There Are Many Scriptures That Disprove The Trinity

[Gjolll]

Go to SBN, it airs in the UK. don't trust me, but harken to the message that God preaches though them. You won't be dissatisfied.

SonLife Broadcasting Network? "SBN is an extension of Jimmy Swaggart Ministries and the goal of SonLife Broadcasting Network is to reach the world with the Message of the Cross."


Sorry, I don't own a TV. The filth it produces is not tolerated in my house. And anyway, the women on SBN are improperly attired and do not appear to behave as Christian women should.

 

[oldhermit]

I saw this and felt it needed replying to. My reply is not aimed at anyone and is why I deleted the name of the one who posted it.


This simply indicates that They are two separate "entities", inasmuch as two people are not the same person. They each have Their own "personal" make-up and is why there are more than One presence in the word "us" of the passage which says, "Let Us man make in our image".

Examples:

1) God the Father wanted God the Word to come to Earth and be His Messenger. The Word, willing to fulfill that will, obliged, and willfully gave Himself to that purpose when God the Father spoke it.

2) At one time God the Father said, "Let there be" and it was then that God the Word created.

So, God the Word waits upon God the Father to speak to know His will (and that will He spoke as He was COMMANDED).

But, does that make God the Word, who was the incarnated Son, any less God, when it was said of God the Word that He IS the Creator of all things, and that He UPHOLDS all things by His OWN power, and that He, also the Messenger of the Lord, is the One who can be sinned against (seeing that, spiritually speaking, only God can be sinned against when we go against His will), or even that the Son receives the sort of worship He once denied to oblige Satan with?

Let it be the LORD who is true when He said, "He is our Savior". The LORD came and we called him "Lord".

You are absolutely correct. The best defense of this is in the grammatical structure of the language of Jn 1:1. Let me offer an exegesis on this text given by a former professor of NT Greek. Over the years, I have interjected some of my own comments in this material but the bulk of the material is from him.

"[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]One of the objections raised to the divinity of Jesus is that λογος means “the mind, wisdom, intelligence, or plan of God” and nothing more. λογος is NOT an individual, it is just a way of describing the “mind” or “wisdom” of God. They use to proverbial personification of wisdom in Proverbs to defend this idea.

This was a common philosophy of the Gnostics. Clearly, Gnosticism is still alive and well. This theology argues that λογος was not an individual, but the wisdom of God. So Jesus was not a “God” made flesh, but the wisdom of God or the mind of God, made flesh. That means he did not exist as God prior to his birth. Prior to his physical birth, he was an nothing more than an idea, a or a plan in the mind of God. That idea them became a man. This is Gnosticism.

John makes this interpretation absurd with the statement [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]“[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman Greek, serif]ο [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]λογος ην προς τον θεον” [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]- the Word was WITH God. Further, προς emphasizes agreement with, not necessarily location or proximity. You see, if the λογος is just the mind, intelligence, wisdom or plan of God, it can’t be anything other than with Him. If the λογος is the intelligence of God, then by definition it HAS to be with Him, which makes “the Word was WITH God” a completely pointless statement.

It equivalent to saying, “My hands and feet are with me today.” Since, if you are alive, they can’t be anything other than with you, not only have you given no information, you have implied something that is not true. By making that statement, you are implying that there might be a situation in which they could be somewhere else other than with you. John makes it very clear that his choice of words was no accident. He places extra emphasis on the fact that the λογος was WITH God by restating it in the second verse: [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]“And this one was in the beginning WITH God.” [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

The words ουτος references the subject of the previous sentence, which was λογος in all three clauses. Thus, John is making a statement that can only be interpreted as meaning the λογος is an individual who is somehow the ultimate summation of the wisdom of God. By stating twice that the λογος was WITH God, John makes it clear that the fact that the Word is WITH God as a choice. It takes a real, living individual to make a choice. Not only is this individual with God, He is also God Himself. That means Jesus DID exist prior to His birth (as He reveals Himself in John 17:5,[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]“Father, glorify me with thine own self, with the glory I had with you the world was.”[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]) KJV.

John's construction is so carefully crafted that it is often called the most concise theological statement ever made. With these
seventeen words of verse one, John constructed a sentence that took me all of this space to explain. John leaves us only one option: Jesus is completely and totally God in every way that the Father is God, but Jesus is NOT the same individual as the Father. Incredible. No one writes like the Holy Spirit!"[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]--------------------------------------[/FONT]

 

[alexis]

t t t

Let me share a little secret with Alexis, I do not have all the answers either, but I learned how to look them up. And a few times HE blew me away by totally helping me when I needed it most. One time two mormon boys on bicycles who call themselves Elders, cornered me in front of my apartment when my 6 year old grandson was with me. I sent him into the house while I talked with them out side. I knew enough NOT to invite them in to talk to them, because it might encourage my unbelieving neighbor to invite them in.

2 John 1:7-11 (HCSB)
[SUP]7 [/SUP] Many deceivers have gone out into the world; they do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] Watch yourselves so you don’t lose what we have worked for, but that you may receive a full reward.
[SUP]9 [/SUP] Anyone who does not remain in Christ’s teaching but goes beyond it, does not have God. The one who remains in that teaching, this one has both the Father and the Son.
[SUP]10 [/SUP] If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your home, and don’t say, “Welcome,” to him;
[SUP]11 [/SUP] for the one who says, “Welcome,” to him shares in his evil works.

So I confronted them in the driveway. They have a memorized line of questions with THEIR answers, that they follow. Now Alexis, I have always had a hard time memorizing Scripture, but when these guys started explaining their beliefs, I was FILLED with the SPIRIT. THEN every time they presented a false doctrine, a verse would pop into my head, and I quoted it accurately including the Chapter and Verse number. I would say, "But that contradicts . . ." and I WOULD QUOTE IT. Finally after quoting 7 or 8 verses like that; one of them said, "I don't know why that matters, because the Bible is full of contradictions." I responded, "You may think your Bible is, but mine has no contradictions when I interpret it correctly."

Something else you need to know. Don't be afraid to ask what they mean by the Christian terms use. Because the false-christian cults frequently use our terms but mean something entirely different by them. The Mormons or LDS (as they call themselves now) for example, mean something totally different than we do by the majority of the Christian Terms that we we use. Terminology Differences (Main) That is a site you will want to save if you ever need it to witness to a Mormon. Jerald and Sandra Tanner are ex-Mormons who started a Ministry that reaches out to Mormons, and provides information to Christians on how to witness to Mormons. Jerald pasted away in 2006.

Yes you were naming some of the sound Bible Teaching Churches. I was raised Lutheran, and my solid beliefs in the BIBLE is all inspired by GOD and the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity came from those roots. For many years I have been involved now in Non-Denominational Bible Teaching Churches, and the only reason I left the Lutheran Church, is the sermons were too short. They limited the Pastor to 15 minutes, and in the services where I go now, they devote an hour to Bible Teaching and a half hour to music and prayer. I was very hungry to learn the WORD, after I was born again in 1978; and quickly became habited to the one hour sermons. I do enjoy the Praise Music, but I do not want it to dominate the service. I want to feel like I have been FED a full meal of the WORD of GOD.

If you ever find yourself searching for a new church, I can recommend the Community Churches or Bible Churches. The best way to try a new Church is go online and read the Doctrinal Statement, or What We Believe as some call it. Then if you have more questions do not hesitate to make an appointment and actually talk to the Pastor. I have found that they are always happy to answer questions about their beliefs. We are actually at a point where we need to sell our house and move yet again. May it be the last time LORD. But I already know which Church I am going to, because I actually have already followed those very steps and know where GOD wants me.

Thank you so much!

I want to quickly say only one thing. I live in a tiny town in Alaska and am limited by church choices. I attend when allowed a very nice non-denominational Christian church or a Baptist church. I say when allowed because my Dad and step-mom do not believe. My dad does his best to get me to church and my stepmom refuses to take me. When this happens as it did today I simply sit my little brothers down and share Bible stories and sing and play gospel songs for them on my guitar. I do not view myself as a minister or leader do not get me wrong. This is just my best way to show God I love Him. Also help my baby brothers see God is real. Today I got in trouble for it and sent to my room and they aren't allowed in here. That's okay because Jesus loves me. My stepmom just doesn't know The Lord and I love her and just pray for her.

I will check online and read about other church doctrines... That sounds like a very good learning experience.

God bless and I love you,
lexi

 

[VCO]

SonLife Broadcasting Network? "SBN is an extension of Jimmy Swaggart Ministries and the goal of SonLife Broadcasting Network is to reach the world with the Message of the Cross."


Sorry, I don't own a TV. The filth it produces is not tolerated in my house. And anyway, the women on SBN are improperly attired and do not appear to behave as Christian women should.

There are far better Better Bible teachers out there than Jimmy Swaggart. Many now have free archived sermons that you can listen to FREE ONLINE, some charge minimal prices to download the MP3, but have their MP3 Sermon downloads FREE also.

HERE ARE A FEW:

Dr. Ed Young, Sr. -- The Winning Walk with Dr. Ed Young Broadcast Archives, Christian Video, TV Show

Dr. John MacArthur -- Grace to You - Sermon archives are under "John's Sermons" -
(Also can be found on many Christian Radio Stations, the program is "Grace to You".)

Dr. Ben Haden -- Answers

Dr. Adrian Rodgers -- Adrian Rogers - Love Worth Finding Radio Broadcasts

Dr. Gil Rugh -- Indian Hills | Home - the Sermon archives are in the Media Vault

 

[cfultz3]

OldHermit,

I would like to add a little for people's understanding. Bear with me

And if we all would, if we look at the word G1510 (was), we would see that it means "to exist, to be, is". And also take into consideration that all 4 instances of that word in John 1:1-2 are all in the imperfect tense. In layman terms, that means it was a past action which was being carried out at that present moment.

With that in mind, let us see what John 1:1-2 is saying as concerning that word G1510 (was).

In the beginning, the Word was existing.

(if He was existing before creation, then He is from eternity)​

​

The Word was existing with (accusative: the place) the God.

(If He was existing with God before the beginning, then it would seem that He was the one God the Father was speaking to when He said, "Let us make man in our image")​

​

The Word was being God.

(That is, His existence is God)​

​

He was existing in the beginning with the God.

(He was there with God the Father before the dawn of Creation. The Father spoke, "Let us make man in our image", then the Word who was there with Him, created (as John 1:3 tells us))​

​

 

[oldhermit]

OldHermit,

I would like to add a little for people's understanding. Bear with me

And if we all would, if we look at the word G1510 (was), we would see that it means "to exist, to be, is". And also take into consideration that all 4 instances of that word in John 1:1-2 are all in the imperfect tense. In layman terms, that means it was a past action which was being carried out at that present moment.

With that in mind, let us see what John 1:1-2 is saying as concerning that word G1510 (was).

In the beginning, the Word was existing.

(if He was existing before creation, then He is from eternity)​

The Word was existing with (accusative: the place) the God.

(If He was existing with God before the beginning, then it would seem that He was the one God the Father was speaking to when He said, "Let us make man in our image")​

The Word was being God.

(That is, His existence is God)​

He was existing in the beginning with the God.

(He was there with God the Father before the dawn of Creation. The Father spoke, "Let us make man in our image", then the Word who was there with Him, created (as John 1:3 tells us))​

​

Yes. That is a good point on the use of the word ἦν.

 

[just-me]

Swingalong.

I see that you started this thread and lately there is very little input from you. I can understand somewhat according to your explanations, yet I get the impression that you have come to the end of your reasons as to why you stared it. Most every thread has arguments of one degree or another. For the sake of the truth, maybe we should all leave this thread alone, and become involved in some other rhetoric that edifies those who are looking for the truth.

By the way swingalong, God is a "Unit" of One according to truthful definitions, when digging into the original meaning of languages used at that time in history recording the truth. The same word is used for "One" when Jesus said, "I and my Father are "One."

 

[oldhermit]

Swingalong.

I see that you started this thread and lately there is very little input from you. I can understand somewhat according to your explanations, yet I get the impression that you have come to the end of your reasons as to why you stared it. Most every thread has arguments of one degree or another. For the sake of the truth, maybe we should all leave this thread alone, and become involved in some other rhetoric that edifies those who are looking for the truth.

By the way swingalong, God is a "Unit" of One according to truthful definitions, when digging into the original meaning of languages used at that time in history recording the truth. The same word is used for "One" when Jesus said, "I and my Father are "One."

She is no longer here. She has been banned.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Hi alexis, you are a very humble and kind young lady and it is very refreshing to read your appreciative responses. Your sincerity in wanting to find the truth will be rewarded one day. Just make sure that what you learn makes logical sense (Acts 17:11) God wants us to understand His Word the Bible and who He and Jesus really are. He wants us to know the real truth. Remember, God is a God of order and not of confusion or disorder. I have chosen not to respond anymore to the negative unchristlike conversations on this post. I do not have to fight with these people because I have said or stated my firm stand on what I believe. However, alexis if you wish you may PM me anytime if you have any questions or concerns.

 

[jimmydiggs]

She is no longer here. She has been banned.

[video=youtube;76RrdwElnTU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76RrdwElnTU[/video]

 

[danschance]

Originally Posted by Swingalong

Do your research and get back with me. The ball is in your lap. Prove to me that the NWT Bible is inaccurate by any standard. Sadly, theological and secular references are unreliable. Use any Bible version or translation you have and contrast it with the New World Translation and then show me the "flagrant" and "blatant" inaccuracies that you and many claim is riddled in this beautiful Bible, the NWT.

1) The NWT scholars remain anonymous. This means they will not discuss the NWT with other Scholars nor do we know the credentials of the translators.

2) The NWT removes the terms theos(God) and kurios(Lord) and insert the hebrew term Jehovah. This and many other examples not listed here proves the NWT is not a translation but is a sectarian paraphrase.

3) The translators of the NWT are never refered to be educated or scholars of greek or Hebrew. Instead they are said by to of been experienced and anointed Christians.

4) No one uses the NWT except the Jehovah's witness. If it is an amazing translation, why don't other Christian organizations use it? On the other hand, JW's ONLY use the NWT!

5) If the NWT is a good translation, why has it undergone numerous revisions?

Examples that prove the NWT is a sectarian paraphrase/mistranslation.

Gen 1:2 "Spirit of God " was changed into "God's active force"
(The term God's Active force does not appear in the Hebrew, but it is JW theology.)

Ex. 3:14 "I AM" was changed into "I shall prove to be"
(The term I shall prove to be does not appear in the hebrew, but was changed to disprove Jesus claims to I AM)

Numbers 1:52 "Under his own standard" was changed to "by His [three tribe] division"
(The hebrew word degal means flag or banner, but the JW's teach that flags are idolatry, so the had to edit this)

Isa. 43:10 "Nor will there be one after me" was changed to "After me there continued to be none"
(The future tense shows God will not share His divinity with anyone in the future but the JW's changed the tense to conform with Jesus being a mighty god not God.)

Ecl. 12:7 "The spirit returns" was changed to "the spirit itself returns"
(The insertion of the word "itself" was done to underscore the JW teaching of what happens to a soul upon death. The word itself does not exist in Hebrew.)

Matt. 2:11 "Bowed down and worshiped Him" was changed to "did obeisance to it"
(The JW;s obscure any mention of the diety of Jesus. The term obeisance is unique to the NWT. This same revision can also be found in: Matt 8:2, 9:18, 14:33, 15:25, 28:9,17; Mark 5:6, 15:19; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; Heb. 1:6.)

Matt. 25:46 "Eternal punishment" changed to "Everlasting cutting off"
(Nothing in the Greek supports this change. The Greek term "kolasis" indicates continuous punishment, not cutting off. The JW's do not believe in hell being a place of torment, so this change is simply to conform to JW theology.)

John 1:1 "Word was God" changed to "Word was a god"
(No reputable Greek scholar or even a fist year Greek student would agree with the insert of "a". It was clearly changed to conform to JW theology.)

NOTE: This is only a handful of cases where the NWT has mistranslated to conform to JW theology. There are many more!


Here are several websites that are critical of the New World Translation (Paraphrase):

New World Translation and Its Critics
Scholars on Jn.1:1
The New World Translation: A corrupt sectarian paraphrase. 1666 pages....Mark of the beast?
For an Answer: Christian Apologetics - Scholars & NWT
bible - What specific scholarship is there behind the New World Translation? - Christianity Stack Exchange

She never responded to my post in her Greek Challenge. How sad is that? Cult minds are closed tighter than a clam that just hit boiling water. They issue challenges but when you give them answers they don't want to hear, they cut and run.

 

[TaylorTG]

The "evidence" of speaking in tongues" is a sign for unbelievers. 1Cr 14:22, and IMO, much of it is fabricated and done by women just because they like hearing the sound of their own voices.

She never responded to my post in her Greek Challenge. How sad is that? Cult minds are closed tighter than a clam that just hit boiling water. They issue challenges but when you give them answers they don't want to hear, they cut and run.

I would be warry of any doctrine held by the beast massive church
it has to be wrong for they do not agree with anything in the word of God at all!
Absolutely nothing.
So if they teach the trinity, just run.

This is an interesting quote. Members from many Christian cults are told to only trust what the cult says and never question it. They are also told to distrust everything that is not from the cult. Mormons are told to never read "anti-mormon literature, as it is all lies. Here Swingalong states what she has been fed, that all other sources not from the Watchtower are sadly unreliable.

This is an interesting quote. Members from many Christian cults are told to only trust what the cult says and never question it. They are also told to distrust everything that is not from the cult. Mormons are told to never read "anti-mormon literature, as it is all lies. Here Swingalong states what she has been fed, that all other sources not from the Watchtower are sadly unreliable.

She can't.....as she is unaware that Biblical Greek does not contain an indefinite article.

All she can do is slavishly follow the spoon-fed lies of her cult....no questions asked.
So sad.

Umm... lets not call each other a bunch of cult-followers, alright? Why don't we make this website more friendly, and be more Christlike? Friendship, faith, and love were some of Jesus's qualities? Right?

 

[danschance]

Umm... lets not call each other a bunch of cult-followers, alright? Why don't we make this website more friendly, and be more Christlike? Friendship, faith, and love were some of Jesus's qualities? Right?

Why not? If a person is an active member of a christian cult, why not call them cult members? It is not defaming or pejorative, insulting or name calling. It is simply an accurate description. Swingalong has stated she is a JW.

 

[VCO]

Usually people in connection with a religious subject, in this instance the NWT Bible, use the words "flagrant" and "blatant" or other similar words because of being ignorant to the true facts. And so since "the shoe fits" their 'MO', they feel obligated to spew out their disdain for whatever is being discussed, in this instance, the NWT Bible. What's interesting, is that many who are uninformed 'christians' cannot even authentically site or reference scripturally their imagined allegations concerning this beautiful Bible, the NWT, or by citing scriptures to back up what they say and so they attack with dogmatic words as if they want to appear authoritive, as if they know what they are talking about. Usually these ones go by what they've heard others say and they never take the time to do research to see for themselves if what they believe or heard is true. People do not like going against the grain, going against popular opinion. Nor do many like "facing the storm" and so because of their "fear of men" and what others will say or think, they go along with or fall in line with the crowd rather than face the truth. The old saying: "If the shoe fits, wear it" is applicable.

t t t

Apparently this bares repeating, The NWT is not a Valid Translation, BECAUSE the Watchtower's Translation Team admitted that they Lifted their MANY footnotes into the Text, making it a mistranslation and a product of a False Prophet; and I provided the proof.

Please see my post #595 on this page: http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...riptures-disprove-trinity-30.html#post1306744

Here again is that foreword from the Second Edition of the New World Translation, and if you doubt if I have re-typed that correctly, all you have to do to see for yourself, is go to a USED BOOK STORE, go the Bible Section and look for a small almost Kelly Green hardback bible, and most likely IT WILL BE the Second Edition of the NWT. READ THE TWO PAGE FOREWORD FOR YOURSELF, PLEASE. I did type it correctly :

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FOREWORD

​

IT IS a very responsible thing to translate the Holy Scriptures from their origingal languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, into modern speech. Translating the Holy Scriptures means a rendering into another langurage the thoughts and sayings of the heavenly Author of this sacred library of sixty-six books, Jehovah God, which holy men of long ago put down in writing under inspiration for our benifit today.

That is a sobering thought. The translators who have a fear and love of the divine Author of the Holy Scriptures feel especially a responsibility toward Him to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible. They also feel a responsiblity toward the searching readers of the modern translation who depend upon the inspired Word of the Most High God for their everlasting salvation.

It was with such a sense of solemn responsiblility that the committee of dedicated men have produced the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, over the course of many years. As soon as each part of the translation became available for publication it was turned over to the publishers for printing, all together in six volumes. The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, containing the twenty-seven books from Matthew through The Revelation, first appeared in 1950. In due order the volumes of the New World Translation of the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures appeared, the first volume in 1953, the second in 1955, the third in 1957, the fourth in 1958, and the fifth in 1960.

From the start of the work it was the desire of the translators to have all these contemplated volumes brought together in the form of one book, inasmuch as the Holy Scriptures are in fact one book by the One Author. To this end, as soon as the final volume of the series had been issued in 1960, the committee set to work to prepare the entire translation for publication under one cover. The committee was then able to take under survey the translation as a whole and to discern where improvements could be made.

An effort was put forth to bring about even greater consistency in the renderings of the related parts of the Holy Scriptures, such as in harmonizing with the original Hebrew readings of the reading of quotations made in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Since the one-volume edition of the Holy Scriptures was to contain no footnotes, many footnote readings that had appeared in the earlier translation in six distinct volumes were lifted and put into the main text of the one-volume edition. This does not mean that the earlier rendering that was now replaced was rejected. Rather, the purpose was to attain to closer conformity to the literal reading in the original languages. All this process has resulted in revisions in the main text of the translation.

The now completed one-volume edition may therefore be properly called a revised edition of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. In releasing it for publication we do so with a deep sense of gratitude to the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, who has thus priveleged us and in whose spirit we have trusted to co-operate with us in this worthy work. We hope for His blessing upon the published translation in behalf of all who read and use it in learning his holy will.
New World Bible Translation Committee

January 17, 1961, New York, N.Y.

​

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[VCO]

Why not? If a person is an active member of a christian cult, why not call them cult members? It is not defaming or pejorative, insulting or name calling. It is simply an accurate description. Swingalong has stated she is a JW.

As far as I know mainline Christianity has traditionally defined the term cult to be any group that does not believe in Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The Chrisitian background where I come from, used the term psuedo-christian cult, for those that resemble christianity, and non-christian cults were just called cults. I too do not think it is defaming, but is clearly identifying them as those who teach something other than the Holy Trinity, which is part of the Common Ground of all mainline Christian Denominations.

 

[TaylorTG]

Why not? If a person is an active member of a christian cult, why not call them cult members? It is not defaming or pejorative, insulting or name calling. It is simply an accurate description. Swingalong has stated she is a JW.

@Danschance
Because it is just plain rude. Which branch of Christianity are you in?

@VCO
I'll have to say that the word 'cult' still sounds like a derogatory word. People would be offended when a fellow brother/sister tells them that they're part of a cult.

I'm not arguing, so take it easy!​

 

[VCO]

Thank you so much!

I want to quickly say only one thing. I live in a tiny town in Alaska and am limited by church choices. I attend when allowed a very nice non-denominational Christian church or a Baptist church. I say when allowed because my Dad and step-mom do not believe. My dad does his best to get me to church and my stepmom refuses to take me. When this happens as it did today I simply sit my little brothers down and share Bible stories and sing and play gospel songs for them on my guitar. I do not view myself as a minister or leader do not get me wrong. This is just my best way to show God I love Him. Also help my baby brothers see God is real. Today I got in trouble for it and sent to my room and they aren't allowed in here. That's okay because Jesus loves me. My stepmom just doesn't know The Lord and I love her and just pray for her.

I will check online and read about other church doctrines... That sounds like a very good learning experience.

God bless and I love you,
lexi

t t t

You are blessed with faith beyond your years, may GOD continue to bless you richly. My wife and I will be praying for you, and your desire to share your faith with your brothers. Don't give up on your parents either, just keep living the life before them, and maybe one day the Holy Spirit will touch there hearts too. Most likely you cannot go wrong with either of those two Churches. Doctrinally they should be pretty much the same. When I was a Volunteer Protestant Chaplain, going to Ft. Dick Bible Church; the head Chaplain at the Prison, who was a very faithful Baptist, used to tease me when he found out that I was going to a non-denomination Bible Church, "Oh, so you are a Baptist incognito."

For those times that you don't get to church, remember those Pastors that I listened to for years, their sermons are online FREE to listen to. See my post #624 above. Dr. John MacArthur was the first Bible Teacher that I started listening to on the radio after I got saved after Christmas 1978, so he had a major influence on my spiritual growth, and at one time I used to have over 500 of his cassette tapes, which I eventually donated to the ministry. NOW all of the very same sermons are archived on his website. Dr. John MacArthur is Senior Pastor of Grace Community Church in Panorama City, Ca. (a suburb of L.A.) and he is President of the Master's College and Seminary. Dr. Gil Rugh is Senior Pastor of Indian Hills Community Church in Lincoln, Nebraska where my wife and I used to go to Church before we moved to California. He too has a huge archive of his sermons. Dr. Ed Young Sr., Dr. Ben Haden, and Dr. Adrian Rodgers were all Baptist Pastors that I watched for years on TV. I also watched a lot of Dr. Charles Stanley, another Baptist, but I could not find an archive of his old sermons. If you only have a little time, then that collection of sermonettes by Dr. Ben Haden will do very nicely when you do not have an hour to listen to a full sermon. They are about 15 minutes long.

I know Praise Music is always a blessing. I like to listen and sing along with a couple of those types of Hymns before I go to bed at night. Hillsong is my favorite group. I will share links to a few of my favorites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcnfT4arZtI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ29WAglfWA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoxopsRSfdU

I just realized that you may not have a fast enough Internet connection to watch online videos. In fact, I have seen dial-up struggle to play audio MP3s without lag, but all of Dr. Gil Rugh's sermons are downloadable free MP3s, and then your computer should be able to play them back as normal speeds. Look for those where either Gil Rugh is the speaker or Greg Rugh (his son) is the speaker, and you will have a sermon from an actual service. Most of the Miscellaneous Speakers are recorded Sunday School classes. It is a big Church. http://www.ihcc.org/resources/media-vault

But keep playing and singing music to HIM. It brings joy to our hearts.

 

[TaylorTG]

t t t t <--- Nice symbols...

You are blessed with faith beyond your years, may GOD continue to bless you richly. My wife and I will be praying for you, and your desire to share your faith with your brothers. Don't give up on your parents either, just keep living the life before them, and maybe one day the Holy Spirit will touch their hearts too.

Yeah. Vco has a point. The best way to touch the hearts of the non-believers is through actions, How we live our lives.

Keep playing and singing music to HIM. It brings joy to our hearts.

Alexis's singing doesn't bring joy to my heart, simply because I haven't heard her sing yet.

 

[Gjolll]

As far as I know mainline Christianity has traditionally defined the term cult to be any group that does not believe in Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The Chrisitian background where I come from, used the term psuedo-christian cult, for those that resemble christianity, and non-christian cults were just called cults. I too do not think it is defaming, but is clearly identifying them as those who teach something other than the Holy Trinity, which is part of the Common Ground of all mainline Christian Denominations.

This is simplistic, naive and dangerous thinking. The "doctrine of the Holy Trinity" was unknown to the apostles. It did not emerge until several centuries after the apostolic era, when even the orthodox branch of the church began to be overgrown by many heresies including the idolization of virginity and Mariolatry of which Calvin was himself an exponent.

The doctrine of the Trinity grew out of the conceptual inability of the early church to apprehend the meaning of the term "begotten" in the bible. They assumed that it inferred that God the Father had begotten God the Son "before all ages" - see the Nicene Creed in AD325. This was sheer garbage. "Begotten" referd only to Christ's incarnation. Arianism grew out of a church that was already Arian.

Error became compounded on error, and Chalcedon 451AD, which affirmed the term Theotokos first adopted in 431 by the 3rd Ecumenical Council at Ephesus that had never even been coined until the 3rd century AD, represented the ultimate fruition of the Christological controversies that convulsed the church pursuant to the initial Arian error, which held that God has three hypostases. Meanwhile, God was turning his back on the Eastern church and preparing it for great wrath, which occurred with the advent of Islam.

To represent any person as a "cultist" who disagrees with a philosophy that must now be deemed entirely secular and at odds with the bible in so far as it categorically states that God had three hypostases, whereas Heb 1;3 says God has only one hypostasis, is to invite the judgement on oneself as God inflicted on the hopelessly corrupt Eastern church.

 

[VCO]

@Danschance
Because it is just plain rude. Which branch of Christianity are you in?

@VCO
I'll have to say that the word 'cult' still sounds like a derogatory word. People would be offended when a fellow brother/sister tells them that they're part of a cult.

I'm not arguing, so take it easy!​

t t t

You cannot brand me with a Denomational title. I have been affiliated for many years with non-denominational Community Bible Teaching Churches. If I must pick a descriptive title, I would have to use Conservative Evangelical; because I certainly am not a Liberal.

I do not believe in arguing either, and I do not think "Ernestly contending for the faith" is something that should be avoided, but rather it should be whole heartedly obeyed without letting it lead to an argument. Fellow Brothers or Sisters are NOT those teaching a false Christ or false Gospel and warning those who are starting to be led astray, IS LOVE, and sometimes that tough love requires the use of the word cult, OR YOU ARE NOT SHARING THE WHOLE TRUTH WITH THEM.

Acts 20:27-32 (NKJV)
[SUP]27 [/SUP] For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.
[SUP]28 [/SUP] Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
[SUP]29 [/SUP] For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.
[SUP]30 [/SUP] Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.
[SUP]31 [/SUP] Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.
[SUP]32 [/SUP] So now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

Religious tolerance for False Gospels, and False Christs, is NOT the work of the Holy Spirit, it is the work of the Devil himself.

Mainline Christianity teaches and believes that those who teach that the Deity of Jesus Christ is a lie, are following a TOTALLY False Doctrine and in doing so they are teaching a False Christ. That falls into this category:

1 Timothy 4:1-2 (NASB)
[SUP]1 [/SUP] But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
[SUP]2 [/SUP] by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,

Mainline Christianity also teaches and believes that all true Christians believe in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

2 John 1:7-11 (NASB)
[SUP]7 [/SUP] For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward.
[SUP]9 [/SUP] Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.
[SUP]10 [/SUP] If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting;
[SUP]11 [/SUP] for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

Matthew 24:24 (NASB)
[SUP]24 [/SUP] "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.

We accept the fact that everyone has a right to believe as they so choose, but we believe the title Christian belongs to those who believe in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, who have received Jesus Christ as LORD.

I believe that we are being kinder than PAUL was, concerning those who taught a different gospel or different Jesus Christ.

1 John 2:18-19 (NASB)
[SUP]18 [/SUP] Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.
[SUP]19 [/SUP] They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (ESV)
[SUP]3 [/SUP] But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
[SUP]4 [/SUP] For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

1 Timothy 6:2-5 (NASB)
[SUP]2 [/SUP] . . . Teach and preach these principles.
[SUP]3 [/SUP] If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness,
[SUP]4 [/SUP] he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions,
[SUP]5 [/SUP] and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.

Galatians 1:6-9 (NASB)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
[SUP]7 [/SUP] which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you,
he is to be accursed!
[SUP]9 [/SUP] As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received,
he is to be accursed!

We certainly cannot call them Christians.

So what would you prefer we call those who are teaching a different gospel and a different Jesus Christ?

The Deceived?
Deceivers?
False Christians?
Wolves in Sheep's Clothing?
Imitators of Christianity?
The Devil's Advocates?
Modern Day Pharisees?
Doctrines of Demons Followers?
False Prophet Followers?
Broad Road Religious Teachers?
Those who would shipwreck the Faith?
Those ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth?