Who is GOD.......?

Cup-of-Ruin · Jan 30, 2010

Jesus Christ clearly disagrees with this churchman, Jesus says He and His Father are One, literally the opposite of seperate and distinct.

Either 'Gill' dosen't know the definition of 'distinct' or he is in error.

'The Son of man' or the 'Son of God', or the 'second Adam', or the 'High Priest'? how many of these titles are 'distinctions', well churchman they are distinct as far as titles. Gill seperates God! Unbelievable that's impossible but here you have some little church body has divided God into 3 compartments, how foolish, there is only one God!

charisenexcelcis · Jan 30, 2010

Cup-of-Ruin said:

The difference between deksia (its a ksi, not a chi) and deksios is the difference between the adjective being used to modify a masculine noun and a feminine noun. They are the same word and if you knew any Greek you would know that. Deksios (the masculine nominative singular form is what you use when speaking of the word or use all three i.e. deksios, -a, -on) is never used in the definition of correct.

Cup-of-Ruin · Jan 30, 2010

Jeremiah 23:5-6

"Behold the days come, saith the LORD (#3068 The Name of God - The Eternal), That I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper and shall execute judgement and justice in the Earth. IN HIS DAYS Judah shall be saved, and Israel (two seperate Houses - Israel, Judah) shall dwell safely: and THIS IS HIS NAME WHEREBY HE SHALL BECALLED, THE LORD (#3068 The Name of God - The Eternal) OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."

Here we have the prophet Jeremiah who only knew of one God, literally without any shadow of doubt, literally describe Jesus Christ as God The Eternal (Yehovah - Masoretic, Yahwey - Paleo-Hebrew). He is literally saying His Name will be GOD OUR RIGHTEOUS KING!

Now little church goers can repeat mantras and creeds all day long, however they are not worth a dime compared to the Prophets. We are commanded to listen to the prophets, we are commanded to heed the words of God, not the words of men, consider, as we are told 'you will not teach one man to another'...Your creeds have no authority, the indoctrination by mantra is of no effect.

charisenexcelcis · Jan 30, 2010

Cup-of-Ruin said:

Absolutely--Jesus is the Eternal God. The doctrine of the trinity is first and foremost based not upon what the creeds said, but what that selfsame Jesus the Eternal God said. He addressed the Father (and the Holy Spirit) as a separate person. He also claimed to be God, who is one. The trinity is a statement of faith in Jesus' assertion that He was both one with the Father and a separate person from Him.

MahogonySnail · Jan 30, 2010

He who denies the Father AND the Son (i.e. as being two separate persons), is ANTI-Christ. That's what the bible says dude.

Gill was an outstanding English Baptist theologian who mastered Greek and latin classics by age 11, and was expert in Hebrew, philosophy and had a Doctor of Divinity. Charisexcelcis and others have already pointed out that you are a fraud as far as your claims of being an "expert in Greek"... so, unless you have the same qualifications as Gill, who are you to say such things?

Try to understand the Trinity first, before setting up your paper tiger argument that Trinitarians believe in 3 gods... we do not. There is one God, in three persons. It's not hard - just look up any basic definition about the trinity, then accept it at face value.

Cup-of-Ruin · Jan 30, 2010

MahogonySnail said:

John 2:22. "Who is the liar but HE THAT DENIETH THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST? he is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." see Heb. 1:1.

if you denieth Jesus you denieth God, why? Because "I and the Father are one".

Well you lie, you say that I claimed to be an "expert in Greek", I have never claimed that, that is false witness, which you seem to quite familiar with, I always quote my sources and don't consider myself of any special standing, if I use Greek, I always quote my sources and references.

Jeremiah did not understand the Trinity, He uses the same Eternal Name - LORD GOD, for both Jesus and Father GOD, same word, which prophets or Apostles claim there is a 'Trinity'? The word is not in the Bible.

And then there is 'we don't believe in three we believe in one'??????? The very definition is an illogical contradiction of terms.

joint-heir · Jan 31, 2010

shad said:

WHAT I PREACH ACCORDING TO THE HOLY SPIRIT

-------GRACE-------

A CONDITION BASED UPON THE LOVE GOD HAD FOR HIS CREATION CONCERNING THEIR SALVATION. A CONDITION UNLIKE MERCY AND HOPE FOR ALL ARE CHARACTERISTICS OF OUR GOD. IT IS A PERIOD BY WHICH WE CURRENTLY LIVE IN BUT IT IS ALSO BASED UPON CONDITION AND ENDS BASED UPON OUR OWN ACTIONS. GRACE IS NEVER ENDING AS LONG AS WE LIVE WITHIN THE LIMITS AND UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE GRACE OF GOD ACTUALLY MEANS. GRACE IS A RIGHTEOUS CONDITION BY WHICH EVIL AND SIN CAN LIMIT ITS EFFECTIVENESS BY WHICH WE ARE INHERITENTLY RESPONSIBLE TO DWELL WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF GOD's COMMANDMENTS. IF WE CHOOSE TO LIVE IN SIN GRACE NO LONGER CONTINUES TO PROTECT US. OUR CHOICES IN LIFE PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY REFLECT OUR POSITIONS IN GRACE.

DID JESUS DIE FOR ALL SIN...?
YES

ARE WE SAVED WHEN WE CONFESS OUR SINS TO GOD AND REPENT AND SEEK FORGIVENESS...?
YES

IS IT TRUE EVERY SIN IS FORGIVEN AND ERASED AT THE POINT OF REPENTANCE...?
YES

SO WHAT IS GRACE WHEN WE REPENT...?
A CONDITION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS BY WHICH GOD ACCEPTS US AS HIS OWN
WHEN WE FREELY COME TO HIM FOR SALVATION

CAN WE LOSE GRACE...?
YES

HOW CAN WE LOSE GRACE...?
AT THE POINT OF COMING TO GOD AND ASKING FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SIN, YOU HAVE ENTERED INTO GRACE. BECAUSE AS GOD FORGIVES AND ERASES EVERY SIN YOU HAVE EVER COMMITTED UP TO THE POINT OF SEEKING FORGIVENESS, YOU HAVE BECOME RIGHTEOUS UNTO GOD.
BUT
ONCE YOU BECOME SIN FREE AND LIVE IN THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD AND HIS GRACE, THEN BY YOUR OWN FREE WILL OF CHOICE MAY YOU CONTINUE IN THIS GRACE. HOWEVER, IF YOU SO CHOOSE TO SIN YOU THEN FORFEIT YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESS IN GOD AND HIS GRACE. FOR SIN CANNOT DWELL IN RIGHTEOUSNESS AS DARKNESS CANNOT DWELL IN LIGHT. THIS SIN THAT YOU FREELY HAVE CHOSEN TO COMMIT CANNOT BE EXCUSED UNTIL YOU YOURSELF SEEK FORGIVENESS OF THIS SIN. ONCE YOU HAVE SINCERELY ASKED GOD FOR FORGIVENESS YOU THEN MOVE BACK INTO RIGHTEOUSNESS AND GRACE BECAUSE THE SIN YOU FREELY CHOSE TO COMMIT HAS NOW BEEN ERASED BY GOD.

IS ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED A FALSE DOCTRINE...?
YES
WHY...?
A SIN NO LONGER EXISTS WHEN YOU ASK FOR IT TO BE FORGIVEN. IT WILL BE BLOTTED AWAY AS IF IT NEVER EXISTED. BUT, IMMEDIATELY IF YOU COMMIT A NEW SIN AFTER SEEKING FORGIVENESS OF PAST SINS THEN THE NEW SIN STILL REMAINS UNFORGIVEN. THE CROSS OF JESUS AND THE REPENTENCE OF SINS WITHIN THE CROSS ONLY PERTAINS TO SINS YOU SEEK TO BE FORGIVENED. BUT THIS CONDITION OF SIN-FREE IS BASED UPON YOUR FREE WILL. FOR ANY NEW SIN COMMITTED HAS YET TO BE ASKED FOR FORGIVENESS. AND SINCE IT IS NOT FORGIVENED, HOW THEN CAN YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE SIN FREE..?

GRACE DOES NOT EQUAL ANY SIN I CHOSE TO COMMIT TOMORROW IS ALREADY FORGIVENED

MahogonySnail · Jan 31, 2010

You rarely quote your sources. In fact I recall in past discussions you have appealed to the fact that you have studied linguistics and know the meanings of words. My mistake, I thought you were an expert. Anyway I think Gill knew what he was talking about when he said :

he that denies that these two are distinct from each other, but affirms that Father is the Son, and the Son is the Father, and so confounds them both, and, by confounding both, denies that there are either Father or Son; and all such persons are antichrists, or opposers of Christ.

Eh,, the word "oneness" or "unitarian" is not in the bible either.

MahogonySnail · Jan 31, 2010

So...what else of the Nicene creed to you deny?

The Virgin birth? - there can be no virgin birth without the Trinity.

The canon of scripture?

If you deny the Nicene creed, you must also deny the canon, see:

The New Testament and the Nicene Creed are deeply entangled with each other. The wording and the concepts in the Nicene Creed come from the New Testament—in fact, one of the most important debates at the Council of Nicea concerned whether it is proper to include a word in the Nicene Creed that does not occur in the New Testament. On the other hand, at the time that the Church issued the official canon of the New Testament, it customarily compared writings to the Nicene Creed to determine if they were orthodox. So you are correct if you say that the Nicene Creed proceeds from the New Testament, and you are correct if you say that the New Testament is certified by the Nicene Creed.

http://www.kencollins.com/bible-c1.htm

Cup-of-Ruin · Jan 31, 2010

MahogonySnail said:

Mary was a virgin.

A son cannot marry a father's bride.

If there were two individuals then the marriage is null and void, the woman cannot have two husbands.

Book of Hebrews I believe take superiority over Ken Collins and Nicene Creed.

"king of Salem, which is the King of Peace, WITHOUT FATHER, WITHOUT MOTHER, WITHOUT DECENT< HAVING NEITHER BEGINNING OF DAYS NOR END OF LIFE, but made UNTO THE SON OF GOD, abideth a preist continually." Hebrews 7:12-4

MahogonySnail · Jan 31, 2010

Gill says:

Without father, without mother, without descent,.... Which is to be understood not of his person, but of his priesthood; that his father was not a priest, nor did his mother descend from any in that office; nor had he either a predecessor or a successor in it, as appears from any authentic accounts: or this is to be interpreted, not of his natural, but scriptural being; for no doubt, as he was a mere man, he had a father, and a mother, and a natural lineage and descent; but of these no mention is made in Scripture, and therefore said to be without them; and so the Syriac version renders it; "whose father and mother are not written in the genealogies"; or there is no genealogical account of them. The Arabic writers tell us who his father and his mother were; some of them say that Peleg was his father: so Elmacinus (d), his words are these; Peleg lived after he begat Rehu two hundred and nine years; afterwards he begat Melchizedek, the priest whom we have now made mention of. Patricides (e), another of their writers, expresses himself after this manner

Cup you really need to read some writings of theologians and experts on the matter...instead of just typing whatever comes out of your mind.

Cup-of-Ruin · Jan 31, 2010

MahogonySnail said:

Oh this 'Gill' is a piece of work!

Here try correct interpretation, not just the fables of some 'Arabic writers', thats a good one, lol, some Arabic writer! LOL!!!

Genesis 14:19 - Melshisedek = King of Righteousness, or by fig. Enallage (Ap. 6), righteous king, History Gen 14., Prophecy, Ps. 110. In fullfillment, Heb 7. - Christ - King of Peace, King of Righteousness the High Priest.

MahogonySnail · Jan 31, 2010

Cup, this proverb is especially for you:

Pro 13:10 Only by pride comes argument, but with those who take advice is wisdom.

It's quite obvious to me you aren't really a reader or researcher. So get reading, and learn.

Cup-of-Ruin · Jan 31, 2010

MahogonySnail said:

I would throw out your 'Gill commentary' if I were you, the guy didn't even know who Melchizedek is.

MahogonySnail · Jan 31, 2010

Gill explains who Melchizedek is here:

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine,.... Both the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem say, this is Shem the son of Noah, and which is the sense of the Jewish writers in general, and of many Christian ones; but, though it is highly probable he was living at this time, yet it is not easy to account for it why his name should be changed, or that he should reign in a country in the possession of his brother's son; or that he should meet Abram, and congratulate him on the slaughter of one of his own descendants, as Chedorlaomer was; and especially it cannot be said of him that he was without father or mother, or that those were not known, since Shem's parentage and pedigree are famous enough; some have thought him to be more than a mere man, even the Son of God himself, but he is manifestly distinguished from him in Heb_7:3; he seems to be what Josephus (k) says he was, a Canaanitish prince, a pious and religious man, eminently raised up by God, and whose genealogy was kept a secret, that he might be in this as in other things a type of Christ; but that he should be Canaan himself, as Dr. Clayton (l) thinks, a brother of Metsir, or Mizraim, the second son of Ham, being by Sanchoniatho called Sedec, is not likely, since he was cursed by Noah. Salem, of which he was king, is by the above Targums said to be Jerusalem, and which is the opinion of many writers, Jewish and Christian, and of which opinion I myself was formerly; see Gill on Heb_7:1; Jerusalem being plainly called Salem, Psa_76:2, but it seems clear from hence that it must be near to Sodom, and lay in the way between Damascus and Sodom; whereas Jerusalem was in a contrary situation, and lay nearly forty miles from Sodom; for Josephus says (m), the lake Asphaltites, where Sodom once stood, was three hundred furlongs from Jerusalem, which is about thirty eight miles; and Jerom relates

, that Salem was a town near Scythopolis, which was so called in his times, and where was showed the palace of Melchizedek, which, by the largeness of the ruins, appeared to have been very magnificent, and takes it to be the same place with Shalem in Gen_33:18; and Salim, near to which John was baptizing, Joh_3:23, this great man "brought forth bread and wine"; not as a priest for an offering, but as a munificent king, to refresh Abram and his weary troops, and which the king of Sodom could not do, because the victuals of that place were carried off by the four kings, Gen_14:11; and as Abram had the land of Canaan by promise, and now had made conquest in it over the invaders of it, Melchizedek, sensible of his right unto it, brings forth the best fruits of it, and, as Dr. Lightfoot observes (o), tenders them to him as "livery and seisin" of it: in this Melchizedek was a type of Christ, who comforts and refreshes his hungry and weary people with himself, the bread of life, and with the wine of his love, as well as his name and title agree with him, who is a righteous King and Prince of Peace, Jer_23:5,
and he was the priest of the most high God; a priest as well as a king, as in many countries princes were both (p); and in this he was a type of Christ in his kingly and priestly offices, who is a priest upon the throne, both king and priest, Zec_6:13. Melchizedek was a priest not of any of the Phoenician deities, but of the true and living God, who is above all gods, dwells in the highest heaven, and is the most High over all the earth; by him was he called to this office and invested with it, and he ministered to him in it.
(k) De Bello Jud. l. 6. c. 10. (l) Chronology of the Hebrew Bible, p. 100. (m) Autiqu. l. 15. c. 6. sect. 2.

Ad Evagrium, tom. 3. fol. 13. E. (o) Works, vol. 1. p. 694. (p) "Rex Anius, rex idem hominum Phoebique sacerdos", Virgil. Aeneid. l. 3. vid. Servium in loc.

When you write your own theological works Cup of Ruin, and may God forbid that you do, your words might have more credibility.

Cup-of-Ruin · Jan 31, 2010

MahogonySnail said:

Gill explains who Melchizedek is here:

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine,.... Both the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem say, this is Shem the son of Noah, and which is the sense of the Jewish writers in general, and of many Christian ones; but, though it is highly probable he was living at this time, yet it is not easy to account for it why his name should be changed, or that he should reign in a country in the possession of his brother's son; or that he should meet Abram, and congratulate him on the slaughter of one of his own descendants, as Chedorlaomer was; and especially it cannot be said of him that he was without father or mother, or that those were not known, since Shem's parentage and pedigree are famous enough; some have thought him to be more than a mere man, even the Son of God himself, but he is manifestly distinguished from him in Heb_7:3; he seems to be what Josephus (k) says he was, a Canaanitish prince, a pious and religious man, eminently raised up by God, and whose genealogy was kept a secret, that he might be in this as in other things a type of Christ; but that he should be Canaan himself, as Dr. Clayton (l) thinks, a brother of Metsir, or Mizraim, the second son of Ham, being by Sanchoniatho called Sedec, is not likely, since he was cursed by Noah. Salem, of which he was king, is by the above Targums said to be Jerusalem, and which is the opinion of many writers, Jewish and Christian, and of which opinion I myself was formerly; see Gill on Heb_7:1; Jerusalem being plainly called Salem, Psa_76:2, but it seems clear from hence that it must be near to Sodom, and lay in the way between Damascus and Sodom; whereas Jerusalem was in a contrary situation, and lay nearly forty miles from Sodom; for Josephus says (m), the lake Asphaltites, where Sodom once stood, was three hundred furlongs from Jerusalem, which is about thirty eight miles; and Jerom relates

, that Salem was a town near Scythopolis, which was so called in his times, and where was showed the palace of Melchizedek, which, by the largeness of the ruins, appeared to have been very magnificent, and takes it to be the same place with Shalem in Gen_33:18; and Salim, near to which John was baptizing, Joh_3:23, this great man "brought forth bread and wine"; not as a priest for an offering, but as a munificent king, to refresh Abram and his weary troops, and which the king of Sodom could not do, because the victuals of that place were carried off by the four kings, Gen_14:11; and as Abram had the land of Canaan by promise, and now had made conquest in it over the invaders of it, Melchizedek, sensible of his right unto it, brings forth the best fruits of it, and, as Dr. Lightfoot observes (o), tenders them to him as "livery and seisin" of it: in this Melchizedek was a type of Christ, who comforts and refreshes his hungry and weary people with himself, the bread of life, and with the wine of his love, as well as his name and title agree with him, who is a righteous King and Prince of Peace, Jer_23:5,
and he was the priest of the most high God; a priest as well as a king, as in many countries princes were both (p); and in this he was a type of Christ in his kingly and priestly offices, who is a priest upon the throne, both king and priest, Zec_6:13. Melchizedek was a priest not of any of the Phoenician deities, but of the true and living God, who is above all gods, dwells in the highest heaven, and is the most High over all the earth; by him was he called to this office and invested with it, and he ministered to him in it.
(k) De Bello Jud. l. 6. c. 10. (l) Chronology of the Hebrew Bible, p. 100. (m) Autiqu. l. 15. c. 6. sect. 2.

Ad Evagrium, tom. 3. fol. 13. E. (o) Works, vol. 1. p. 694. (p) "Rex Anius, rex idem hominum Phoebique sacerdos", Virgil. Aeneid. l. 3. vid. Servium in loc.

When you write your own theological works Cup of Ruin, and may God forbid that you do, your words might have more credibility.

Targums say its Shem Noah's son, 'Arabic writers' say its not and peleg is his father, well can Gill make up his mind?

However as the Bible tells us in Hebrews 7 - that Melchisedek has neither beginning of days, never born, without father or mother - and that literally translates that he has no recorded pedigree (E.W. Bullinger). Melchisedek is made unto the Son of God, who is the King of peace.

"But he whose decent is not counted"

Melchisedek has no genealogy, He liveth forever, there is no mention of his birth or death, and the Bible said he had no mother or father.

MahogonySnail · Jan 31, 2010

It's a pity you don't listen to what Bulllinger says when it comes to the Trinity. You do realise he was a Trinitarian?,you're quoting a Trinitarian theologian about a passage to prove your point that the Trinity is false. hehehe thanks for the laugh.

charisenexcelcis · Jan 31, 2010

joint-heir said:

WHAT I PREACH ACCORDING TO THE HOLY SPIRIT

-------GRACE-------

A CONDITION BASED UPON THE LOVE GOD HAD FOR HIS CREATION CONCERNING THEIR SALVATION. A CONDITION UNLIKE MERCY AND HOPE FOR ALL ARE CHARACTERISTICS OF OUR GOD. IT IS A PERIOD BY WHICH WE CURRENTLY LIVE IN BUT IT IS ALSO BASED UPON CONDITION AND ENDS BASED UPON OUR OWN ACTIONS. GRACE IS NEVER ENDING AS LONG AS WE LIVE WITHIN THE LIMITS AND UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE GRACE OF GOD ACTUALLY MEANS. GRACE IS A RIGHTEOUS CONDITION BY WHICH EVIL AND SIN CAN LIMIT ITS EFFECTIVENESS BY WHICH WE ARE INHERITENTLY RESPONSIBLE TO DWELL WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF GOD's COMMANDMENTS. IF WE CHOOSE TO LIVE IN SIN GRACE NO LONGER CONTINUES TO PROTECT US. OUR CHOICES IN LIFE PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY REFLECT OUR POSITIONS IN GRACE.

DID JESUS DIE FOR ALL SIN...?
YES

ARE WE SAVED WHEN WE CONFESS OUR SINS TO GOD AND REPENT AND SEEK FORGIVENESS...?
YES

IS IT TRUE EVERY SIN IS FORGIVEN AND ERASED AT THE POINT OF REPENTANCE...?
YES

SO WHAT IS GRACE WHEN WE REPENT...?
A CONDITION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS BY WHICH GOD ACCEPTS US AS HIS OWN
WHEN WE FREELY COME TO HIM FOR SALVATION

CAN WE LOSE GRACE...?
YES

HOW CAN WE LOSE GRACE...?
AT THE POINT OF COMING TO GOD AND ASKING FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SIN, YOU HAVE ENTERED INTO GRACE. BECAUSE AS GOD FORGIVES AND ERASES EVERY SIN YOU HAVE EVER COMMITTED UP TO THE POINT OF SEEKING FORGIVENESS, YOU HAVE BECOME RIGHTEOUS UNTO GOD.
BUT
ONCE YOU BECOME SIN FREE AND LIVE IN THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD AND HIS GRACE, THEN BY YOUR OWN FREE WILL OF CHOICE MAY YOU CONTINUE IN THIS GRACE. HOWEVER, IF YOU SO CHOOSE TO SIN YOU THEN FORFEIT YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESS IN GOD AND HIS GRACE. FOR SIN CANNOT DWELL IN RIGHTEOUSNESS AS DARKNESS CANNOT DWELL IN LIGHT. THIS SIN THAT YOU FREELY HAVE CHOSEN TO COMMIT CANNOT BE EXCUSED UNTIL YOU YOURSELF SEEK FORGIVENESS OF THIS SIN. ONCE YOU HAVE SINCERELY ASKED GOD FOR FORGIVENESS YOU THEN MOVE BACK INTO RIGHTEOUSNESS AND GRACE BECAUSE THE SIN YOU FREELY CHOSE TO COMMIT HAS NOW BEEN ERASED BY GOD.

IS ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED A FALSE DOCTRINE...?
YES
WHY...?
A SIN NO LONGER EXISTS WHEN YOU ASK FOR IT TO BE FORGIVEN. IT WILL BE BLOTTED AWAY AS IF IT NEVER EXISTED. BUT, IMMEDIATELY IF YOU COMMIT A NEW SIN AFTER SEEKING FORGIVENESS OF PAST SINS THEN THE NEW SIN STILL REMAINS UNFORGIVEN. THE CROSS OF JESUS AND THE REPENTENCE OF SINS WITHIN THE CROSS ONLY PERTAINS TO SINS YOU SEEK TO BE FORGIVENED. BUT THIS CONDITION OF SIN-FREE IS BASED UPON YOUR FREE WILL. FOR ANY NEW SIN COMMITTED HAS YET TO BE ASKED FOR FORGIVENESS. AND SINCE IT IS NOT FORGIVENED, HOW THEN CAN YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE SIN FREE..?

GRACE DOES NOT EQUAL ANY SIN I CHOSE TO COMMIT TOMORROW IS ALREADY FORGIVENED

We cannot lose grace, we can only reject it....

paulnsilas · Jan 31, 2010

Why, Jesus is God, of course!
is this a trick question? LOL

HumbleSaint · Jan 31, 2010

I have always heard the trinity refured to as an egg. An egg is on object but it has three parts, the shell, the white, and the yoke.
The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit are also three in one.

Who is GOD.......?

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest

charisenexcelcis

Guest

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest

charisenexcelcis

Guest

Banned

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest

Banned

Banned

Banned

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest

Banned

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest

Banned

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest

Banned

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest

Banned

charisenexcelcis

Guest

paulnsilas

Guest

HumbleSaint

Guest