Search results

I didn't say they were afraid of "the Church". They were afraid of losing their salvation because they were so indoctrinated with that belief. There are NO "Christophanies" in the OT (Theophanies and Christophanies).

Fear. They were so brainwashed by statements like, "If you reject the trinity you will be lost forever." Or, "You can't be a Christian unless you believe in the deity of Christ." Or, "If you deny the Son is God, you deny the Father as well." They also saw how men like Arian were treated and did...

What does that matter? Revisions can be towards truth or error. A revision towards error done to promote the trinity doctrine. The NT is founded upon the OT. The "logos" in the OT was not a person, but YHWH's spoken words, thought, reason, etc. Show me two witnesses from the OT where the...

Thayer's Definition: 1) himself, herself, themselves, itself 2) he, she, it LSJ Definition: reflexive Pron., self:—in oblique cases used for the personal Pron., him, her, it: Wycliffe translated from the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek. The KJV and the Douay Rheims are younger than the versions I...

The NET Bible part you quoted said, "tn Grk “but the body of Christ.” The term body here, when used in contrast to shadow (σκιά, skia) indicates theopposite meaning, i.e., the reality or substance itself." The "NETBible" stand for the New English Translation. The "tn" at the beginning of the...

Just as I suspected. Those are NOT notes from Strong's Concordance, but notes from the NETBible's deceived authors/"scholars". You will never find James Strong saying such foolishness. Yes, but Yeshua was not. He was slain in God's plan of salvation, but it did not become reality until the...

Please site the exact reference where you got that BS from. I know my original Strong's Concordance does not contain that BS. How do you know angels are not made in His image as well? Rev 13:8 says no such thing and John 1:1 says it ONLY if you read the Son into the text. I know you love to do...

That is exactly what I meant when I wrote I don't add words to the text or change the meaning of words to make it say what I want it to say. You add "that WERE (what was)" to come. The Greek says no such thing. Notice also the Greek word soma means "BODY", not "the reality is in". Notice...

Colossians 2:14-17 is used to prove that the weekly Sabbath as well as annual Sabbaths have been nailed to the cross. This view is incorrect and is based on several mistranslations, added words not found in any Greek texts, and poor Bible exegesis. Let's first determine the context of chapter...

I understand it perfectly because I don't add words to the text or change the meaning of words to make it say what I want it to say as lawless translators have done. As usual, you read whatever you want into a text. Here you read the Son into the text. You study Scripture like a child. Of...

They did NOT stone him for blasphemy or for claiming to be God. He did neither. Why did the Jews seek to stone him on that occasion? The context of John 8 shows that Yeshua; 1) accused the Pharisees of "judging after the flesh" (vs.15). 2) said they would die in their sins (vss.21,24). 3)...

No, not "BIG difference", but "BIG ASSUMPTION". The Being who spoke from the bush called Himself the "God of Abraham, the God of Issac, and the God of Jacob" (Exodus 3:6, 15-16). And what do we read in Acts 3:13a? "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath...

A typical BOL reply in which you read whatever you want into the text. I see nothing about blasphemy or any accusation of Yeshua claiming to be God or any words of Yeshua claiming to be God. The blind man of John 9 also said "I am" (ego eimi). Was he Yeshua in disguise or was he also the great...

Oy vey! I was referring to you bringing up 1 Corinthians 10:16, not 1 Corinthians 16:2. The reason I don't make sense to you is because you are so quick to try and refute me that you don't even read what I wrote! It is actually a combination of Malachi 1:11 & 14, but either way, "YHWH" is...

Why are you bringing up this subject again when we are discussing the first day of the week? Correct, I haven't changed it. This verse refers to Sunday. It does NOT refer to Paul's personal needs, but to the needs of believers starving in Judea. The work involved in loading all those supplies...

In Psalms 2:7, the Father is identified as YHWH and the Son is not. Since there are at least eight Scriptures that also declare there is only ONE YHWH, then the Father is that ONE YHWH whether you like it or not. I know the truth is hard to accept at first, but you need to put away the errors...

Where did I change the meaning of "first day of the week"? To me it means the day after the Sabbath. You show your ignorance here. YHWH was not displeased with His Sabbath, but with the Israelite's sins. Was He also displeased with worship services (vs.13) and prayer (vs.15)? I don't see you...

And what does the Bible say concerning Psalm 2:7? That YHWH is not Yeshua's Father??

Trinitarians also believe the Father is not the Son and vice versa. Since we know for a fact that Yeshua's Father is YHWH based on Psalms 2:7, then the Son cannot be YHWH. Don't forget to prove that the "Lord's day" in the Didache means Sunday even though the word "ημερα" is not in the Greek text.

Untrue unless you read "Sunday" into those words. Reference please.