Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The REAL number one problem in Christian theology

So based on the way you worded the above statements it is obvious to the reader that you are confident that the beliefs you espouse are in fact equal to truth.

If they weren't, I wouldn't have much to be confident about.

Here's a news flash, many of the people you accuse of heresy hold the same conviction, so what is used to determine who's conviction is in fact closer to the truth?

So? More than one person at a time can be a heretic, you know. And I'll tell you how I know that: scripture, history, logic.

Saying that there is no reason for folks to be ignorant and especially no reason for them to be deluded is not a statement that is backed by observable reality.

What in Gehenna are you talking about?

Confusing abounds by those seeking truth through religion because in religion, and I am specifically speaking of the self proclaimed christian religion, massive confusion and desention has existed for centuries.

Only for the uneducated and deluded. Those who seek do indeed find, doors are opened for those who knock. The proud and stiff necked can make little sense of it.

So as you try to "explain" christianity please understand that what you are explaining is very likely YOUR TAKE and the BRAND of so called christianity you believe to be correct.

As is everything you have claimed here - YOUR OPINION.

As such, know that what you are espousing is very subjective and to depict others as heretics because they feel your stance is incorrect and can supply biblical support for what they believe does nothing but make you appear to be somewhat of a bigot.

Oh, the bigot card. You must be getting nervous.

I can supply Biblical support for my beliefs, too. I noticed that you all avoided my post on the Isaiah Trinity post like the plague. There are places you will just not go, because your beliefs are indefensible.

Now to be fair, were I to do the same to you I would be guilty of the same bigotted behavior that oftentimes us "saved" folks are perhaps unwhitingly guilty of as we hold up our beliefs as the standard.

Knock yourself completely and directly out. I can defend my beliefs better than you can defend yours, and have done so on numerous occasions. I doubt that the moderators will come to your defense here and bail you out, so be careful what you wish for.

Since we are all hopefully truth seekers, why not try to approach things in a slightly different manner? Instead of saying, "I have the truth, here it is, believe it or be damned;" why not have the attitude of humility Jesus spoke so highly of and use one another to help us all ensure that we come to a correct understanding of what is taught in scripture. That will require us not being instantly dismissive of ideas we do not hold and actually hearing out others and examining the supporting evidence they put forth with as open a mind as possible to see how their view stands up to the grand context of scripture.
I am "instantly dismissive" of ideas that are non-scriptural and anti-Christian. If you are wrong I will tell you so. Jesus was humble but he didn't make any bones about heresy when he heard it. And I didn't find your slander against the church particularly humble, either.

We may all need to have others "proof read" the thesis of belief we have individually before we are so brash as to put it forth as truth that all others must accept.

Nobody is asking you to "accept" anything. This is supposed to be a discussion forum. If, after having kicked a few ideas around you still cling to your heresies, that's okay with me.

It is likely that none of us has it all right and even more likely that none of us has it all wrong, so why not cooperate so that WE ALL can get closer to the truth.

No, some of us have it right and some of us don't. Outcome based evangelism doesn't cut it. It's what has caused the confusion you were talking about earlier. So I am not about to add to it by lending credence to certain heresies.

Try to put on paper your full understanding of the gospel message and what it intails and place that "personal thesis" on the forum for all to view so that we can both learn from and aid in one another's understanding. As we comment on what others put forth how about we mention both the positive and correct things they say as well as what we disagree with so that a spirit of love and cooperation can rule as opposed to bitter rancor and total opposition.

How about if you answer the question before you, which is, where did you get that word "Christendom"? Was it at the Kingdom Hall? Do that first, then I will consider teaching you the Gospel message. It's already been alluded to in this thread, twice, once by me and once by Jason.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
its a common mistake that christians make when they havent read the old testament . i read the ot first then when to john, as i was lead to by the lord.

christ is all over the ot.
I never said I didn't read the Old Testament. The scriptures were the only book I had as a child and after receiving the Holy Spirit I finally understood them. The Word that was to be made flesh is all over the Old Testament, indeed where is he not? The reason I say I'm sure you know more about it is because, I do believe you are Jewish and I sense a carnal competition brewiing here and would rather diffuse it than contribute.
 
I can supply Biblical support for my beliefs, too. I noticed that you all avoided my post on the Isaiah Trinity post like the plague. There are places you will just not go, because your beliefs are indefensible.
How about if you answer the question before you, which is, where did you get that word "Christendom"? Was it at the Kingdom Hall? Do that first, then I will consider teaching you the Gospel message.

First off, I have no idea what you are talking about as it pertains to the "Isaiah Trinity."
Secondly, I must ask; why do you keep linking me with the Kingdom Hall? I can assure you that I am not a New World Translation advocate nor am I or have I ever been a member of the group you sem to think I am affiliated with. The last denomination I was ever a part of was the Church of Christ and that is now a past affiliation as well (though I still have a lot of friends there).

Next, here is what I thought christendom meant: Adherants to the traditional views of christianity as put forth by the old christian church and the the things that have become more recently widely accepted. In other words, church governed religion. So going forth, let me say that what I mean when I say christendom is equivalent to the tenets that are promoted and accepted by the
the majority of the christian community worldwide which could of course include things that are right and correct as well as things not at all backed by the scriptures.

And finally I will admit that I think I know the gospel message, but if you can fill in some gaps in my understanding I am open to hearing you out. The foundation of what I believe to be the crux of the gospel message is found in Acts 2:16-36 - Passage Lookup - New King James Version - BibleGateway.com Acts 2:16-36.
 
First off, I have no idea what you are talking about as it pertains to the "Isaiah Trinity."

That's okay, we'll get to that eventually.

Secondly, I must ask; why do you keep linking me with the Kingdom Hall?

Number one, you remind me of someone I know, you don't believe in the Trinity, you don't believe in a fiery hell, you do think there is a heaven but only 144,000 will go there and the rest will remain on earth, and you think Jesus was a created being, but it was the "Christendom" thing that got my attention, because that's how Jehovah's Witnesses refer to mainstream Christianity, who they think are lost souls.

You see, I have been reading your posts.


And finally I will admit that I think I know the gospel message, but if you can fill in some gaps in my understanding I am open to hearing you out. The foundation of what I believe to be the crux of the gospel message is found in Acts 2:16-36 - Passage Lookup - New King James Version - BibleGateway.com Acts 2:16-36.

That's all very well but what does it mean to me?

We here in "Christendom" have always believed that the Gospel message was found in John 3:1-20.

That's why it's "Good News".
 
brother lawrence, while i cant be one hundred percent certain on tot. he isnt a jw, i was raised in that cult, i usually pick up real quick on those.

jw arent pro gun nor pro military. i believe tot is both.
 
Okay, I'll take your word for it. He reminds me of someone I know.
i think he is refering to the verse in isaiah where God talks to god. i think 9:6? on the trinity.

of course the trinity cant be defined alone via the ot. the shemah really doesnt work. it can but if the person is a hebrew they wont see the word elohim(heshem is used instead of YHWH) for the word LORD, hear oh isreal our LORD GOD is one.

they translate that as hear oh isreal our heshem is one. heshem means the name and refers to the YHWH and to them the tetragrammation isnt a plural name but most singular.
 
That's okay, we'll get to that eventually.

Number one, you remind me of someone I know, you don't believe in the Trinity, you don't believe in a fiery hell, you do think there is a heaven but only 144,000 will go there and the rest will remain on earth, and you think Jesus was a created being, but it was the "Christendom" thing that got my attention, because that's how Jehovah's Witnesses refer to mainstream Christianity, who they think are lost souls.

You see, I have been reading your posts.

That's all very well but what does it mean to me? We here in "Christendom" have always believed that the Gospel message was found in John 3:1-20. That's why it's "Good News".

Sounds like you have read some of what I put out. I do put myself out there in threads like:http://www.christianforums.net/f17/i-am-so-weird-36275/#post546986 for sure. But as the Leader of the evil forces of the Decepticons alluded to, I am no JW, but I can admit that some of what I understand the Bible to teach is in fact in line with SOME things the believe. I can say the same thing though about Catholics, 7th Day Adventists, Baptists, church of christ, preterists, and a few others. All of the above mentioned groups have bits and pieces of the truth, some more than others of course, and all have areas where what the Bible actually teaches stands in direct contrast to what they hold up as doctrine.

As for the good message of the Anointed One, it is found throughout the scriptures. I chose to use the Acts 2 passage because there, Peter was more thorough in putting it all out there in an easily understandable manner than what many other passages do.
 
Yes, the Gospel is contained all throughout the scriptures. In the NT, the OT, and surprisingly, in the Psalms.

You should have gotten a PM from me by now.
 
megatron is whats wrong with christian theology, sorry tot i couldnt resist. perhaps an appearance of galvatron is needed.
 
i think he is refering to the verse in isaiah where God talks to god. i think 9:6? on the trinity.

of course the trinity cant be defined alone via the ot. the shemah really doesnt work. it can but if the person is a hebrew they wont see the word elohim(heshem is used instead of YHWH) for the word LORD, hear oh isreal our LORD GOD is one.

they translate that as hear oh isreal our heshem is one. heshem means the name and refers to the YHWH and to them the tetragrammation isnt a plural name but most singular.


Yes, Isaiah 9:6 "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

Sounds Trinitarian to me.
 
Yes, Isaiah 9:6 "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

Sounds Trinitarian to me.
that is because you havent seen the myriad of possible words in use for hebrew names of God. all of them..hmm lets see

1) ELOHIM IS plural and that is often not to mean a duality or triune nature of God but to show emphasis.
2) elohim is also means the same as el depending on the bias. i see that as you do but if one doesnt have the revalation of God in him the hebrew being translated can be stated like this

For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom; ו לם רבה (לְמַרְבֵּה) הַמִּשְׂרָה וּלְשָׁלוֹם אֵין-קֵץ, עַל-כִּסֵּא דָוִד וְעַל-מַמְלַכְתּוֹ, לְהָכִין אֹתָהּ וּלְסַעֲדָהּ, בְּמִשְׁפָּט וּבִצְדָקָה; מֵעַתָּה, וְעַד-עוֹלָם, קִנְאַת יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, תַּעֲשֶׂה-זֹּאת. {פ} 6 That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts doth perform this. {P}
 
that is because you havent seen the myriad of possible words in use for hebrew names of God. all of them..hmm lets see

1) ELOHIM IS plural and that is often not to mean a duality or triune nature of God but to show emphasis.
2) elohim is also means the same as el depending on the bias. i see that as you do but if one doesnt have the revalation of God in him the hebrew being translated can be stated like this

For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom; ו לם רבה (לְמַרְבֵּה) הַמִּשְׂרָה וּלְשָׁלוֹם אֵין-קֵץ, עַל-כִּסֵּא דָוִד וְעַל-מַמְלַכְתּוֹ, לְהָכִין אֹתָהּ וּלְסַעֲדָהּ, בְּמִשְׁפָּט וּבִצְדָקָה; מֵעַתָּה, וְעַד-עוֹלָם, קִנְאַת יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, תַּעֲשֶׂה-זֹּאת. {פ} 6 That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts doth perform this. {P}

Yes, I took this verse apart one day. If I remember correctly the same word used for "God" in this verse refers to YHWH a couple of chapters later. But my memory is not so good.
 
Yes, I took this verse apart one day. If I remember correctly the same word used for "God" in this verse refers to YHWH a couple of chapters later. But my memory is not so good.
yes the word yhwh is a single word.its translated the God of many names or most likely the God of no names. both imply if i am correct the mighty provider and do all be all God but nothing in their supports a trinity. you must assume that God here is describing himself as one God and that each covenant name is a facet of God ie
jehovah-shalom
el-shaddai
jehovah-jireh
jehovah-nisei
adonai
el
elohim
elohe isreal(god of isreal)
the lord of hosts
the great I AM
the I am
if we dont we may be assuming that these are all different gods etc which they arent.
 
that is because you havent seen the myriad of possible words in use for hebrew names of God. all of them..hmm lets see

1) ELOHIM IS plural and that is often not to mean a duality or triune nature of God but to show emphasis.
2) elohim is also means the same as el depending on the bias. i see that as you do but if one doesnt have the revalation of God in him the hebrew being translated can be stated like this

For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom; ו לם רבה (לְמַרְבֵּה) הַמִּשְׂרָה וּלְשָׁלוֹם אֵין-קֵץ, עַל-כִּסֵּא דָוִד וְעַל-מַמְלַכְתּוֹ, לְהָכִין אֹתָהּ וּלְסַעֲדָהּ, בְּמִשְׁפָּט וּבִצְדָקָה; מֵעַתָּה, וְעַד-עוֹלָם, קִנְאַת יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, תַּעֲשֶׂה-זֹּאת. {פ} 6 That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts doth perform this. {P}

Ah yes. The "plural-intensive" in Hebrew. Elohiym certainly can mean God (singular) with great emphasis as you say. The Scriptures use the forms El, Eloah, and Eloheinu interchangeably with Elohiym. Interestingly, the word Elyown is translated as "Most High" but it is clearly derived from the same root which denotes Might.

For those of you who maintain that the Hebrew suffix -iym automatically equates to plurality, know that the Hebrew word for "life" is chaiym--Another plural intensive word that refers to a singular concept.
 
both imply if i am correct the mighty provider and do all be all God but nothing in their supports a trinity.

The point was that the same name used for the son who is to be born that will be called "wonderful counselor, mighty God" etc. was used for YWHW Himself. Here it is from Young's Literal Translation:

For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.
 
The point was that the same name used for the son who is to be born that will be called "wonderful counselor, mighty God" etc. was used for YWHW Himself. Here it is from Young's Literal Translation:

For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.
yes we see that from AFTER the fact, in ancient cannanite languages they dont use the idea of pluralism like we do. we its a plural word it really means emphaises another way of stating two or more is used that was the point.

i have learned this from an arabic speaking muslim and also jews themselves. i learned not argue with those that speak the language of hebrew as well i dont speak it!

if i want to argue the trinity john 1:1 is the best and unaviodable.

trust me these guys do manipulate the idea even though we know what it says. the trinity takes faith to accept,logic alone wont do it. i speak as a former non-trinitarian.
Who is the child in Isaiah 9:5-6

Isaiah 9:5-6 says: "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the ruler of peace; that the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts does perform this." Who is the child the prophet speaks about?

Answer: Isaiah is known for the method by which he presents many of his messages through the use of prophetic names (Isaiah 7:3, 14; 8:3). In the verse under study, the prophet expounds his message by formulating a prophetic name for Hezekiah. The words of this name form a sentence expressive of God's greatness, which will become manifest in the benefits to be bestowed upon the future king in his lifetime. Thus, the name, though borne by the king, serves, in reality, as a testimonial to God. Hezekiah is called "a wonderful counselor" because this name is a sign, which foretells God's design for him.
The Lord of hosts has sworn, saying: "As I have thought, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand, that I will break Asshur in My land, and upon My mountains trample him under foot; then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulder." This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth; and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations. For the Lord of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? And His hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back? (Isaiah 14:24-27)
Be not afraid of the words that you have heard, with which the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed Me. Behold, I will put a spirit in him, and he shall hear a rumor, and shall return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land. (Isaiah 37:6-7)
Hezekiah is called "the mighty God" because this name is a sign that foretells God's defense of Jerusalem through the miraculous sudden mass death of Sennacherib's army.
Therefore thus says the Lord concerning the king of Assyria: He shall not come to this city, nor shoot an arrow there, neither shall he come before it with shield, nor cast a mound against it. By the way that he came, by the same shall he return, and he shall not come to this city, says the Lord. For I will defend this city to save it, for My own sake, and for My servant David's sake. (Isaiah 37:33-35)
Hezekiah is called "the everlasting Father" because this name is a sign, which foretells that God will add years to his life. "Go, and say to Hezekiah: Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will add to your days fifteen years" (Isaiah 38:5). Hezekiah is called "the ruler of peace" because this name is a sign, which foretells that God would be merciful to him. Punishment for lack of faith in the Almighty will be deferred and peace granted during the last years of his rule. "Then said Hezekiah to Isaiah: 'Good is the word of the Lord which you have spoken.' He said moreover: 'If but there shall be peace and security in my days'" (Isaiah 39:8). The fulfillment of the above-stated declarations is foretold in Isaiah 9:6, when, after the Assyrian defeat, Hezekiah's glory increased and peace reigned for the rest of his life (2 Chronicles 32:23). Archaeologists have found that there was a sudden expansion of Judean settlements in the years following the fall of the northern kingdom. This indicates that many refugees fled south, thus giving added significance to the statement "that the government may be increased." Hezekiah's kingdom is declared to be forever, for through his efforts to cleanse the Temple ritual of idolatry, even though apostasy followed under his son Menasseh, the Davidic dynasty was once more confirmed as the only true kingly rule that God would accept over his people "from henceforth and forever." The greatness of Hezekiah lies in his setting the stage for Israel's future. Hezekiah was a true reformer. He cleansed religious worship of foreign influence, purged the palace and the Temple of images and pagan altars, and reestablished pure monotheistic religion. In the long run Hezekiah's achievements would outlive him, leaving an everlasting, indelible impact on the history of his people. Thus, God, through Isaiah, bestows upon Hezekiah this name which honors the king by proclaiming the great things God will do for him, and, through him, for the people of Israel.
 
An interesting point that Ravi Zacharias makes about Isa. 9:6, is the language:

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given"

I had never heard that or considered it before but it is very interesting--it is a child which is born, but it is a son that is given. Could Isaiah be implying that the son is not born, so as to speak of his eternalness?
 
An interesting point that Ravi Zacharias makes about Isa. 9:6, is the language:

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given"

I had never heard that or considered it before but it is very interesting--it is a child which is born, but it is a son that is given. Could Isaiah be implying that the son is not born, so as to speak of his eternalness?

This is exactly the kind of nonsense that makes me so opposed to commentators.

Zacharias should really have his pen taken away and, well, never mind...

Why is it so difficult to see that the two parts of the sentence are saying exactly the same thing?

'UNTO US a child is born' : the 'unto us' makes it clear that the child who is born, is a gift.

What kind of child? A son:

UNTO US a son is given: again the repeated idea of a gift.

And Free, the word rabbi means 'master/teacher', like the Roman Catholic 'father'. I would never use that title for anybody in a religious context, especially because Jesus says not to do so.
 
This is exactly the kind of nonsense that makes me so opposed to commentators.

Zacharias should really have his pen taken away and, well, never mind...
Just because you disagree doesn't mean that it is nonsense nor that Ravi's pen should be taken away. He is currently one of the best Christian apologists and has a fantastic ministry.

Asyncritus said:
Why is it so difficult to see that the two parts of the sentence are saying exactly the same thing?

'UNTO US a child is born' : the 'unto us' makes it clear that the child who is born, is a gift.

What kind of child? A son:

UNTO US a son is given: again the repeated idea of a gift.
Right. I wouldn't dispute that both parts are stating that this child, this son, is a gift. However, that doesn't address the point made.

Asyncritus said:
And Free, the word rabbi means 'master/teacher', like the Roman Catholic 'father'. I would never use that title for anybody in a religious context, especially because Jesus says not to do so.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything I stated.
 
Back
Top