because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.

"A more modern translation."

You mean your translation, of course.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Of course, there seem to be more than a few who manage to delude themselves into believing that they "believe the entire Bible", but "pick and choose" all the same.

Again, this harkens back to what I said somewhere in this forum recently, that we all assume that our understanding of Scripture we believe is entirely correct. And therefore, we make the leap and claim that "if you disagree with me, you disagree with God!"

No.

As I also said, most Christian disagreement is with others understandings of Scripture that they understand differently. This is my beef with Rajk. No, I do not disagree with God, simply because I disagree with Rajk. I disagree with Rajk's claims about what scripture means. But Rajk is never humble enough to understand this difference, since he arrogantly believes that his understanding of God, or the Bible, trumps ALL others understanding. This is clear when others try to discuss with him, and he exclaims, well, then, go ahead and sign up for hell, or that we're "deluded", or we are "mouth worshippers", or some other similarly nasty remark.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Again, this harkens back to what I said somewhere in this forum recently, that we all assume that our understanding of Scripture we believe is entirely correct. And therefore, we make the leap and claim that "if you disagree with me, you disagree with God!"

No.

As I also said, most Christian disagreement is with others understandings of Script ...[text shortened]... l, or that we're "deluded", or we are "mouth worshippers", or some other similarly nasty remark.

Again, this harkens back to what I said somewhere in this forum recently, that we all assume that our understanding of Scripture we believe is entirely correct. And therefore, we make the leap and claim that "if you disagree with me, you disagree with God!"

How exactly does the text you quoted "harken back" to what you are saying?

This is what I wrote in context which is about something else altogether:

Actually, in each example I cited they are logically mutually exclusive, but in yours they are not. No surprise that you don't seem to understand the difference.

In fact, since the Bible is littered with inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions, people end up having to pick and choose the verses and passages that support their beliefs and "ignore" those that don't. Ultimately they end up "BOTH cit[ing] one scripture and ignor[ing] another".

Of course, there seem to be more than a few who manage to delude themselves into believing that they "believe the entire Bible", but "pick and choose" all the same.

No, I do not disagree with God, simply because I disagree with Rajk. I disagree with Rajk's claims about what scripture means. But Rajk is never humble enough to understand this difference, since he arrogantly believes that his understanding of God, or the Bible, trumps ALL others understanding.

Not sure that there are any who regularly post on this forum that don't "believes that his understanding of God, or the Bible, trumps ALL others understanding".

You think that this isn't true of eladar, checkbaiter, FreakyKBH, robbie carrobie, KellyJay, sonship or anyone else?

This is clear when others try to discuss with him, and he exclaims, well, then, go ahead and sign up for hell, or that we're "deluded", or we are "mouth worshippers", or some other similarly nasty remark.

You think that he doesn't get much more than he gives when it comes to "nasty remark[s]"?

Originally posted by Suzianne
And yet Jesus was God long before he came to earth as a man.

Why do you disavow his existence before he became a man?

Oh, yeah, it's your man-made dogma. I suppose that's why you had to remake the Bible in your own image. Just like you make God into your own image.

"Only a man."

Not exactly.

He certainly was existing and had divine qualities or was godlike. see John 1:1

The Bible says, (Philippians 2:7) No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human.

He had to be only a man in order to fit
(1 Corinthians 15:47) The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven.

Notice it says man from heaven not god from heaven.

Jesus had to be a perfect man to balance the perfect life Adam lost for mankind

Originally posted by Suzianne
"Reputable Bibles."

You mean your Bible, of course.

And many other "original manuscripts".

The organized religions are the ones adding to the Bible, not us.

We are seeking the true words of God, not what Satan has managed to sneak in,
words that aren't even in the Bible such as trinity.
These have become church doctrine.
People do not know what Jehovah God knows.

We're just thankful that He is patient so that all the things that can be gathered will be gathered in Christ Jesus.

Originally posted by roigam
He had to be only a man in order to fit
(1 Corinthians 15:47) The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven.

Notice it says man from heaven not god from heaven.

Try this on for size.

"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven." -- 1 Corinthians 15:47, KJV

Why does your Bible leave out the word kyrios from the scripture? Because you cannot bear to believe that Jesus is Lord, "supreme in authority"; nor that Jesus is man AND God.

This makes your Bible nothing but a propaganda tool. You force your Bible to fulfill your already-made-by-man dogma.

Originally posted by roigam
The fact that there are false teachings in their religions and they accept them is what judges them. It's not a matter of doctrinal differences, They believe things that are not in reputable Bibles.

So you are declaring the teachings of Christians who disagree with you over doctrinal matters to be "false" and their teachings "false"?