24 Oct 11
Originally posted by RJHindsLol, first born of the dead, was he still born?
It also says He was "firstborn" of the dead. That does not mean He was
"first-created" of the dead does it? THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. Idiot.
You don't know Greek or English very well. Go back to school.
24 Oct 11
4 edits
I am fed up with you liars, you stated that Christ claims that he was almighty God
incarnate, you have produced nothing. From this moment on i will simply quote Void
spirit, for it seems to me, that is the best way to deal with a snake pit of serpents,
squirming at every turn, making dogmatic assertions and refusing to answer them
when pressed to do so, but demanding answers from others.
i don't wish to believe anything, i just accept what is before me. place the bible
before me and i will not find a trinity in it. neither will you. consider the entire
scripture as you must. there is no trinity. read every page carefully, still no trinity.
read it backwards and sideways. no trinity.
ask any of the alleged prophets, seers, acolytes and the son of god. not one of them
mentions the trinity nature of god.
this very important, central nature of god, and the bible has nothing to say about it.
only in extra-biblical christian dogma with their disjointed and twisted interpretations
of ambiguous scripture will you find any mention of a trinity.
the only thing you have considered is what the church has told you, you have not
considered the bible.- Void spirit.
Amen to that.
24 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo Christ was created before the material universe came to be? But time was born when the material universe came to be. Do you see a problem here Robbie?
the statement is qualified by the term firstborn of all creation, that is before, in time, to
all other created entities and we know this because the Greek term, first born is a
compound of two Greek words, protos (first) and tikto (bring forth, born, give birth).
Thus there is a reference to time, that before all creation Christ was the first ...[text shortened]... tanding of the text but their stupid
dogma and preconceived ideas to the nature of the Christ.
24 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieExcuse me Robbie, but this lying, squirming serpant has one more question, why did Jesus command Peter and the rest of his disciples NOT to reveal he was the Son of God?
[b]I am fed up with you liars, you stated that Christ claims that he was almighty God
incarnate, you have produced nothing. From this moment on i will simply quote Void
spirit, for it seems to me, that is the best way to deal with a snake pit of serpents,
squirming at every turn, making dogmatic assertions and refusing to answer them
when pressed to do so, but demanding answers from others.
24 Oct 11
Originally posted by whodeyi don't wish to believe anything, i just accept what is before me. place the bible before me and i will not find a trinity in it. neither will you. consider the entire scripture as you must. there is no trinity. read every page carefully, still no trinity. read it backwards and sideways. no trinity.
Excuse me Robbie, but this lying, squirming serpant has one more question, why did Jesus command Peter and the rest of his disciples NOT to reveal he was the Son of God?
ask any of the alleged prophets, seers, acolytes and the son of god. not one of them mentions the trinity nature of god.
this very important, central nature of god, and the bible has nothing to say about it. only in extra-biblical christian dogma with their disjointed and twisted interpretations of ambiguous scripture will you find any mention of a trinity.
the only thing you have considered is what the church has told you, you have not considered the bible.
24 Oct 11
Originally posted by whodeyi don't wish to believe anything, i just accept what is before me. place the bible before me and i will not find a trinity in it. neither will you. consider the entire scripture as you must. there is no trinity. read every page carefully, still no trinity. read it backwards and sideways. no trinity.
Excuse me Robbie, but this lying, squirming serpant has one more question, why did Jesus command Peter and the rest of his disciples NOT to reveal he was the Son of God?
ask any of the alleged prophets, seers, acolytes and the son of god. not one of them mentions the trinity nature of god.
this very important, central nature of god, and the bible has nothing to say about it. only in extra-biblical christian dogma with their disjointed and twisted interpretations of ambiguous scripture will you find any mention of a trinity.
the only thing you have considered is what the church has told you, you have not considered the bible.
24 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe word translated "first-born" does not mean "first-created" so that
Colossians 1:15, i have already posted it, the first-born of all creation. How did you
miss it, were your eyes shut and your mouth open catching flies? what does the term
only begotten mean, if you know? for clearly there were other sons. Do tell.
verse doesn't cut the mustard. Sorry, bud. Try again.
24 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWrong again. Only-begotten does not mean "only-created". Any other
sigh,
The basic Greek word for “only-begotten” used for Jesus and Isaac is
monogenes, from monos, meaning “only,” and ginomai, a root word
meaning “to generate,” “to become (come into being),” states Strong’s Exhaustive
Concordance. Hence, monogenes is defined as: “Only born, only begotten, i.e. an
only child.”—A Greek and English Lexicon ...[text shortened]... gh the “only-begotten Son,” who was the only one directly begotten
by God.—Colossians 1:15-17.
verses?
24 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt means first in position. There are some sons in the Holy Bible that are
Lol, first born of the dead, was he still born?
referred to as the first-born son, but were not physically the first to be
born. It often refers to position of inheritance. Christ, being the only
begotten and first-born, refers to his position of heir to the throne of God
and before all creatures living or dead, since He is also referred to as the
first-born of the dead.
24 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy on earth do you fight more with Christians than with the unbelievers amongst us?
ask any of the alleged prophets, seers, acolytes and the son of god. not one of them mentions the trinity nature of god.
As to your statement above, how many "prophets, seers, acolytes" have there been SINCE the Son of God?
Trinity is a relatively new concept. I'd wager that the writers of the Bible (the ones living AFTER Christ, since how would those living before Christ even conceive of there one day being a Jesus Christ?) thought not to include it since it seems so obvious.
I still wonder at your real reasons for being so vehement about this.
"nope, I don't buy it, it's baloney" would suffice, I would think.
24 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePaul said of Christ, "For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form."
i don't wish to believe anything, i just accept what is before me. place the bible before me and i will not find a trinity in it. neither will you. consider the entire scripture as you must. there is no trinity. read every page carefully, still no trinity. read it backwards and sideways. no trinity.
ask any of the alleged prophets, seers, acolytes ...[text shortened]... y thing you have considered is what the church has told you, you have not considered the bible.
(Colossians 2:9 NASB)
24 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneWhy on earth do you fight more with Christians than with the unbelievers amongst us?
Why on earth do you fight more with Christians than with the unbelievers amongst us?
As to your statement above, how many "prophets, seers, acolytes" have there been SINCE the Son of God?
Trinity is a relatively new concept. I'd wager that the writers of the Bible (the ones living AFTER Christ, since how would those living before Christ even conceive ...[text shortened]... ehement about this.
"nope, I don't buy it, it's baloney" would suffice, I would think.
because the 'unbelievers', as you term them have no vested interest and are
therefore able to look at these things objectively. With those who have
preconceptions as to the nature of the Christ and a religious bias this is almost
impossible. If they had the integrity to state, yes we are biased, that would be fine,
but no, one must drag them kicking and screaming to the scriptures and literally
make them confess to the erroneous nature of their dogma.
The statement that i quoted was not mine, it was posted by a non Christian,
someone with no bias and no agenda and seems to me to sum up the very essence
of the trinitarian argument, that being extra biblical sources and the manipulation of
ambiguous verses. I have spent a great deal of time and effort really trying to
understand what the Biblical authors were trying to say, its intolerable that these
trinitarians should make a mockery of it with their pagan doctrines and biased
translation.
24 Oct 11
Originally posted by RJHindsi don't wish to believe anything, i just accept what is before me. place the bible before me and i will not find a trinity in it. neither will you. consider the entire scripture as you must. there is no trinity. read every page carefully, still no trinity. read it backwards and sideways. no trinity.
Paul said of Christ, "For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form."
(Colossians 2:9 NASB)
ask any of the alleged prophets, seers, acolytes and the son of god. not one of them mentions the trinity nature of god.
this very important, central nature of god, and the bible has nothing to say about it. only in extra-biblical christian dogma with their disjointed and twisted interpretations of ambiguous scripture will you find any mention of a trinity.
the only thing you have considered is what the church has told you, you have not considered the bible.