1 edit
Originally posted by ChessPraxisthinkofone is correct, although it sorely grieves me to admit it,
God is a multi faceted gem. Trinitarianism is just one way of looking at Him. 😉
(Philippians 2:5-6) . . .Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.
why do you people overstep the inspired word of God with your pagan doctrines? why have you disavowed the very words of the Christ? and of the loyal servant Paul?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRC I have no intention of debating doctrine with you.
thinkofone is correct, although it sorely grieves me to admit it,
(Philippians 2:5-6) . . .Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, [b]although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.
why do you people overstep the inspired word of God with your ...[text shortened]... doctrines? why have you disavowed the very words of the Christ? and of the loyal servant Paul?[/b]
I am right and you're on the pathway to hell.
2 edits
Originally posted by DowardInteresting from a textual point of view that the term God in 1st Timothy 3:16 is actually an interpolation, a corruption of the Greek verse for he.
interesting...God was manifest in the flesh...justified in the Spirit you say...hhhmmmmm sounds suspiciously trinitarian. Any comments Galvo?
In 1859 Tischendorf found what was the oldest known complete copy of the Christian Greek Scriptures in a monastery at the base of Mount Sinai, the Codec Sinaiticus, how did it read at 1 Timothy 3:16?
'He was made manifest in the flesh.' In place of “he,” the majority of then-known manuscripts showed an abbreviation for “God,” made by a small alteration of the Greek word for “he.” However, Sinaiticus was made many years before any Greek manuscript reading “God.” Thus, it revealed that there had been a later corruption of the text, evidently introduced to support the Trinity doctrine.
Dithpicable! what have you to say for yourselves now?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh, here we go again.
why do you people overstep the inspired word of God with your pagan doctrines? why have you disavowed the very words of the Christ? and of the loyal servant Paul?
We don't agree with you and therefore we must be somehow "pagan"?
How Christian is that?
2 edits
-Removed-i think it is. Please consider this.
Jesus’ Trial.
When Jesus was brought to trial before the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, he was charged by the religious leaders with grave offenses: “subverting [the Jewish] nation and forbidding the paying of taxes to Caesar and saying he himself is Christ a king.” (Lu 23:1, 2) This three-pronged charge actually meant they were accusing Jesus of high treason or, as the Romans expressed it, crimen laesae majestatis (today called lèse-majesté. Pilate recognized this because later he said, “You brought this man to me as one inciting the people to revolt.” (Lu 23:13, 14) In 48 B.C.E., the law called lex Julia majestatis had made it an offense to engage in any activity against the sovereign power of Rome. This law was given broad application so that, by Jesus’ time, virtually any insult to Caesar or any activity giving an outward appearance of sedition could be the basis for the charge of treason. Tiberius, the Caesar then reigning, was particularly sensitive to criticism or opposition, and his rule was noted for the encouragement of “informers” who would bring accusations against supposed traitors.
Throughout the Roman Empire no king could rule without Caesar’s consent. Thus, Pilate, in questioning Jesus, apparently concentrated his interrogation on the issue of Jesus’ kingship. (Mt 27:11; Mr 15:2; Lu 23:3; Joh 18:33-37) Pilate endeavored to free Jesus as guiltless, but the Jewish leaders cried out: “If you release this man, you are not a friend of Caesar. Every man making himself a king speaks against Caesar.” (Joh 19:12) The term “friend of Caesar” was a title of honor often bestowed on provincial governors; but the Jewish leaders here evidently used it in a general way, implying that Pilate was laying himself open to the charge of condoning high treason. Fear of a jealous emperor was a factor influencing Pilate in pronouncing the death sentence on an innocent man. Meanwhile the priests loudly proclaimed their loyalty to the imperial throne, saying, “We have no king but Caesar,” thereby rejecting any theocratic rule. (Joh 19:13-16; compare Isa 9:6, 7; 33:22.) They objected in vain to the title “King of the Jews” that Pilate had placed on Jesus’ stake. (Joh 19:19-22) The Romans customarily posted a sign identifying the crime for which a criminal was condemned.