Rocky
Rocky

December 15th, 2015, 10:44 pm #11



I'm sure King David will be the first cut (deletion) in the Cruz-Sublett bible. Anyone on what is next?
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

December 15th, 2015, 11:31 pm #12

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Rocky,

I've heard this before, and I completely agree with it:

"The fundamental truth of the Bible is that God is One. Any teaching that in any way appears to deviate from or undermime this profound truth must be very firmly substantiated. The doctrine of the Trinity pretends to be such a teaching, yet it is entirely absent from the entire Old Testament. This doesn't make sense."

[How many times have I mentioned that God's followers in the O.T. times did not worship "three-Gods-in-one"? Also the truth remains that the New Testament teaches none of that, either. Catholicism does and Protestantism concurs.]

Yes, you made reference to David, "a man after mine own heart" (Acts 13:22). The following verse (13:23) mentions that God, according to His promise, would raise a Savior, Jesus, "of this man's seed." Thus, "the seed of David" (John 7:42; Romans 1:3; II Tim. 2:8).

What does Jesus Christ "of the seed of David" mean to you? Is "God the Father" of the seed of David? I think NOT.

There's no need to create another Bible.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

December 16th, 2015, 12:11 am #13


I'm sure King David will be the first cut (deletion) in the Cruz-Sublett bible. Anyone on what is next?
Does this thread need Infiltrate and Divert??
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

December 16th, 2015, 12:59 am #14

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Because of the "freedom of speech," I think we should allow posters to author their own messages. (I doubt that Dave and Rocky both together have the intent to infiltrate and divert -- individually maybe, but not as a collaboration effort.)

Diverting? Easy to do. It happens all the time -- the expected nature of a religious discussion forum. But it can be redirected to a worthwhile "within topic" discussion.

Infiltrating? That's allowed. And it's not a problem so long as we have the spiritual sword, "the word of God" (Ephesians 6:17). The "word of God" is mentioned about 40 more times in the New Testament. That's definitely a plus when infiltration occurs.

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4:12).

[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Rocky
Rocky

December 16th, 2015, 1:14 am #15


The next chop job will be on God's GRACE. The Crew-Sublett bible will reject "Grace". This is so SAD!
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

December 16th, 2015, 1:27 am #16

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Rocky,

Uh-oh. A diversion from the topic. But that's OK. Let the Scripture speak.

God's grace? No, it's not an issue.

Abuse and misuse of God's grace? Yes, it is an issue. That's what's sad.

A good example of abuse of God's grace: "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" (Romans 6:1, KJV)

Man's idea is that God's grace forgives sin: unconditionally -- instead of the blood of Christ.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Rocky
Rocky

December 16th, 2015, 1:34 am #17

The next chop job will be on God's GRACE. The Crew-Sublett bible will reject "Grace". This is so SAD!
The Crew-Sublett bible would have no singing. The "SINGING" Verses would all be changed to "speak" verses. So sad ...The Church of Christ is known for their SINGING. God Help Us!


===========================

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Off topic. Submit a separate thread for that.

You forgot this scripture: <b>"SPEAKING to yourselves IN psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord"[/color]
(Ephesians 5:19).

Key expressions:

(1) SPEAKING TO YOURSELVES IN ... HYMNS....
(2) SINGING IN YOUR HEART TO THE LORD.

Now, just who is CHANGING the Scripture????

The church of Christ is just fine. The problem occurs when musical performers are present in the gathering.</b>
Last edited by Donnie.Cruz on December 16th, 2015, 1:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

December 16th, 2015, 1:40 am #18

The next chop job will be on God's GRACE. The Crew-Sublett bible will reject "Grace". This is so SAD!
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]You can divert from the topic all you want. And we may entertain the diversion for a while ... up to a point. Regardless, there are ways to redirect any diversion to a fruitful discussion of the topic. The Holy Scripture is replete with the truth to dispel the Catholic-ordained Trinity Creed. More scriptures to follow for the real, serious Bible students (disciples/learners) to study and learn.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Rocky
Rocky

December 16th, 2015, 10:13 am #19


The Cruz-Sublett bible will remove any reference to "The Holy Spirit". Limited use of "a holy spirit" will be used. This one really bothers me as I am concerned about their souls.
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

December 16th, 2015, 4:32 pm #20

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]You can divert from the topic all you want. And we may entertain the diversion for a while ... up to a point. Regardless, there are ways to redirect any diversion to a fruitful discussion of the topic. The Holy Scripture is replete with the truth to dispel the Catholic-ordained Trinity Creed. More scriptures to follow for the real, serious Bible students (disciples/learners) to study and learn.[/color]
We have noted that Constantine picked the view of Athanaeus over Arius. However, the debate had nothing to do with a "trinity" but of the Incarnation. Athanaeus taught at the ONE GOD literally lived in and appeared as Jesus of Nazareth. The creed that slowly evolved did not include a holy spirit as part of this Incarnation because it was the spirit God Who indwelled Jesus.

We have also noted that Athanaeus agreed with the Greeks that the KOSMOS was really a BODY and the WORD regulated that Kosmos. This agrees with the Jews and all pagans that the five planets (wandering stars) along with the Sun and Moon were the visible rulers of this Body. God turned Israel over to Sabazianism and both Amos and Stephen name some of these "gods."

Pagans among us agree with the Greeks that the LOGOS was a living person.

The false teachers Cut-N-Paste Scripture and men like Alexander Campbell to say that he was a TRINITARIAN but he JUST objected to the confused language. I have Cut-N-Pasted some of the context.

The modus of the Divine existence, as well as the modus of the Divine operations in creation, providence, and redemption, is, to our finite minds, the creatures of yesterday, wholly inscrutable and incomprehensible. On both, the Bible is silent. Becomes it us, then, to be dogmatical on such a theme, or to stretch our inquiries beyond the terra firma of revelation?

My principal objection to the popular doctrine of "the Trinity" is not that it is either irrational, or unscriptural, to infer that there are three Divine persons in one Divine nature. That these three equally have one thought, purpose, will, and operation, and so one God;--or, to use the words of the Westminster Confession, "In the Unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity;"

I say I object not to this doctrine because it is contrary to reason, or revelation,
This is where the Leonard Allen, John Mark Hicks etal stop quoting. Notice that this cannot be an accidence or ignorance.

<font color="#FFFFFF">.....
but because of the metaphysical technicalities,
.....the unintelligible jargon,
.....the unmeaning language of the orthodox creeds on this subject,
.....and the interminable war of words without ideas
.....to which the word Trinity has given birth.

For example, in the same section from which I have quoted the above words is found the following jargon: "The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

Were any one to ask me, Can there be three distinct persons, or even being, in one God? I would say,
.....Reason informs me not,
.....and revelation does not assert it.

But if asked, Can there be one, and [99] one three in the same sense?
.....I reply, Both reason and revelation say No.

But then no Trinitarian or Calvinist affirms that the three are one, and the one three, in the same sense.

</font>
Quote
Like
Share