Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chris land who wrote (25381)	5/9/1999 10:57:00 PM
From: mark silvers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39621

To All, (Chris this is not specifically to you, you were just the last post) I am very sincere in this question, don't think I ask it just to rabble rouse. How can any of you claim that the bible is to be taken literally when it quite clearly is not written in a manner that would lead to a clear cut translation? Is God such a poor writer that he can not be understood clearly? His thoughts so obscure that literal meaning can not be agreed upon? If you can't agree on anymore than Jesus is your saviour, than quite clearly the Bible is not meant to convey anymore than that in a clear fashion. Unless you think God made a mistake? Mark

To: Chris land who wrote (25381)	5/10/1999 4:40:00 PM
From: Don Martini	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

Chris Land, you bring up the Watchtower, why? The only authority I've cited are Scripture and McKenzie's Bible Dictionary [Catholic]. We're on a level field, using neutral authorities, accepted standard references to determine truth. Let's talk about religious denominations. Jesus said By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. Consider how religions solve our greatest problems: War, Racism, Aids: If everyone on Earth were a Catholic or Lutheran would war's cease? Moslem? Shinto? Hindu? Animist? Atheist? Baptist? Church of Christ? Anglican-Episcopalian? These religions draped Earth with 100,000,000 bodies this century. How Satan must laugh in Christ's face over "Christian" soldiers, especially. But if all on Earth were JW war would instantaneously stop, for no Witness in this century has killed anyone in a war while he was a Witness! On the other hand, many have died for not killing. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal 2Cor 10:4 Sword of the Spirit, Helmet of Salvation, Breastplate of Righteousness, Girdle of Truth, Shield of Faith, Feet shod with the Gospel of PEACE! If all on Earth were Catholic, Baptist, Church of God, etc, etc, etc would racism become extinct. Of course not! But Jehovah's people are undivided worldwide, inviting and welcoming all to learn of the loving God who is no respecter of persons. Our Kingdom Hall is a completely salt & pepper. And what about AIDS? It's spread by: Homosexuality, Fornication, Unclean needles and Blood transfusions. I live in the heart of the Deep South, where naked daughters dance on tables, cheating songs ring from every radio and VD is on parade! Why has the First Tomcat not been denied fellowship in his religion? Said Paul: Remove the wicked man from among yourselves The TV special "Sins of the Fathers" anounced suing the RCC for molestations is a $400,000,000 industry, but they're still granted communion!! No Witness who lives his faith is part of this scene, and those who persist in violating it are disfellowshipped. Virginity is no joke, it is a requirement! The filth song goes: I want you, I need you, and if I don't love you ...well 2 out of 3 ain't bad! Three out of Three is better! What kind of Bible stupidity permits JimmySwag, Tilson, JimBakker, JimJones to masquerade as Christian and defraud millions of billion$ and even life. The churches haven't taught the Bible, as it might cut down on collections when the people learn preachers should work for nothing, and every Christian must be a preacher. Mat 10:8 God's lost sheep are scattered on every distant hill by shepherds who fleece the flock. That's where I go to find them. I'll be back, Chris, to answer your main question. Thanks for writing. Don Martini

To: Chris land who wrote (25381)	5/11/1999 8:53:00 PM
From: Don Martini	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39621

Good Evening, Chris Land! You asked "Why do you think that you have to fully understand the trinity before you will ever submit to believing in it?" It's not necessary for me to understand it, all that it will take is to find it in the Bible. Its not there, as these authorities state: "The formulation of 'one God in three Persons was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century...Among the Apostolic Fathers there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." New Catholic Encyclopedia "Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown;...they say nothing about it." Origin and Evolution of Religion by Yale professor E. Washburn Hopkins. "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the NT" New Encyclopaedia Britannica. "At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian...It was not so in the apostolic and sub apostolic ages, as reflected in the NT and other early Christian writings." Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. The ante-Nicene fathers, acknowledged to have been the leading teachers after the deaths of the apostles; Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Origen, and Tertullian believed as I do, as their writings show. Said Tertullian, [died c 230] The Father is different from the Son, as he is greater; as he begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent" and "There was a time when the Son was not ... Before all things God was alone." Summing up the historical evidence Alvan Lamson says in The Church of the First Three Centuries: "The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ...derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr] and this observation may be extended to all ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true they speak of the Father, Son and holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact." And states Jesuit priest John McKenzie in his Dictionary of the Bible: "The trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God there are three persons who subsist in one nature. This belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief ... The OT does not contain suggestions or foreshadowing of the trinity of persons Chris, why do you believe a doctrine that contradicts Jesus' own words and is recognized, even by trinitarians, as being unscriptural? Is it because you prefer mystery to understanding? My Father is greater than I. The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing. I can of myself do nothing: I seek not my will, but the will of him that sent me. I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God. If Jesus, who is called Son of man 77 times, is God, why did he require an escort of angels to introduce himself to himself in Daniel 7:13? It's not in the Bible, Chris, that's why I don't believe it. May prayer, Bible study and Holy Spirit lead you away from this pagan myth. I know many who would be glad to help you. Don Martini