At the Creation

[stinsonmarri]

10 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Stinsonmarri:   The scholarly world   is not  generally aware of the existence of KJV scribes.  Perhaps your meant to say "Masoretic scribes?"  

I do appreciate you listing your source.  The Sacred Name KJV is a 2009 (and again in 2010) work by Daniyan W. Merrick  (aka Daniel W. Merrick).   It should be noted that his work is not a translation of the Bible.  Rather, it is simply a work in which he took that KJV, as it read and chose on his own to replaces the names of God in the KJV with his own idea as to what should have been written there.  As such, his work has little standing.   It is doubtful that a Biblical scholar would find that acceptable.

NOTE:  I have been attempting to determine the PhD. background that he claims to have.  So far, I have not been able to do so.  Probably it is there but has not popped up in the few minutes that I have  searched for it.  Why important?  Well if he has a PhD. in the study of insects he might be an expert in insects, but not in Biblical translation.  Further, who granted him a PhD?

 

 

Pastor Matthew; I prayed concerning about the SACRED NAMES in EGW writings. I never want to cause confusion. THE HOLY SPIRIT revealed to me to leave like it as is. HE wants me to provide truth and she did not know HIS SACRED NAME, but she did realize that truth will come by HIM over error in these last days. All I need to do is present truth and stand up today and always keep HIS HOLY NAME! I agree with EGW and what she said and I will present it to you. I will say we all have to make up in our minds what YAHWEH wants us to do.

I accept the SACRED KJV Bible and I see some mistake it makes so I do not use those verses. I do study and I am a Biblical historian, not great or known but I believe I am just as intelligent as any of those scholars. I have Logos being a member for years. I keep up with Biblical Archaeology, I am a member and other historical societies. You would be surprise the Bibles I have on my desktop and in my office, I have a  a lot of bookcases. I have so many books that I have some stored in my shed.I kept all my books from college and more. If there is one thing that I do is study and research, trust me. Well you have indicated a couple of times. I appreciate what you provided, but I understand Paleo Hebrew which is not like modern Hebrew and so many do not know this. I did what you ask and those who may not like  this Bible that's choice right, it is online and Amazon and others sell it? I know him and his followers do not believe in the pronunciation of (HAVAH), as I do and he has a PhD. but YAHWEH has HIS WISDOM, and that's what need to be accepted. 

Here is EGW:

How shall we search the Scriptures in order to understand what they teach? We should come to the investigation of God's WORD with a contrite heart, a teachable and prayerful spirit. We are not to think, as did the Jew, that our own ideas and opinions are infallible; nor with the papists, are that certain individuals the sole guardians of truth and knowledge, that men have no right to search the Scriptures for themselves, but must accept the explanations given by the fathers of the church. We should not study the Bible for the purpose of sustaining our preconceived opinions, but with the single object of learning what God has said. Some have feared that if in even a single point they acknowledge themselves in error; other minds would be led to doubt the whole theory of truth.

Therefore they have felt that investigation should not be permitted, that it would tend to dissension and disunion. But if such is to be the result of investigation, the sooner it comes the better. If there are those whose faith in God’s WORD will not stand the test of an investigation of the Scriptures, the sooner they are revealed the better; for then the way will be opened to show them their error. We cannot hold that a position once taken, an idea once advocated, is not, under any circumstances, to be relinquished. There is but One who is infallible--He who is the way, the truth, and the life.

Those who allow prejudice to bar the mind against the reception of truth cannot receive the divine enlightenment. Yet, when a view of Scripture is presented, many do not ask, is it true--in harmony with God’s WORD? But, by whom is it advocated and unless it comes through the very channel that pleases them, they do not accept it. So thoroughly satisfied are they with their own ideas that they will not examine the Scripture evidence with a desire to learn, but refuse to be interested, merely because of their prejudices.

THE Lord often works where we least expect HIM; HE surprises us by revealing HIS POWER through instruments of HIS OWN Choice, while HE passes by the men to whom we have looked as those through whom light should come. God desires us to receive the truth upon its own merits--because it is truth.

The Bible must not be interpreted to suit the ideas of men, however long they may have held these ideas to be true. We are not to accept the opinion of commentators as THE VOICE of God; they were erring mortals like ourselves God has given reasoning powers to us as well as to them. We should make the Bible its own expositor. TM 105, 106

Blessings!

[Gustave]

Stinsonmarri, what do you say about a person where they pray to the Holy Spirit about the same matter and the Holy Spirit tells that person the direct opposite from what you were told. Is truth ONLY ONE or can truth be yes or no to any yes or no question? 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave:  Here is the issue.  I have read Roman Catholic statements of belief.  I have in my library a book of Canon Law.  I have other such official works.  I have worked with many priests.  When, based upon my readings of Catholic doctrine, I wanted to know what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, I went to a priest and asked him.  You have come  here and we are telling you that you, while correct on some aspects of SDA teaching, you are incorrect on other aspects of SDA teaching.  You simply do not recognize how ignorant you actually are  on some things.  Your alleged scholarship and research into SDA beliefs is as uninformed as mine would be if I were to tell a priest that I was more informed as to Catholic teachings than he was.

[8thdaypriest]

There is no command in Scripture, to "pray to" the Holy Spirit.  

[8thdaypriest]

18 hours ago, Gustave said:

A Council was held and the Christian Church declared that Jesus really was God - God being a spiritual Substance co-equally owned by the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. 

Not really.  Representatives of the churches then existing met at Nicea, to present their views.  Then Constantine decided which view was right.  He chose Athanasius, and banished Arius.  Three years later he restored Arius and banished Athanasius.   After Arius died, he banished Athanasius several more times.  Doesn't sound - to me - like Constantine knew WHAT to believe.   He waited until his deathbed to finally be baptized.  With a Roman Emperor deciding what was "truth",  no wonder the people became confused.   

    Arius (c.250-336) held that Christ is the Son of God.  And because He is the Son He therefore had a beginning, yet that "beginning" was so far back in eternity as to be beyond our comprehension. “It is a necessary condition of the filial relation,” He wrote, “that the Father must be older than his Son.”   The Father and the Son are of “like substance” (or nature) and therefore Christ is divine and worthy of worship.  (A century before Arius, another believer named Novation of Rome held a similar view.)

    Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, headed the opposing  party which held that the Father and the Son are of “one substance,” and therefore neither had a “beginning”.  They asserted that the doctrine of Arius lowered the Son making Him less worthy of worship than the Father. 

     The nature of the Holy Spirit was not debated at the Nicea council - certainly not as a THIRD divine being.   That came later - along with the veneration of images, and relics,  prayer to Mary,  the immaculate conception (of Mary),  prayers to saints,  the Mass,  prayers for the dead,  . . . . .

     The teaching of Arius lasted well into the Middle Ages, until the Army of the Pope defeated the last three Arian kings.  

   

[stinsonmarri]

13 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The scholarly world   is not  generally aware of the existence of KJV scribes.  Perhaps your meant to say "Masoretic scribes?"  

Pastor Matthews: Kindly sir, I should have said scholars or translators, they were not Masoretic scribes. The King James Version was another English translation ordered by King James 1. He came to the throne after the death of the Queen Elizabeth. During her reign, the Puritans grew and had religious freedom. Although, King James 1 was not a Catholic but a follower of the Church of England. He was totally against the Geneva Bible and also with the Puritan influence, in which he want to limited in the new translation of the Bible. They were against the state involvement with the belief of the congregation and wanted to dismiss the leadership of the bishops. They felt they were like the Catholic Church.

James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of, and reflect the Episcopal structure of, the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament from Hebrew and Aramaic, and the Apocrypha from Greek and Latin. Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church. For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word "church" were to be retained and not to be translated as “congregation.” The new translation would reflect the Episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about ordained clergy. The Bible in English: its history and influence; by David Daniell (2003) 

It is very clear why YAHWEH gave EGW the visions because many versions of the Bible even today are base on their beliefs. It is interpreted to reflect their beliefs in spite of the actual Paleo Hebrew language, grammar and style.

I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible, yet learned men, when the copies were few, had changed the words in some instances, thinking that they were making it more plain, when they were mystifying that which was plain, in causing it to lean to their established. Views, governed by tradition. But I saw that the word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion of scripture explaining another. True seekers for truth need not err for not only is the word of God plain and simple in declaring the way to life, but the Holy Spirit is given to guide in understanding the way of life revealed in HIS Word. EW 220, 221; 1SG 116, 117

Sir, I am not a Masorete fan due to they change the truth of Israel to the Rabbinic Judaism. This false religion started after the Babylonian Captivity and became Hellenized after the Grecian Empire. These were the Pharisees that YAHSHUA confronted and conspired with the Sadducee in crucifying HIM! They also persecuted the true followers of YAHSHUA, called The Way. Paul was a champion of theirs until he was changed and became a great leader for the cause of YAHSHUA!

After the destruction of the Temple, the Rabbinic Judaism belief grew as the Sadducee decline. Here in the Middle Ages when the letter J was formed the word Jew became a false conception of the Hebrew and their faith Israel. They also changed the Paleo Hebrew Old Testament using a modern letter script and supplying the vowels. But the truth was reveal when the Dead Sea Scroll was find.

In the early 20th century, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in caves near Qumran. They revealed an ancient Hebrew textual tradition which differed from the tradition preserved by the Masoretes. Modern Hebrew letters would have been unrecognizable to Abraham, Moses, David, and most of the authors of the Old Testament. As discussed in a recent post, the original Old Testament scriptures were written in Paleo-Hebrew, a text closely related to the ancient Phoenician writing system.

The Masoretic Text is written with an alphabet which was borrowed from Assyria (Persia) around the 6th-7th century B.C., and is almost 1000 years newer than the form of writing used by Moses, David, and most of the Old Testament authors. For thousands of years, ancient Hebrew was only written with consonants, no vowels. When reading these texts, they had to supply all of the vowels from memory, based on oral tradition. The Hebrew Bible Moses Couldn’t Read

While many associate written Hebrew with the squarish letters adorned by curvy flourishes and occasionally vowel marks, Hebrew was originally written with a different, but related, script called Old Hebrew. The first evidence of this script is the Gezer Calendar, which dates to around the 10th century BCE and records agricultural activities throughout the year. This early form of Old Hebrew is graphically very similar to Phoenician. Also, like early Phoenician, Old Hebrew inscriptions did not indicate vowels (not even the simple matres lectionis system where the letters aleph, yodh and waw represented vowels in addition to consonants). http://www.ancientscripts.com/old_hebrew.html

The Modern Hebrew name for this letter is vav, a word meaning "peg" or "hook." This letter is used as a consonant with a "v" sound and as a vowel with a "ow" and "uw" sound. The consonantal and vowel pronunciations of each of the consonant/vowel letters of the Ancient Hebrew language, which include the aleph,, hey,, vav, and yud, were closely related. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/alphabet_letters_vav.html

This is the reason why I use various Bibles and I carefully trace words back to it origin and original meaning. I do not accept all of Dr. Daniyan W. Merrick translation of the KJV because he does not understand the vowels of the Paleo Hebrew. He mixes the Masoretic concept in with the Paleo Hebrew which is the Rabbinic Judaism belief! 

Blessings!

[stinsonmarri]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

Stinsonmarri, what do you say about a person where they pray to the Holy Spirit about the same matter and the Holy Spirit tells that person the direct opposite from what you were told. Is truth ONLY ONE or can truth be yes or no to any yes or no question? 

I am trying to make logic of your question or statement. What I say to a person who pray to THE HOLY SPIRIT, no pray to THE FATHER and ask HIM to allow THE HOLY SPIRIT to lead and guide me in THE NAME of YAHSHUA! THE HOLY SPIRIT does not go against the Bible and that's a fact. HE is direct opposite to those who pray to a man (the Pope), who has no power. The Catholic thinks he is THE FATHER and YAHSHUA, he is not!!! They take him even above the Bible, they should not. THE HOLY SPIRIT is not leading but is doing the opposite! Truth is what THE ONLY ONE that was selected to lead and guide into all truth! THE HOLY SPIRIT can say yes to those who listen and follow the Bible and no to those who don't!

I provide the answer to your statement the way of trying to understand it!

Blessings!

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Not really.  Representatives of the churches then existing met at Nicea, to present their views.  Then Constantine decided which view was right.  He chose Athanasius, and banished Arius.  Three years later he restored Arius and banished Athanasius.   After Arius died, he banished Athanasius several more times.  Doesn't sound - to me - like Constantine knew WHAT to believe.   He waited until his deathbed to finally be baptized.  With a Roman Emperor deciding what was "truth",  no wonder the people became confused.   

    Arius (c.250-336) held that Christ is the Son of God.  And because He is the Son He therefore had a beginning, yet that "beginning" was so far back in eternity as to be beyond our comprehension. “It is a necessary condition of the filial relation,” He wrote, “that the Father must be older than his Son.”   The Father and the Son are of “like substance” (or nature) and therefore Christ is divine and worthy of worship.  (A century before Arius, another believer named Novation of Rome held a similar view.)

    Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, headed the opposing  party which held that the Father and the Son are of “one substance,” and therefore neither had a “beginning”.  They asserted that the doctrine of Arius lowered the Son making Him less worthy of worship than the Father. 

     The nature of the Holy Spirit was not debated at the Nicea council - certainly not as a THIRD divine being.   That came later - along with the veneration of images, and relics,  prayer to Mary,  the immaculate conception (of Mary),  prayers to saints,  the Mass,  prayers for the dead,  . . . . .

     The teaching of Arius lasted well into the Middle Ages, until the Army of the Pope defeated the last three Arian kings.  

   

Who told you that? 

The majority of the Bishops who attended the Council decided what view was right (not Constantine).

Constantine wanted a compromise between the 3 positions ( two of the positions only difference was on the word used ).

The points you raised prove my point that the "Orthodox Christian Church", despite Roman Politics, dictated what was Orthodox Doctrine & what wasn't. 

Arius also taught that Christ was capable of mutation into evil acts - something that Arius would NEVER claim 'GOD' was capable of. 

Based off what you wrote it appears as if you believe Arius got the short end of the stick and was right all along? Do you feel something similar happened at the Council of Jerusalem - as in the Political powers of that time decided what ideas would prevail? 

 

[JoeMo]

4 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

those who pray to a man (the Pope),

I used to be a very good Catholic; and I still have many devout Catholic friends.  None of them has ever heard of "praying to the Pope".  Wherever you heard this, it is false.  I'm not saying that this never happened; but it is not a current practice of Catholics (at least not un the U.S.)

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/7/2018 at 3:22 PM, Gustave said:

the "Orthodox Christian Church",

By "Orthodox" you mean Catholic.   The "Orthodox Church" persecuted those who disagreed, for over 1000 years,  so the "orthodox" records we have are those written by the "Orthodox Church" historians.  Not entirely reliable - IMO.   The Bible was kept away from all but clergy.  Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English, so the common man could read it, and perhaps disagree with "orthodox" doctrine. 

Might does not make right, and the majority are often wrong.  

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

By "Orthodox" you mean Catholic.   The "Orthodox Church" persecuted those who disagreed, for over 1000 years,  so the "orthodox" records we have are those written by the "Orthodox Church" historians.  Not entirely reliable - IMO.   The Bible was kept away from all but clergy.  Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English, so the common man could read it, and perhaps disagree with "orthodox" doctrine. 

Might does not make right, and the majority are often wrong.  

What groups of Christians did the Catholic Church persecute? Of those groups which ones would you say followed the Christian teachings as laid down by the Apostolic Church? 

 

Tyndale wasn't burned at the state for translating the Bible into English. 

 

True, might does not make right. 

[JoeMo]

12 hours ago, Gustave said:

Tyndale wasn't burned at the state for translating the Bible into English. 

 

He was executed for heresy and treason - treason for opposing Henry VIII annulment; and heresy for translating the Bible into English.

[8thdaypriest]

13 hours ago, Gustave said:

What groups of Christians did the Catholic Church persecute? Of those groups which ones would you say followed the Christian teachings as laid down by the Apostolic Church? 

It does NOT MATTER, whether those groups of Christians  (or Jews) followed the teachings as laid down by the church officially approved of Rome.   No Christian church has a commission from God to persecute another Christian church.  That alone, tells me that Popes were NOT speaking for/as Jesus.   

Just one example

Waldensians:  The movement originated in the late twelfth century as the Poor Men of Lyon, a band organized by Peter Waldo, a wealthy merchant who gave away his property around 1173, preaching apostolic poverty as the way to perfection. Waldensian teachings quickly came into conflict with the Catholic Church. By 1215, the Waldensians were declared heretical and subject to intense persecution; the group was nearly annihilated in the 17th century and was confronted with organised and general discrimination in the centuries that followed.

[JoeMo]

Part of the Jesuit Exreme Oath of induction (source: www.reformation.org):

"I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants' heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus."

Sounds like persecution to me!  I don't know If Jesuits are still required to take this oath; but they definitely were during and immediately after the Reformation.  Who do you think oversaw the Inquisition and the Spanish Inquisition?

17 hours ago, Gustave said:

What groups of Christians did the Catholic Church persecute? Of those groups which ones would you say followed the Christian teachings as laid down by the Apostolic Church? 

 

[8thdaypriest]

Gustave,

If you want to explain WHAT you believe, and give reasons (from Bible only) explaining WHY you believe as you do - that would be great.  That's what we're here for.   Others can explain why they believe differently, and give reasons why.  But don't get off into calling some beliefs "orthodox" (approved) and others not so, as if that could ever be a reason to hold those beliefs.   

PS:  I will not respond to trick questions or unanswerable questions.   You know.   Can God create something which could ever destroy Himself?   

[8thdaypriest]

12 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

If you want to explain WHAT you believe, and give reasons (from Bible only) explaining WHY you believe as you do - that would be great.  That's what we're here for.   Others can explain why they believe differently, and give reasons why.  But don't get off into calling some beliefs "orthodox" (approved) and others not so, as if that could ever be a reason to hold those beliefs.  

The same goes for SDAs who quote Mrs White.  No SDA should ever say they teach a doctrine because it was approved by Ellen White.   

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Part of the Jesuit Exreme Oath of induction (source: www.reformation.org):

"I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants' heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus."

Sounds like persecution to me!  I don't know If Jesuits are still required to take this oath; but they definitely were during and immediately after the Reformation.  Who do you think oversaw the Inquisition and the Spanish Inquisition?

 

Perhaps it would be best to have SDA's address the "Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction".

https://spectrummagazine.org/article/column/2013/03/21/here-we-go-again

 

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Gustave,

If you want to explain WHAT you believe, and give reasons (from Bible only) explaining WHY you believe as you do - that would be great.  That's what we're here for.   Others can explain why they believe differently, and give reasons why.  But don't get off into calling some beliefs "orthodox" (approved) and others not so, as if that could ever be a reason to hold those beliefs.   

PS:  I will not respond to trick questions or unanswerable questions.   You know.   Can God create something which could ever destroy Himself?   

It's NOT a trick question, I'm being totally serious here. You said that the Catholic Church persecuted Christians and I'm just wanting to know which Christian groups the Catholic Church persecuted that abided by Doctrines that you agree with?

[Gustave]

4 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Gustave,

If you want to explain WHAT you believe, and give reasons (from Bible only) explaining WHY you believe as you do - that would be great.  That's what we're here for.   Others can explain why they believe differently, and give reasons why.  But don't get off into calling some beliefs "orthodox" (approved) and others not so, as if that could ever be a reason to hold those beliefs.   

PS:  I will not respond to trick questions or unanswerable questions.   You know.   Can God create something which could ever destroy Himself?   

Ok, I'll bite!

 

Acts 15: Some well intentioned Christians "WHO DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY" to promulgate what they were promulgating started "SUBVERTING THE SOULS" of the Christians in Antioch  (Verse 24). These unauthorized teachers of the Christian Faith asserted they were talking about grave matters, matters of salvation. To settle this matter the infant "ORTHODOX" Christian Church held a Council and issued "God's" decision on the matter. 

"For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things"

That was the end of THAT MATTER for Orthodox Christians, HOWEVER, I'm quite certain some of those "unauthorized teachers" didn't accept what God the Holy Spirit & the Leaders of the Church said - by golly they went off and started their own Church that did it right! Religious Authority is spelled out very clear in both the Old & New Testaments and it does not in any way favor Christians rejecting Councils any more than it favored the Israelites rejecting Moses. 

The Biblical proofs of the Trinity that are commonly quoted by Trinitarians combined with the Authoritative declarations of Church Councils should be enough for ANY Protestant to accept but if there is one thing about the Protestant religion it just keeps protesting & protesting & protesting. Thankfully every mainline Christian Church accepts the Trinity and blatantly admits it in their Creeds.   

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

Perhaps it would be best to have SDA's address the "Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction".

Interesting article.  But it does not negate the fact that the RCC sanctioned the persecution of everyone who wasn't Catholic for centuries.  Protestants have nothing to gloat over - they were just as bad as well for hundreds of years.  Any unabridged secular history will even tell of the atrocities Catholics put on Jews and Muslims during the Crusades, and on Protestants during the reformation.  Christians killing each other in the name of Jesus.  What a sacrilege!

[Gustave]

1 minute ago, JoeMo said:

Interesting article.  But it does not negate the fact that the RCC sanctioned the persecution of everyone who wasn't Catholic for centuries.  Protestants have nothing to gloat over - they were just as bad as well for hundreds of years.  Any unabridged secular history will even tell of the atrocities Catholics put on Jews and Muslims during the Crusades, and on Protestants during the reformation.  Christians killing each other in the name of Jesus.  What a sacrilege!

Look, I'd be the last one to say that members of the CC are without sin, no doubt that members of the CC from the lowest rank to the highest are guilty of atrocities committed against all manner of people. The same can be said of any Christian religion as the Gospel is pure water running through very rusty pipes. The truth of a Religions teachings are certainly not proven by the sinlessness of it's members.   That's what I'm saying.

[Gustave]

9 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Religious riddles are not of much interest to most forum members. As Rachel has said; it would be much more profitable if you just come out with whatever your main point is here. It is obvious you are leading up to something. If you can tell us what your main point is, then we have something to discuss.

You don't want to answer a direct question, I get it. It's ok. 

[8thdaypriest]

12 hours ago, Gustave said:

Christian religion as the Gospel is pure water running through very rusty pipes

I like that!  Is it yours, or were you quoting.  

[Gustave]

Just now, 8thdaypriest said:

I like that!  Is it yours, or were you quoting.  

Heard it from a homily years ago - I don’t know if the Priest came up with it or if he got it from someone else.

[8thdaypriest]

Stan has set aside a whole forum for Trinity Topics, so folks like us can discuss.  So let's discuss.

25 years ago, a close friend of mine - Regi, came to believe that our God is NOT a Trinity.  I was incensed.  I tried to change her mind with EGW quotes.  (Both of us were SDA.)   She answered me with Bible verses.  I didn't even speak to my friend for 3 months.  Then we agreed to study from Bible only.   I was absolutely sure that I could convince my friend that our God IS a Trinity of three beings.   I studied for 4 years.  The result was a change of mind - for me. 

I DO UNDERSTAND how difficult these things are.  Believe me - I do.  It took years for me to be sure.  I don't expect that anyone would change a long held belief, just reading 2 or 3 verses.  And many other things are involved - fear of loosing friends, social support networks,  belief in the authority of parent, pastor, prophet, pope, or other.   

Today is my house-cleaning, laundry day.   I will be back later.  Rachel