Place your banner ad here.          See all banner ads

|| ConcernedMembers.com || About || Links Library || Help Warn Others ||
|| Madison Church of Christ || Richland Hills Church of Christ || Hillcrest Church of Christ || More Churches || Sunday School in Exile ||

Where is my NewThisWeek Email subscription?Click Here

Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Donnie Cruz
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
23.127.32.146

Re: The God of Jesus Christ -- Who Was/Is He?

January 22 2016, 7:19 PM 

What sarcasm, Bill?

I present this truth: "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

I present this truth: "the head of Christ is God."

Word for word; directly quoted from Scripture. That's no one's "personal theology."

 
 Respond to this message   
Bill
(no login)
74.179.15.117

Re: The God of Jesus Christ -- Who Was/Is He?

January 22 2016, 8:51 PM 

Donnie says, "What sarcasm"? Indeed! A chronic alcoholic will claim that he doesn't drink much. A crazy person will claim that everyone else is crazy but him. A megalomaniacal fanatic will claim that his is the only correct Biblical interpretation; everyone else is wrong. Likewise, a person given to hurling sarcasm at those who disagree with him will claim, "What sarcasm"?

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
23.127.32.146

Re: The God of Jesus Christ -- Who Was/Is He?

January 22 2016, 10:51 PM 

Now, Bill, "sarcasm" is dominating your points of rebuttal. Plus everything else in your post above.

As I said, I'm simply quoting the exact words from Scripture.

There are numerous examples, and one good example of quoting directly from Scripture is:

The head of Christ is God. (I Corinthians 11:3, KJV)

Would the meaning or context of the passage change if stated as follows:
God is the head of Christ.



 
 Respond to this message   
Bill
(no login)
74.179.15.117

Re: The God of Jesus Christ -- Who Was/Is He?

January 22 2016, 11:14 PM 

Donnie will not and cannot accept that some people just do not agree with his Biblical interpretations, so he resorts to sarcasm instead, then denies doing it. No one can have a civil discussion with someone like Donnie who believes that he's the only one who's right and everyone else is wrong. That smacks of megalomaniacal fanaticism.

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
23.127.32.146

Re: The God of Jesus Christ -- Who Was/Is He?

January 22 2016, 11:43 PM 

Bill,

The Bible says: "The head of Christ is God."

(I Cor. 11:3)

 
 Respond to this message   
Bill
(no login)
74.179.14.155

Re: The God of Jesus Christ -- Who Was/Is He?

January 23 2016, 12:22 AM 

Donnie, Jesus said, "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30).

Jesus said, "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9).

The Bible says, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" (Matt. 1:23).

The Bible says, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6).

A child would not be called "mighty God" and "everlasting Father" if He were not God.

I interpret these passages to mean that Jesus is God. Since God/Jesus is omnipotent and can do all, it makes perfect sense to me that Jesus could be the Father and God the Son, because to me, they are one and the same eternal Being. I don't need the Bible to say explicitly that "Jesus is God" or "God is the Son" to know that's what the passages above are telling us. If you don't want to believe that, then it's your prerogative. I just don't happen to agree with you. Sure, the Bible can say that God is the head of Christ, but that doesn't say "Jesus is not God."

Beyond that, we'll just have to agree to disagree. happy.gif


 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
23.127.32.146

Re: The God of Jesus Christ -- Who Was/Is He?

January 23 2016, 3:54 AM 

Jesus said, "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30).
But Bill says: Jesus the Son is the Father = the Father is Jesus the Son.

Jesus said, "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9).
But Bill thinks: He who has seen Bill Crump has seen Bill Crump's father.

The Bible says, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" (Matt. 1:23).
But Bill thinks that the virgin ("Mary, the Mother of God") gave birth to God the Father.

The Bible says, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). A child would not be called "mighty God" and "everlasting Father" if He were not God.
But Bill loves the Trinitarian's translation that God is called "prince" and is the Messiah, meaning that God sent Himself to earth. At the same time, Bill denies that it's the prophesied coming of Jesus to reign upon the throne of David as a mighty ruler. Instead, Bill believes that God the Father was the child to be born as "a son" and that Jehovah God would reign upon the throne of David.

I interpret these passages to mean that Jesus is God. Since God/Jesus is omnipotent and can do all, it makes perfect sense to me that Jesus could be the Father and God the Son, because to me, they are one and the same eternal Being. I don't need the Bible to say explicitly that "Jesus is God" or "God is the Son" to know that's what the passages above are telling us. If you don't want to believe that, then it's your prerogative. I just don't happen to agree with you. Sure, the Bible can say that God is the head of Christ, but that doesn't say "Jesus is not God."
Since the Bible does not say what Bill wants it to say, he made an executive decision to say what the Bible doesn't say in order to prove that the man-made Trinity dogma is correct. Bill can spend all his time till death looking for "Jesus is not God." Of course, he will not find it. What he should have already found is the plethora of passages that unequivocally affirm that "Jesus is the Son of God."

 
 Respond to this message   
Bill
(no login)
74.179.14.155

Re: The God of Jesus Christ -- Who Was/Is He?

January 23 2016, 9:18 AM 

Thanks for giving us your interpretation of those passages; I've given you mine.

Now that we've shared interpretations, we can agree to disagree. happy.gif

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
23.127.32.146

Re: The God of Jesus Christ -- Who Was/Is He?

January 23 2016, 4:15 PM 

My response above was intended to confirm YOUR belief system. NONE of the verses you quoted supports the speculation:

--- That Jesus is God [?];
--- That God is Jesus [?];
--- That Jesus is also the Father [?];
--- That the Son of God is also God the Father [?];
--- That God the Father had an earthly Mother: the Virgin Mary [?];
--- That Jesus and His Father are one Being/Person [?];
--- That God the Father is the Messiah [?];
--- That God the Father is the Prince of Peace [?];
--- That God the Father did not send His Son; [?] but rather...
--- That God the Father sent Himself to earth [?];
--- That God the Father would sit upon David's throne to govern [?];
--- ... just to mention a few
--- ... and Bill's logical/mathematical formula gets more complicated...
--- ... when the Trinity's "Holy Spirit" is factored into Bill's equation, such...
--- That God's holy spirit, Jesus and God are all one Being/Person [?].

NONE of the above notions is Scripture-supported.

 
 Respond to this message   
Bill
(no login)
74.179.63.161

Re: The God of Jesus Christ -- Who Was/Is He?

January 23 2016, 6:47 PM 

Now that Donnie and I have exchanged our beliefs based on our individual interpretations of Scripture, and now that we've agreed to disagree, we can be much better friends. happy.gif

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
23.127.32.146

Re: The God of Jesus Christ -- Who Was/Is He?

January 23 2016, 8:16 PM 

Now that we have confirmed Bill's [almost] Trinitarian proclivities, we will try harder than ever before to search the Scriptures to validate those acquired "strange" teachings. I say "almost" because:

The man-made Trinity Creed specifies:

----- that God the Father is PERSON #1;
----- that God the Son is PERSON #2;
----- that God the Holy Ghost is PERSON #3; whereas

Bill thinks:

----- that God the Father is PERSON #1;
----- that Jesus is also the Father as SAME PERSON #1;
----- that the Holy Ghost is also Jesus, is also the Father, as SAME PERSON #1.

Either way, it is a strange doctrine. But the latter is more strange.

Strange, indeed, that among the creative, speculative thoughts of man, "the Virgin Mary" gave birth to God the Father, Jehovah, the creator! [Bill, here's your chance to correct it if "the birth of the Lord Jehovah is a misstatement.]


 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
23.127.32.146

Alexander Campbell and Thomas Jefferson: The Trinity

January 24 2016, 4:33 PM 

Thanks to Ken Sublett for providing the information below.

Source: http://www.leroygarrett.org/ac_tj/chap04.htm

In Leroy Garrett's "Alexander Campbell and Thomas Jefferson" (Religious Philosophy), we read in part [with emphases mine, d.c.]:


... Jefferson would have admired Campbell's anti-Calvinism, for he himself viewed that school of Protestantism as tyrannical and demoralizing. Like Campbell, Jefferson was anti-Trinitarian, contending that the Calvinistic idea of three Gods is a blasphemous dogma. ... The two men even talked similarly about the restoration of primitive Christianity. ... He saw Calvinism as believing in three Gods.

... It is difficult to tell Jefferson and Campbell apart when they are speaking on the evils of Calvinism, the jargon of Trinitarianism, the corruption of the clergy, or the confusions of creedalism. Compare their views on these subjects in these quotations:

Thomas Jefferson: "When we shall have done away with the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, reared to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus; when, in short, we shall have unlearned everything which has been taught since his day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines he inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily his disciplines." (Cousins, p. 156)

Alexander Campbell: "I object to the doctrine of the Trinity not because it is contrary to reason or revelation, but because of the metaphysical technicalities, the unintelligible jargon, the unmeaning language of the orthodox creeds on this subject, and the interminable war of words without ideas to which this word Trinity has given birth." (Mill. Harb. 1833, p. 155)


 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
184.63.180.96

Re: Alexander Campbell and Thomas Jefferson: The Trinity

January 24 2016, 8:17 PM 

The progressives love Leroy Garrett ex Sommerite because he promotes instruments in worship. However, they ignore Garrett and Ketchercide when they give them NO ROLE as preachers because God provided them no DOLE other than "teaching that which has been taught." No located preachers, no money changers, no polytheists etal.

Campbell went on to say that: Were any one to ask me. Can there be three distinct persons, or even beings, in one God? I would say, Reason informs me not. and revelation does not assert it.

But if asked, Can there be one, and [99] one three in the same sense?
I reply, Both reason and revelation say NO.


In what should embarass the trinitarians who cannot BLUSH since most of the people are willing to sell themselves back into slavery.

But then no Trinitarian or Calvinist affirms that the three are one, and the one three, in the same sense.


As to "society" within the DIVINE NATURE Campbell noted the common human thinking.And no man can, with any palpable degree of self-respect, question the trinity or triunity of body, soul and spirit, in one human personality!

Historic trinity defines this triad nature and Jesus showed it in the Father who breathes (spirit) and the Son Who articulates.

But I am not more confounded than delighted with the idea of the One, Self-existent, and Eternal God. To me, its incomprehensibility is a source of joy. With exultation I ask, "Who by searching can find out God, or know the Almighty to perfection?" My child says, Who made God? and, methinks, I am no wiser in the estimation of my superiors.


How can they be blinded to the revealed Word?

Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all,
who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God,
and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus;



    
This message has been edited by Ken.Sublett from IP address 184.63.180.96 on Jan 24, 2016 8:21 PM


 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
184.63.180.96

Re: Alexander Campbell and Thomas Jefferson: The Trinity

January 24 2016, 8:26 PM 

Campbell went on to say that:

Were any one to ask me. Can there be three distinct persons, or even beings, in one God? I would say, Reason informs me not. and revelation does not assert it.

But if asked, Can there be one, and [99] one three in the same sense?
I reply, Both reason and revelation say NO.


In what should embarass the trinitarians who cannot BLUSH since most of the people are willing to sell themselves back into slavery.

But then no Trinitarian or Calvinist affirms that the three are one, and the one three, in the same sense.


As to "society" within the DIVINE NATURE Campbell noted the common human thinking.And no man can, with any palpable degree of self-respect, question the trinity or triunity of body, soul and spirit, in one human personality!

Historic trinity defines this triad nature and Jesus showed it in the Father who breathes (spirit) and the Son Who articulates.

But I am not more confounded than delighted with the idea of the One, Self-existent, and Eternal God. To me, its incomprehensibility is a source of joy. With exultation I ask, "Who by searching can find out God, or know the Almighty to perfection?" My child says, Who made God? and, methinks, I am no wiser in the estimation of my superiors.


How can they be blinded to the revealed Word?

Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all,
who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God,
and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus;


 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
184.63.180.96

God is God: Jesus is Lord by the Fathers Assignment

January 28 2016, 6:10 PM 

Irenaeus (early 2nd century – c. AD 202) not venturing what happened in the mind of God before revelation, shows that to make the WORD or LOGOS something required to make God complete is to belittle Him: John calls such people Antichrists.

Irenaeus Heresies II stating what Jesus in John made perfectly clear

IRENAEUS HERESIES THE PAGAN FOLLY TO BE REPUDIATED:

http://www.piney.com/FathIrenaHerII.html

XXVIII.4. For consider, all ye who invent such opinions,
.....since the Father Himself is alone called God,
.....who has a real existence, but whom ye style the Demiurge;

since, moreover, the Scriptures acknowledge Him alone as God;
.....and yet again,
.....since the Lord confesses Him alone as His own Father,
.....and knows no other, as I shall show from His very words,-

.....when ye style this very Being the fruit of defect, and the offspring of ignorance,
.....and describe Him as being ignorant of those things which are above Him,
.....with the various other allegations which you make regarding Him,-
.....consider the terrible blasphemy [ye are thus guilty of] against Him who truly is God.

Ye seem to affirm gravely and honestly enough that ye believe in God; but then, as ye are utterly unable to reveal any other God,
.....ye declare this very Being in whom ye profess to believe,
.....the fruit of defect and the offspring of ignorance.
Now this blindness and foolish talking flow to you
.....from the fact that ye reserve nothing for God,
.....but ye wish to proclaim the nativity and production both of God Himself,
.....of His Ennoea, of His Logos, and Life, and Christ;

and ye form the idea of these from no other than a mere human experience;
.....not understanding, as I said before, that it is possible,
.....in the case of man, who is a compound
.....being, to speak in this way of the mind of man and the thought of man;
.....and to say that thought (ennoa) springs from mind (sensus),
.....intention (enthymesis) again from thought,
.....and word (logos) from intention (but which logos?

for there is among the Greeks ONE LOGOS which is the principle that thinks,
.....and ANOTHER which is the instrument by means of which thought is expressed);

.....and [to say] that a man sometimes is at rest and silent,
.....while at other times he speaks and is active.

But since God is
.....all mind, all reason, all active spirit, all light,
.....and always exists one and the same,
.....as it is both beneficial for us to think of God,
.....and as we learn regarding Him from the Scriptures,
.....such feelings and divisions [of operation] cannot fittingly be ascribed to Him.

For our tongue, as being carnal, is not sufficient to minister to the rapidity of the human mind, inasmuch as that is of a spiritual nature, for which reason our word is restrained within us, and is not at once expressed as it has been conceived by the mind, but is uttered by successive efforts, just as the tongue is able to serve it.

5. But God being ALL Mind, and all Logos,
.....both speaks exactly what He thinks,
.....and thinks exactly what He speaks.

For His thought is Logos, and Logos is Mind
.....comprehending all things is the Father Himself.

He, therefore, who speaks of the mind of God,
.....and ascribes to it a special origin of its own,
.....declares Him a compound Being,
.....as if God were one thing,
.....and the original Mind another.

So, again, with respect to Logos,
.....when one attributes to him the third place of production from the Father;
.....on which supposition he is ignorant of His greatness;
.....and thus Logos has been far separated from God.

As for the prophet, he declares respecting Him,
....."Who shall describe His generation? "
.....But ye pretend to set forth His generation from the Father,
.....and ye transfer the production of the word of men
.....which takes place by means of a tongue to the Word of God,
.....and thus are righteously exposed by your own selves
.....as knowing neither things human nor divine.

6. But, beyond reason inflated [with your own wisdom],
.....ye presumptuously maintain that ye are acquainted
.....with the unspeakable mysteries of God;
.....while even the Lord, the very Son of God,
.....allowed that the Father alone knows the very day and hour of judgment,

when He plainly declares, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, neither the Son, but the Father only." If, then,
.....the Son was not ashamed to ascribe the knowledge of that day to the Father only,
.....but declared what was true regarding the matter,
.....neither let us be ashamed to reserve for God those greater questions which may occur to us.

For no man is superior to his master. If any one, therefore, says to us, "How then was the Son produced by the Father? "we reply to him, that no man understands that production, or generation, or calling, or revelation, or by whatever name one may describe His generation, which is in fact altogether indescribable. Neither Valentinus, nor Marcion, nor Saturninus, nor Basilides, nor angels, nor archangels, nor principalities, nor powers [possess this knowledge],

but the Father only who begat, and the Son who was begotten.
.....Since therefore His generation is unspeakable,
.....those who strive to set forth generations
.....and productions cannot be in their right mind,
.....inasmuch as they undertake to describe things which are indescribable.

For that a word is uttered at the bidding of thought and mind, all men indeed well understand. Those, therefore, who have excogitated [the theory of] emissions have not discovered anything great,

Again, if you INSIST that Jesus always existed as the WORD of God, He is belittled because the Word is what God SPEAKS and the Word or Logos is God's REGULATIVE or governing principle.











 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
184.63.180.96

Irenaeus.Refutes.Trinity II.1

January 29 2016, 1:11 PM 

Trinitarians say that Jesus WAS God: Jesus says that He was the SON of the One God the Father. Paul wants both men and women to sit down and be silent during the PREACHING of the WORD by READING the Word. The Driving Purpose was that "all might be SAFE and come to a knowledge of the truth.

The men are warned against letting orge or an ORGY break out which would be marked by what Jesus called hypocrites: speakers, singers, instrument players neither intending to teach that which has been taught nor obeying it.

The women were silenced because in all of the "silence" passages women were held to be the madness-driven speakers for the gods and collectors of tithes-never in the kingdom.

John said that anyone who did not accept that ONE FATHER GOD and one Son or Lord is marked as ANTICHRIST. The mark is certain when anyone violates the command to "use one mind and one mouth to speak that which is written for out LEARNING: that one piece PATTERN which by definition WILL be in a School of Christ where we Rest.

[linked image]

 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
184.63.180.96

Irenaeus.II.XXX.9

January 29 2016, 9:53 PM 

God says that He is not a man nor the son of man: shall we correct Him and say BUT, you have become A man.

Jesus says that God is a SPIRIT or SPIRIT.
A Spirit does not have flesh and bones.
Jesus said that he was a MAN and the SON OF MAN with flesh and bones.
That means that He is not God but the Son of God.
Jesus is the image of God speaking the Word, Logos or Regulative principle which outlaws everything beyond teaching that which has been taught.

The LU H. Leo Boles invented the three person trinity and John Mark Hicks says that they are three centers of consciousness able to EAT with us while we BURN the Fat in a Lord's Supper with Jubilation.

The Latin defines DESPISING the Word of God or claiming that He authorizes something He did not as blaspheming the Holy Spirit OF God who defined the REST of Jesus both inclusively and exclusively: Sabbath or Paul means STOP anything not involved in PREACHING the Word by READING the Word for Comfort and Doctrine. Any extension beyond that assembly is defined as a cult as in Purpose Driven or Kairos--the demon or spirit son of Zeus as the god in the Jerusalem temple. And Jesus calls literaly Jerusalem SODOM.

[linked image]

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
23.127.32.146

Re: Alexander Campbell and Thomas Jefferson: The Trinity

January 31 2016, 12:35 AM 

I need to explain the following:

Even though Leroy Garrett was one of those agents of apostasy (along with other prominent change agents: Lynn Anderson, Rubel Shelly, Max Lucado, et al), we should be interested in reading what he had to say about "Alexander Campbell and Thomas Jefferson." [A brief narrative extracted from Garrett's article is only about 5 posts above.] Please read it.

The fact that the author in the last few decades of his life aligned himself with liberal, progressive churches of Christ proves that he was not biased in presenting Alexander Campbell as ANTI-TRINITARIAN, along with Thomas Jefferson.

Keep in mind that Alexander Campbell was one of our Restoration Movement forefathers who advocated a return to New Testament Christianity as it was in the first century. So, let those who have accused ConcernedMembers of teaching falsely concerning God's nature and the Sonship of Jesus Christ review the brief narrative above: "Alexander Campbell and Thomas Jefferson: The Trinity" (posted on January 24 2016, 4:33 PM).

No, Alexander Campbell did not endorse and teach the Trinity creed. Virtually all hymn books used in churches of Christ (until "progressive" hymnals were published) DID NOT contain these words in "Holy, Holy, Holy!": "God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity."

No, the Holy Scripture does not teach it, either. Campbell agreed with the Scripture.

That Alexander Campbell was "anti-Trinitarian" (in Garrett's historical findings) is very significant. It may take a while, but let that sink in.


 
 Respond to this message   
Bill
(no login)
74.179.12.16

Re: Alexander Campbell and Thomas Jefferson: The Trinity

January 31 2016, 9:28 AM 

The term "Trinity" as such does not appear in the Bible, because the writers had no word for it, yet the concept of it is very much present in the Bible (see below). Likewise, the term "homosexuality" does not appear in the Bible, because such a word was unknown to the Biblical writers, yet the concept of homosexuality is certainly present in the Bible. Whereas the Bible does not explicitly condemn the concept of Trinity, the Bible explicitly condemns the practice of what we now know today as homosexuality. Just because a man-made term does not appear in the Bible does not mean the concept for that term does not exist in the Bible. Also remember that the man-made term "Holy Bible" does not appear anywhere in the Bible, yet that term is very much valid.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (1 John 5:7).

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Matt. 28:19).

We know that the Word is Jesus. Of course, the three mentioned above are not three individual and separate "persons"; they are three manifestations as One God.




 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
23.127.32.146

Re: Alexander Campbell and Thomas Jefferson: The Trinity

January 31 2016, 3:02 PM 

(1) So, you have nothing to say about Alexander Campbell's objection to the doctrine of Trinity? I know it will take time to let the Restoration Movement leader's OBJECTION to the DOCTRINE OF TRINITY sink in. But remember the reasons he gave as quoted from the Millennial Harbinger (1833, p. 156):

----- a. the metaphysical technicalities
----- b. the unintelligible jargaon
----- c. the unmeaning language of the orthodox creeds on this subject
----- d. the interminable war of words without ideas to which the word Trinity has given birth.

(2) The term "Trinity" being not in the Bible is NOT the issue. We find a "trinity" concept at creation "in the beginning," but it does not make God's Spirit a separate being:

----- a. when God the Father created the heaven and the earth;
----- b. when "the Spirit OF God" moved upon the face of the waters;
----- c. when God SAID (the Word of God) numerous times: "Let there be...."

(3) I John 5:7 is considered spurious when numerous translations are taken into account. The King James versions and a few other translations have those 3 Trinity "persons" listed, but most of the translations do not list those 3. Instead I John 5:8 lists the three as: the Spirit, the water, and the blood. The three are ONE (IN AGREEMENT). It is necessary to read both verses (I John 5:7,8) from the majority of the translations.

(4) Matt. 28:19. We have already discussed this verse countless times to which you paid no attention. The name referred to is singular. The list of entities that comprise the singular NAME does not prove "God in Three Persons." Nor does I John 5:7-8 that lists the spirit, the water and the blood prove "God in Three Persons." The SINGULAR NAME is referred to as "the name of the Lord Jesus" in baptism as recorded in Acts and other passages:

----- Acts 8:16 -- they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus
----- Acts 10:48 -- commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord
----- Acts 19:5 -- they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus
----- Acts 2:38 -- be baptized ... in the name of Jesus Christ


(5) The issue is with the misguided concept of the TRINITY CREED or when passages are taken out of context:

----- God the Father -- this is the only scripture-evidenced (several passages)
----- God the Son -- NO SCRIPTURE supports this
----- God the Holy Spirit -- NO SCRIPTURE supports this.

 
 Respond to this message   
 
< Previous Page 12 3 4 5 612 Next >
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

This web site is not part of or approved by any Church!

...........................THE BOOK

What Happened at the Madison Church of Christ?


There are thousands of churches being taken over across America.

This book is only about one of those churches. It's about the Madison Church Of Christ. By studying the methods used here along with the resource references you might be able to inoculate your church. At the very least you will recognize the signs early on.

Many of the current members of the Madison Church of Christ still don't know what happened.
Some never will know! This book is for them as well.

Madison Church of Christ was a 60 year old church. At one time it was one of the largest churches in the US, and the largest Church of Christ.

It thrived for many years on the vision of it's elders and those of it's ministers. Those visions undoubtably came from the the inspired word of Jesus Christ.

At sometime in the last 10 years there was a deliberate plan by a majority of the elders to take the Madison Church of Christ into a more worldly realm.

They used secrecy, covert planning, and outside sources to scheme and to change the format and direction of the Madison Church of Christ.

The Elders knew that the membership would never approve such a plan. Using the tools of the "Community Church Movement"(consultants, books, seminars, meetings,planters,seeders) they slowly started initiating change so it was never noticed by the members until it was too late.....

At the heart of the plan was the fact that old members were going to be driven off so new techniques could be used to go out and reach the unchurched through new "Contemporary Holy Entertainment" methods developed by the "Community Church Movement"

Old members had to be kept on board long enough to get their plans ready, or the funds would not be there to pay for the new building. So by the plans very nature, it had to be secret.

The church had no plan in effect to renew or approve elders. There was never any need. The elders had always been "as approved by God". 10 of the last 15 elders would begin to shed some doubt on that.

The Elders did not even need a majority at first, because some of the elders went along unwittingly.

This edition starts shortly after some of the members begin to smell something strange in January 2001. Later editions may go back and fill in some of the timeline.

To even start to understand whats happening here, you must read the background materials in the first of the book.

This is only the first edition, and not the end. New editions will be printed as needed. To keep abreast of current changes, please visit our web site; http://www.concernedmembers.com/madison

Here is the list of players;

5 Godly Elders
10 Not so Godly Elders
120 "Deacons" (allegiance unknown)
2,800 - 4,000 church "members"
2 "teners" (people who have publicly confessed to have broken all ten commandments)
Unknown number of "sinners" (This is what the 10 elders call us.)
Unknown number of "demons" (Flying everywhere, to many to count)
 

Click Here......The Book is Available Now FREE

Place your banner ad here.           See all banner ads

...ConcernedMembers.com ...About ...Links Library ...Sunday School in Exile ...Help Warn Others


FastCounter by bCentral

CM Visit Counter as of 6/25/2015
2,101,394

Site Visits Since 6/30/2015
page counter