Trinitarians Godheadians, Can Their Translations Defend The Trinity Doctrine Of Trinity Faith System

[Bob Carabbio]

recently, this has been my main question to the Trinitarian world concerning - Hebrews 10 : 12

I have contacted and written to every faithful trinitarian that I can contact, I have posted and expressed this question to all of the trinitarian world - this is the question that I have worked on day and night, working to assemble my question in the most clear and precise way.

and I have looked at the original manuscripts Greek - we find exactly what the manuscripts are saying - in Hebrews 10 : 12


Please notice the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT MESSAGE

Heb 10:12 - ORIGINAL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS


HIM NOW THE ONE FOR SIN,, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN “ εν IN “ THE RIGHT OF GOD

Translated word for word exactly -- here
:12


αυτος Him - δε now - μιαν the one - υπερ for - αμαρτιων sin - προσενεγκας offered up -

θυσιαν a sacrifice - εις into - το that - διηνεκες forever - εκαθισεν set down - εν IN -

δεξια the right - του of - θεου God​

The manuscripts are saying - exactly = :12 -


HIM NOW THE ONE FOR SIN,, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN “ εν IN “ THE RIGHT OF GOD

Meaning that Jesus is - { FOREVER TO DWELL “ εν IN “ - IN THE RIGHT OF GOD ) - ACCORDING TO THE MANUSCRIPT ORIGINAL MESSAGE -


but the Protestant Trinitarian translation omits and changes this to say that

JESUS OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR EVER,,,, - SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD;


this is much different from the original that says that - FOR SIN,,, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN IN THE RIGHT OF GOD. please, can the Trinitarian answer, when does Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand of God ? ?

and why did Protestants change the Catholic translation by simply moving the punctuation mark of a " Comma " " , " instead of just translating the verse as the original message is transmitted in the manuscript.


in Hebrews 10:12 - it is very interesting about the Trinity Doctrine in that how the Catholic Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate contradict and disagree with the contrasting Protestant K.J.V.



1. Firstly - Let's look at - Heb 10:12 first from the - Catholic Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate

Heb 10:12 :12 But this man, offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God,



2. and now - the Protestant K.J.V.

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;



what we see here - in the enormous contradiction and massive difference between these two translations is that the Catholic Translation states that Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins, - then a comma " , " Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins, - - ( FOLLOWED BY A COMMA PUNCTUATION MARKING ))

the Catholic translations go on to say " for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, " - - so the Catholics explain the Trinity to say for sure - Jesus - for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, however the contradiction and difference is that the Protestant K.J.V. places a comma after the word " forever " - to say that Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, then the comma " , "

followed by - , sat down on the right hand of God.

The K.J.V removes the message that says that Jesus for ever sitteth on the right hand of God because eventually Trinitarians realized that their translation expressly says that Jesus is NOT forever sitting on the right hand of God.


we see verse - - :13 FROM HENCEFORTH EXPECTING UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE HIS FOOTSTOOL.
and
Mar 12:36 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy enemies thy footstool.
Luk 20:42 Sit thou ON my right hand, - UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Act 2:34 Sit thou ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy foes thy footstool.
Heb 1:13 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool?


the translators later translating the Protestant K.J.V. attempted to fix this contradiction by moving and shuffling the punctuation to move the " comma > - NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE



Protestant K.J.V. - - After he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever ,,,,, - sat down ON the right hand of God;

vs the Catholic

Catholic Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate - - Offering one sacrifice for sins,,,,, - for ever sitteth ON the right hand of God,




Protestants realizing that they cannot believe in a Trinitarian Jesus who forever sits ON the right hand of Trinitarian God - yet they cannot believe in a Jesus who is not a Trinitarian

so they adjust and simply move a punctuation mark to deny and diminish the very deity of Jesus that had been instituted in the confusing and contradiction of the Trinity Contradiction instituted by their Roman Catholic mother. Can Protestants to this day provide answer to the question using their Translation, - when does Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand of God ? ? ?

do Trinitarians simply take this question to simply mean to them - when is the seating arrangement in heaven changed for the Trinitarian Jesus

is this something that Trinitarians can answer ? because the original manuscripts of the New Testament are so clear and so precise to explain that Jesus is NOW IN the right of God and this is eternal - as they replace the word IN with the words - AT and ON . - can the Trinitarian provide an answer to this Trinity question from their translations as to why the Catholic translation contradicts and also the Protestant translation ?

when does Trinitarian Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand of God ? ? ?

But this is not at all what the original manuscripts are saying - this is a complete mistranslation and alteration from what the original Greek manuscript message says, this is completely changing and altering the message of the manuscript.
Please notice the - ORIGINAL GREEK MANUSCRIPT MESSAGE

Heb 10:12 - ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS
HIM NOW THE ONE FOR SIN, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN “ εν IN “ THE RIGHT OF GOD

Translated word for word exactly -- here - :12

αυτος Him - δε now - μιαν the one - υπερ for - αμαρτιων sin - προσενεγκας offered up -

θυσιαν a sacrifice - εις into - το that - διηνεκες forever - εκαθισεν set down - εν IN -

δεξια the right - του of - θεου God​

The manuscripts are saying - exactly = :12 - HIM NOW THE ONE FOR SIN,, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN “ εν IN “ THE RIGHT OF GOD

Meaning that Jesus is - { FOREVER TO DWELL “ εν IN “ - IN THE RIGHT OF GOD )
ACCORDING TO THE MANUSCRIPT ORIGINAL MESSAGE -

this is much different when the original that says -

FOR SIN,, HE OFFERED UP ONE SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN IN THE RIGHT OF GOD

truly, how can this contradiction between the two translations and this question in its authenticity be resolved or even answered from the Trinitarian translations ?

.
Can my Trinitarian friends to this day provide answer to the question using their Translation, -

when does Trinitarian Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand o f God ? ? ?

their translations says - - :13 FROM HENCEFORTH EXPECTING UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE HIS FOOTSTOOL.

Trinitarian Jesus is expecting that he will maintain his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit ON the right hand of God - until his enemies be made a footstool ..
when does Trinitarian Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand o f God ? ? ?

please keep in mind the Trinitarian does not rely upon the Manuscripts nor their own Trinitarian Translation for their Trinity Faith System

WOW!!! - that was a lot of work for nothing!!!

As has been pointed out, at John's baptism of Jesus, you've got Jesus in the river, God the Father speaking audibly from Heaven, AND the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove lighting upon Jesus and remaining.

SHAZAM!!!! The "Trinity" and nobody ducking into phone booths to change clothes (Modalism)!!

No "Doctrine required", and of course since the Absolute Fullness and nature of God is, and always will be a mystery (till later when we KNOW eve as we are known). Inevitably, "doctrines" that man, out of his "wisdom" and "ability" produces will be incomplete, and "trinitarian discussions" always devolve into "Word games".

Jesus apparently DOES NOT lapse back into being the WORD who is the One who became flesh in the incarnation, but REMAINS in glorified HUMAN FORM (since we'll be "Like Him"). Nothing in your rhetoric suggests that Jesus, on the right hand of God. is going anywhere, or loses his place.

SO personally, I couldn't CARE LESS about "Trinitarian doctrine". Biblically GOD IS ONE!! - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The rest (and the supposed "contradictions" are nothing but "Theology". All God's Chilluns got's "Theologies".

 

[Christ4Ever]

I agree with most of what you just said, except I don't think I called anyone a Pharisee, Buddhist, etc. Just gave examples of how they are similar and it wasn't me that criticized them. It was Jesus. He called them offspring of vipers, the blind that lead the blind, called them hypocrites, said they were fools and blind guides, said they were from their father the devil. Do you think Jesus insulted them? If the Bible says it I believe it.

When I was a young man and began to discover some of the Bible truths that contradicted what the church teaches of course my parents freaked out and sent a minister to talk to me, which I was and still am completely open to. He was a likable young man a few years older the me. When I asked him questions he would tell me what the believed and I said "I understand that's what you believe, could you show me in the Bible where it says that, and he really could not.

Fellow Member Hat:
Glad you agree with most, but you should agree that the insinuation of those who believe as I do, fall in with the Pharisees', Buddhist, etc. which is roughly the same as calling us those things which is what you did, though you left the names out to protect the innocent so to speak. Now, if I were to state to another to not worry about what they say, because you know the Devil is a liar. Well I am not calling you the devil am I? However, the insinuation is there that puts you in the same boat as him and of the same character. To be clear that is my issue against what you posted to Butch5.

I can't say that my studies were of the normal type. It would have been nice to have had a Minister to bounce things off of! Spent a couple of years with the Jehovah Witness', a couple with the Christian Scientists', and of course spend a few with the Catholics in a Boys' Home, during a time in the 60's that were heavy into New Age, Metaphysics as well! This was all done on the behest of my mother, who was well intentioned, and was of the belief that if they talked Jesus, they must be okay! She was a woman of simple faith, but though well read in worldly affairs, was not involved in the deeper studies of Scripture. Being of a Spanish culture, it was not a place for women of her time, born 1910, and the most accepting at that time was religious studies in a Convent. While my dad was 20 years older then her, he did not come to the Lord until right before he died when he was 70. Which placed me at 10 yrs. of age, so except for seeing him read the Bible every night, no conversations on God's Word ever happened. Be grateful that your parents were concerned enough to seek guidance for you, though it appears it was not fruitful. At least in the way I am sure your parents would have wanted it to be!

Now, I know what Jesus called the religious leaders of the day, but to use local vernacular here, "you ain't no Jesus brother". He knew their thoughts, being the Son of God and all. I doubt you know mine or others which can be as varied as there are stars in the Heavens.

Like you I won't repeat what I have already posted. That you do not accept it, is up to you, as is my acceptance or lack thereof as it pertains to what you have written and believe to be true.

Moderator Hat:
I have been honest with you both in PM, and in open forum. You might disagree, but as a fellow member I have no problem for the most part with what and how communications have happened. However, and this is the big one. I also wear the hat of a Moderator, and as such cannot abide with those who go against the SOF of the site in a disparaging manner. No matter how well intentioned the person may be.

As an example, there is a site out there that is heavy into the Rapture. Post content against the rapture, and you will see yourself gone in no time at all. So regardless of how you believe to have the justification to post what is considered anti-Trinitarian postings. Here you can do so, but the right to send you packing is Talk Jesus'. Sites will always control what is acceptable and what is not regardless of how members feel concerning those restrictions. End

With the Love of Christ Jesus ST.
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[theLeadmonger]

recently, this has been my main question to the Trinitarian world concerning - Hebrews 10 : 12

I have contacted and written to every faithful trinitarian that I can contact, I have posted and expressed this question to all of the trinitarian world - this is the question that I have worked on day and night, working to assemble my question in the most clear and precise way.

and I have looked at the original manuscripts Greek - we find exactly what the manuscripts are saying - in Hebrews 10 : 12


Please notice the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT MESSAGE

Heb 10:12 - ORIGINAL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS


HIM NOW THE ONE FOR SIN,, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN “ εν IN “ THE RIGHT OF GOD

Translated word for word exactly -- here
:12


αυτος Him - δε now - μιαν the one - υπερ for - αμαρτιων sin - προσενεγκας offered up -

θυσιαν a sacrifice - εις into - το that - διηνεκες forever - εκαθισεν set down - εν IN -

δεξια the right - του of - θεου God​

The manuscripts are saying - exactly = :12 -


HIM NOW THE ONE FOR SIN,, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN “ εν IN “ THE RIGHT OF GOD

Meaning that Jesus is - { FOREVER TO DWELL “ εν IN “ - IN THE RIGHT OF GOD ) - ACCORDING TO THE MANUSCRIPT ORIGINAL MESSAGE -


but the Protestant Trinitarian translation omits and changes this to say that

JESUS OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR EVER,,,, - SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD;


this is much different from the original that says that - FOR SIN,,, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN IN THE RIGHT OF GOD. please, can the Trinitarian answer, when does Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand of God ? ?

and why did Protestants change the Catholic translation by simply moving the punctuation mark of a " Comma " " , " instead of just translating the verse as the original message is transmitted in the manuscript.


in Hebrews 10:12 - it is very interesting about the Trinity Doctrine in that how the Catholic Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate contradict and disagree with the contrasting Protestant K.J.V.



1. Firstly - Let's look at - Heb 10:12 first from the - Catholic Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate

Heb 10:12 :12 But this man, offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God,



2. and now - the Protestant K.J.V.

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;



what we see here - in the enormous contradiction and massive difference between these two translations is that the Catholic Translation states that Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins, - then a comma " , " Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins, - - ( FOLLOWED BY A COMMA PUNCTUATION MARKING ))

the Catholic translations go on to say " for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, " - - so the Catholics explain the Trinity to say for sure - Jesus - for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, however the contradiction and difference is that the Protestant K.J.V. places a comma after the word " forever " - to say that Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, then the comma " , "

followed by - , sat down on the right hand of God.

The K.J.V removes the message that says that Jesus for ever sitteth on the right hand of God because eventually Trinitarians realized that their translation expressly says that Jesus is NOT forever sitting on the right hand of God.


we see verse - - :13 FROM HENCEFORTH EXPECTING UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE HIS FOOTSTOOL.
and
Mar 12:36 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy enemies thy footstool.
Luk 20:42 Sit thou ON my right hand, - UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Act 2:34 Sit thou ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy foes thy footstool.
Heb 1:13 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool?


the translators later translating the Protestant K.J.V. attempted to fix this contradiction by moving and shuffling the punctuation to move the " comma > - NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE



Protestant K.J.V. - - After he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever ,,,,, - sat down ON the right hand of God;

vs the Catholic

Catholic Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate - - Offering one sacrifice for sins,,,,, - for ever sitteth ON the right hand of God,




Protestants realizing that they cannot believe in a Trinitarian Jesus who forever sits ON the right hand of Trinitarian God - yet they cannot believe in a Jesus who is not a Trinitarian

so they adjust and simply move a punctuation mark to deny and diminish the very deity of Jesus that had been instituted in the confusing and contradiction of the Trinity Contradiction instituted by their Roman Catholic mother. Can Protestants to this day provide answer to the question using their Translation, - when does Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand of God ? ? ?

do Trinitarians simply take this question to simply mean to them - when is the seating arrangement in heaven changed for the Trinitarian Jesus

is this something that Trinitarians can answer ? because the original manuscripts of the New Testament are so clear and so precise to explain that Jesus is NOW IN the right of God and this is eternal - as they replace the word IN with the words - AT and ON . - can the Trinitarian provide an answer to this Trinity question from their translations as to why the Catholic translation contradicts and also the Protestant translation ?

when does Trinitarian Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand of God ? ? ?

But this is not at all what the original manuscripts are saying - this is a complete mistranslation and alteration from what the original Greek manuscript message says, this is completely changing and altering the message of the manuscript.
Please notice the - ORIGINAL GREEK MANUSCRIPT MESSAGE

Heb 10:12 - ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS
HIM NOW THE ONE FOR SIN, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN “ εν IN “ THE RIGHT OF GOD

Translated word for word exactly -- here - :12

αυτος Him - δε now - μιαν the one - υπερ for - αμαρτιων sin - προσενεγκας offered up -

θυσιαν a sacrifice - εις into - το that - διηνεκες forever - εκαθισεν set down - εν IN -

δεξια the right - του of - θεου God​

The manuscripts are saying - exactly = :12 - HIM NOW THE ONE FOR SIN,, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN “ εν IN “ THE RIGHT OF GOD

Meaning that Jesus is - { FOREVER TO DWELL “ εν IN “ - IN THE RIGHT OF GOD )
ACCORDING TO THE MANUSCRIPT ORIGINAL MESSAGE -

this is much different when the original that says -

FOR SIN,, HE OFFERED UP ONE SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN IN THE RIGHT OF GOD

truly, how can this contradiction between the two translations and this question in its authenticity be resolved or even answered from the Trinitarian translations ?

.
Can my Trinitarian friends to this day provide answer to the question using their Translation, -

when does Trinitarian Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand o f God ? ? ?

their translations says - - :13 FROM HENCEFORTH EXPECTING UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE HIS FOOTSTOOL.

Trinitarian Jesus is expecting that he will maintain his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit ON the right hand of God - until his enemies be made a footstool ..
when does Trinitarian Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand o f God ? ? ?

please keep in mind the Trinitarian does not rely upon the Manuscripts nor their own Trinitarian Translation for their Trinity Faith System

Nice throwdown. All doctrine is defended by means of logic. Think about the 95 Thesis, Luther cited an opening and a closing verse, and used statements to connect the two by way of argument. Formally speaking, logic is analysis of grammar for truth values on the basis of soundness and validity, anterior to content. Your long list of Chapter and verse citations in these senses is really just "mixed media assorted materials", sorry, but absolutely any book or writing can be logically analyzed, reading is not logic, and neither is quotation, even if you have long strings memorized like a Japanese world champion Pi reciter. Reading is reading. in the case of the Scripture, prayer is ontology, and might be ontology in every instance, what a world this world be if both press owners and logic teachers actually said their prayers before they went to work!

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings,

what a world this world be if both press owners and logic teachers actually said their prayers before they went to work!

.... as well as every one else!


Bless you ....><>

 

[Christ4Ever]

Nice throwdown. All doctrine is defended by means of logic. Think about the 95 Thesis, Luther cited an opening and a closing verse, and used statements to connect the two by way of argument. Formally speaking, logic is analysis of grammar for truth values on the basis of soundness and validity, anterior to content. Your long list of Chapter and verse citations in these senses is really just "mixed media assorted materials", sorry, but absolutely any book or writing can be logically analyzed, reading is not logic, and neither is quotation, even if you have long strings memorized like a Japanese world champion Pi reciter. Reading is reading. in the case of the Scripture, prayer is ontology, and might be ontology in every instance, what a world this world be if both press owners and logic teachers actually said their prayers before they went to work!

Dear Brother,
I wonder in what category of logic falls Holy Spirit guidance and understanding?
This came to mind when I was posing the above question to you, and that is the floating Axe head spoken of in 2 Kings 6.
For surely man's logic without the Holy Spirit falls short of explaining much less comprehending Scripture.

Anyway, I was just curious and thought I would ask.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Searchingtoo]

Fellow Member Hat:
Glad you agree with most, but you should agree that the insinuation of those who believe as I do, fall in with the Pharisees', Buddhist, etc. which is roughly the same as calling us those things which is what you did, though you left the names out to protect the innocent so to speak. Now, if I were to state to another to not worry about what they say, because you know the Devil is a liar. Well I am not calling you the devil am I? However, the insinuation is there that puts you in the same boat as him and of the same character. To be clear that is my issue against what you posted to Butch5.

I can't say that my studies were of the normal type. It would have been nice to have had a Minister to bounce things off of! Spent a couple of years with the Jehovah Witness', a couple with the Christian Scientists', and of course spend a few with the Catholics in a Boys' Home, during a time in the 60's that were heavy into New Age, Metaphysics as well! This was all done on the behest of my mother, who was well intentioned, and was of the belief that if they talked Jesus, they must be okay! She was a woman of simple faith, but though well read in worldly affairs, was not involved in the deeper studies of Scripture. Being of a Spanish culture, it was not a place for women of her time, born 1910, and the most accepting at that time was religious studies in a Convent. While my dad was 20 years older then her, he did not come to the Lord until right before he died when he was 70. Which placed me at 10 yrs. of age, so except for seeing him read the Bible every night, no conversations on God's Word ever happened. Be grateful that your parents were concerned enough to seek guidance for you, though it appears it was not fruitful. At least in the way I am sure your parents would have wanted it to be!

Now, I know what Jesus called the religious leaders of the day, but to use local vernacular here, "you ain't no Jesus brother". He knew their thoughts, being the Son of God and all. I doubt you know mine or others which can be as varied as there are stars in the Heavens.

Like you I won't repeat what I have already posted. That you do not accept it, is up to you, as is my acceptance or lack thereof as it pertains to what you have written and believe to be true.

Moderator Hat:
I have been honest with you both in PM, and in open forum. You might disagree, but as a fellow member I have no problem for the most part with what and how communications have happened. However, and this is the big one. I also wear the hat of a Moderator, and as such cannot abide with those who go against the SOF of the site in a disparaging manner. No matter how well intentioned the person may be.

As an example, there is a site out there that is heavy into the Rapture. Post content against the rapture, and you will see yourself gone in no time at all. So regardless of how you believe to have the justification to post what is considered anti-Trinitarian postings. Here you can do so, but the right to send you packing is Talk Jesus'. Sites will always control what is acceptable and what is not regardless of how members feel concerning those restrictions. End

With the Love of Christ Jesus ST.
Nick
\o/
<><

My dear Nick, The Pharisees and scribes were the religious leaders of their time and so I don't believe they would represent the vast majority of Christendom and I was not referring to those that sit in the pews of churches. However those that sit at the head of the churches is a different story. These are also the ones that Jesus criticized. Over the years I have had in-depth conversations with many church leaders including pastors and priests. Some of them were former pastors that left the ministry for various reasons, some financial and some for doctrinal reasons. A high percentage of them, after some discussion admitted they were wrong in their teaching of this but didn't think I was important. Still untrue though. They are the ones that are blind guides. Don't forget that in Rev. 18:4, referring to Babylon the great (false religion), God said "get out of her my people if you don't want to share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. God called them "my people" but if they are involved in false beliefs they will suffer with everyone else.

 

[Christ4Ever]

You're waisting your time Butch5, but have at it if it confirms what you know and makes your faith stronger. Arguing with such people is like trying to tell the 1st century Pharisees and scribes that Jesus was the messiah. Some people are just closed minded and don't want to be confused with the facts. For me it is always more rewarding to talk to unbelievers that don't have preconceived ideas and are willing to have an honest discussion about the truth. "This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines." Neither the Jews or 1st century Christians (those that knew him best) believed that Jesus was God.

I have spoken to many Christians that believe that the Pharisees and scribes are a type of the modern-day Christendom/Babylon. In other words Babylon the great as spoken of in Revelation. Babylon the great is portrayed as false religion in Revelation chapter 18. In Rev. 18:4 Christians are told to "Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues." It seems that some of Gods people are in Babylon the great/false religion and must get out if they want to be saved from destruction.

My dear Nick, The Pharisees and scribes were the religious leaders of their time and so I don't believe they would represent the vast majority of Christendom and I was not referring to those that sit in the pews of churches. However those that sit at the head of the churches is a different story. These are also the ones that Jesus criticized. Over the years I have had in-depth conversations with many church leaders including pastors and priests. Some of them were former pastors that left the ministry for various reasons, some financial and some for doctrinal reasons. A high percentage of them, after some discussion admitted they were wrong in their teaching of this but didn't think I was important. Still untrue though. They are the ones that are blind guides. Don't forget that in Rev. 18:4, referring to Babylon the great (false religion), God said "get out of her my people if you don't want to share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. God called them "my people" but if they are involved in false beliefs they will suffer with everyone else.

Dear ST,
In retrospect on what you wrote to Brother Butch5 (above) I am curious on why you would try to create a strawman argument to Brother Butch5 concerning me and sadly due to my own fault continue to use it with me as if somehow it was well evidenced in our discussion and something that Brother Butch5 should know and be in agreement with? Your attempt to giving me an ideology that I do not have, just blows me away. It makes for a good lie in the method used by the Serpent in the Garden of Eden with Eve.

Should I be like you and now create my own strawman argument on how Modalism was thought to have been put to bed by the early church leaders, but now these errant theologies are coming back in these End of Days and then lay them at your doorstep since that is what you believe?

What you failed to see was that Brother Butch5 and I were having a pleasant enough conversation. Back and forth of course since we are on differing sides of this topic, but still it was fruitful, and without animosity. Moderator Br. Bear being concerned made comment to ensure there would be no unpleasantries. Both Brother Butch5 and I replied that there was none. So, why did you insert yourself into this conversation we were having, including and now continuing on with an argument originated by you in your post to Brother Butch5?

Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Searchingtoo]

Dear ST,
In retrospect on what you wrote to Brother Butch5 (above) I am curious on why you would try to create a strawman argument to Brother Butch5 concerning me and sadly due to my own fault continue to use it with me as if somehow it was well evidenced in our discussion and something that Brother Butch5 should know and be in agreement with? Your attempt to giving me an ideology that I do not have, just blows me away. It makes for a good lie in the method used by the Serpent in the Garden of Eden with Eve.

Should I be like you and now create my own strawman argument on how Modalism was thought to have been put to bed by the early church leaders, but now these errant theologies are coming back in these End of Days and then lay them at your doorstep since that is what you believe?

What you failed to see was that Brother Butch5 and I were having a pleasant enough conversation. Back and forth of course since we are on differing sides of this topic, but still it was fruitful, and without animosity. Moderator Br. Bear being concerned made comment to ensure there would be no unpleasantries. Both Brother Butch5 and I replied that there was none. So, why did you insert yourself into this conversation we were having, including and now continuing on with an argument originated by you in your post to Brother Butch5?

Nick
\o/
<><









The above opening comment here which can be seen as nothing but an attempt to stop the conversation between Brother Brutch5 and myself from continuing. I ask myself why insert himself into a conversation that was pleasant enough, and doing so in a manner that can only be seen as an attempt to derail it? I am not a mind reader, and truly know nothing about your motivations. So, only you know why you did it.





So, instead of actually taking our words for it, you wrote that opening comment to dissuade Brother Butch5 from continuing what you believed to be a fruitless conversation with me. Doing so in a way that I saw as an attempt to put myself, in the same boat as Pharisees and scribes, who were closed minded and don't want to be confused with the facts type of people!!! I'm sure you believe what you posted there, but instead of letting him know your thoughts in private (PM), you did it in open forum, to ensure I'd see them and to derail the conversation we were having!

I'm sorry but I really have no idea what you are saying. All I did was make a comment on a post that was brought to my attention by an email that I got from Jesus Talk. I thought it was an open discussion and didn't realize it was just for the 2 of you. If you don't want me to comment just stop sending me notices.

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings @Searchingtoo

Thank you for offering your apologies.
Please understand that receiving notices from TalkJesus does not in any way force any member to post anything. It is always each member's choice to post or not post.

Please excuse me but I am somewhat concerned that a person like yourself, who can write reasonably full posts, can not see what another has posted with repetition to you.

The situation at hand is explained very clearly in the last post to you from @Christ4Ever , yet, for some reason you either can not see it or, you choose to ignore it.

Please read through that post again and look for how your actions/words might have offended another.

Let me know that you have wholesome intentions and that you are able to realize a need for an apology, not for not understanding but for understanding. It is the way forward and the way of love.


Bless you ....><>

 

[theLeadmonger]

Dear Brother,
I wonder in what category of logic falls Holy Spirit guidance and understanding?
This came to mind when I was posing the above question to you, and that is the floating Axe head spoken of in 2 Kings 6.
For surely man's logic without the Holy Spirit falls short of explaining much less comprehending Scripture.

Anyway, I was just curious and thought I would ask.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

Prayer is prior ontology (Ontology: use your atomic spelling for definition. On To Logic.) the answers from the Holy Spirit by way of response are posterior ontology. Anterior is prior, first things. Posterior is after that, last things. You pray, for guidance in your Bible studies. As a theologian, you mean to present a good and complete logical doctrine to your well educated experienced parishioners on Sabbath, and the Holy Spirit answers you with divine spiritual guidance. The logic part is your own pastoral work next to the guttering candle in your ancient scriptorium. So is that complete concordance you're producing as your legacy to the church foundation you serve.

 

[Br. Bear]

Bubbles pop

 

[theLeadmonger]

Bubbles pop

I didn't own a dot com...

 

[theLeadmonger]

recently, this has been my main question to the Trinitarian world concerning - Hebrews 10 : 12

I have contacted and written to every faithful trinitarian that I can contact, I have posted and expressed this question to all of the trinitarian world - this is the question that I have worked on day and night, working to assemble my question in the most clear and precise way.

and I have looked at the original manuscripts Greek - we find exactly what the manuscripts are saying - in Hebrews 10 : 12


Please notice the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT MESSAGE

Heb 10:12 - ORIGINAL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS


HIM NOW THE ONE FOR SIN,, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN “ εν IN “ THE RIGHT OF GOD

Translated word for word exactly -- here
:12


αυτος Him - δε now - μιαν the one - υπερ for - αμαρτιων sin - προσενεγκας offered up -

θυσιαν a sacrifice - εις into - το that - διηνεκες forever - εκαθισεν set down - εν IN -

δεξια the right - του of - θεου God​

The manuscripts are saying - exactly = :12 -


HIM NOW THE ONE FOR SIN,, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN “ εν IN “ THE RIGHT OF GOD

Meaning that Jesus is - { FOREVER TO DWELL “ εν IN “ - IN THE RIGHT OF GOD ) - ACCORDING TO THE MANUSCRIPT ORIGINAL MESSAGE -


but the Protestant Trinitarian translation omits and changes this to say that

JESUS OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR EVER,,,, - SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD;


this is much different from the original that says that - FOR SIN,,, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN IN THE RIGHT OF GOD. please, can the Trinitarian answer, when does Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand of God ? ?

and why did Protestants change the Catholic translation by simply moving the punctuation mark of a " Comma " " , " instead of just translating the verse as the original message is transmitted in the manuscript.


in Hebrews 10:12 - it is very interesting about the Trinity Doctrine in that how the Catholic Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate contradict and disagree with the contrasting Protestant K.J.V.



1. Firstly - Let's look at - Heb 10:12 first from the - Catholic Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate

Heb 10:12 :12 But this man, offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God,



2. and now - the Protestant K.J.V.

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;



what we see here - in the enormous contradiction and massive difference between these two translations is that the Catholic Translation states that Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins, - then a comma " , " Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins, - - ( FOLLOWED BY A COMMA PUNCTUATION MARKING ))

the Catholic translations go on to say " for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, " - - so the Catholics explain the Trinity to say for sure - Jesus - for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, however the contradiction and difference is that the Protestant K.J.V. places a comma after the word " forever " - to say that Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, then the comma " , "

followed by - , sat down on the right hand of God.

The K.J.V removes the message that says that Jesus for ever sitteth on the right hand of God because eventually Trinitarians realized that their translation expressly says that Jesus is NOT forever sitting on the right hand of God.


we see verse - - :13 FROM HENCEFORTH EXPECTING UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE HIS FOOTSTOOL.
and
Mar 12:36 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy enemies thy footstool.
Luk 20:42 Sit thou ON my right hand, - UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Act 2:34 Sit thou ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy foes thy footstool.
Heb 1:13 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool?


the translators later translating the Protestant K.J.V. attempted to fix this contradiction by moving and shuffling the punctuation to move the " comma > - NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE



Protestant K.J.V. - - After he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever ,,,,, - sat down ON the right hand of God;

vs the Catholic

Catholic Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate - - Offering one sacrifice for sins,,,,, - for ever sitteth ON the right hand of God,




Protestants realizing that they cannot believe in a Trinitarian Jesus who forever sits ON the right hand of Trinitarian God - yet they cannot believe in a Jesus who is not a Trinitarian

so they adjust and simply move a punctuation mark to deny and diminish the very deity of Jesus that had been instituted in the confusing and contradiction of the Trinity Contradiction instituted by their Roman Catholic mother. Can Protestants to this day provide answer to the question using their Translation, - when does Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand of God ? ? ?

do Trinitarians simply take this question to simply mean to them - when is the seating arrangement in heaven changed for the Trinitarian Jesus

is this something that Trinitarians can answer ? because the original manuscripts of the New Testament are so clear and so precise to explain that Jesus is NOW IN the right of God and this is eternal - as they replace the word IN with the words - AT and ON . - can the Trinitarian provide an answer to this Trinity question from their translations as to why the Catholic translation contradicts and also the Protestant translation ?

when does Trinitarian Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand of God ? ? ?

But this is not at all what the original manuscripts are saying - this is a complete mistranslation and alteration from what the original Greek manuscript message says, this is completely changing and altering the message of the manuscript.
Please notice the - ORIGINAL GREEK MANUSCRIPT MESSAGE

Heb 10:12 - ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS
HIM NOW THE ONE FOR SIN, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN “ εν IN “ THE RIGHT OF GOD

Translated word for word exactly -- here - :12

αυτος Him - δε now - μιαν the one - υπερ for - αμαρτιων sin - προσενεγκας offered up -

θυσιαν a sacrifice - εις into - το that - διηνεκες forever - εκαθισεν set down - εν IN -

δεξια the right - του of - θεου God​

The manuscripts are saying - exactly = :12 - HIM NOW THE ONE FOR SIN,, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN “ εν IN “ THE RIGHT OF GOD

Meaning that Jesus is - { FOREVER TO DWELL “ εν IN “ - IN THE RIGHT OF GOD )
ACCORDING TO THE MANUSCRIPT ORIGINAL MESSAGE -

this is much different when the original that says -

FOR SIN,, HE OFFERED UP ONE SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN IN THE RIGHT OF GOD

truly, how can this contradiction between the two translations and this question in its authenticity be resolved or even answered from the Trinitarian translations ?

.
Can my Trinitarian friends to this day provide answer to the question using their Translation, -

when does Trinitarian Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand o f God ? ? ?

their translations says - - :13 FROM HENCEFORTH EXPECTING UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE HIS FOOTSTOOL.

Trinitarian Jesus is expecting that he will maintain his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit ON the right hand of God - until his enemies be made a footstool ..
when does Trinitarian Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand o f God ? ? ?

please keep in mind the Trinitarian does not rely upon the Manuscripts nor their own Trinitarian Translation for their Trinity Faith System

I apologize for being the modern, present-day English-speaking grammarian who points this out, but the original Bible is not in Greek, it is in Hebrew. If you need to polish your education in classes, Hillsdale offers several of them free online for full credit. The Bible was translated into all of the languages in which we find it available today from Hebrew scrolls written by scribes in the employ of the Israelite government from the time of Moses to the time of Christ. If you really want to be a plectrum and get down and dirty with some fairly crazy modernist locals who like to edit, perspectivize and add Dead Sea Scrolls, Qumran Scrolls, "The Book of Enoch", and other such outrageous scholarship to the Writ, you could learn Hebrew and go study Law in Tel Aviv. That's what Torah and Talmud are.

 

[theLeadmonger]

OF COURSE THEY CAN!!!! It's only "Theology", after all.

Every trinitarian Denomination defines it acceptably for their own purposes.

And every "Oneness" Paradigmatic does the same for THEIR own purposes.

A trained Theologian, skilled in the art, can "theologically PROVE" anything they choose to.

Simple as that.

You're funny. A "Godheadian"? What is that spelling meant to imply, that some people are "Godheads", like some people are potheads, or like Deep Purple made a record called "Machine Head". I know I hate it when I wake up still tired and have "Bedhair", but at the same time I do always still get showered and dressed and go about my chores, so I'm not a "bedhead", it's just the hair.

 

[theLeadmonger]

I get it. At first, I thought the originator of the post was just some stranger throwing down on an often-held belief, but then I remembered having seen some church buildings advertising with their sign boards as "Trinitarian". That name also connotes a denomination, there's a church called "Trinitarian". I've never been inside of one and can't name a single Trinitarian minister. The thing is, that the opposite of Trinitarian in a church free market competition is not Jehovah's Witness, although they are anti Trinity, it's a church called the Unitarians. I don't know a giant amount about the Unitarians either, but I do know the story of the monetary competition between them for tithe paying members. Both denominations were concentrated in the Great Lakes region, and Elmer Gantry is a book about it. Fitzgerald's dime novel was anti Trinitarian, but it wasn't a newspaper level public information report, it didn't cover the Unitarian competition.

 

[Searchingtoo]

Dear ST,
In retrospect on what you wrote to Brother Butch5 (above) I am curious on why you would try to create a strawman argument to Brother Butch5 concerning me and sadly due to my own fault continue to use it with me as if somehow it was well evidenced in our discussion and something that Brother Butch5 should know and be in agreement with? Your attempt to giving me an ideology that I do not have, just blows me away. It makes for a good lie in the method used by the Serpent in the Garden of Eden with Eve.

Should I be like you and now create my own strawman argument on how Modalism was thought to have been put to bed by the early church leaders, but now these errant theologies are coming back in these End of Days and then lay them at your doorstep since that is what you believe?

What you failed to see was that Brother Butch5 and I were having a pleasant enough conversation. Back and forth of course since we are on differing sides of this topic, but still it was fruitful, and without animosity. Moderator Br. Bear being concerned made comment to ensure there would be no unpleasantries. Both Brother Butch5 and I replied that there was none. So, why did you insert yourself into this conversation we were having, including and now continuing on with an argument originated by you in your post to Brother Butch5?

Nick
\o/
<><









The above opening comment here which can be seen as nothing but an attempt to stop the conversation between Brother Brutch5 and myself from continuing. I ask myself why insert himself into a conversation that was pleasant enough, and doing so in a manner that can only be seen as an attempt to derail it? I am not a mind reader, and truly know nothing about your motivations. So, only you know why you did it.





So, instead of actually taking our words for it, you wrote that opening comment to dissuade Brother Butch5 from continuing what you believed to be a fruitless conversation with me. Doing so in a way that I saw as an attempt to put myself, in the same boat as Pharisees and scribes, who were closed minded and don't want to be confused with the facts type of people!!! I'm sure you believe what you posted there, but instead of letting him know your thoughts in private (PM), you did it in open forum, to ensure I'd see them and to derail the conversation we were having!

If I offended anyone it was not my intention so I'll say I'm sorry. I hesitate to say this for fear of offending someone again, so I'l apologize in advance, but I think some on here are too thin skinned. I read over what I said and don't see anything there that would have offended me if the situation were reversed, but maybe I'm too thick skinned. I never called anyone anything. What I said was "I have spoken to many Christians that believe that the Pharisees and scribes are a type of the modern-day Christendom/Babylon." Not I believed but rather some I had spoken to. And, " that if you worship a trinity God when the trinity is not scriptural it is not much different than what Buddhism or Muslims believe. (if) Never called anyone a Pharisee, Buddhist or Muslim or anything else. In fact I think I explained my feeling about this somewhere on this thread.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

You're funny. A "Godheadian"? What is that spelling meant to imply, that some people are "Godheads", like some people are potheads, or like Deep Purple made a record called "Machine Head". I know I hate it when I wake up still tired and have "Bedhair", but at the same time I do always still get showered and dressed and go about my chores, so I'm not a "bedhead", it's just the hair.

it's obvious. The "Godhead" is essentially the "trinitarian buzz-word" for a God who is "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", and yet ONE GOD.

Consequently, "Godhedian" is obviously a pejorative aimed at "one who ascribes to the trinitarian nature of God".

 

[theLeadmonger]

it's obvious. The "Godhead" is essentially the "trinitarian buzz-word" for a God who is "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", and yet ONE GOD.

Consequently, "Godhedian" is obviously a pejorative aimed at "one who ascribes to the trinitarian nature of God".

Well, Bob, the classical Trinty Doctrine has a Geometric Construction as it's proof. You've seen such things before, proofs of parallelity, proofs that an angle can always be bisected, and proofs that the angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees. The Trinity doctrine followed Euclid in construction and postdates him, it builds on his work and the work of Pythagoras, and is of Greek origin, it was first Geometrically made by an Ancient Greek whose notes are in Greek. It resulted from a challenge to the Greek from a Persian, who insisted that he could trisect and angle while the Greek could not. An angle cannot be logically trisected with a compass and a straightedge, the Persian was just a shortcutting loudmouth cheat who couldn't speak Greek and wasn't smart enough to be a geometer. But the moral of the story is that quite by accident. Pythagoras was able to construct a rigorous logical proof of a geometrical quality called the triple. A Pythagorean triple is the measures of a right angle proportional to the series 3,4,5.

I'm sure that you had this run by you in tenth grade geometry, if you suffered on though eleventh grade trigonometry you have the idea committed to memory. The Triple might not be what you think is a rigorous proof of God's existence, but it did come up again in astronomy, and the 3,4,5 series is the ratio of the three sides of the triangle formed by the Sun, Earth, and Moon.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Well, Bob, the classical Trinty Doctrine has a Geometric Construction as it's proof.

Yup - I've seen several versions.

HOWEVER - The Geometric Illustrations PROVE NOTHING. they're not "Proofs" of anything. They're nothing but Man's pathetic efforts to explain the unknowable.

My favorite flawed "Geometric illustration" is a CUBE: A cube has three dimensions - width, height, and depth. Every point within the cube ALWAYS exists in all three dimensions, and there's no point within the cube that doesn't. What does that "prove"???

NOTHING

But Jesus is in the river with John. God the Father speaks from Heaven revealing who Jesus is, and the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus and remains. Jesus speaks of The "Father", the "Son", and the "Holy Spirit". That's really all we need to know - "Doctrines" not required.

All the rest is nothing but "Theology". ALL God's Chilluns gots "Theologies".

 

[Christ4Ever]

I'm sorry but I really have no idea what you are saying. All I did was make a comment on a post that was brought to my attention by an email that I got from Jesus Talk. I thought it was an open discussion and didn't realize it was just for the 2 of you. If you don't want me to comment just stop sending me notices.

Dear ST,
You receive notices because you have decided to receive them, and the system is responding to your request.

Go to the "Wrench" icon which you can find by clicking on your Avatar, which for me is on the top right of every page. Once you click on the icon of the wrench it will take you to where your preferences are set. You will see that one of the options allows you to be notified both as an Originator of Threads, but also as a poster to someone else's. So, as you will see the option of receiving notifications was set by you when you first joined, so don't blame anyone but yourself for getting them.

Sorry, I thought I was rather clear in letting you know the issue.

Nick
\o/
<><