Is YOUR church doctrinal statement ONE with SATAN?

[lenna]

The government is not given the right to intervene in anyone's health care.

You should have told Obama about that. He totally stuck his nose in everyone's health care.

Flip flopping along you are.

 

[tourist]

a) I do know medicine for a reason I won't disclose.

b) Your second paragraph is nonsense. Many children "created by God" die in the womb. The second sentence of that paragraph is madness.

c) How many Egyptian children did God kill? If life is so sacred...

All children are created by God and yes, there are those that die in the womb. There are also those that die because some doctor stuck a sharp instrument in their brain to kill them. In New York it is now legal to kill a child that is ready to be born if you can kill it before it sticks its head out of the mother. Based on yours posts on this topic I would surmise that you are OK with this law in New York that legalizes murder. This is just pure sick.

 

[lenna]

The termination of a pregnancy is indeed within the practice of medicine.

Right. Or working in a meat packing plant would also suffice for what is done to unborn babies.

 

[lenna]

Killing babies is not medicine. The truth is that a seared over conscience can convince itself of anything.

 

[tourist]

The termination of a pregnancy is indeed within the practice of medicine.

This is an excerpt from the Hippocratic Oath pertaining to abortion:

I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.

According to this it is a malpractice for a doctor to perform an abortion within the practice of medicine as it is in violation of the oath.

 

[tourist]

a) I do know medicine for a reason I won't disclose.

b) Your second paragraph is nonsense. Many children "created by God" die in the womb. The second sentence of that paragraph is madness.

c) How many Egyptian children did God kill? If life is so sacred...

The question was "Does God approve of abortion" . A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[tourist]

Oy vey! If you knew anything about abortion and people's freedoms under the Constitution you wouldn't make such comments. Abortion is most often a necessary procedure to extract a fetus that has no chance of survival outside the womb, and in the process save the life of the mother. The decision to do that procedure is to be decided upon by the woman (and her husband) and the physician or midwife. To say that the Democratic Party supports the daily murdering of unborn children is total nonsense.

The Ten Commandments were removed from certain public places because The Constitution says clearly that the government shall not establish any single religion. The public places belong to the people, not just Jews and Christians. It truly bothers me that you don't understand freedom of religion.

The Left's agenda, as you put it, is to have a country based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- for all people, not just rich white people who control the government and their misinformed supporters.

How many Democrats in the House and Senate are pro-choice? Abortion is front and center of their platform. There is a difference between freedom of religion vrs being free from religion. The Left's agenda is complete power and control of the citizens of the United States.

 

[tourist]

I learn a lot from this forum.

Me too, I learn a lot about who the members are and what they are about. Besides that, it is usually a high entertainment venue.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Give me an example of James ruling over the Presbyterian church. What did he do to them?

Other than usurp authority, and force everyone to use his papists appeasing Bible, and then use his power and position to oppress the Puritans ???

 

[fredoheaven]

Two things, Fredo:

You're responding to evidence that I did not present directly to you.

You don't seem to hold the position for which I presented the evidence.

John146 continually claims that "every word" is important, and that if we don't know which words are right, we are in doubt, or made the final arbiters of God's word. KJV1611 continually claims that the words of the KJV are the words that God "inspired" the translators to use. Both positions are refuted by the actual evidence of the 1611 KJV, which shows that the translators themselves could not come to a final, exclusive decision regarding the best words in John 3:3 and 7. If you don't share either of these positions (or anything similar) you have no concern.

Umm, I care for 'every word' and what is in the text the Kjv regarding born again is sensibly correct. John146 is simply stating doubting Gods word and when in doubt, a change is necessary to which many follows the effect of God's word which is to alter that goes beyond and have it corrupted in the sense, the word become impure. But anyway, i might have miss some things of your previous conversation and i jump in but it is my belief that the Kjv is correct in rendering the phrase born again.☺

 

[Dino246]

Umm, I care for 'every word' and what is in the text the Kjv regarding born again is sensibly correct. John146 is simply stating doubting Gods word and when in doubt, a change is necessary to which many follows the effect of God's word which is to alter that goes beyond and have it corrupted in the sense, the word become impure. But anyway, i might have miss some things of your previous conversation and i jump in but it is my belief that the Kjv is correct in rendering the phrase born again.☺

As long as you aren't beating people over the head with your views, that's fine. Others do, and I find it quite objectionable... and groundless.

 

[Blade]

Thanks but.. never heard of these guys... why should we listen to them? Because one agrees with them?

And some are talking like the world. Using words we don't ever talk like that.. IN Jesus name.

 

[KJV1611]

How do you explain this, though?


PAY SPECIFIC ATTENTION TO VERSE 7:

From the KJV:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.


Now, look at verse 7 in the Aramaic, the Greek, the Latin Vulgate which are all at least 1,100 years OLDER than and written BEFORE the KJV:

1 John 5:6-8
Aramaic:
ܗܢܘ ܕܐܬܐ ܒܝܕ ܡܝܐ ܘܕܡܐ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܒܡܝܐ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܐܠܐ ܒܡܝܐ ܘܕܡܐ
6 This is The One who came by means of The Water and The Blood; Eshu Meshikha {Yeshua, The Anointed One}. It wasn't of The Water alone, but rather, by The Water and The Blood.

ܘܪܘܚܐ ܡܣܗܕܐ ܕܗܝ ܪܘܚܐ ܐܝܬܝܗ ܫܪܪܐ
7 And The Rukha {The Spirit} testifies; because that One, The Rukha {The Spirit}, is The Truth.

ܘܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܬܠܬܐ ܣܗܕܝܢ ܪܘܚܐ ܘܡܝܐ ܘܕܡܐ ܘܬܠܬܝܗܘܢ ܒܚܕ ܐܢܘܢ
8 And there are three testifying: The Rukha {The Spirit}, and The Water, and The Blood. And these three are in One.
^
nowhere is the Father-Son-Holy Spirit listed like the English add in.


Greek:
6 This is He Who is coming through water and blood and spirit - Jesus Christ - not in the water only, but in the water and in the blood. And the spirit it is which is testifying, for the spirit is the truth,
7 seeing that three there are that are testifying,
8 the spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are for the one thing."
^
nowhere is the Father-Son-Holy Spirit listed like the English add in.


Latin Vulgate:
6 hic est qui venit per aquam et sanguinem Iesus Christus non in aqua solum sed in aqua et sanguine et Spiritus est qui testificatur quoniam Christus est veritas

This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth that Christ is the truth.

7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant

And there are Three who give testimony

8 Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt

the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one.
^
nowhere is the Father-Son-Holy Spirit listed like the English add in.


If these Manuscripts came before the KJV, why doesn't the KJV say specifically the same thing from what it was translated from?




In verse 7, the older versions do not mention Heaven/Father/Son/Holy Spirit like the KJV.

So, if the KJV was using these to translate from, how did the KJV writers come up with Heaven/Father/Son/Holy Spirit when the OLDER versions do not mention anything of the sort?

I don't understand why people put so much faith in copies of copies of copies of fragments of originals that don't exist anymore. Maybe God purposely caused those FRAGMENTS to never be found so that LIBERAL THEOLOGIANS that support Antifa, the democrats and abortion could mislead people. I don't know why it's not in those old pieces of worthless junk, but it OBVIOUS that it was there.
Here are places where we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s.

200 ADTertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.250 ADCyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)350 ADPriscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]350 ADIdacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]350 ADAthanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione398 ADAurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism415 ADCouncil of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)450-530 ADSeveral orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]500 ADCassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]550 ADOld Latin ms r has it550 ADThe "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]750 ADWianburgensis referred to it800 ADJerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]1000s ADminiscule 635 has it1150 ADminuscule ms 88 in the margin1300s ADminiscule 629 has it157-1400 ADWaldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse1500 ADms 61 has the verseEven Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

 

[KJV1611]

Other than usurp authority, and force everyone to use his papists appeasing Bible, and then use his power and position to oppress the Puritans ???

Well show the decree where James forced everybody to read only his version. Maybe throw a link in about how he oppressed the Puritans too while you're at it.

 

[jaybo]

You should have told Obama about that. He totally stuck his nose in everyone's health care.

Flip flopping along you are.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[jaybo]

Well show the decree where James forced everybody to read only his version. Maybe throw a link in about how he oppressed the Puritans too while you're at it.

I have already done both of those.

 

[jaybo]

I don't understand why people put so much faith in copies of copies of copies of fragments of originals that don't exist anymore. Maybe God purposely caused those FRAGMENTS to never be found so that LIBERAL THEOLOGIANS that support Antifa, the democrats and abortion could mislead people. I don't know why it's not in those old pieces of worthless junk, but it OBVIOUS that it was there.
Here are places where we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s.

200 ADTertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.250 ADCyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)350 ADPriscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]350 ADIdacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]350 ADAthanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione398 ADAurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism415 ADCouncil of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)450-530 ADSeveral orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]500 ADCassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]550 ADOld Latin ms r has it550 ADThe "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]750 ADWianburgensis referred to it800 ADJerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]1000s ADminiscule 635 has it1150 ADminuscule ms 88 in the margin1300s ADminiscule 629 has it157-1400 ADWaldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse1500 ADms 61 has the verseEven Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

You are not making any sense.

 

[KJV1611]

I have already done both of those.

What's the post number?

 

[biker]

I don't understand why people put so much faith in copies of copies of copies of fragments of originals that don't exist anymore. Maybe God purposely caused those FRAGMENTS to never be found so that LIBERAL THEOLOGIANS that support Antifa, the democrats and abortion could mislead people. I don't know why it's not in those old pieces of worthless junk, but it OBVIOUS that it was there.
Here are places where we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s.

200 ADTertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.250 ADCyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)350 ADPriscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]350 ADIdacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]350 ADAthanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione398 ADAurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism415 ADCouncil of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)450-530 ADSeveral orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]500 ADCassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]550 ADOld Latin ms r has it550 ADThe "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]750 ADWianburgensis referred to it800 ADJerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]1000s ADminiscule 635 has it1150 ADminuscule ms 88 in the margin1300s ADminiscule 629 has it157-1400 ADWaldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse1500 ADms 61 has the verseEven Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

The KJV is a copy of the Greek to Latin Vulgate, so it is essentially a copy of a copy. The only difference however, is that it did not copy and went off onto its own tangent. How can something following something be legit when it chooses its own path?

Satan chose his own path, should we follow him as well?

But the real point is, that's only ONE EXAMPLE where the KJV decided to choose its own path. Do you want to see the others where they do not follow what actually and factually was said but made it up as they went?

 

[KJV1611]

You are not making any sense.

Yes it makes sense. 1 John 5:7 isn't in any fragments of originals but it was talked about as early as 200 AD. A lack of "original" manuscript evidence doesn't mean the text wasn't there to begin with, it means that God didn't INTEND on those fragments being found.