Spectators in Hell

-Removed-

another lie, I provided linguistic, grammatical and references to the original language the Bible was written in.

-Removed-

No. Nor trinitarians. I don't classify Christians as Christians by their beliefs but by their fruit as we are instructed to do.

edit: btw fruit is singular - like the name of the Father and the name of the son and the name of the HS, is a singular name.

I think "much fruit" in verse 5 probably means fruits.

I am the vine; you are the branches. He who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit ...

I am glad that you would not attempt to establish something like a "no lake of eternal fire" church.

edit: You are probably referring to fruit in a verse in Matthew.

-Removed-

no you are still lying, I gave facts concerning the English syntax and the Greek idiom. That a sentence follows a particular idiomatic structure, or has verb tenses, or a predicate noun is not an opinion, its a fact.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
another lie, I provided linguistic, grammatical and references to the original language the Bible was written in.

You said his pants were on fire, so I think he wants you to provide evidence of his pants being on fire. I can smell the smoke too, but how does one go about presenting an odor as evidence?

In this parable the rejected king is said to personally observe the punishing of his enemies.

"Those mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27 KJV)

The sinners in Revelation 14 have devoted themselves to the service of Satan and his Wild Beast and the False Prophet in three ways:

1.) By worshipping him in person
2.) By adoring his likeness and statue
3.) By receiving his number, or mark on the forehead or hand.

This third act is a "sacrament" of their visible devotion to defy God to the uttermost with sacred dedication to the Blasphemer and Deceiver.

The smoke of their tormenting goes up forever and ever says Rev. 14:11. They unchanged in wickedness suffer for eternity before the Lamb (Redeemer) and the holy angels. It answers to the teaching of the parable of Luke 19: 11-27 in its conclusion -

"However, these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me." (v.27 RcV)

There is no reason to believe that Christ does nothing else in eternity. We are told also of the positive shepherding over the saved -

"For the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them and guide them to springs of waters of life; and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes." (Rev. 7:17)

Originally posted by lemon lime
You said his pants were on fire, so I think he wants you to provide evidence of his pants being on fire. I can smell the smoke too, but how does one go about presenting an odor as evidence?

yes but as he skulks around with his pants on fire someone will eventually call the fire brigade. It would be much better for him to wear garments that do not spontaneously self combust.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but as he skulks around with his pants on fire someone will eventually call the fire brigade. It would be much better for him to wear garments that do not spontaneously self combust.

God did not bless you sir when it came to humour.

-Removed-

I'm pointing out that you seem to get confused between plurals and singulars in the Bible.

I am not confused.
By the way, I did way back ask you to please DEFINE the trinity doctrine. I mean I get that you are unhappy about something. That I get.

I am not sure that you're unhappy about a strawman argument.
Well, you didn't answer it yet.
So when you eloquently express some disgruntlement about this "trinity" matter, I really am not sure what is your problem.

I hope you are not intentionally keeping the object of your scorn VAGUE.

The fruit of the spirt is love, joy, peace etc. I think it's singular because God doesn't hand out a bit of peace here or a bit of love there. When one has the spirit one has it in entirety. Love AND joy AND peace etc.

Praise the Lord. I have no major problem with any of this.
Know them by fruit ... the fruits of the Spirit... etc.
No big problem with these things.

Do you wish to extrapolate on this to object to me believing God is three-one ?

Similarly with the scripture, "Go and make disciples baptising them into the name (singular) of the father and of son and the Holy Spirit." The name of the father and the son and the Holy Spirit is Jesus.

Divegeester, If you want to criticize me, please do it about something I WROTE or actually taught. In the several so years I have posted here I have many times pointed out that the NAME [singular] is revealed in Matthew 28:19.

Many times I wrote that "the name" in Matthew 28:19 amounts to - "Father - Son - Holy Spirit". Now what have I actually said that you find a problem with ?

Evidence? Every one of the 12 who were given that command by Jesus himself baptised into the name of Jesus.

No problem. I am fully aware that in the book of Acts it says that the new disciples were baptized upon the name of Jesus, or in the name of Jesus, or INTO the name of Jesus.

I find no contradiction between that and Matthew 28:19 because I do not take that passage as a FORMULA to verbally recite.

We baptize a lot of new believers where I meet. And I would have you know that it is not a legality as to what must be SAID in a baptism. It would be just as biblical to pronounce in faith -

"We baptize you into ONE BODY!" or
"We baptize you into the DEATH OF CHRIST!" or
"We hereby baptize you into the ONE SPIRIT, Praise God! " or
"We baptize you into the name of Jesus !! Halelujah!" or
"We baptize you into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" or
"We baptize you into Christ"

And I would even add that the anointing of God has been upon us in declaring in joy and faith - "We baptize you into the name of the Triune God."

So "into Jesus Christ" is STILL into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And my opinion is that God caused what was done in the book of Acts to be included right beside what Jesus taught in Matthew because we are prone to miss the point.

( wake up. keep reading!! not finished yet )

The NEVER baptised in the name father, son and holy spirt. As these are titles and offices of the ONE singular God "who's name which is given among men" is Jesus.

No offense meant. But I consider this point to be immature and trivial. We do not take what Jesus taught in Matthew 28 to be some orthodox legal utterance that MUST be said at any baptism. In this case I think your argument must be with someone else.

Can you see that? This is partly why the trinity thing doesn't work. It denies you the opportunity to accept this truth.

No I don't see that at all. I see the opposite.
Into Jesus is into the reality of the Father - Son - Holy Spirit even as the Apostle John wrote:

And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding that we might know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ.

This is the true God and eternal life." (1 John 5:20,21)

While your objection may cause some shuffling of feet and some heavy breathing at the Presbyterian denomination, it is no problem to the local churches.

-Removed-

This is the one thing that confuses me most about you.

You seem to preach the exact message of the Trinity and then you sit back and say "See? The Trinity is bull."

I don't get why you do this.

-Removed-

how would you know, you have no idea what you were talking about, you don't know what verb tenses were used in the verse, i doubt if you know what predicate noun was used, infact you get caught all the time here using terms you dont know the meaning of and what is even worse, dont even care. I'm done battling with your ignorance, even the Gods cannot contend with such stupidity.