Many souls released from Purgatory on Christmas, pray AND on a commercial flight, Mother Teresa spea

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Yes, God's Word was God as the Scripture says.

There is no teaching in Scripture of God's Word being a separate person or god.

Of course there is -- it's right in that sentence. "and the Word was WITH God" and "He was WITH God in the beginning".

"He was with God" is a clear statement of two distinct persons. You can't be "with" yourself.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Yes, God's Word was God as the Scripture says.

There is no teaching in Scripture of God's Word being a separate person or god.

Of course there is -- it's right in that sentence. "and the Word was WITH God" and "He was WITH God in the beginning".

"He was with God" is a clear statement of two distinct persons. You can't be "with" yourself.

Is your word with you? Does that mean your word is a separate person?

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Yes, God's Word was God as the Scripture says.

There is no teaching in Scripture of God's Word being a separate person or god.

Of course there is -- it's right in that sentence. "and the Word was WITH God" and "He was WITH God in the beginning".

"He was with God" is a clear statement of two distinct persons. You can't be "with" yourself.

Is your word with you? Does that mean your word is a separate person?

So what is "the Word" in that passage? Are you saying it is an attribute?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Yes, God's Word was God as the Scripture says.

There is no teaching in Scripture of God's Word being a separate person or god.

Of course there is -- it's right in that sentence. "and the Word was WITH God" and "He was WITH God in the beginning".

"He was with God" is a clear statement of two distinct persons. You can't be "with" yourself.

Is your word with you? Does that mean your word is a separate person?

So what is "the Word" in that passage? Are you saying it is an attribute?

His Word is His Word. His Word was Himself.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Yes, God's Word was God as the Scripture says.

There is no teaching in Scripture of God's Word being a separate person or god.

Of course there is -- it's right in that sentence. "and the Word was WITH God" and "He was WITH God in the beginning".

"He was with God" is a clear statement of two distinct persons. You can't be "with" yourself.

Is your word with you? Does that mean your word is a separate person?

So what is "the Word" in that passage? Are you saying it is an attribute?

His Word is His Word. His Word was Himself.

So you're saying that the Word is a person, which invalidate your question "Is your word with you?"

Then we're right back at the inconsistency of the Word being God and the Word being WITH God. Something cannot be with itself, so the words "the Word was with God" are either wrong (and since it's stated twice in the passage, that seems highly unlikely) or whatever is being referenced as "the Word" and "God" in that sentence are two different things.

A Trinitarian understands it as "the Word was God" (Jesus is God) and "the Word was with the Father" (there are two separate persons being described.) Now, I know that it doesn't say "the Father", it says "God", but that may be the author's way of brokering the Trinity ("God" being shorthand for Father and Holy Spirit in that particular passage.)

As usual, you've attempted to dismiss the problems that "Oneness theology" has with this passage by being vague and changing your answers, but either way you want to put it, you have a fundamental problem -- if "the Word" is God, then the "with" part is a contradiction, as saying that someone is with themselves is irrational, and if "the Word" is a non-personal attribute or thing, then "the Word was God" is irrational, because an attribute or thing cannot be God.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Yes, God's Word was God as the Scripture says.

There is no teaching in Scripture of God's Word being a separate person or god.

Of course there is -- it's right in that sentence. "and the Word was WITH God" and "He was WITH God in the beginning".

"He was with God" is a clear statement of two distinct persons. You can't be "with" yourself.

Is your word with you? Does that mean your word is a separate person?

So what is "the Word" in that passage? Are you saying it is an attribute?

His Word is His Word. His Word was Himself.

So you're saying that the Word is a person, which invalidate your question "Is your word with you?"

Then we're right back at the inconsistency of the Word being God and the Word being WITH God. Something cannot be with itself, so the words "the Word was with God" are either wrong (and since it's stated twice in the passage, that seems highly unlikely) or whatever is being referenced as "the Word" and "God" in that sentence are two different things.

A Trinitarian understands it as "the Word was God" (Jesus is God) and "the Word was with the Father" (there are two separate persons being described.) Now, I know that it doesn't say "the Father", it says "God", but that may be the author's way of brokering the Trinity ("God" being shorthand for Father and Holy Spirit in that particular passage.)

As usual, you've attempted to dismiss the problems that "Oneness theology" has with this passage by being vague and changing your answers, but either way you want to put it, you have a fundamental problem -- if "the Word" is God, then the "with" part is a contradiction, as saying that someone is with themselves is irrational, and if "the Word" is a non-personal attribute or thing, then "the Word was God" is irrational, because an attribute or thing cannot be God.

His Word is with Him the same as our word is with us. His Word is also Himself. That is what the Scripture says. You do not need to create doctrine to explain it.

Telling God who He is instead of letting Him tell us who He is is not the way to go.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
So you're saying that the Word is a person, which invalidate your question "Is your word with you?"

Then we're right back at the inconsistency of the Word being God and the Word being WITH God. Something cannot be with itself, so the words "the Word was with God" are either wrong (and since it's stated twice in the passage, that seems highly unlikely) or whatever is being referenced as "the Word" and "God" in that sentence are two different things.

A Trinitarian understands it as "the Word was God" (Jesus is God) and "the Word was with the Father" (there are two separate persons being described.) Now, I know that it doesn't say "the Father", it says "God", but that may be the author's way of brokering the Trinity ("God" being shorthand for Father and Holy Spirit in that particular passage.)

As usual, you've attempted to dismiss the problems that "Oneness theology" has with this passage by being vague and changing your answers, but either way you want to put it, you have a fundamental problem -- if "the Word" is God, then the "with" part is a contradiction, as saying that someone is with themselves is irrational, and if "the Word" is a non-personal attribute or thing, then "the Word was God" is irrational, because an attribute or thing cannot be God.

His Word is with Him the same as our word is with us. His Word is also Himself. That is what the Scripture says.

Once again, you are presenting an irrational argument that fails to work within what the scripture says.

I asked you who or what "the Word" is, and you said it was God. Now you're trying to say that "the Word" is the same as "your word" or "my word", by which I presume you mean something akin to honesty, but that cannot be correct, because a) it doesn't say "his Word", it says "the Word", so it is not something of God's and b) "his Word" cannot be God because an attribute cannot be God.

If you want "the Word" to be a person, then "the Word was God" works, but in your Oneness, "the Word was with God" does not, because the grammar clearly requires more than one person; if you want "the Word" to be an attribute, then "the Word was with God" works, but "the Word was God" does not, and you cannot say that "the Word" means two different things in the same sentence.

John 1:1-2 works within a Trinitarian framework, it does not work within a Oneness framework, apart from the aforementioned inferring and misinterpretation of the text. The fact that you cannot clearly state your case, as I have done for mine, is evidence enough of that.

Originally posted by adjensen

Once again, you are presenting an irrational argument that fails to work within what the scripture says.

I am not presenting any argument, just Scripture. You have no Scripture that says that the Word is another person or god. You are interpreting the Scripture based on philosophy.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Once again, you are presenting an irrational argument that fails to work within what the scripture says.

I am not presenting any argument, just Scripture. You have no Scripture that says that the Word is another person or god. You are interpreting the Scripture based on philosophy.

No, I am not -- the scripture says the Word was God and that the Word was with God. The only way those two statements are valid is if there are two or more persons being described. In addition, John 1:2 personifies the Word by referring to the Word as "he", so the scripture clearly states that God is at least two persons, not a person and an attribute. Unless you can clearly explain your position, and defend it as rational, this one goes down as yet another failure of your theology.

Originally posted by adjensen

No, I am not

Yes, you are. You are using the Greek "logos" philosophy.

Originally posted by adjensen

-- the scripture says the Word was God and that the Word was with God. The only way those two statements are valid is if there are two or more persons being described.

My word is with me and my word is me. I am one person. God's Word was with Him and God's Word was Him. God is one God. There is no teaching of multiple persons or gods in Scripture to be able to interpret God's Word to be another person or god.

Originally posted by adjensen

In addition, John 1:2 personifies the Word by referring to the Word as "he",

The KJV does not have the "he". Even with the "he", there is no problem for us since the Word was God.

Originally posted by truejew
My word is with me and my word is me. I am one person. God's Word was with Him and God's Word was Him.

I return to the original question, what is "the Word" in that passage? Because you're not making any sense. No, you are not "your word" -- your word is an aspect of you, but it is not you.

Originally posted by adjensen

In addition, John 1:2 personifies the Word by referring to the Word as "he",

The KJV does not have the "he". Even with the "he", there is no problem for us since the Word was God.

Once again, you're ignoring the grammar of that sentence.

Unless it is a person, "the Word" is not a "he". By personifying "the Word", the author of John is clearly indicating that "the Word" and "God" are separate persons.

And I've seen both Reckart and various stooges of his saying that the KJV of the Bible is "satanic", so I don't think you want to rely on that translation for your support.

Originally posted by adjensen

I return to the original question, what is "the Word" in that passage? Because you're not making any sense. No, you are not "your word" -- your word is an aspect of you, but it is not you.

The Scripture tells us. The Word was God. It does not say second person of God or god number two.

Originally posted by adjensen

Unless it is a person, "the Word" is not a "he". By personifying "the Word", the author of John is clearly indicating that "the Word" and "God" are separate persons.

No, he was not. The Scripture says that the Word was God. It does not say they are separate persons.

Originally posted by adjensen

And I've seen both Reckart and various stooges of his saying that the KJV of the Bible is "satanic", so I don't think you want to rely on that translation for your support.

That is incorrect. Most of us use the KJV as our main Bible. Just because we do not see it as a perfect translation and are not KJV only, does not make it "satanic". Again, you should stop the slander.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

I return to the original question, what is "the Word" in that passage? Because you're not making any sense. No, you are not "your word" -- your word is an aspect of you, but it is not you.

The Scripture tells us. The Word was God. It does not say second person of God

Yes, it does, because a person cannot be "with" themselves. If "the Word" is simply a synonym for God, then "the Word was with God" and "He was with God in the beginning" makes no sense, and we know that it must make sense.

Ergo, either you're wrong or scripture is wrong. And I refuse to accept your authority over scripture's.

That is incorrect. Most of us use the KJV as our main Bible. Just because we do not see it as a perfect translation and are not KJV only, does not make it "satanic". Again, you should stop the slander.

You might want to check in with the boss, then, because I've seen them say those very words on Facebook and have the screenshots to prove it.

Originally posted by adjensen

Yes, it does, because a person cannot be "with" themselves.

God is not a human person. You have no God is three persons Scripture to be able to interpret John 1:1-2 the way you do.

Originally posted by adjensen

You might want to check in with the boss, then, because I've seen them say those very words on Facebook and have the screenshots to prove it.

I do not have a "boss".

Since I have seen Pastor Reckart use the KJV many, many times and because of your history of twisting and misunderstanding what we say and teach, I do not believe you.

In addition, I once again do not see what this has to do with John 1:1-2 or my use of the KJV. Your dislike for Pastor Reckart has become an unhealthy obsession.

reply to post by adjensen


You're "with" yourself all the time, otherwise you'd be apart from yourself and that is clearly not logical or true.

The bible says the word was god, meaning they were/are one and the same. The word is thought, because thought gives rise to words that are spoken. Your thoughts are invisible qualities of god. Read Romans 1:20 to get the context of my meaning.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Yes, it does, because a person cannot be "with" themselves.

God is not a human person. You have no God is three persons Scripture to be able to interpret John 1:1-2 the way you do.

Originally posted by adjensen

You might want to check in with the boss, then, because I've seen them say those very words on Facebook and have the screenshots to prove it.

I do not have a "boss".

Since I have seen Pastor Reckart use the KJV many, many times and because of your history of twisting and misunderstanding what we say and teach, I do not believe you.

In addition, I once again do not see what this has to do with John 1:1-2 or my use of the KJV. Your dislike for Pastor Reckart has become an unhealthy obsession.

First off, logical, King James was not a holy man so how could his paid translators be?

The KJV is full changes, which God specifically forbids. If you can't read Latin, read the English translation
of the Latin Vulgate, the first Bible. Read the Douay-Rheims Bible and trash the KJV. www.drbo.org...

The original 1611 King James has 30,000 changes~! Here, example of a few:


Luke 1:28

( King James Version) Hail, "thou that art highly favored,"our Lord is with thee

(Should Be) Hail "full of grace," our Lord is with thee.

Genesis 3:15

(King James Version) "Its" shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt "bruise his heel."

(Should Be) "She" shall bruise thy head in pieces and "thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

James 5:16

(King James Version)"Confess" your "faults,"

(Should Be) Confess," therefore, your "sins" one to another

Corinthians 9:5

(King James Version) Instead of "woman", they translate "wife" here also

(Should Be) Have not we power to lead about a "woman", a sister

Acts 20:28

(King James Version) Where in the Holy Ghost hath made you "overseers, to feed the church" of God

(should Be) Take need to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you "bishops to rule the church" of God

Matthew 11:10

(King James Version) Instead of "angel" they say "messenger"

(should Be) For this is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send mine "angle" before thy face.

1 Timothy 9:14

(King James Version)For the word "graces" they say "gift" and " presbytery" the Greek word rather than the English word, "priesthood

(should Be) Neglect not the "graces" that is in thee, which is given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of "priesthood."

1 Timothy 3:8

(King James Version) Likewise must the "deacons" be "grave"

(should Be) "Deacons" in like manner "chaste," not double-tongued

James 5:14

(King James Version) Elders for "priests" here also

(should Be) Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the "priests" of the church, and let them pray over him

Acts 15:2

( King James Version) The "priest" they say her also "elders"

(should Be) They appointed that Paul and Barnabas should go up and certain other of the rest, to the apostles and "priests" unto Jerusalem.

Genesis 47:31

( King James Version) And "Israel bowed himself upon" the bed’s head

(should Be) "Israel adored God, turning to "the bed’s head.

Romans 11:4

(King James Version)I have left me seven thousand men that have not bowed their knees to "the image of" Baal

(should Be) I have left me seven thousand men that have not bowed their knees to Baal

Genesis 37:35

( King James Version) I will go down into the "grave"

(should Be) I will go down to my son into "hell" mourning

Genesis 42:38

(King James Version) For "hell" they also say "grave"

(should Be) You will bring down my grey hair with sorrow unto "hell"

3 King 2:6,9

(King James Version) "To the grave

(should Be) Unto "hell"

Hosea 6:14

( King James Version) O death, I will be thy "plagues;" O "grave", I will be thy destruction

(should Be) O death, I will be thy death; I will be thy sting, O "hell"

2 Timothy 4:8

(King James Version) For "justice" they translate to righteousness and for a "just Judge" they say a righteous judge

(should Be) Concerning the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of "just ice," which our Lord will render to me in that day, a just Judge

1 Timothy 5: 17

(King James Version) "Elders" also in this Bible

(should Be) The "priests" that rule will, let them be esteemed worthy of double honor

I checked, maybe it has already been shared, sorry if it has...

I wondered about Reckart's writings.

Here's one ~

Catholics Covering Up Proof that Matthew 28:19 was Corrupted by "Trinitarians"

and discussion to follow:

forums.catholic.com...

Originally posted by colbe
I checked, maybe it has already been shared, sorry if it has...

I wondered about Reckart's writings.

Here's one ~

Catholics Covering Up Proof that Matthew 28:19 was Corrupted by "Trinitarians"

and discussion to follow:

forums.catholic.com...

I am not saying the KJV is perfect. I am not KJV only. My teaching that Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7 are corrupt in the KJV is the evidence of that.

I however do not teach that the KJV is "satanic" as a whole as Adjensen claims and I doubt very much that Pastor Reckart does either. That is based on me seeing him use the KJV and comments he has made in the past.

Originally posted by colbe

First off, logical, King James was not a holy man so how could his paid translators be?

Neither were the mostly trinitarian translators of the KJV and other versions.

Originally posted by colbe

The KJV is full changes, which God specifically forbids.

Other translations make changes also.

Again, I do not claim that the KJV is perfect, which should be obvious to you by now. I however do not claim it to be "satanic" as a whole as Adjensen claims I do.

Originally posted by colbe
I checked, maybe it has already been shared, sorry if it has...

I wondered about Reckart's writings.

Here's one ~

Catholics Covering Up Proof that Matthew 28:19 was Corrupted by "Trinitarians"

and discussion to follow:

forums.catholic.com...

The link you posted shows that there is no corruption and the Trinity I indeed in that verse. Try again?

28:19 πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

That is the verse 19. There is so much wrong with verse 19 "discovered" by Reckart it's laughable. And I never use the KJV, I find the translation to be horrible.