- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Ep.
BTW, did you know that the word “concordant” and the phrase “The Concordant Literal New Testament” does not appear anywhere in the Scriptures! That MUST mean that the version of the Scriptures you are using is unbiblical!! And therefore you must abandon that translation of the Scriptures immediately or face the wrath of God!!So do any versions appear in scripture, KJV, NKJV, NIV, etc.? if so are they unbiblical?
Quote (chosenone @ Nov. 12 2008,09:18) Ep.
BTW, did you know that the word “concordant” and the phrase “The Concordant Literal New Testament” does not appear anywhere in the Scriptures! That MUST mean that the version of the Scriptures you are using is unbiblical!! And therefore you must abandon that translation of the Scriptures immediately or face the wrath of God!!So do any versions appear in scripture, KJV, NKJV, NIV, etc.? if so are they unbiblical?
EXACTLY!!! That is the point right there chosenone…. you can no more criticize the doctrine fo the Trinity because the word “Trinity” does not appear in the bible, to assert that since this is the case, the doctrine of the Trinity is OBVIOUSLY unscriptural… all merely because the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible!!! That is an nonsensical objection and holds absolutely no water whatsoever. Why? Because we believe a great many things to be true, even though those specific words do not appear in the Bible. And as I have explained to N many times, if a person were really trying to be picky here, that our beliefs be described using only words that appear int he Bible, we would absolutely HAVE to be communicating in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, because these are the languages the Bible was written in, and therefore, according to al who reason thusly, that we can communicate our beliefs using only the words that appear in Scripture, we would all have to learn Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and then be careful to always and only speak and write words that only occurred in the original manuscripts of the bible…. but then there is the problem, we do not have one single original manuscript, therefore we could not be absolutely sure if this or that particular word was really in the original manuscript that Paul, or Matthew, or Mark…. etc… wrote, so we would be condemned to being stricken dumb, and not be able to say or write a single word just in case a given word that we might choose was not a “biblical” word. This is absurd of course, but for those who want to argue that a person cannot convey their thoughts as to what the Scriptures mean without actually using biblical words to convey those beliefs, for those who say that, for instance, one cannot believe in the Trinity because the word “Trinity:” does not appear int he Bible, in order ot be consistent, these very same people would themselves not be able to believe anything at all unless that word appeared in the Scripture as well. In your case, since you seem to like the Concordant Literal Translation of the New Testament, we would have to say that since the word “concordant” does not appear in the Scriptures, then you are believing a lie… why? Well for no other reason then because the word “concordant” does not appear in the Scriptures. (And remember, to be totally precise, no English word appears int he Scriptures so we could believe nothing unless it was capable of being conveyed by a Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek word) Of course, you are unlikely to be persuaded that your favorite version of the Scriptures is evil, or unbiblical, simply because the name of your translation is not found anywhere in the Scriptures. Well now you know exactly why it is that Trinitarians are not especially impressed with anyone telling us that “belief in the Trinity is wrong because the word 'Trinity' does not appear in the bible.” The doctrine of the Trinity is no more unbiblical or wrong than reading the Concordant version of the bible is wrong, unbiblical, etc because neither “Trinity” or “Concordant” are “biblical” words…. just like we are not wrong to believe that the Bible has and will always only have 66 books in it, even though there is not one single verse in the Bible that says that the Bible will always and only have 66 books.blessings,
Kenblessings,
KenHi E,
If trinity theory was truth Jesus would have taught it.
We do not need your divines and yourself to add to his words do we?E.
Your explanation makes no sense, I can't even begin to understand your reasoning. The “Concordant version” is not scripture, it's the organization that translated scripture, same as the “King James” version is not scripture, but also a translation of scripture, there are also many other 'versions'. Not even remotely similar to comparing an explanation of the “trinity”. You are trying to use scripture to prove the validity of the “trinity”, where this word is not used in any translation that I am aware of.Blessings.
Hi E,
When asked in another thread if you knew more than Jesus you said
“apparently so…. “
Is it wise to claim to be more inspired than the HOLY ONE OF GOD?
Perhaps you did not really mean it?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 18 2008,08:10) Hi,
If universalism was truth Jesus would have taught it.
He is truth.
Of course not, when Jesus was teaching, the gentiles were not included, they were alien to God (Eph.2:11-12).This was revealed by Paul in his epistles.
This is why you are so confused and wrong about Jesus' gospel being “the eternal gospel for all” (non-biblical). See Matt.15:24, ask others if you cannot grasp the meaning of “His” words.
CO,
Jesus ministered directly to the Jewish people.
Gentiles have fed on his words ever since and many have found salvation through obedience to them.You answered your question yourself, “Jesus told the Jews He is the Truth”. Believe your own statement!
Just previously you said “Jesus told the Jews He is the truth”, now you say “…His teachings are for you (me). Now which is it? Make up your mind!!!
CO,
Indeed the Truth spoke in person to the jews but the ministry of his sacred words continues.
They are for you too as you have told us yet you shy away from receiving them?CO,
Where did the Son of God specify that his words were only for Jews?
The words are for you as you have agreed and yet you would take them from other gentiles?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
