₦airaland Forum

frosbel: I have nothing against rulership, absolutely nothing. The crux of the matter is , what was the leadership model in the early church, was it one pastor over an entire church or a number of people ?


Also what is a local church , is it the members in that city or district that make up the church or individual denominations ?

i dont think the early church was made up of individual denomination. It was each local church under servants like deacon and with presbyterous and episkopus, each episkopus is part of the body of episkopus and apostles who with peter rule over the universal church. From my reading of scripture and the church fathers that is my understanding.

For example when Paul wrote to the Corinthians ( a local church ) he wrote to ALL the Christians in that city not to 1000 different denominations. The Christians met in homes, and sometimes in public buildings, but they were called ONE in CHRIST.

We will discuss in another article the true leadership model of a local church which was not physical but spiritual.

Now help me with this small question :

Suppose I live in Lagos, Surulere for example , on a nice breezy and mild Sunday , I decide to go to my local church, kindly advice me with the list below which one qualifies as my local church , assuming they all have branches in that area.

Deeperlife
RCCG
MFM
International fire ministries
Catholic church
Seven Day adventists
Anglican
Christ Embassy
Assemblies of GOD
True Assemblies
Real Assemblies international
Zion ministries
Methodist
Baptist
Reformed Baptist
Apostolic
Apostolic faith
Christ Apostolic Faith
Aladura
Mountain Ephraim church
Ekwa
Trem
All Nations Evangelical Church
Christ Chapel International Churches
Church of God Mission International
Christian Central Chapel International (CCCI) City of Testimonies
City of Life Christian center
His Purpose Church
Liberty Foundation Gospel Ministries
Salem International Christian Centre
This Present House
Winners Chapel (Faith Tabernacle
Word of Life Bible Church



Key words from your article on church leadership :

They
Their

not His or Hers.

OLAADEGBU: This is a good point that many Calvinists fail to see.

im sure that to some extent you are a calvinist, calvinism in a part of protestant theology, you simply agree with in at time and disagree when you dont like it.

wirinet: Pastor Olaadegun, I thought you people hate the Catholic so much, and now you end up using their argument to support your argument for church, I hope you accept their argument for pope also as they say peter was the first pope.

Believe me the bible can be translated and twisted to mean anything the person doing the translation wants, remember the original copies have not been found, so what we have are copies of copies of translations of translations. try watching an English subtitle of a yoruba movie, you will most times be unable to correlate what is being translated to what is being said.

Obviously the verse you quoted above cannot mean that peter should build a church and be the head. His name was already peter before he was called peter(rock) by Jesus, so it shows some manipulation by the translators. And besides peter never build any building call church and claim to be the only access to Jesus.

The person that set up churches and its organizational structure was paul and not peter.

the bible didnt say peter will buid a big building and call it a church, Jesus said "upon you, i will build my church" it didnt say peter will build the church, it say christ will build his church on peter. And correction Cephas wasnt the name his parents gave him, his birthname is simon, christ actually change his name.

truthislight: ^^^^

lies!

The spirit is to be tested by the scripture whether it is of God or of the Devil.

hahahahaha, i cant stop laughing, where did the scriptures say that "the spirit is to be tasted by scripture"? I thought you said everything must be in scripture, you are advocating a principle that cant support itself, where does scriptures say it contains everything? No! The scriptures do not say that instead the scripture say christian should hold on to tradition and that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
Peace, read your bible.

[quote author=Fr0sbel][/quote]who told you that the religious clothes are not in the bible? Oh check your bible Jesus wore a clock, a girdle, an outern garment alot like an alb, the phylatries used by bishops can the found in the bible, wherever you copied and paste this one from is not correct, what is a liturgy, simply put it is an order of worship, do you recognise that the acts of worship by christians in scriptures has an order? Go and check, they preach the word of God first then break bread, all the apostolic church follow this order and it is called liturgy, goodluck looking for those words in the bible.

Pastor AIO: And there is no Amala in the bible, so I really wonder about those so called christians that like to wack amala. I really wonder.

no microphone in the bible, why does your church use a mic, heck the word bible is not in the bible so why do you talk about bible?

Ihedinobi: You know what I suggest? Why don't you guys google Bokenkotter and his book? See how well or not it's accepted within the Roman Church. You might actually find that I'm disagreeing with some submissions that he makes.

You see, I accept intellectual responsibility. I do not require anybody to do my thinking for me. So, it matters not who I read, if they do conflict with the Principles of Life, I throw out their position.

is bokenhotter a church father? Even luther who hated the pope agreed tha the pope had primacy in the church, go and ask the orthodox and oriental church they will tell you that they agree with the councils that the bishop of rome is primate of the church. They only disagree with it exercise.

k2039: Ok if thats the definiton of infalliability then I agree that Venerable Blessed Saint Bishop Primate Pope Peter 1st,didnt teach errors in matter of faith(I know that),was only showing that He also made mistakes in certain actions(though out of fear)

atleast we agree on this.

frosbel: Church fathers this church fathers that, how about scriptures for a change, you know the WORD of GOD

SMH

hahaha, you are debating about primacy, the orthodox church and church history and you trying to dodge church father. That is why i said earlier to discuss these issues with a protestant is useless. How can you discuss church history, practice and ancient doctrine and continue dodging the church fathers? Ha! Protestant i forgot that they have no roots so when it comes to the church fathers they run and hide.

Ihedinobi: @Ubenedictus and Chukwudi

My understanding is that Bokenkotter accessed the writings of said Church Fathers to produce a concise history. Neither of you is doing things the right way. You shouldn't be telling me to go read the Church Fathers. You should be showing me how Bokenkotter is unreliable.

Another thing. You should also note that I'm reading the Bible too. And that I'm using my head as well. You need not think that I'm copypasting Bokenkotter. Those thoughts are mine originally even if they draw upon outside information to assume definite shape.

Finally. How do you guys know that what you read was not doctored?

the thoughts are yours, fed to you by bokenkotter, read the early church from the early fathers their writtings can be found on www.newadvent.org

k2039: This is the real problem with RC,so if I dont agree with all of Peter's teachings am on the wrong path.I hope you know Peter was not infallible.He made certain mistakes also(Read Galatians2:11.
The fAct remains that each of the earlier apostles had their different callings Galatians2:7.Peter was entrusted with the goospel to the circumcised.

hahahaha, who told you that peter wasnt infalliable? Infalliability doesnt mean that the pope cannot make mistakes, it means that when he teaches in his capacity as a universal teacher he cannot teach errors on matters of faith and morals only. And im very happy to tell you the st peter didnt teach errors on matter of faith and moral, you can check 1st and 2nd peter.

Ihedinobi: You guys know that I've been watching from the sidelines. This is because I don't know very well the details of the current discussion. For this reason, I began to reread the history of the catholic church according to Bokenkotter. But without the details even, possessing knowledge of the Principles of Church Life alone, I see no sense in the claim of the Roman Catholic Church upon primacy or even universality.

I have covered about eight chapters of the book I mentioned and can tell that the concept of primacy conferred upon Rome (or anywhere else for that matter) is unBiblical, unreasonable and completely counterproductive to the interests of Christ. I can also tell that whatever whoever said, it is untrue that Jesus Christ conferred primacy upon any member of His apostles. His words about founding the Church upon Rock were not meant for Peter. Peter was never never the Rock that Jesus spoke of. Yes, Jesus instructed Peter to feed His sheep and tend His flock, but was that a special commission given to Peter or was it Jesus restoring a fallen servant of His after said servant denied Him? Said words of Jesus were said to the whole apostles in other forms.

What is more, since it's God's Way to win the one in order to get the many, is it not just that in restoring Peter the loud, brash talker, Jesus restored His whole company of apostles? That makes Peter nothing more than one of the many still.

Also, Enigma is right about the multiple-bishop/overseer/elder argument. The apostle travelled to cities to precipitate those whose hearts were seeking the Lord out of the multitudes to become the Church. Then they appointed the most spiritually mature among them to serve the others. These appointed ones were the bishops or elders. Paul and Barnabas were numbered among those at Antioch, Peter and James numbered among those at Jerusalem, Priscilla and Aquila probably among others presided over the church in their own house. I think it was Gaius or something that the elder to whom John wrote his third letter was called, that was another example.

Primacy, authority over others such that one issues orders and others obey, and one amounts to a mediator between God and the Christian is a position that supplants Christ. Christ gave that position to no man. From the beginning till now, the head of the woman has been the man, the head of the man Christ and the head of Christ God. There is no other arrangement recognized by the Scriptures. That arrangement that became today's church hierarchies is rooted in man's selfishness, not the need for preservation of doctrine as Bokenkotter's history and arguments for hierarchies in the Church submit.

you are readin bokenkotter, was he a church father? Did he live even close to the apostolic time? Or was it after the protestant reformation? Go and ask the church fathers what the early christians believed they were the ones who lived then. You are talking about primacy and you are quote bokenkotter. If you want to know about early christians go read it from the early christians themselves. When ever they write on the apostolic sucession they alway point back to the preeminent see i.e the see of rome.

Enigma: @ Ihedinobi

Thanks for that.

The primacy of Rome issue (using the pretext of the "primacy of Peter" ) is, in my view, a vey sad and unnecessary idea that has fostered (and is still fostering) disunity and of course in part helped the degeneracy that eventually led to the Protestant Reformation.

Interestingly, the Eastern Orthodox Church has a rather more conciliatory attitude to the primacy of Peter and its later consequences for the Church ---- but unfortunately it is not acceptable to the Roman Catholic Church.


And thanks also for the specific examples of plurality of eldership/oversight/'bishophood' in the Bible. Those were indeed the things I had in mind. In addition, the idea and practice of the collective 'episkopoi' (which I think is even naturally plural) is both explicit and implicit throughout the Bible. There is the Jerusalem example and the others.

But then let us think of the epistles. in his letter to the Philippians, we read the apostle Paul in these terms: Philippians 1

So in Philippi alone they had bishops and deacons (both plural)!


Again in Acts 20:28 we see Paul having sent for the elders (presbutero) of the Church at Ephesus charge them as follows:

*overseers = episkopoi = bishops

Again we see that the Church at Ephesus had a plurality of elders and bishops.

Also if we read the epistles of Paul in the Bible to Churches in Colossae, Galatia, Corinth etc, he does not even address the letters to the bishops let alone to a bishop; rather he addressed the letters either to the 'brethren' or to the Church or 'Churches'

There is one more of these things which I hope to post separately and later ------- and that one concerns the apostle Peter himself.

if an orthodox christian was making this argument i would have been showing him quote from the church fathers, that there was headship among the apostles, i would also be showing him that the church fathers bear witness to the pre eminence of rome because d roman see is on st peter and preached to by paul, i would have been drawing forth church father upon church father and doctor upon doctor. That is because both catholic and orthodox share a common faith and a believe in sacred tradition. It would be useless making that argument to a protestant.

Enigma: In 1 Peter 1, we see the apostle Peter writing to encourage Christians in a number of places; these Christians had been converted through the work of some other 'evangelists' and 'missionaries'.




Then we get to 1 Peter 5 and in the same letter the apostle addresses the "leaders" of these Christian communities.



So what do we have here?

- Peter addresses "elders"!
- Peter calls himself also an "elder" (granted he started in chapter 1 by calling himself an apostle)
- Asks the elders to "feed the flock" ('poimanate/poimnion) taking oversight (episkopountes): meaning in modern lingo = act as pastors in the roles of bishops"!

Also:

- Do we notice that Peter does not address himself as "Bishop of xyz"?
- Do we notice that Peter calls himself a fellow "elder" alongside what we today will probably see as the "far far far more lowly" leaders of some communities far away from the original centre of action in Jerusalem?

and the bishop of rome also call other bishops brother and a fellow bishop, he is also a fellow presbyterous.

Enigma: First about Paul, the point is this: if he was in Rome at the same time as Peter and being an apostle, the expectation would be that he would be one of the "bishops" in the Roman Church. This is in accordance with the understanding of "bishops" in the Bible - a plurality.

Second about Peter's death in Rome, the point is this: if Peter appointed a successor after him as Bishop of Antioch, then he also left his authority there as you are claiming for Rome. Now further on this point is the argument that all the Sees that are Apostolic Sees were equal.

is your church even an apostolic see? Which apostle can you trace your church to? If an orthodox or oriental christian was making this arguemen i would have taken it serious because they have a see. When a protestant is making the arguement, it simply has no meaning.

[quote author=PAGAN 9JA]yes jesus ate greedily. even before he was about to die, he was thinking of food:

https://www.turnbacktogod.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/the-last-supper-03.jpg[/quote]very funny, since when did it become a sin to talk about food, and tell me where d bible say 'he ate greedily"?

Holy mass, that is the greatest prayer you can offer, if you have faith consider you prayers answered.

Ihedinobi: I feel your pain, sir That's why I have elected myself to the position of court clown. I've had enough explosions with Frosbel to not want to bother with lectures anymore, especially as another truly anointed to lecture him between yesterday and today is on hand. I prefer the anointing of the truthful court jester today

actually in some cases that is a beautiful anointing, telling forsbel about the trinity is a work, sometimes it is beautiful to step down and let the holyspirit do his work.

iheanyi4u: I really feel sorry for some catholics.
First of all nowhere was it recorded in the bible that mary ascended into heaven.
Secondly how can one after having a baby still be a virgin? That's distorting scripture.
And like someone rightly pointed out Jesus is the way truth and the life

my friend what are you talking about Who told you that catholic believe mary ascended into heaven
And lastly all catholics believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.
Peace

frosbel: same thing mate,

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven, informally known as The Assumption, according to the Christian beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and parts of Anglicanism, was the bodily taking up of the Virgin Mary into Heaven at the end of her earthly life.

sorry friend no the same, go and learn the difference.
Peace

mkmyers45: then who created evil? lucifer?

sorry im some page late on this, God created everything, but not evil, many have wondered if God created everything then evil must be part of everything, well evil is that a thing, evil is not a substance, instead evil is the absence of Good. Lucifer decided to remove himself from that which is Good (GOD) That absence of Good is called evij.

frosbel: Now we can see where the trinity doctrine came from , the same church that gave us :

1. Immaculate conception
2. Mary's ascension to heaven
3. immortal soul
4. a horrifying eternal hell of torment
5. Purgatory
6. crusades
7. pope infallibility
8. veneration of saints


What a Pagan institution

just a little heads up, the time you paste something like this dont show you ignorance by writing "the acension of mary" because catholics dont believe that mary acended write instead "the assumption of mary" mary didnt ascend she was assumed into heaven. Go and learn the difference.
And incase you dont know 'crusades' is dont a doctrine.
Peace

frosbel: idol worshippers !

go tell that to the pagans, i serve a living God.

ijawkid: I'm a lil confused with ur write up...

Is mary the mother of the son of GOD or the mother of GOD??

I don confuse die....

i very much doubt that you are confused, catholics believe the the son of God, Jesus christ, is God, im very sure you have heard it before it is called the trinity.

Omo Alata: John 14:6

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me

and my bible says "offer prayer, supplication, intercession for..." are you against offering intercession? And even rm15:30, col4:3, 1thes5:25 paul ask the living christains to pray on his behalf, if the intercession of the living goes through christ the im sure that the intercession of those who have passed away goes through christ as my bible testifys
rev5:8 "and when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twentyfour elders fell down before the lamb, each holden a harp, and a bowls full of incense which was the prayers of the saints.
Rev8:4 "and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of an angel before God
my dear those two passage show that the angels and saints in heaven offer our prayers to God (intercession) and rev 5:8 tell me that the prayer of the saints offered by the elders was offered to the lamb, so my friend the prayer still went throught christ.
So it seem you dont have a point.
Peace

ijawkid: What is this??

it is a write up, catholic celebrate universally 3 birthdays, the birth of the lord and savior Jesus christ and the 2 people God used in his mission, john the baptist his foreruner who told d world "behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" and the virgin mary who God chose to be the mother of my savior, she accepted God's will for her in humble obedience when she said "be it done to me according to your words". Sept 8 is d day catholics, estern catholics and some orthodox christains celebrate the birth of mary.
Peace

seriallink: Bros I'm fine thx

If Christ died for the elect only, what's the point worshiping God through him? This is strange & confusing to me man, well, I was taught from childhood that Christ died for the sins of entire world! This is the first time I'm hearing this from a Christian, or are you not?

i believe you are a protestant, if you wish to know more about the idea that christ died for the elect only (i dont personally believe it), then you should read the works of the founder of reformed theology John Calvin. He is the guy who proposed the idea, it doesnt make sense to be and i think it contradicts the bible but if you want to know what it says then read up on calvinism.
Peace

frosbel: It all has to do with tradition.

People have been programmed by thousands of years of false teaching , most of which started from the catholic church and found their way into protestantism.

Many churches today hold onto false doctrines such as :

1. Tithes
2. Rapture
3. Eternal torment
4. Israel as a chosen nation physically


When you think for yourself and research scripture to reveal the truth, they call you a heretic.

aha! You always seem to find a way to link everything you think is wrong with contemporary christianity to the catholic church. Well i little heads ups, next time you paste that list and and the catholic church remember to remove "rapture", that one is from calvin or on of his, he had the idea that before the anti christ came all the good christian would have left the earth and it would remain only the bad guys, escapism theology has no place in the catholic church.
I think you should also read more scriptures, there you would find out that israel was a chosen people. If i remember correctly paul discussed the subject in the book of romans.
As for tithe, that isnt a doctrine, it is a practice born out of the christian teaching of generosity. Besides the practice of tithing has been extinct in catholicism even before the 15th century, so my dear be careful when you link all sort of things to the catholic church

frosbel: Thanks.

Also you have to ask eternal torture adherents what the purpose of an eternal hell is ? Is it for punishment or torture ?

When I was in deeperlife many years ago , there is this tract that talks about eternity . It goes like this :

If, again, a grain of sand represents one day, all the grains of sand on the seashore will represent only a small, negligible part of eternity! If a bird went to sharpen its beak once a year at a mountain, when the bird wears out the mountain in this way, only an insignificant part of eternity would have passed. In short, eternity is the lifetime of the never-dying God! And you will live for eternity. You will be alive eternally as God will be alive eternally.

Now this is mind boggling. While it is good news for the saint. God has promised them eternal life and they will live for ever.

However, notice the following contradiction in the same tract.

Every sinner will end up in the infernal hell and every saint will end up in supernal heaven. You will live forever in heaven or hell.

Contrary to the comment that you will live forever in hell, the bible does not support this because the soul that sinneth shall die [/b]not [b]live [/b]forever anywhere for that matter !

In fact this shows the mercy of God, because if Adam had taken of the tree of life he would have lived forever , eternally separated from God. God in his infinite mercy sent Adam away from the garden to prevent this from happening. Oh the rich mercy of God.

We are all mortal and if we sin we will die, we will not live forever.

The fallacy that after zillions of years when poor wretched sinners would have suffered torment , come to plead with God for mercy and he declines their plea is just not in the bible.

The bible says God's anger lasts but a moment while his mercy endures forever. This Catholic doctrine of eternal torture demeans the character of God.

"For his anger lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime; weeping may remain for a night, but rejoicing comes in the morning." - [b]Psalm 30:5

Unlike the God of the Muslims and Catholics , our GOD is not a Hitler or some mean person who enjoys the misery of others.


I am not trying to negate the punishment of sinners, it will indeed be painful and final :

1. Punishment according to their deeds
2. Total destruction.
3. Will not be partakers of God's immortality
4. Will not inherit the new heaven and earth.

I mean common is this not punishment enough

The adherents of eternal torment must ignore hundreds of scripture that go against their false doctrine.

Sinners will not be granted the pleasure of eternal life and also will be refused entry into God's paradise. They will be consumed by the fire of God for God is a consuming fire.

But rebels and sinners shall be broken together, and those who forsake the LORD shall be consumed.! - Isaiah 1:28

God is not offering us the free gift of salvation with a gun pressed to our heads.

Sounds more like Islam or Catholicism both religions of coercion where you either have a sword/gun to your head to join the faith or you are threatened with a hell of horrific descriptions.

Thank God we serve Yahweh the God of LOVE.

pls take note Yahweh is a God of love and also a God of Justice.
You seem to misunderstand when d bible say "d soul that sinneth shall die", this runs parallel to gen2 "if u eat of the tree you shall die die" but adam didnt die, did he?? He fact he lived longer than today man, he didnt literally die, this shows us that a different thing is mean when the bible is talking about 'death, die' in relation to eternity, that death simply mean a separation from God, the exact thing that happened to adam. The idea that God literally 'kills' the soul is not found in scripture. After the final judgement d gud go to everlasting life, the bad to everlasting contempt that is how my bible explains it.

ijawkid: Abeg tell them ooo......

How can persons who committed finite sins be purnished infinitely??

sorry friend, but the gravity of a sin is also measure by whom is offended. When i beat up a guy in my street called ijawkid, he could sue me for assault and battery, when i throw stones or beatup GBJ, im charge with teason. If someone takes from his neighbor he is charged for stealing when you steal the coat of arms in d national assembly (i have forgotten it name) you would also face charges of teasons, mind you the jail terms arent the same. When i offend the wicked old man in my village many may say to the old man "serves u right" if i play the same prank with my parents, everyone would say to me "you are a disrespectful spoilt child". But when i offend one who is infinite goodness, love, mercy etc my sin is no longer finite, by the fact that i offended infinite goodnes and infinite justice, my sins becomes infinite and so my punishment. So my friend it would be stupid to call a willful sin finite.

truthislight: 1pet 2:22
it was necessary that he commit no sin.

Matt 3:17 and 17;5 yes he was a unique son of God.

1cor 15:45&47 = Jesus is the last or 2nd Adam that came from heaven. He came as Adam from heaven.

philipians 2:7,8 Jesus was a man.

1cor 15:21,22 dead came through a man and life came through a man (resurrection) christ Jesus. So, it takes a man to pay the ransom.

Roman 5:12-14 death through a man and life though a man.
Jesus bear similarity to Adam.
Jesus was a man on earth to pay the ransom.

Romans 6:23 The ransom was a gift from God through Jesus.

Heb 9:22-24 without blood no forgiveness of sin.

Colosians 2:14-17 the law and it forgiveness of sin is a shadow of the things to come.

Colosians 1:13-15 Jesus is the first born of all creatures:
(just like Adam was the first man on earth)

i still cant find the quote that said or implied that 'JESUS AND ADAM ARE EQUal". I believe Jesus was truly human and the bible says and i also believe that 'the fulness of d divinity dwelt in him bodily' as my bible say. Can u show me where d bible also said d fulnes of divinity dwelt in adam Can u show me?? Can u show me where d bible say d world was created thru adam?? Can u show me where the bible say adam is the stamp of the fathers hypostasis?? I ask again where did you get the idea that adam is equal to Jesus?? That idea is a lie.

This is d last time i would be picking up someones post and pointing out where it differs from my position in this thread. I may read but wont answer unless im personally asked an honest question.

ijawkid: My bro what's up.....

I never knew this whole saga is still on......

I've dropped all I got on this post.....

The truth is for me to believe Jesus is the almighty,the same as the father or the father(Yahweh),then it means I have to also believe Jesus lied when he was on earth....

please no one said Jesus is d same person as d father, no! D father and d son are two distinct beings

##And that the almighty was not immortal @ some point in time..........

d physical body of Jesus experienced death but "d fullness of d Godhead that dwelt" in him cannot die

##I have to believe that the almighty can be killed and can die..........

d divinity cannot die.

## I have to believe that the almighty isn't a spirit...(Meaning Jesus lied @ john 4:24)

that happens becos u have a different understandin of d word 'spirit' compared to most xtians.

##And then I have to believe that Jesus suffered from multiple personality disorder.........

this is ur idea

I can't wake up 1 day and tell my kids that GOD can die and infact did die.....

but u can tell ur kids that d fulnes of d Godhead dwelt on Jesus christ and that his physical body suffered death even though his Godhead couldnt die.

No amount of analogy can make u teach ur kids that.......

trust me when i say many kids have a gud understanding of d godhead dat cant die even wen d physical body did die.

But please Yahweh(the Father and almighty) does not and cannot die....never!!!!!!!!.....its against who he is............his son was the one who died(the last adam).......and his son is not d same as Him or HIM........

i think this is where u misunderstand. D fada and d son are two distinct persons, d son came in human form, d fada didnt, the physical body of d son experience physical death but "d fulnes of d godhead that dwelt in him" cant die. The son was resurrected and sits at d right had of d fada and all thing are under his authority.

D doctrine has been modified over and over again because its just not supported by d scriptures.......

this just isnt true.

I mean take a look @ the explanation a comrade of ours gave as to Jesus's words ""the day and hour nobody knows,not even the angels in d heavens nor the SON,but only the FATHER""......

and d explanation is simple, as d psalmist say, divine knowledge is "to wonderful" for d human mind and d human mind "cannot attain it".

If the trinity has not blurred d vision of its apologist,I suppose that scripture is so clear as to the fact that Jesus isn't the FAther or the almighty.....

no body said Jesus is d fada u are arguing a position that wasnt made by a trinitarian. In essence u are arguing against urself.

If some1 can say Jesus said those words because his knowledge was limited since he was flesh n blood,but also @ d same time the almighty GOD bodily then I see the height of contradiction......that is confusion @ its peak...

actually that "d fulness of d godhead dwelt" in christ is in scriptures
*that while christ was on earth he said "nor d son" is also in scripture.
* and lastly that it is not mans place to know d times and season is also scripture.
So maybe u should try and ask scripture, why did d he in whom d fulnes of d Godhead dwelt and in whom is hidden all d treasures of knowledge not know d date of d end? Maybe u would also find as i did that divine knowledge is ''to wonderful" for d human mind as d psalmist say.

No explanation can excuse the fact that Jesus is different and less than his Father.....

phi2:6

Its so crystal clear......

Just that singular scripture is enough for me not to believe in the trinity dogma..........
Thank u for everything........

bye.
Peace b with ur being.