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

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.

You and TrueJew need to go back to whoever taught you English grammar and give them a good slap.

No, unless you suffer from Multiple Personality Disorder, you are not "with" yourself all the time, you ARE yourself all the time. The word "with" is a preposition that requires two or more distinct things that are "with" each other.

reply to post by adjensen


So I guess being honest "with" yourself isn't a proper term? Or being happy "with" yourself isn't a real term either?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

So I guess being honest "with" yourself isn't a proper term? Or being happy "with" yourself isn't a real term either?

There are two things there -- you, and your honesty or happiness.

There is nothing wrong with saying that "the Word" is an attribute, like honesty or happiness, and thus that "the Word was with God", but then the other side, "the Word was God" breaks, because while God is honest, honesty is not God.

reply to post by adjensen


The Word was with God, the Word was God. The Scripture tells us who the Word is. Using the Greek "logos" philosophy to add meaning to the Scripture is not a proper way to interpret it.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

The Word was with God, the Word was God. The Scripture tells us who the Word is. Using the Greek "logos" philosophy to add meaning to the Scripture is not a proper way to interpret it.

So you dismiss the author of John as a Greek philosopher? Because the word in the original text is the Greek "Logos".

Regardless, as I have repeatedly noted, scripture alone proves you wrong, because unless "the Word" and "God" are two distinct things, "the Word" cannot be WITH God, and if you think it is an attribute or a thing, then you believe that an attribute or thing is God. There is no philosophy required -- grammatically, your theology fails, and the fact that you cannot refute that with clear, concise and logical statements is proof of it. A person with a fourth grade education in grammar can see your error in that passage.

reply to post by adjensen


You have two things when you're with yourself, your mind and your body. Your mind is with your body, so you are with yourself.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

You have two things when you're with yourself, your mind and your body. Your mind is with your body, so you are with yourself.

Are you intentionally being thick?

"Mind" and "Body" -- two distinct things. Your argument actually makes the point of Trinitarianism, though I'm sure that is accidental.

Seriously, stop arguing this point, you're just sounding like you need to go back to primary school for a remedial course on grammar.

reply to post by adjensen


Your mind and body are two things aren't they? So your mind is with your body, meaning you are with yourself all the time. It's actually very simple, maybe you need to take remedial classes again?

I never denied there was a Trinity did I?

I really don't understand why you feel the need to constantly attack other posters for their opinions. Thankfully I don't have to sink to your level to express my opinion, maybe you should learn to do the same?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

Your mind and body are two things aren't they? So your mind is with your body, meaning you are with yourself all the time.

You ARE yourself. You are not WITH yourself.

You're attempting to do something akin to saying "My hand is a separate thing from me, so 'my hand' and 'not my hand' demonstrates how I am with me." That makes zero sense.

reply to post by adjensen


My hand is with my body isn't it? Just as my hand is with my body, my mind is with my body, so I am with myself.

You are having a hard time grasping the concept it seems, though it's expected since you already have preconceived notions.

I can see this is going nowhere, so I will kindly exit the thread.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

So you dismiss the author of John as a Greek philosopher? Because the word in the original text is the Greek "Logos".

The word "logos" is different from the Greek "logos" philosophy.

Originally posted by adjensen

Regardless, as I have repeatedly noted, scripture alone proves you wrong, because unless "the Word" and "God" are two distinct things, "the Word" cannot be WITH God, and if you think it is an attribute or a thing, then you believe that an attribute or thing is God.

If the Word was God, the Word can not have a separate personality from God, unless you are claiming that God has multiple personality disorder.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

So you dismiss the author of John as a Greek philosopher? Because the word in the original text is the Greek "Logos".

The word "logos" is different from the Greek "logos" philosophy.

Then why use it?

Logos (pron.: /ˈloʊɡɒs/, UK /ˈlɒɡɒs/, or US /ˈloʊɡoʊs/; Greek: λόγος, from λέγω lego "I say") is an important term in philosophy, psychology, rhetoric, and religion. Originally a word meaning "a ground", "a plea", "an opinion", "an expectation", "word," "speech," "account," "reason,"it became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge.

Ancient philosophers used the term in different ways. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to refer to "reasoned discourse" or "the argument" in the field of rhetoric. The Stoic philosophers identified the term with the divine animating principle pervading the Universe.

Under Hellenistic Judaism, Philo (ca. 20 BC–AD 50) adopted the term into Jewish philosophy. The Gospel of John identifies the Logos, through which all things are made, as divine (theos), and further identifies Jesus as the incarnate Logos. (Source)

Sounds like the word existed, as a philosophical term, long before the author of John used it, so unless you think he was an idiot, it was used intentionally.

If the Word was God, the Word can not have a separate personality from God, unless you are claiming that God has multiple personality disorder.

Yes, the Word can be, and is, a separate person from the Father and Holy Spirit, which neatly solves the problem, while you are still struggling with basic definitions.

reply to post by adjensen


The only struggling I am seeing from your side. Struggling at times with polytheism and at other times struggling with a god with multiple personality disorder.

I am not struggling because I know that God has told us that He is one.

reply to post by truejew


I'm not struggling with anything. That passage clearly supports the claims of Trinitarianism and rejects Oneness theology. Your inability to provide a clear explanation, and my explanation, readable in the text, without resorting to your twisting or misinterpretation -- just a straightforward grammatical reading, makes the truth abundantly clear.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

I'm not struggling with anything. That passage clearly supports the claims of Trinitarianism and rejects Oneness theology. Your inability to provide a clear explanation, and my explanation, readable in the text, without resorting to your twisting or misinterpretation -- just a straightforward grammatical reading, makes the truth abundantly clear.

It says the Word was God, not the Word was a god.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

I'm not struggling with anything. That passage clearly supports the claims of Trinitarianism and rejects Oneness theology. Your inability to provide a clear explanation, and my explanation, readable in the text, without resorting to your twisting or misinterpretation -- just a straightforward grammatical reading, makes the truth abundantly clear.

It says the Word was God, not the Word was a god.

What's that supposed to mean? I never said "the Word was a god".

Originally posted by truejew

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.

The above is about Reckart's denial of the Trinity. I posted mistakes (changes) found in the KJV in my other reply. Post direction to the correct reply. They'll see the changes in those verses. Probably the reason
you didn't...

There are thousands of changes made to the KJV!! Is that enough imperfection for you? Why would you
bother? Logic should tell you, doesn't require faith, come closest the original writings and you can. Read the Douay-Rheims Bible. www.drbo.org... It is the word for word English translation of the first Bible, St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Latin was common language of the time.

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...

Check above, the response to Reckart's faked source to try and deny the truth of the Trinity.

It is reply #3. I never noticed about Matthew 28:19, see the underlined.

+ + +

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

Baptism

In addition to the necessary word "baptize", or its equivalent, it is also obligatory to mention the separate Persons of the Holy Trinity. This is the command of Christ to His Disciples, and as the sacrament has its efficacy from Him Who instituted it, we can not omit anything that He has prescribed. Nothing is more certain than that this has been the general understanding and practice of the Church. Tertullian tells us (On Baptism 13): "The law of baptism (tingendi) has been imposed and the form prescribed: Go, teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." St. Justin Martyr (First Apology 1) testifies to the practice in his time. St. Ambrose (On the Mysteries 4) declares: "Unless a person has been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, he can not obtain the remission of his sins," St. Cyprian (Epistle 72), rejecting the validity of baptism given in the name of Christ only, affirms that the naming of all the Persons of the Trinity was commanded by the Lord (in plena et adunata Trinitate). The same is declared by many other primitive writers, as St. Jerome (IV, in Matt.), Origen (De Principiis I.2), St. Athanasius (Against the Arians, Oration 4), St. Augustine (On Baptism 6.25). It is not, of course, absolutely necessary that the common names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be used, provided the Persons be expressed by words that are equivalent or synonymous. But a distinct naming of the Divine Persons is required and the form: "I baptize thee in the name of the Holy Trinity", would be of more than doubtful validity. The singular form "In the name", not "names", is also to be employed, as it expresses the unity of the Divine nature ...

Originally posted by colbe

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...

Check above, the response to Reckart's faked source to try and deny the truth of the Trinity.

It is reply #3. I never noticed about Matthew 28:19, see the underlined.

+ + +

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

Baptism

In addition to the necessary word "baptize", or its equivalent, it is also obligatory to mention the separate Persons of the Holy Trinity.

Note also that this is the format proscribed in the Didache (the Teachings of the Apostles) which reputable scholars date to the First or Second Century.

Reckart, on the other hand, who is not a scholar of ancient documents, dates it to 1000AD (Source). Apparently, his theory is that Eusebius, Athanasius and Rufinus all had time machines, in that they cited the work in the Fourth Century, 600 years before Reckart claims it was written.

reply to post by colbe

"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263

"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275