RJHinds and the principle of antichrist

Originally posted by sonship

"Herein lies the difference" what's all that repeating about? You're better than me because you won't say I'm in a cult? Passive aggressive much?

If it makes you feel better I'll just state "aggressively" that you are full of baloney. To assume that when Christians speak they can only use words that can be located in the a Bible Lexicon ...[text shortened]... forgot, divegeester is above all lecturing.
But you sure can dish them out to others.

Hit the spot did I?

Originally posted by Pudgenik
the only time I have to read and reply is usually around midnight, when I'm physically exhausted from my work. The rarity that I'm here before then, like tonight is maybe once a month.

Then it is remembering what thread I typed on last.

Well I replied tonight divegeester, maybe you should buy a lotto ticket.

That not entirely true is it, I've even PM'd you in the past requesting that you respond to my posts. This is actually the first time you have.

Originally posted by sonship

"Herein lies the difference" what's all that repeating about? You're better than me because you won't say I'm in a cult? Passive aggressive much?

If it makes you feel better I'll just state "aggressively" that you are full of baloney. To assume that when Christians speak they can only use words that can be located in the a Bible Lexicon ...[text shortened]... forgot, divegeester is above all lecturing.
But you sure can dish them out to others.

I get back to this later.

Originally posted by Pudgenik
You divegeester have never tried to receive God in His fullness. If you had you would not ask me these questions.

I experience the Trinity, everyday. I know the voice of Jesus and the Father, and I recognize the presence of the Holy Spirit. They are with me and I am in them.

How should I try to explain what I know is real, in a way that you would acc ...[text shortened]... alize the word Trinity and the Three that are One because I respect and have reverence for them.

Why is it you and sonship get so touchy when challenged?

"trinity" "triune" "three persons" "eternal son" etc are not in the Bible, anywhere not once. That you choose to capitalise them and revere them speaks more of your doctrinal background and your reverence to that than your reverence to God.

Your petty judgment and soft insult stating that "I've never tried to receive god in his fullness" when you don't even know me is just another symptom of denominational communication malpractice that I've been exposed to before. Fire away tough guy.

Originally posted by divegeester
Why is it you and sonship get so touchy when challenged?

"trinity" "triune" "three persons" "eternal son" etc are not in the Bible, anywhere not once. That you choose to capitalise them and revere them speaks more of your doctrinal background and your reverence to that than your reverence to God.

Your petty judgment and soft insult stating that "I ...[text shortened]... denominational communication malpractice that I've been exposed to before. Fire away tough guy.

I wasn't being touchy to your question. It was an honest statement.

It is the Holy Spirit that lets me know that you have not strived to earnestly go beyond basic fundamentals when it comes to comprehending God's fullness. In plain language, you need to open your heart to God's love, and let Him fill you.

You've never been exposed to me, I am the 'favored arrow' in God's quiver.
And I can see where your soul is at.

Originally posted by divegeester
Hit the spot did I?

Hit the spot did I?

lol. Patting yourself on the back are you?

Originally posted by divegeester
Brazil should be ashamed of themselves. Trev had it spot on.

Brazil should be ashamed of themselves.

Alright! That did it!

NO MORE CRACKS ABOUT BRAZIL !!

Originally posted by Pudgenik
It is the Holy Spirit that lets me know that you have not strived to earnestly go beyond basic fundamentals when it comes to comprehending God's fullness. In plain language, you need to open your heart to God's love, and let Him fill you. You've never been exposed to me, I am the 'favored arrow' in God's quiver. And I can see where your soul is at.

Well something tells me you're a pretensious judgemental religionist.

It's not the 'holy spirit' but I'm pretty sure it's more accurate than you are.

Originally posted by Pudgenik
... I am the 'favored arrow' in God's quiver. And I can see where your soul is at.

Seriously dude. Ego much!

Originally posted by sonship

Hit the spot did I?

lol. Patting yourself on the back are you?

We'll talk later.

Originally posted by sonship

Brazil should be ashamed of themselves.

Alright! That did it!

[b]NO MORE CRACKS ABOUT BRAZIL !![/b]

Yeah, but SEVEN TO ONE?

Originally posted by sonship
To assume that when Christians speak they can only use words that can be located in the a Bible Lexicon is more like some kind of superstitious talk.

Not when a person builds or promotes erroneous doctrine on it, it isn't. Not when they "revere" it by captivalising the very words that are not even in the bible as Pudgenik and you do. Not when they (you) accuse another Christian of being under the "principle of antichrist" (not in the bible) it does.

You seem to think that you can come here and "hairdrier" everyone with your long monologues and accuse other Christians who don't agree with you as "talking baloney" or being "under the principle of antichrist" just because they disagree with you. What are you, another of the "true arrows in God's quiver" with Pudgenik ?

In my opinion you calling another Christian "under the principle of antichrist" just because they disagree with you is disgraceful. That you do so and accuse them of not adhering to the bible when you use "Trinity" and "triune" and the indeed "principle of antichrist" which are not even in the bible, is plain hypocrisy.

Are you going to apologise to RJHinds?

Originally posted by divegeester
Not when a person builds or promotes erroneous doctrine on it, it isn't. Not when they "revere" it by captivalising the very words that are not even in the bible as Pudgenik and you do. Not when they (you) accuse another Christian of being under the "principle of antichrist" (not in the bible) it does.

You seem to think that you can come here and "ha ...[text shortened]... which are not even in the bible, is plain hypocrisy.

Are you going to apologise to RJHinds?

Sonship has stated something to the effect that that he did not really mean to imply that I was the antichrist. I believe he was just upset that I considered Witness Lee's teaching as being just an revival of an old teaching that the Christian Church had declared heretical.

The ideas presented in the Holy Bible can be presented in various words, because we have many languages and translations. The triune nature of God is only arrived at after having pieced numerous passages together. I believe Matthew 28:18-19 and 1 John 5:7-8 are two of the best to indicate the three in one idea.

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

(Matthew 28:18-19 KJV)

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.

(1 John 5:7-8 KJV)

You might also look at John 1:1-14 to see that the Word, which is also God, became flesh in Christ Jesus, the Son.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Sonship has stated something to the effect that that he did not really mean to imply that I was the antichrist. I believe he was just upset that I considered Witness Lee's teaching as being just an revival of an old teaching that the Christian Church had declared heretical.

The ideas presented in the Holy Bible can be presented in various words, because ...[text shortened]... k at John 1:1-14 to see that the Word, which is also God, became flesh in Christ Jesus, the Son.

I've studied the trinity doctrine fairly extensively and you present nothing new here which I've effectively contended several times in this forum over the years.

Your use of Matthew 28 18-19 is a classic example of the root of the error in the trinity doctrine;

Here is jesus giving a direct command, one which is straightforward and trinity supporting, yes?

Well show me in Acts where any of the disciples baptised in that formula? Show me one example and I will accept the trinity. In every single case the disciples baptised in the name (singular) of Jesus Christ.

Now read the scripture again;

Baptise in the name of (singular name, not plural titles) the father, and of (same name) the son, and of (same name) of Holy Ghost. And what did the disciples do?

There is ONE name given among men by which we may be saved. That name is the (given to men) name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Ghost. Jesus Christ.

Hear oh Israel The Lord your god is ONE. Not 3 or 3 in 1. Not triune, not trinity. ONE. Every time the godhead is mentioned in the bible it is always linked to a singular person.

Manifestations are not persons.

I'm here defending you RJHinds, but my experience is that no matter what the scenario, trinitarians will defend the doctrine before anything else.