The Hindu Trinity: The Original Trinity

[Free]

Firstly,

Christ DID NOT say, "I Am that I AM." as God stated to Moses. Therefore, His statement was NOT, "I AM God", He simply offered that before Abraham WAS, He WAS. I KNOW that man was 'created' FOR Christ. So this is a 'simple' indication that Christ, (or His 'planned' existence), predates, not only Abraham, but ALL men.

So this begs the question as to why Christ didn't just say "I was". This is actually quite funny because on the one hand you are saying that if Christ was saying that he was God he would have just said "I am God." But on the other hand you want to believe that by "I am" Christ really meant "I was".

Do you see the the serious problem? You are saying that what I believe the verse to be saying is wrong based on the very same reasoning you believe it to be saying what you believe.

Christ clearly says "I am", meaning that he was God. If you disagree, perhaps you can explain why the Jews wanted to stone him. If he simply meant that he existed before Abraham, they would have laughed and called him a lunatic. But as the passage in John 10 shows, they were going to stone him for blasphemy, for claiming to be God.

You state that by Christ stating that He and The Father are 'one' that this makes them 'the same'. WRONG.

No, this is what Scripture clearly states:

Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."

It is Scripture itself that shows that Jesus' statement "I and the Father are one" meant that he was equal with God.

We also can be 'one' with God through His Son. But this does NOT make 'us God'.

But no believer is the Son.

Nor does the FACT that we were 'created' by God, make us God.

I have never made this argument, nor would I.

A 'part', no doubt, but ONLY 'a part'.

Please provide Scripture.

So, for what YOU offer, there MUST be a 'quadrinity'. The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit, and Man. This would make a 'four-headed god' instead of three. I guess you would have it; 'the MORE the merrier'.

Where on God's green Earth did you come up with this? Where I have said anything remotely close?

The 'trinity' of Christianity offers that there are actually 'three gods' in ONE. They try to use the 'term' PERSONS, but in 'reality', what they are TRULY saying is that there are three gods in one.

No that is not what 'we' are saying. We are simply taking into account all of what Scripture states regarding the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, whereas you are only taking into account some of what Scripture reveals.

 

[Imagican]

Imagican wrote:
A 'part', no doubt, but ONLY 'a part'.

Please provide Scripture.

Being 'created' in the 'image of', MOST certainly makes 'us' a 'part' of God. And not only THAT, but we ARE TOLD that WE TOO may become the 'sons of God'. If a 'son' is NOT 'a part' then YOU please explain how 'this is possible'; for a son to NOT be a 'part' of his father. Placing 'religion' COMPLETELY aside for just a 'moment', we KNOW that the genetic makeup of a father becomes A PART of his son. This is NOT rocket science. Just BASIC science now. You know, like X's and Y's.

And if Father and Son ARE one and we and Christ ARE one, then, using the SAME EXACT premiss that YOU use to 'claim' that Chist IS God would work to show that 'we too' ARE GOD. Not true, however. We MAY be one WITH God but not one AS God.

THAT, my friend, is what I am saying. And this is perfectly clear to those that so choose to 'understand'.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Free wrote:

Mt 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

According to your analogy the above verse would have to read: "in the name of the Father, the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit". Instead, what we have is one name, consisting of the three Persons belonging to that one name. Read the verse in the context of verse 17.


Your use of 'semantics' here STILL offers NOTHING of 'what you claim'. For if this WERE true, then we WOULD have' 'God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, The Holy Spirit'. That is NOT what we have. We have, without DOUBT, THREE 'different' names. Read it for YOURSELF; 'in the name of (1) the Father, (AND) and (2) of the Son, (AND), and (3) of The Holy Spirit.
It does NOT state; 'In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit'. It states; 'In the name of the Father AND of The Son, AND of The Holy Spirit.

Nice 'try' though.

See what I mean about the 'need' to 'manipulate' scripture in order to 'prove' this doctrine of 'trinity'. You cannot simply take the words as offered and 'come up' with this 'creation of man'. One must 'alter' the words in order to make them 'fit' their theology.

MEC

 

[Free]

Being 'created' in the 'image of', MOST certainly makes 'us' a 'part' of God.

Please provide Scripture for this as well.

And not only THAT, but we ARE TOLD that WE TOO may become the 'sons of God'. If a 'son' is NOT 'a part' then YOU please explain how 'this is possible'; for a son to NOT be a 'part' of his father.

Rom 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!"

Gal 4:5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"

Placing 'religion' COMPLETELY aside for just a 'moment', we KNOW that the genetic makeup of a father becomes A PART of his son. This is NOT rocket science. Just BASIC science now.

Well, since this isn't rocket science, you will know that since the genes in the son are infused with the genes of the father, they both share the same nature. Christ is the Son of God, thus he shares in the nature of the Father, making him God. We are adopted as sons, Christ was not.

And if Father and Son ARE one and we and Christ ARE one, then, using the SAME EXACT premiss that YOU use to 'claim' that Chist IS God would work to show that 'we too' ARE GOD. Not true, however.

I would be careful if I were you about making such statements unless you are well educated in the Greek. 'One' may not necessarily mean the same thing in all instances. And often what is said of man has a different meaning when it is used of God.

The main problem for you in all of these lines of argument is that you want to claim that Christ is a 'part of God' but not God. And that is an impossibility.

 

[Free]

Your use of 'semantics' here STILL offers NOTHING of 'what you claim'. For if this WERE true, then we WOULD have' 'God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, The Holy Spirit'. That is NOT what we have. We have, without DOUBT, THREE 'different' names. Read it for YOURSELF; 'in the name of (1) the Father, (AND) and (2) of the Son, (AND), and (3) of The Holy Spirit.
It does NOT state; 'In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit'. It states; 'In the name of the Father AND of The Son, AND of The Holy Spirit.

No semantics, just grammer. What you are still ignoring is that 'name' is singular - there is one name, and that name is given to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The whole point of stating "and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" is to differentiate between the three 'Persons'.

To get your understanding of this passage, it would have to be stated either as "In the names of...", or "In the name of the Father, in the name of the Son,...".

Therefore, this verse does not and cannot mean: 1) that all three mentioned are individual Gods, 2) that all three are mere modes of the one God, or 3) that one is God in nature but the other two are not.

This most certainly is not semantics but reading clearly what is written.

See what I mean about the 'need' to 'manipulate' scripture in order to 'prove' this doctrine of 'trinity'. You cannot simply take the words as offered and 'come up' with this 'creation of man'. One must 'alter' the words in order to make them 'fit' their theology.

I most certainly have not altered or manipulated Scripture, I have only shown that your understanding this passage is in error. On top of that, you are doing exactly what Brother is doing - divorcing the verse from its immediate context. In verse 17 the disciples clearly worship Christ as God; this Christ who also said that they were to worship God alone.

This leaves you with two possibilities - either Christ really is God or Christ was a lier, someone whose teachings should not be followed.

But after all of that, this discussion is really pointless since you have neither an understanding of the Greek nor the willingness to use study books - to use the opinions and understandings of those who have studied Greek - to come to a better understanding of Scripture.

In the end, I am left with one conclusion - you want to believe what you want to believe, even if it may be wrong. You would rather blame the dirt in the Church for your unwillingness to search for the Truth within the Chruch than dig through all the dirt to find the pearls.

 

[Vic C.]

Imagican wrote:
Being 'created' in the 'image of', MOST certainly makes 'us' a 'part' of God.

Please provide Scripture for this as well.

Imagican wrote:
And not only THAT, but we ARE TOLD that WE TOO may become the 'sons of God'. If a 'son' is NOT 'a part' then YOU please explain how 'this is possible'; for a son to NOT be a 'part' of his father.

Rom 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!"

Gal 4:5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"

Good points, Free. If you read closely, there are a couple of members here teaching this "sons of God" doctrine. Adoption and grafting seems to be more Biblical.

No semantics, just grammer. What you are still ignoring is that 'name' is singular - there is one name, and that name is given to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The whole point of stating "and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" is to differentiate between the three 'Persons'.

To get your understanding of this passage, it would have to be stated either as "In the names of...", or "In the name of the Father, in the name of the Son,...".

Therefore, this verse does not and cannot mean: 1) that all three mentioned are individual Gods, 2) that all three are mere modes of the one God, or 3) that one is God in nature but the other two are not.

This most certainly is not semantics but reading clearly what is written.

"Oneness" theology often makes a pretzel of this particular "Comission" verse as well.

 

[Imagican]

NO, in THE name of, NOT THAT. And 'in THE name of' could be PLURAL as in; 'in the name of congress' or 'in the name of family' or 'in the name of the Dallas Cowboys'. As if to use this 'in the name of' POINTS to 'one' is falacy. In the name of the President, and of the Vice President, and of The Secretary of State'. Are these 'the same' or 'one'? Only in that EACH ARE a 'part' of a communal government.

We DO NOT have ANY sort of 'clear' definition of what YOU offer. But we DO have; 'In the name of The Father (1), and of the Son (2), and of The Holy Spirit (3). The Catholic 'twisting' of this statement does NOT a 'trinity' make. Nor is it EVEN valid 'argument' of 'trinity'. It is just 'another' example of how the CC in it's 'desperate' attempt to 'prove trinity' would 'twist' scripture in order to 'make it appear' as if they have a 'valid' representation of 'their view.

Using 'in the name of' ONCE, in NO way invalidates the FACT that these ARE three separate NAMES and IDENTITIES. Your insistence that the statement can ONLY be valid by the use of 'In the name of The Father AND in the name of The Son and in the name of The Holy Spirit does NOT stand up to 'clear reasoning'. It is just 'how YOU want it' to be. It it JUST as easy to offer, (and makes MORE sense), that this was simply a 'way' in which to offer three distinctions without making 'THREE SEPARATE STATEMENTS USING THE SAME WORDS EXCEPT FOR THE NAMES THEMSELVES. It's known as 'utility of speach' and is used OFTEN, not only in modern English, but throughout The Word itself.

MEC

 

[Free]

Imagican,

Your insistence that the statement can ONLY be valid by the use of 'In the name of The Father AND in the name of The Son and in the name of The Holy Spirit does NOT stand up to 'clear reasoning'.

Please read again what I wrote. I clearly stated that it cannot mean that.

It it JUST as easy to offer, (and makes MORE sense), that this was simply a 'way' in which to offer three distinctions without making 'THREE SEPARATE STATEMENTS USING THE SAME WORDS EXCEPT FOR THE NAMES THEMSELVES.

But this is my whole point, that it wouldn't make sense. The very repetition of "in the name" completely changes the meaning to three completely different beings. The use of "in the name" only once is for a very specific meaning - one being, with three "Persons". It was written in a very trinitarian way and any other wording, such as what you have suggested, completely changes the meaning.

And again, take this verse in the context of verse 17. I cannot help but notice that you haven't even attempted a response. Was Jesus a lier or is he God?

All I can suggest at this point is that you find a book that goes through the Greek on this verse and you'll see how specific the Greek grammer is. The Bible wasn't originally written in English; Greek is far more precise, like many languages.

 

[Imagican]

No, you asked why Christ didn't just say, "I am God'' and stated that because He didn't that what I was saying He said was, "I WAS Christ''. And NO, that is NOT what I said. What I offered is that He was showing that BEFORE Abraham existed HE DID. Get it? 'Before Abraham, I am. Christ was/is able to 'speak as He chooses'. I understand what He said perfectly clear. And there IS meaning behind the 'way' in which He chose to convey this statement to those that He was speaking to. He was offering that He did NOT simply exist as a creation of the flesh', but existed BEFORE the 'creation' of ANY FLESH.

Now look at the 'silliness' of what you offer. Moses was told by GOD, that 'I AM'. Please note that the phrase used a CAPITAL AM in reference to God stating that I AM. Now, please note that when Christ offered this, He was stating that He existed BEFORE someone else. Note that the 'I am' is NOT in capital letters as it was offered to Moses. Therefore it becomes OBVIOUS that He was NOT refering to His being God, but was offering that He had 'been around' since BEFORE Abraham.

And the funniest part of this whole conversation concerning, 'I am' is that I have NEVER had to 'defend' my views before. I had noted the wording that Christ offered, (that it was similar in nature to that offered to Moses by God), but had never ONCE thought that Jesus was stating that He WAS God. And the ease with which my observation is defended is astounding considering YOU guys have been 'trying to wrangle your way out of the truth' for quite some time. Accept it. You have NO proof or even indication that Christ is saying that HE IS GOD. He simply stated that 'Before Abraham, I am'. Pretty simply stuff really.

MEC

 

[Free]

Now look at the 'silliness' of what you offer. Moses was told by GOD, that 'I AM'. Please note that the phrase used a CAPITAL AM in reference to God stating that I AM. Now, please note that when Christ offered this, He was stating that He existed BEFORE someone else. Note that the 'I am' is NOT in capital letters as it was offered to Moses. Therefore it becomes OBVIOUS that He was NOT refering to His being God, but was offering that He had 'been around' since BEFORE Abraham.

Oh...my...goodness, Imagican. It is very apparent that you have not studied, whether formally or otherwise, the Greek and Hebrew of Scripture. If you had you would know that Hebrew does not have capital letters or lower case, there is only one case. You would also know that there are only consonants in biblical Hebrew. Capitalization and the addition of vowels are done by the translators.

You have NO proof or even indication that Christ is saying that HE IS GOD. He simply stated that 'Before Abraham, I am'.

Don't you find it peculiar that the Jews knew he was calling himself, or making himself equal to, God? Why is it that your understanding is so far removed from the Jews?

Look one more time at the precise words that Christ used:

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

So, I ask you again: why wouldn't Jesus simply say "I was" if he merely meant that he existed before Abraham? He just finished saying that "Abraham was", so it would make sense that he should have just said "I was".

But what you are missing entirely is that Jesus is contrasting the finite existence of Abraham ("was") with his eternal existence ("am") - "He was but I am". This is precisely why the Jews picked up stones to stone him, it was blasphemy. It does not get any clearer than that.

So what we are left with is, regarding Matt. 28:17-19, that Christ is either God or he is a liar. And regarding John 8:58-59, Jesus is either a lunatic or he is eternal. Which will you choose?

The more we debate the issue the clearer it becomes that you are only interested in your opinion, your own understanding, and not what Holy Scripture is actually saying. Until you put some real study into this topic and all that pertains to it, I don't think we can continue this conversation.

 

[Imagican]

Free,

You point out that the original Greek used NO capitals. Let's say that I accept your offering here concerning this scriptural reference. Let's 'just say'. Now, YOU would have me believe that John 1:1-3 is VALID translation of The Word, yet YOU yourself OPENLY admit that there WERE NO CAPITAL letters in the original Greek.

Now this seems a 'little ONE-SIDED here if you 'ask me'. You ignore the LACK of the capital 'I AM' in one verse and then refer to the CAPITAL W in Word as if this defines Word as Jesus Christ. Yet YOU point out that there WERE NO capital letters used in the orginal Greek. Does this not POINT to faulty translation? That the translators of the Word just 'inserted' capital letters 'at their OWN whims'? You CAN'T have it 'both' ways Free. If you argue the point, then the point would need by 'used' in ALL instances for the 'point' to be valid.

MEC

 

[Solo]

Free,

You point out that the original Greek used NO capitals. Let's say that I accept your offering here concerning this scriptural reference. Let's 'just say'. Now, YOU would have me believe that John 1:1-3 is VALID translation of The Word, yet YOU yourself OPENLY admit that there WERE NO CAPITAL letters in the original Greek.

Now this seems a 'little ONE-SIDED here if you 'ask me'. You ignore the LACK of the capital 'I AM' in one verse and then refer to the CAPITAL W in Word as if this defines Word as Jesus Christ. Yet YOU point out that there WERE NO capital letters used in the orginal Greek. Does this not POINT to faulty translation? That the translators of the Word just 'inserted' capital letters 'at their OWN whims'? You CAN'T have it 'both' ways Free. If you argue the point, then the point would need by 'used' in ALL instances for the 'point' to be valid.

MEC

I was brought to the conclusion that you take the side of the fence at the time necessary to protect your bias than to accept the truth of the Scripture at hand. You proposed that the capital of the word "Word" in John 1:1 was wrong, while in your post to Free you use the capitalized I AM to suggest a difference of meaning as Jesus stated I am (in lower case).

You, my friend, are all over the place. One moment Jesus is created, then Jesus is a part of God but not God, then Jesus is a wiff of God before his coming in the flesh, then ........

1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, 2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. 8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. 17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Ephesians 4:1-18

 

[Imagican]

NOT TRUE Solo, but good try.

I am NOT the one that opts to 'pick and choose' as those that choose to defend 'trinity' DO.

I have NEVER made ANY statements concerning the Hebrew language. Please remember that the OT was written in HEBREW, NOT Greek. I can see by your offering that you would rather argue with ME than carry on any ligitament discussion of the validity of 'trinity'. Your stance is OBVIOUSLY; 'I was TOLD it, I BELIEVE it, and that SETTLES it'. Unfortunately for those like yourself and the CC, I do NOT believe it and have AMPLE proof of 'the WHY' of it.

So, admit it. 'I' am NOT the one that chooses to be 'wishy washy' when it comes to MY views. Mine have NOT wavered ONE BIT. So, before you allow your emotions to force you into such a 'hasty response' perhaps it would be wise to 'think' a little bit before you attack or 'defend' that which you don't really even understand.

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

You, my friend, are all over the place. One moment Jesus is created, then Jesus is a part of God but not God, then Jesus is a wiff of God before his coming in the flesh, then ........

Not sure if you have been following his rantings regarding Mithraism on another thread, but I wholeheartedly agree with you above. Apparently, he makes it up as he goes - and when called to prove it, he merely denies and changes what he said and goes on to another subject, hoping you forget the previous time you tripped him up. His inability to back up his claims with ANY evidence is telling.

Regards

 

[Imagican]

fran,

You're a 'funny guy'. You have YET to 'show' that I have offered ANYTHING other than 'the truth'. Instead, you simply deny the truth in favor of 'your religion'. I have offered PROOF of EVERYTHING that I have stated. It is YOU who continue to accuse me of that which I have NOT stated. And then try and PROVE that the statements that 'you made up for me' are untrue. Nice 'game'.

Since you decided to 'join us', how about YOU explaining the verse under discussion. Explain WHY the 'I AM' of the OT is capitalized, yet EVEN YOUR CHURCH, didn't have the 'nerve' to ADD to God's Word here if the statement has ANY even REMOTE indication that Jesus IS God.

MEC

 

[Veritas]

Brother wrote:
The idea of Trinity as much as it is 4th century man-made, it is a confused theology.

Justin Matyr knew about it in 150AD. I can post some of his writings if you like.

I also saw no reply to what dadof10 said,

dadof10 wrote:
In John 20:26-29 we see Jesus allowing Thomas to "believe" He is God. I agree with your previous post when you said God is not a God of confusion. To allow Thomas (and everyone else listening) to call Him "God" would be very confusing indeed, if it weren't true.

The above, in combination with John 8:58 (not to mention the verses free posted) still makes it seem to me that Jesus was clearly claiming to be God.

Imagican? where are you going with the capital letters? The words still mean what they mean, I looked them up in the Greek and Hebrew concordances.

 

[Imagican]

Where am I going? If you will read the previous posts on this thread you will quickly see, (I hope).

But, if I must...........

When God spoke to Moses, He stated' "I AM that I AM". When Christ stated, ''Before Abraham was, I am" is NOT stated with capital letters as if Christ WERE God, but simply offered as a reply in answer to those He was speaking to that HE EXISTED BEFORE Abraham. He did NOT state that He WAS God in this statement. Now, since the Greek manuscripts that the NT was translated from USED NO CAPITALS, why didn't the CC responsible for the interpretation ADD a capital to 'am' as they did with the word Word in the first chapter of John? They KNEW better is the answer to this question. They KNEW better than to alter this statement. For Christ did NOT say that 'I AM' He stated that BEFORE Abraham was, I am.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

oh, and Fran,

My rantings were NOT concernging Mithraism specifically until you INSISTED upon me going into 'further detail'. What my 'rantings', (as you call it), were concerned with were 'trinity'. My statements were concerning the 'creation' of this doctrine by a people that were PREVIOUSLY indoctrinated with a 'triune' god. That this 'pagan' people simply incorporated Christ into their pagentry and ritual instead of 'starting over' with what had been offered by the apostles. In essence, they 'created their OWN religion'. All one need do is a brief study of the CC's history and thier ritual to understand this.

Christ stated that NO ONE was to be called Father except for God. Where do you suppose this 'Catholic ritual' 'came from'?

The Bible specifically states, "Forbid NOT to wed". Where do you suppose the Catholics 'came up' with this 'tradition' or 'forbiding priest to marry? Certainly NOT from The Word.

Mary, the MOTHER OF GOD? Come on. Utterly rediculous. Find that one in The Word. And 'worship of Mary'? Worshiping the Saints? UNBIBLICAL and NEVER taught by the apostles.

'Believing that a priest 'becomes' Christ upon performing communion ritual?

Boy, I could go on and on. And on and on. And on and on........................

But I believe that I have offered ENOUGH here so that ANYONE that has EVER 'read The Word' can CLEARLY see that these things are NOT Biblical nor EVER taught by the apostles. So we are left with ONLY two options regarding the discernment of such 'faith'. Either it was 'passed on' without ANY written evidence of the apostles, or it was 'created' by the CC. And a 'brief' study of the CC leaves NO doubt that it has 'evolved' over the centuries 'CLAIMING' devine inspiration for it's 'creations' of tradition and ritual. Even when they CONTRADICT The Word. Heck, the CC has even tried as of late to state that the Bible is NOT to be 'trusted' as the 'actual' Word of God, but simply a 'story'.

I leave the discernment up to the evidence and the individual that chooses to study it.

MEC

 

[Free]

You point out that the original Greek used NO capitals. Let's say that I accept your offering here concerning this scriptural reference. Let's 'just say'. Now, YOU would have me believe that John 1:1-3 is VALID translation of The Word, yet YOU yourself OPENLY admit that there WERE NO CAPITAL letters in the original Greek.

And:

Now, since the Greek manuscripts that the NT was translated from USED NO CAPITALS, why didn't the CC responsible for the interpretation ADD a capital to 'am' as they did with the word Word in the first chapter of John? They KNEW better is the answer to this question. They KNEW better than to alter this statement. For Christ did NOT say that 'I AM' He stated that BEFORE Abraham was, I am.

Before you get carried away with this argument, go back and read my post. The Hebrew didn't have capitals, the Greek did. I never even mentioned whether or not the Greek alphabet had capitals.

Please remember that the OT was written in HEBREW, NOT Greek.

Irrelevant.

Go back and rewrite your aguments since you got your premises reversed, keeping this in mind: Jesus is contrasting the finite existence of Abraham ("was") with his eternal existence ("am") - "He was but I am". This is precisely why the Jews picked up stones to stone him, it was blasphemy.

And while you're at it, please respond to the following arguments (I'm asking for the second and third times):

So what we are left with is, regarding Matthew 28:17-19, that Christ is either God or he is a liar. And regarding John 8:58-59, Jesus is either a lunatic or he is eternal. Which will you choose?

 

[Solo]

Not sure if you have been following his rantings regarding Mithraism on another thread, but I wholeheartedly agree with you above. Apparently, he makes it up as he goes - and when called to prove it, he merely denies and changes what he said and goes on to another subject, hoping you forget the previous time you tripped him up. His inability to back up his claims with ANY evidence is telling.

Regards

Yes, Joe, you have recognized that MEC will continue his walk apart from the absolute truth that the Apostle Thomas came to understand after seeing with his own eyes. Jesus never did rebuke Thomas for calling Him God. There is no way one can argue that fact without lying.

I think that MEC signature line should be, "Do not even attempt to confuse me with the facts, I will not listen!" :D