-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T
Hi feedm3,
Our discussion picked up again when I asked if anyone was willing to discuss Revelation 3:14. Are you willing to address my points? You've ignored them entirely so far.
I'm not really interested in getting involved in a labyrinth of more questions, so I'll finish up on some of these ones you brought up.
The congregation that referred this matter to the elders in Jerusalem, which was the one in Antioch, was well established by this point and certainly had it's own elders. These congregations had to be led by somebody. It was in this congregation where the disciples were first called Christians. (Acts 11:25) It was also the center of Paul's missionary activity. It was the ones taking the lead here, the elders, that would've arranged for Paul, Barnabus, and some others to go up to Jerusalem for clarification. (Acts 15:2)
You miss the point of the account. Why didn't some angel just appear and tell the Christians in Antioch God's view? Why didn't God simply prophesy his direction through one or all of them? After all, there was still prophesying at that time. Wouldn't that have been easier? The account is recorded as an example to us today.
The body of elders in Jerusalem discussed the matter thoroughly, bringing to light the relevant scriptures as well as accounts from the field, and then applied wisdom to it all, prayerfully. They weren't directly inspired, they reached unanimous decision by sincere and earnest counsel over where God was leading them. This is how a worldwide church should be led. This account is in scripture for a reason. It's the Church in action.
What happens when every congregation is autonomous, feedm3? Aren't there all kinds of divisions that spring up along with disunity? You may not realize it, but if you trace back the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, you'll find that that's how we operated a hundred years ago. Each congregation kind of did it's own thing, and it caused all types of problems and actually inhibited the witnessing work that we're directed to do by Jesus Christ. (Matthew 28:19) As the congregation was gradually made to conform to the example of the worldwide congregation in the book of Acts, the witnessing work took off, the numbers grew exponentially and the close unity of Witnesses is observable worldwide. These are just the facts.
Well some were baptized faster than others, and the same is true for Witnesses today. But there always had to be an accurate understanding of the Gospel in order to have true faith in it.
A few things to note. First, the passage doesn't say that he was baptized 'immediately.' The passage doesn't say how much time passed during Philip's preaching. Second, unlike today, Philip's preaching was accompanied by miracles, which made the acceptance of his message as truth easier than today (compare John 20:29). Thirdly, Samaritans were aware of and waiting for the Messiah (compare John 4:25). They had a knowledge of the Law since they held the Pentateuch up as holy writ.
Regardless of speed, the process is spelled out by Paul: "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?And how are they to preach unless they are sent?" (Romans 10:14-15) In order to believe and be baptized, the people first have to hear the preaching, by understanding it. That is what Jehovah's Witnesses are sure to do, just as was done in the first century.
It's not at all different. When appearing at the Areopagus, Paul had to explain the Gospel more generally. He even cited Greek poets on which to build his case, since the Law would mean little to the people there. He appeared to them as the preacher of the 'unknown God' to which they had an alter. And in the little time he had there, he had little success. (Acts 17)
That preaching to those without background knowledge requires more time and words is observable in the Gospel accounts. When Matthew wrote his account to the Hebrew people, he only needed to have his chronology of Jesus to extend back to Abraham. (Matthew 1) When Luke writes his account to a more general audience, he extends his chronology of Jesus back to Adam, and indeed God. (Luke 3)
Our discussion picked up again when I asked if anyone was willing to discuss Revelation 3:14. Are you willing to address my points? You've ignored them entirely so far.
I'm not really interested in getting involved in a labyrinth of more questions, so I'll finish up on some of these ones you brought up.
The congregation that referred this matter to the elders in Jerusalem, which was the one in Antioch, was well established by this point and certainly had it's own elders. These congregations had to be led by somebody. It was in this congregation where the disciples were first called Christians. (Acts 11:25) It was also the center of Paul's missionary activity. It was the ones taking the lead here, the elders, that would've arranged for Paul, Barnabus, and some others to go up to Jerusalem for clarification. (Acts 15:2)
You miss the point of the account. Why didn't some angel just appear and tell the Christians in Antioch God's view? Why didn't God simply prophesy his direction through one or all of them? After all, there was still prophesying at that time. Wouldn't that have been easier? The account is recorded as an example to us today.
The body of elders in Jerusalem discussed the matter thoroughly, bringing to light the relevant scriptures as well as accounts from the field, and then applied wisdom to it all, prayerfully. They weren't directly inspired, they reached unanimous decision by sincere and earnest counsel over where God was leading them. This is how a worldwide church should be led. This account is in scripture for a reason. It's the Church in action.
What happens when every congregation is autonomous, feedm3? Aren't there all kinds of divisions that spring up along with disunity? You may not realize it, but if you trace back the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, you'll find that that's how we operated a hundred years ago. Each congregation kind of did it's own thing, and it caused all types of problems and actually inhibited the witnessing work that we're directed to do by Jesus Christ. (Matthew 28:19) As the congregation was gradually made to conform to the example of the worldwide congregation in the book of Acts, the witnessing work took off, the numbers grew exponentially and the close unity of Witnesses is observable worldwide. These are just the facts.
Well some were baptized faster than others, and the same is true for Witnesses today. But there always had to be an accurate understanding of the Gospel in order to have true faith in it.
A few things to note. First, the passage doesn't say that he was baptized 'immediately.' The passage doesn't say how much time passed during Philip's preaching. Second, unlike today, Philip's preaching was accompanied by miracles, which made the acceptance of his message as truth easier than today (compare John 20:29). Thirdly, Samaritans were aware of and waiting for the Messiah (compare John 4:25). They had a knowledge of the Law since they held the Pentateuch up as holy writ.
Regardless of speed, the process is spelled out by Paul: "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?And how are they to preach unless they are sent?" (Romans 10:14-15) In order to believe and be baptized, the people first have to hear the preaching, by understanding it. That is what Jehovah's Witnesses are sure to do, just as was done in the first century.
It's not at all different. When appearing at the Areopagus, Paul had to explain the Gospel more generally. He even cited Greek poets on which to build his case, since the Law would mean little to the people there. He appeared to them as the preacher of the 'unknown God' to which they had an alter. And in the little time he had there, he had little success. (Acts 17)
That preaching to those without background knowledge requires more time and words is observable in the Gospel accounts. When Matthew wrote his account to the Hebrew people, he only needed to have his chronology of Jesus to extend back to Abraham. (Matthew 1) When Luke writes his account to a more general audience, he extends his chronology of Jesus back to Adam, and indeed God. (Luke 3)
Last edited:
H
Okay..I'm at a loss...so much to say...you can go on believing that there is more then one God...please don't quote people and portray that they believed the same when they didn't....as for me I'll stick to God's own words...2 Sam. 7:22; 1 Kings 8:60; 1 Chron. 17:20; Isa. 43:10; John 5:44...etc...you can't get around that no matter how hard you try - but at least now I can see where you are coming from with your arguments.
Take care
hopesprings
Take care
hopesprings
F
Okay thanks for answering. IF you not interesting in getting into it then no need for me to pointlessly respond.
I have not ignored you, but obviously your going to say I do no matter what. We did discuss Rev 3, I cant figure out how you think you have some solid proof point here. I am sure if you did you would have layed it out by now.
Here is a recap.
you: First of God's creation - SOLID PROOF!
Me - Same word used in Col 1 meaning rank
You - NO PROOF! ONLY USED BY JOHN IN TIME SENSE
Me - John was quoting Jesus
You - nothing
Me - John also used worship in it's normal sense so is that proof?
You - NO NOT PROOF. JOHN SAYS HE WILL MAKE GOD'S ENEMIES WORSHIP THE LAODICEAN'S FEET!
ME no it says worship at their feet, does not say who is being worshiped, why would I not assume God?
YOU - NO you have ignored me!
Don't remember any of that, I know it's exaggerated, but still should cause a memory or two.
Take Care TJ
I have not ignored you, but obviously your going to say I do no matter what. We did discuss Rev 3, I cant figure out how you think you have some solid proof point here. I am sure if you did you would have layed it out by now.
Here is a recap.
you: First of God's creation - SOLID PROOF!
Me - Same word used in Col 1 meaning rank
You - NO PROOF! ONLY USED BY JOHN IN TIME SENSE
Me - John was quoting Jesus
You - nothing
Me - John also used worship in it's normal sense so is that proof?
You - NO NOT PROOF. JOHN SAYS HE WILL MAKE GOD'S ENEMIES WORSHIP THE LAODICEAN'S FEET!
ME no it says worship at their feet, does not say who is being worshiped, why would I not assume God?
YOU - NO you have ignored me!
Don't remember any of that, I know it's exaggerated, but still should cause a memory or two.
Take Care TJ
T
Hello hopesprings,
Thanks for your response.
Jesus himself says this! "Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?" (John 10:34-36)
That's an unsupported assertion. These people recognize that the term 'god' is used more broadly in scripture than you are using it.
Others are called 'gods' in the Bible, hopesprings. That's a fact and your interpretation does not account for them.
Yet again, look at the context of your verses. You just quoted Isaiah 43:10 after I've cited Isaiah 43:11 to you twice. Was Jehovah the only savior? Does this make Othniel and Ehud (both saviors) Jehovah God? (Judges 3:9,15) Or is the context contrasting Jehovah with the gods of the nations, and not considering divinely-appointed representatives?
I've really enjoyed discussing these matters with you hopesprings. It's up to you to decide whether you'll allow this new scriptural evidence to mold your beliefs or not.
Thanks for your response.
Jesus himself says this! "Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?" (John 10:34-36)
That's an unsupported assertion. These people recognize that the term 'god' is used more broadly in scripture than you are using it.
Others are called 'gods' in the Bible, hopesprings. That's a fact and your interpretation does not account for them.
Yet again, look at the context of your verses. You just quoted Isaiah 43:10 after I've cited Isaiah 43:11 to you twice. Was Jehovah the only savior? Does this make Othniel and Ehud (both saviors) Jehovah God? (Judges 3:9,15) Or is the context contrasting Jehovah with the gods of the nations, and not considering divinely-appointed representatives?
I've really enjoyed discussing these matters with you hopesprings. It's up to you to decide whether you'll allow this new scriptural evidence to mold your beliefs or not.
T
Hello feedm3,
Regardless of that...interesting...recap of events, all of my points still stand. You can look up for yourself where Jesus utters the word and how. I've shown that in every instance in the New Testament when 'arche' is used in a sense of rank, it's always accompanied by terms relating to power and authority, terms which are not present in Revelation 3:14. Coincidence? This likely has much to do with the BDAG lexicon saying that it 'probably' means "first creature" in Revelation 3:14. I have also shown the connection between Revelation 3:14 and Proverbs 8:22, a connection almost universally recognized by the early church fathers.
Regardless of that...interesting...recap of events, all of my points still stand. You can look up for yourself where Jesus utters the word and how. I've shown that in every instance in the New Testament when 'arche' is used in a sense of rank, it's always accompanied by terms relating to power and authority, terms which are not present in Revelation 3:14. Coincidence? This likely has much to do with the BDAG lexicon saying that it 'probably' means "first creature" in Revelation 3:14. I have also shown the connection between Revelation 3:14 and Proverbs 8:22, a connection almost universally recognized by the early church fathers.
H
Seriously?? You are arguing for the sake of arguing. I never once said that other people were not called 'god' in scripture. Quite frankly, I'm getting pretty frustrated. You have quoted Matthew Henry and said that he believed something that he didn't...he doesn't say that there is more then one God, even in the quote you referenced....you have misquoted scripture to try and prove that angels have the same form as God...and you have turned our discussion into something completely different. I am not ignorant to the fact that more then one person is called 'god', and I am not saying that the term 'god' does not "have a broader sense then what I am giving it". I mean...really?? have you not been reading anything I have written? We were not even talking about the word "god" we were talking about the title "Mighty God". I have a problem with you saying that Jesus can be called Mighty God because he is 'a god', because there is only one God. I'm sorry...I like reading greek mythology but I don't buy into it as truth. There is no such thing as a demi-god and you have no scriptural proof that there is. Perhaps you need to read the gospel of John again, don't forget Ps. 82 - then just go ahead and read the entire book of Isaiah - before you get tied up in the practice of one verse theology. I get that the context determines the way in which these words are used...and I totally agree with that! But you still have not explained how Jesus can be called Mighty God, if he is not God! I get your argument about other people being called god, I get the whole 'representative' thingy. I am not denying that this ever happens. But Jesus is called God with the qualifier "mighty" before it, just like God is called God with the qualifier 'mighty' before it. Why do I need to explain this point again? This doesn't happen to anyone else, yet you ignore that and try and reason it away. I am not going to keep bashing my head against the wall on this point. And I think God's word is pretty absolute...He is the ONLY God and if you chose to believe otherwise then you are going to have to start molding the entire bible to fit your belief.
hopesprings
hopesprings
T
Hello hopesprings,
Yes I have, but then you turn around and say the following:
This confuses me again. Didn't you just say above, "I am not ignorant to the fact that more then one person is called 'god'"? Now you're back to the "there is only one God" argument. Which is it?
Yes, so Jesus is a "G/god" in the representative sense, and a "mighty" one in that sense.
Can you show me one instance where the verb 'harpazo' means to 'hold onto something one already possesses'?
Yes I have, but then you turn around and say the following:
This confuses me again. Didn't you just say above, "I am not ignorant to the fact that more then one person is called 'god'"? Now you're back to the "there is only one God" argument. Which is it?
Yes, so Jesus is a "G/god" in the representative sense, and a "mighty" one in that sense.
Can you show me one instance where the verb 'harpazo' means to 'hold onto something one already possesses'?
H
The verb 'hapazo' isn't being used in this passage in phil. but it is used in all the other references you provided. in Phil. we have the masculine noun 'harpagmos' and this noun has two meanings. It can mean 'the act of seizing' or 'a thing seized'. Since it has two definitions, you need to look at the context of phil. 2 to determine which definition of the word was being used, right? this is the only time in scripture that that word is used. so your other references have nothing to do with what we are talking about, again. and, i don't mean to confuse you. more then one person is called 'god', but they are in no sense God or a god...it is always being used to describe something about that person. I think that is clear by the context in which this word is used. But, there is still only one God - no one else is, by nature, God. God makes that VERY clear. Every single place, in scripture, where there is a qualifier before the word God, it is talking about the one God. That is one way we are able to distinguish him from these other people. This is the rule except in the case of Jesus. Why?? that's my question! We weren't even discussing any of the other stuff...and i don't feel that you have answered that. Saying that Jesus is a representative and that he is mighty, does not explain how that rule doesn't apply to him. Perhaps i should have worded this way in the first place...show me one place, just one, where someone who is not God is called God with a qualifier and I will shut up.
R
Hi Hopesprings
Thank you for your reply.
The title applied to your God Jesus is there "King of Kings" staring us in the face, whether there is an additional title is neither here nor there. But please show me how you figure that the additional title joined by the 'and'..." Lord of Lords" somehow negates Jesus being the King of Kings ! ?
Your God Jesus is given the title that a mere human is given, the King of Kings, Nebuchadnezzar. This does not make Nebuchadnezzar identical to your God Jesus. On the same basis neither does Jesus being named as Mighty mean that he is "The Mighty God", especially so, where he is never named the Almighty God.
To deny that Jesus, (supposedly God) is called a King of Kings would be like one of the JW's saying that Jesus is not titled Mighty God after all in Isaiah 9:6 because in a bizarre rule his title has to consist of the four titles to make any sense, and that somehow being named, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace negates him being titled 'Mighty' !. Of course that is not the way that titles are applied. What is there is there, and Nebuchadnezzar is named as a King if Kings, just as Jesus is.
Thank you for your reply.
The title applied to your God Jesus is there "King of Kings" staring us in the face, whether there is an additional title is neither here nor there. But please show me how you figure that the additional title joined by the 'and'..." Lord of Lords" somehow negates Jesus being the King of Kings ! ?
Your God Jesus is given the title that a mere human is given, the King of Kings, Nebuchadnezzar. This does not make Nebuchadnezzar identical to your God Jesus. On the same basis neither does Jesus being named as Mighty mean that he is "The Mighty God", especially so, where he is never named the Almighty God.
To deny that Jesus, (supposedly God) is called a King of Kings would be like one of the JW's saying that Jesus is not titled Mighty God after all in Isaiah 9:6 because in a bizarre rule his title has to consist of the four titles to make any sense, and that somehow being named, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace negates him being titled 'Mighty' !. Of course that is not the way that titles are applied. What is there is there, and Nebuchadnezzar is named as a King if Kings, just as Jesus is.
T
Hi hopesprings,
As I stated previously, it's from the same root, so they're related. The occurrence of 'harpagmos' in Philippians 2:6 is the only occurrence of this form of the word in the entire New Testament.
What's the nuance between your two definitions? Either way, it's referring to something being seized by force, something being taken into one's possession that wasn't previously.
But you have to realize that nothing in the text explicitly makes this distinction, that's purely your interpretation. The Bible says plainly that Moses is 'elohim'. It says that angels are 'elohim'. It says judges are 'elohim'. You can qualify the term however you want, but the text itself doesn't do this.
No, we distinguish Jehovah not simply as "god" with any qualifying adjective, but with superlatives like "Most High God", "God Almighty", "God of gods", etc.
Because one can be 'mighty' and not 'almighty'. These words don't mean the same thing. The type of adjective matters.
How about "foreign god"? (Daniel 11:39; NIV)
How about we look at this argument from the other direction? Are there titles that God has that Jesus cannot take? Note Jesus' objection below:
"As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. 'Good teacher,' he asked, 'what must I do to inherit eternal life?' 'Why do you call me good?' Jesus answered. 'No one is good—except God alone.'" (Mark 10:17-18)
As I stated previously, it's from the same root, so they're related. The occurrence of 'harpagmos' in Philippians 2:6 is the only occurrence of this form of the word in the entire New Testament.
What's the nuance between your two definitions? Either way, it's referring to something being seized by force, something being taken into one's possession that wasn't previously.
But you have to realize that nothing in the text explicitly makes this distinction, that's purely your interpretation. The Bible says plainly that Moses is 'elohim'. It says that angels are 'elohim'. It says judges are 'elohim'. You can qualify the term however you want, but the text itself doesn't do this.
No, we distinguish Jehovah not simply as "god" with any qualifying adjective, but with superlatives like "Most High God", "God Almighty", "God of gods", etc.
Because one can be 'mighty' and not 'almighty'. These words don't mean the same thing. The type of adjective matters.
How about "foreign god"? (Daniel 11:39; NIV)
How about we look at this argument from the other direction? Are there titles that God has that Jesus cannot take? Note Jesus' objection below:
"As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. 'Good teacher,' he asked, 'what must I do to inherit eternal life?' 'Why do you call me good?' Jesus answered. 'No one is good—except God alone.'" (Mark 10:17-18)
G
Human minds cannot provide anything more than God gives them, TeeJaytwelve.
This is Truth, Scripture reveals that God reveals all things to us, does He not, and, just because no one on here so far has not revealed the 'Deity' of Father, Son, Holy Spirit, does not mean it will not happen. Keep praying for God's Truth to he written on the tablet of your heart, for we now are under 'Christ's law,' and, this Scripture, too, I pray I've added something of a Godhead to your misunderstanding of who 'Christ' really is, He is the power of God, same as the Holy Spirit, and, this means 'One' thing, ALL THREE ARE God. Jesus is God in the flesh, does not Scripture state this Truth. God gave of Himself unto a virgin Mary, this tells us the Holy Spirit IS God in the spirit form, a part of Himself, manifested, like Jesus, of Himself. Nowhere in Scripture is Jesus' birth mentioned in the Word as humanly conceived. Immaculate conception. Beyond human understanding, teejayonetwo.
May the peace of God give you all understanding of His Holy Word, I pray my words only came from fearful, trembling, sanctifying power of God, speaking through me as I was led.
This is Truth, Scripture reveals that God reveals all things to us, does He not, and, just because no one on here so far has not revealed the 'Deity' of Father, Son, Holy Spirit, does not mean it will not happen. Keep praying for God's Truth to he written on the tablet of your heart, for we now are under 'Christ's law,' and, this Scripture, too, I pray I've added something of a Godhead to your misunderstanding of who 'Christ' really is, He is the power of God, same as the Holy Spirit, and, this means 'One' thing, ALL THREE ARE God. Jesus is God in the flesh, does not Scripture state this Truth. God gave of Himself unto a virgin Mary, this tells us the Holy Spirit IS God in the spirit form, a part of Himself, manifested, like Jesus, of Himself. Nowhere in Scripture is Jesus' birth mentioned in the Word as humanly conceived. Immaculate conception. Beyond human understanding, teejayonetwo.
May the peace of God give you all understanding of His Holy Word, I pray my words only came from fearful, trembling, sanctifying power of God, speaking through me as I was led.
C
Know we not that there is but one Lord in three adminstations? And when that Age comes, all things shall be returned to the Father by the Son who through the Spiirit has harvest all that which was good. And God commanded all the angels to worship towards the Son. And God says that there is but one God and we are to worship Him only.
T
Hello GreenNnice,
Thank you for your participation.
If scripture said such a truth, I'd be the first to heartily embrace it. The fact is, such a formula as you state above is not in scripture, but dates to the later creeds of the Roman State Church. The New Catholic Encyclopedia says this: "The formulation '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. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."
Here's what scripture states unambiguously: "For God sent forth his Son into the world, not for him to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through him." (John 3:17)
Thank you for your participation.
If scripture said such a truth, I'd be the first to heartily embrace it. The fact is, such a formula as you state above is not in scripture, but dates to the later creeds of the Roman State Church. The New Catholic Encyclopedia says this: "The formulation '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. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."
Here's what scripture states unambiguously: "For God sent forth his Son into the world, not for him to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through him." (John 3:17)
H
Since that Greek word for "grasped" has two meanings, you cannot demand it only means one thing. A thing seized, is a thing already seized, or held as a prize. I already said that. Since this is the only time this word is used, it is possible that this is the intended meaning. Especially if (and I already said this too) Jesus already existed in God's form. You tried to reason the first half of this verse away, in saying that all angels have God's form - but you have no proof of that from scripture. I thought that by discussing Phil. 2 instead, that perhaps things would take a different turn, but you are ignoring the fact that grasped has two meanings - and the meaning that you are trying to say is definite does not fit the context of Jesus already being in the form of God. Your reasoning it away just like you did in Isaiah. Your example of 'foreign god' is terrible because God is never called 'foreign God'. So...I can see this isn't going anywhere...and on that note I'm about done...
T
cfultz and grenNice .... well put!!! I was humbled by your posts. I read this thread and just felt angry at TJ and R88 for ignoring the millions of solid points being raised. I cannot no more be angry at them for being lost than I could be at a tiger for having stripes. Thanks for your posts....
The Machine
The Machine
T
FeedM3, thank you for your honesty and humility in your response. I've been caught up in these arguements before and found it extremely frustrating to see that although I was taking into consideration the points being raised ...that my own points were being ignored. It was less a discussion and more of a mind game played by unskilled, brainwashed hitmen for the "one true religion". I believe that Ra88it and T.J are from the same hall and have come here to this site to try and convert the masses and in some twisted way see any opposition to their position as being spiritually rewarding....when in truth and in the Truth scripture states if you deny Christ then He will deny you...if my post wash harsh please take no offense. I just hate to see so many entangled in the art of nothingness with the artists of nothing.
“Nothing from nothing ,means nothing”…..Eddie Murphy
The Machine
“Nothing from nothing ,means nothing”…..Eddie Murphy
The Machine