Thanks Marty.

Quote (Colter @ Aug. 20 2013,15:16)It is clearly there Mike but my experience has been that people from the JW sect or any denier group, perform an incredible self deception in mid flight. That is to say that when they read the accounts of Jesus claiming to be the personification of God the Father, their brain actually translates the words,…[Read more]

Colter.The fact that you believe in a Trinity at all proves your foundation is faulty. No amount of verses and no amount of human reasoning can stand when the foundation is wrong.Even if you think the building is strong, if the foundation is weak, it will all collapse.Your deck of cards has already fallen by the way.Light has come into the world…[Read more]

Quote (942767 @ Aug. 20 2013,05:15)Hi:I agree with Ed that all the wrangling is because of the presumption that “the Logos” is Jesus. It in fact pertains to him, but he is not “a god” or “God” or “the God”.  He is a man.  Through His Word God has shown us His character.  And so, John 1c should be “God” or “the God”.Love in Christ,MartyPerhaps yo…[Read more]

Cheers Gene. I have been in many quakes even a 7.1 last year, but the 6.5 was much worse. Depth and distance is everything. A 6.5 is like a bullet, if you get a direct hit there will be deaths. An 8 is much like a direct 6.5 but widespread and effecting a bigger area. Of course a direct hit from an 8 would be hell, but I am not sure that this has…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 20 2013,15:08)So TWO gods, then?  One of whom was WITH the other?You won't get a straight answer here Mike, but the answer is clearly yes.If the Word is God and the Word was WITH God, then God was WITH God which makes two Gods. This is a violation of the first commandment.Two Gods. Even a kid could see that.This is why…[Read more]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 20 2013,02:17)Quote (t8 @ Aug. 19 2013,21:53)Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 20 2013,00:50)“disrepute?” – more name-calling huh? I see you are still attempting to argue over a misconception. Here is what I actually said:Ed J. Name calling is when you call people names. It is not when you say a person did a silly thing or put himself into…[Read more]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 20 2013,02:17)“T8 claims there is a quantitative state of 'gods' and is attempting to use John 6:70 to bolster his premise.But when we examine his example to see if it exemplifies what he claims, WE SEE THAT IT DOES NOT!”Stop trying to change the subject Ed J.I have known for sometime that you don't agree that theos can be used…[Read more]

lol.The biggest today was 4.6 I think. But I suppose that God didn't destroy Sodom when gay marriage became law. He did it when homosexuality was rife.

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 20 2013,00:49)“T8 claims there is a quantitative state of 'gods' and is attempting to use John 6:70 to bolster his premise.But when we examine his example to see if it exemplifies what he claims, WE SEE IT DOES NOT!”Stop avoiding the question.You said this. You are against the AKJV. Please explain why you are against what you…[Read more]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 20 2013,00:50)“disrepute?” – more name-calling huh? I see you are still attempting to argue over a misconception. Here is what I actually said:Ed J. Name calling is when you call people names. It is not when you say a person did a silly thing or put himself into disrepute.

But you say that I am wrong about Jesus saying “one of you is a devil” regarding Judas.Yet that is what the AKJV says. So is the AKJV wrong?If not, then why am I wrong if I repeat and support the same thing as what the AKJV said?Please answer or you will have to put on some heat resistant underwear because you will be sitting on the Hot Seat.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 16 2013,15:31)The fact that Paul EMPHATICALLY states that Jesus is our ONLY lord does not dismiss his LITERAL statement about there being MANY lords.The “MANY lords” part is the LITERAL part of the statement, and can be proven from scripture because there ARE many lords. That makes the “one lord, Jesus Christ” part of the…[Read more]

Quote (Colter @ Aug. 20 2013,00:14)So your rebuttal is just one of the many weak arguments employed by the anti divinity fringe.Your words are false or bear false witness about me. I agree that Jesus existed with divine nature/in the form of God, emptied himself, came in the flesh, served God, died for humanity, rose from the dead, and is seated…[Read more]

Quote (Colter @ Aug. 20 2013,00:14)No, you missed the point, those who heard him thought that he did ullude to his divinity:     The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”No you along with those brainwashed by the Trinity Doctrine miss the point…[Read more]

Quote No it you who doesn't understand, In John 6:70 Jesus was NOT calling Judas 'the devil' nor was Jesus even calling Judas 'a devil' – Take a look at what the Greek ACTUAL SAYS:See the “nor was Jesus even calling Judas 'a devil'” part?That means you clearly disagree with the AKJV.John 6:70 (AKJV)Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you…[Read more]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 19 2013,14:10)So then, is Ephesians 4:32 in the “AKJV Bible” translated wrong and Ed J right? Ed J merely brings the deeper meanings of GOD forth. You must become the niceness you wish to portray!If that were true Ed J, then when I said that Jesus said that Judas was a devil, my words followed suit with the AKJV. Yet you clearly…[Read more]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 19 2013,14:09)Hi T8, Name-calling is not a very effective way of trying to convince someone your argument is right.I must have missed something. What name did I call you Ed J? (Besides Ed J of course.) I just can't see where I called you names or a name.

All Trinities are pagan.

Quote (Colter @ Aug. 19 2013,17:29)I've have explained a number of times that Jesus is not the second person of the Trinity, but you insist on returning to that theme.Colter you are making little sense in your rebuttals.I am not insisting that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity and I never said that your Trinity does either. I am saying…[Read more]