₦airaland Forum

Sarassin:
Not quite. Your bolded are read in conjunction with the "original" verse the "spirit, water and blood" the full verse did not exist.
the source is Adversus Praxeus 25

Was Adversus Praxeas 25 a treatise on the spirit, water and the blood or the Trinity? Let other readers decide!

Sarassin:
Here are the relevant words of Tertullian ;
... Qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus, ....
In English:
"These three are one [thing], not one [Person], as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."

I assume the words in parenthesis are your insertions. If they are yours then that was dishonest; if they are there by Tertullian then it proves that verse existed and was the subject! Besides, the highlighted statement accentuates the fact that Tertullian's subject was 1 John 5:7!!!

And, why was Sabellius[b](ca 215AD)[/b] who misinterpreted that verse to please the intellectuals ,called a heretic by Tertullian and others, if it was not there?

Sarassin:
I might also add that St. Augustine loved to promote Trinitarian dogma which had become the official teaching of the church by the order of Emperor Theodosius in 380 A.D. In fact, he spent nearly twenty years writing his voluminous work "On the Trinity." He never mentions this verse once. Not once! Augustine also wrote a commentary on 1 John. It is ridiculous to think Augustine would have written such a huge work but somehow knew about this verse yet never mentioned it in his substantially large writings on the Trinity.

Indeed, you need to carefully re-read the op and see the reaction of the catholic church to the whole matter.

Sarassin:
Here are the relevant words of Tertullian ;

... Qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus, ....

In English:
"These three are one [thing], not one [Person], as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."

Indeed, that there was a reference raised as regards the highlighted proves beyond reasonable doubt that that verse was there in Tertullian's time afterall!!! But where is your reference/source?

Muafrika2:
This would mean Hardmirror opened the ministry as a non-believer

Is that the business success Oh my. The poor people must have "planted" alot of seed

Non - believer?

But he claimed spending 12 hours in prayer and participating in miracle and deliverance sessions not forgetting claims of preaching fiery messages with eyes closed and messages coming directly from God to him!!!

Now to make a u-turn and give us this picture of his being a rather nominal ,ignorant person being influenced by his mum solicits for clarification.

Sarassin:
Your timeline is rather disingenuous. In fact the full verse in the Latin Vulgate is not found in any ancient Greek manuscript that pre-dates the Latin Vulgate, not one! the full verse is likely an insertion by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesaria who was commissioned by Emperor Constantine in 331CE to produce 50 Bibles at state expense, this was the same text relied upon by Jerome to produce the Bible he was commissioned by Pope Damasus which became known as the Latin Vulgate.

It’s a bit of a “red herring” making a claim that the passage was removed. It was never there in the first place.

Which manuscripts were those?
And Tertullian (160-220AD) could quote Eusebius(263-339AD), isnt that preposterous!.

At least Tertullian mentioned in the Op lived between 160AD-220AD and the book he wrote (quoted above) can be found here:
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/bible_books/?view=book_chapter&chapter=2599

How then would a man quote a non-existent passage yet to be added in his time but would be 'added' over 50 years after his death!!!

Besides, around 215AD Sabellius tried to rationalize the Trinity as revealed in 1 John 5:7 and other Scriptures and Tertullian was one of those that pointed out his errors!!! All this time, Eusebius[size=14pt](263-339AD)[/size] was not born!

P.S. The periods were all gathered from wikipedia.

Sarassin:
The real question should be, who added to the account of 1 John 5:7–8, which we refer to as the Johannine Comma? and not that the verse was missing from the Greek manuscripts. This passage is the only passage in the entire Bible that explicitly propagates the doctrine of the Trinity, in the Latin Vulgate, the passage reads:

"There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one".

Without this verse, the doctrine of the Trinity can only be alluded to from a range of passages combined to show that Christ is God.

But what we found in the earliest Greek manuscripts simply read: “There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.” a passage which on its own does not underline the doctrine of the Trinity.

So, Where did the words “Father, the Word, and the Spirit” emanate from? They were not contained in any of the earlier manuscripts, yet it is these words that are used to establish firmly the doctrine of the Trinity and its derivative, being the doctrine of the full divinity of Christ, that is the real story.

Kindly read the Op and tell us which 'earliest manuscripts' you are referring to. If that part was not there, what was Sabellius (ca215) trying to establish when he came up with his heresy?

Because you and your spouse are not two but one.

Hardmirror, this thread of yours does not appear to correlate with that other one where you claimed you were once a spiritual person?! Which do we believe, this thread or that?

About God and success, your opinion remains what it is and while your fellow theophobes may agree with you (they cant do the opposite), it still will NEVER change the testimonies of millions to the contrary.

goodnews, are you a believer in subordinationism?

https://carm.org/subordinationism

lordnicklaus:
That I do not know

In fact, the existence of the Sabellianist error invented by Sabellius around the 3rd Century establishes the fact that that passage - 1 John 5:7- was no later addition but had always been a part of the Word. Read about him here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellius

What sabellius did is what NL users like bingbagbo and a host of others are trying to do today.

Decker:
So the punishment for innocently acting out of fear should be death?

So killing a woman who probably on reflex, judging by the circumstances she was in, turns her head as bombs of fiery stones are dropping behind her is right?

Is God so blood thirsty that he resorts to killing people who disobey his orders regardless of the gravity of their crime? A woman who has served you for years, who has a husband and kids, makes a little inconsequential mistake and your only solution is to kill her, despite the fact that you need off springs from her husband, and then your next plan is to endorse incest_between her husband and her daughters? Really?

You did not answer my question. Was she warned? Now a person tells his child dont play with fire, it burns. She disobeys and gets burnt, who do we blame? Judgement had already been released and God had ensured they were dragged out of it but they were warned that this judgement released must not be seen with your eyes else it swallows you up. Lot's wife disobeys and gets swallowed up, who do we blame?

johnydon22:
You see i had to move this one a little up first because the spirit you mentioned up is translated in most biblical texts as Power

What I find mentioned in the Hebrew is spirit!
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_kings/2-9.htm

But luke 1:17 mentioned both Spirit and power so this falls sorely on the translation

Not really. There are other passages that speak of Spirit and fire. We know this refers to the Personality and His action/operation:
John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Luke 3:16

Since both spirit and power are mentioned here the spirit talked about by Elishah in 2kings 2:9 cannot be same as the spirit talked about here since the 2kings 2:9 spirit is broadly referring to power and not actual spirit.

not really! How about this:

And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.

Numbers 11:17

Meaning the spirit that was upon not within. Like wise Elijah. The purpose has always been to enable the recipient do what the other did as the blue highlighted shows.

But here we have both power and spirit in bold texts.... How then do you hope to conclude using reference to 2kings 2:9 that the Spirit mentioned in both verses have one and the same meaning.




Spirit and power here means separate things, so if the verse mentioned would come in the spirit of Elijah only then it would have been reconcilable even though actual greek text would still be needed for evaluation.

but it so remains that matt 17:12-13 explicitly recognized John as a reincarnated Elijah.

Besides, the coming of Elijah was already prophesied over 400 years in Malachi meaning this had NOTHING to do with reincarnation. The prophesy of course was not to cause them to expect the OT Elijah just as the prophesy below was not to cause them to expect the OT David:

"'My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees.
Ezekiel 37:24

Instead, they will serve the LORD their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them.
Jeremiah 30:9

In case you want to claim these verses as reincarnation, note that they have not yet been fulfilled!

Decker:
What wisdom? I don't see any here. First of all, God is omniscient and can see into the future, so he knew that this would happen, yet he still created them with the one language, and then starts complaining when they go against his wish. This doesn't even make any sense.

Secondly, God was afraid that they would reach his abode in heaven. Lol. Now this is hilarious and further proves my point that these are concocted tales by ignorant people. The ancient men who wrote the scriptures didn't have knowledge of space. So they assumed God's home was in the sky, and they integrated that idea into the bible.
How come God was afraid that they would reach him in heaven but he isn't afraid skyscrapers, air planes and space shuttles?

You say this because you dont understand the background to the whole scenario and what God was against. Space shuttles etc do not share the same intention with the building of the tower. The influencer of the tower (which I believe was Semiramis wife to Nimrod whose kingdom began at the site of the tower, Shinar Genesis 10:8-10) was simply working towards consolidating on the reputation of her late husband and maintaining the whole then world at one location where she and her son would be worshiped!

johnydon22:
Nope Since Elijah was the default person reincarnated as John according to the bible it makes more sense that he should return to his default personality as Elijah after his task was done as John.

So on the mount it wasn't misplaced he appeared as Elijah instead of John, that would actually be the most likely case.

"But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him…"
Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the
Baptist. Matt 17:12-13

this verse the OP quoted affirms that the biblical position is that John was the reincarnated Elijah sent to prepare a road for Jesus.

So whether he appeared in the mountain as John or Elijah it remains that he had the two personalities and it would have been more expected that he used his default personality of Elijah.

The OP actually makes a strong case: The bible actually supported reincarnation and to fault this is also to agree the bible is wrong.

Your ball sir

The proponents of reincarnation believe that it occurs after death, but Elijah did not die!

Besides, this is what it says:

It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous [which is to seek and submit to the will of God]—in order to make ready a people [perfectly] prepared [spiritually and morally] for the Lord.”
Luke 1:17

Now before anyone assumes that this means Elijah's spirit(human) see:

And when they had crossed over, Elijah said to Elisha, “Ask what I shall do for you before I am taken from you.” And Elisha said, “Please let a double [b]portion of [size=14pt]your spirit[/size] be upon me.”
2 Kings 2:9

[size=13pt]Meaning, John would be coming with the mantle/anointing of Elijah and this will enable him do a specific thing (out of all Elijah did) viz:[/size]

It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous [which is to seek and submit to the will of God]—in order to make ready a people [perfectly] prepared [spiritually and morally] for the Lord.”
Luke 1:17

Elijah did that on Mount Carmel

Decker:
So are you justifying death as a reasonable punishment for a terrified woman who looked back as she was running away from a devastating blast, caused by fire and brimstone falling from on high? Wow. The way you people justify death baffles and scares the shit_out of me.

Was she warned of what would happen if she did so? Was she the only woman? Were not the 2 daughters the ones that should have been more terrified being younger women?

johnydon22:
Wasn't John already dead before the transfiguration?

Sure he was, the more reason why, if John was Elijah reincarnated, the person seen on the mount should have been John not Elijah!

Besides, Peter and the rest knew John so if the person they saw on the mount was John, at least there should have been an allusion thereto!

Divinerspell:
Hello Everyone

Today I will be proofing the physical existence of reincarnation. Christians before you bash my thread and argue blindly that reincarnation doesn't exist. Here is your homework Christians, please read this bible verse carefully:

"But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him…" Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist. Matt 17:12-13

I will be right back

Now op, that place you quoted took place after the revelation on the Mount of Transfiguration where Moses and ,....Elijah appeared to Jesus! The implication is that John the Baptist was NOT Elijah. Else, there would have been at least a faint allusion thereto either by Jesus or the disciples. If John was Elijah reincarnated, and transfiguration took place with Moses and Elijah appearing, where was John?

3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Jesus Matthew 17:3

Decker:
God convinces his believers through his inspired scriptures that [b]the earth is just 6000 years ago. But decides to shock them by planting staggering evidence that the earth is billions of years old.[/b]

God must really love messing with people. But he is God anyway, so he can do whatever he likes. We don't mind.

Show us where in the Inspired Scriptures that was written!

Decker:
God sees how peaceful and together humans are with one language, but he still decides to create disunity and discord among them by giving them different languages.

In His Wisdom! Thus, His counsel stood-they scattered, replenished the earth and are still subduing it!

Decker:
God Tells Abraham to kill his only son [size=13pt][b]to test his faith[/size], but tells him to stop at the last moment.[/b]

First of all, God is all knowing and already knows the level of Abraham's faith, but he still decided to fuck_with him.
And Abraham wasn't bothered by the command. God wants him to kill his only son, no biggie. Even if God commanded him to kill Sarah his wife, he would have still done it. You don't object to God's instructions, you don't even think about them, you just do them. That way, you express loyalty to him.

Indeed, and Abraham confirmed his faith thereby as Hebrews 11 shows.

Decker:
God makes a bet with his greatest enemy, the devil, and in other to win this bet, he allows him to kill all Job's children


Also, the lives of Jobs children doesn't mean anything to God. God has to win the bet, whether they died or not, isn't his business. He has to win against his greatest rival.

All men were sold to sin (and satan) by the fall. Job, by faith, aligned himself with God(like Enoch did), his children didnt... The result? They were at the mercy of the devil.This still happens today.

Decker:
In other to set his people free from captivity, God doesn't kill Pharaoh, but instead, he kills every first born child who did nothing wrong

I understand this. I get the logic now.
See, the lives of those first born sons meant nothing. They were just worthless male egyptians who needed to die so that Pharaoh will let God's people go, despite the fact that his heart had already the been hardened.

I know some of them had families and loved ones; parents who cared about them, and wife and kids who loved them, and some might have been good men and boys, but that doesn't matter. They just had to die. Whether they were innocent or not doesn't matter. They just had to die. Even the babies had to die as well. The lives of babies are also worthless in the grand scheme of things. Lol. They are just babies naw. Their death means nothing.

In going after God you forgot to see that this act clearly avenges the cold blooded murder of innocent Israelite babies by Pharaoh.

Decker:
God tells Pharaoh to let his people go, but yet hardens his heart not to let them go.

Moses, tell this man who has been holding my people captive for hundreds of years to let them go. But to make this fun, and since I have the power of mind control (which I should have used to make him let them go all these years) I will harden his heart so that he will refuse to let them go. It's more interesting this way.

Indeed, when a man's cup of iniquity is full, God may decide any mode of executing Judgement. We are talking here of one that enslaved Israel under murderous, criminally rigorous terms to the point of killing babies!

Decker:
God kills Lot's wife for looking the wrong way, but condones incest_between him and his daughters.

Not before giving a clear warning and even mercifully dragging them all out of Sodom! Lot's wife disobeyed an express command!

KingEbukasBlog:
These are spiritual matters pastors and great knowledgeable Christians have answers too . cc scholar8200

Well, he didnt need answers afterall! He's made his conclusions!

Owliver:
ofcos they must have jargon to talk about.

Drefan2:
The bible of course. And wasn't that the sole purpose why God created them in the first place? Need I provide the text to support my assertions?

Sure you have to! Many errors were born when men asked a similar question!

Alright. So, what you are simply implying in a nut-shell is that God invented GOOD and EVIL and allowed them to flow freely in heaven, and he knew before hand that someone will (as God's omniscient= he knows the beginning and the end) fall short of his glory, which was why satan got infected, whether he wanted to or not. So I'm guessing satan's life was already predestined, his script has already been written waiting for him to come actualise it, bring it to pass, yes?

No! This much from a simple post? As far as I know, and as much as the Bible reveals, God knows the end of either courses we choose and warns us ahead! Did He write a script? Yes- a script for good and not evil provided we continue in His Love! Did He invent evil? No! Evil is what is left when we are severed from Him!

For example Jesus said ,"all things that are written concerning the Son of Man will come to pass"At a point, Jesus said, He had the liberty, contrary to what was written, to call for 12 legions of angels but He chose to remain in the Father's purpose!

Futhermore, isn't it possible that the rest beings, like lucifer, somehow had bad thoughts at a point? If so, why weren't they exiled along satan and his unrighteous cohorts from heaven? Or was it because of the fact that devil was the most daring amongst the crowd that he chose instead to voice out his feelings than consciously surpress them the way his former comrades did?

Thoughts arise and they are resisted, when thoughts have the consent of the will the latter seeking to express itself then guilt sets in whether we got the chance or no!

What is sin? The bible made mankind to understand that you not only sin by your visible actions or spoken words but also by thoughts inside your heart. So the other angels probably also transgressed against God, and God probably knew it as our deepest secrets are naked before him, but he sanctioned only satan and left the others(?) Favouritism?

This is where the problem lies - assumptions sans Scriptural backing! Anyway, you are wrong here. Before I correct you, perhaps I'd let you post a Scripture that backs up your claims of favouritism here!

SirWere:
Really??
So, in your book,

All atheists worship Satan? Even if they help the human race in a small or monumental way? Even if they aid the people around them; they become a beacon of love and kindness, they STILL worship Satan



I take a bow of dismay

Sir, those are your conclusions!

It is just like me saying, "that thread by Johnny on how he helped an outcast girl reads just like the parable of the good samaritan"and you confront me saying,"so yo mean Johnny was obeying Jesus? Why are you Christians desperate to claim every good deeds"!

You and I know this is a wrong and hasty conclusion!

Drefan2:
I don't buy that line of thought.

As recorded in the Holy bible, from the very beginning, God was the only existing entity in the whole universe until he created the angels and other heavenly beings.

When he created those spiritual beings, he placed in them a mind of his own, filled singularly with the all-consuming need to please him.

Where did you get that from?

So, how was satan able to conceive such thoughts? Or where did those thoughts emanate from to come dwell in his soul and subsequently influenced his actions of revolt against God?

Because he was a free moral agent! God is Love, and HE will only receive sacrifice and service borne out of love as a choice! The devil knows this that is why he tempted Eve and Adam.

KingEbukasBlog:
They insult us, deride our beliefs , open threads which are not edifying or in line with the reason for this section . And they are not punished .

That's because the devil is the god of this world!

I saw a quote from the satanic bible and believe me, it reads just as these atheists speak!

Faith? Well, as a christian, I (and millions through the ages) believed/placed our faith in the LORD Jesus Christ and we were transformed by His Grace! in fact,in one community, the police boss commented that the community had changed due to the transformation of life in those who had believed in Jesus. Well then, faith is a virtue.

https://onecanhappen./2013/03/08/effects-of-the-welsh-revival-1904-05-whole-communities-were-radically-changed-from-depravity-to-glorious-goodness-the-crime-rate-dropped-often-to-nothing-the-underground-mines-echoed-with-the-soun/

Hence, it will be perhaps a subtle, characteristical venting of native theophobia for the Op to deal with a matter such as this sans indepth study and review of history.

Was this written by Wesley Duewel?