Main |
SATAN'S GREATEST HOAX or 226 questions PROVING the doctrine of the TRINITY to be UNSCRIPTURAL! Questions 170 through 173- The Name above all names. QUESTION #170) What is the name above every name? "...A name which is above every name:... the name of Jesus..."-Philippians 2:9-11. "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" -Acts 4:12. QUESTION #171) What name is to be used in whatsoever we do in word or in deed? Is baptism NOT done BOTH in word and in deed? "And whatsoever ye do in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus" -Colossians 3:17. QUESTION #172) And what are we if we don't believe the commandments of the apostles are the commandments of the Lord? 1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." 1Ti 6:2 "...These things teach and exhort. 3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4 HE IS PROUD, KNOWING NOTHING, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself." QUESTION #173) Did the apostles COMMAND everyone to be baptized in the name of Jesus? Act 2:14 "But Peter, standing up WITH THE ELEVEN, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and HEARKEN TO MY WORDS:... 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and BE BAPTIZED EVERY ONE OF YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Act 10:48 "And he COMMANDED them to be baptized in THE name of the Lord." Questions 174 through 181- Paul did not use Trinitarian language. Pilgrim, you quoted 2 Cor. 13:14 , and if you'll remember the word "kai," this verse translates itself, and disproves your Trinitarian conclusion- "The grace of the LORD Jesus Christ, and (kai- and, even, that is) the love of GOD, and (kai- and, even, that is) the fellowship of the HOLY SPIRIT be with you all." ((Gal. 4:6... Eph. 2:18...Eph. 4:4-6... Titus 3:5-6... Rom. 15:16, 30; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; 3:3; Gal. 3:11-14; Eph. 2:22; 3:14, 16-17; 5:17-21; Phil. 3:3; Col. 1:6-8; 1 Thess. 1:2-10; 2 Thess. 2:13. All these are just as abundant in Trinitarian language as the ones I wrote out above. Paul was unquestionably a Trinitarian.)) Excuse me, but Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not exclusive terminology that Trinitarians have a patent on, not by any means. Nor do those terms by any means equal, or define God to be, Separate Persons merely by mentioning or listing them, or their attributes, in conjunction with one another. In this you are GREATLY mistaken, and even more so LACKING in ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER as to ANY scriptural basis for the doctrine of a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead since this appears to be your sole evidence after all is said and done. In this you have fallen for one of the biggest hoaxes ever invented by Satan, and perpetrated by his wolves in sheep's clothing. Saying Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is not much different than mentioning a person's body, soul, or mind, for we are made in God's image, and we are NOT TRINITIES of Persons, but persons with differing members that are all members of one and the selfsame person. They all have different purposes, but they are ALL members of the same "person". 1 Cor 12:12 "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: SO ALSO IS CHRIST." The man, Jesus Christ, is in no place in scripture EVER called a Separate Person from God the Father. However, concerning the Son, the scripture says He is- Heb 1:3 "...The express image of his person" The express image of my person, is my flesh. You can not see my soul, just as you cannot physically "see" God. My flesh, and my words are how my self is manifested to you and others. It is the same with the "man" Jesus Christ- Joh 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." 1 Jo 3:1 "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him ... 5 And ye know that HE (THE FATHER) WAS MANIFESTED to take away our sins; and in him is no sin." This is talking about Jesus Christ, GOD HIMSELF MANIFEST in the flesh- 1Ti 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." It doesn't say "God the Son" was manifested in the flesh. It doesn't say the second person of the Trinity was manifested. (Why, it doesn't even say we saw "God the Son" because God the Son is an unscriptural, unchristian term!). 1Co 8:5 "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But TO US THERE IS BUT ONE GOD, THE FATHER, of whom are all things, and we in him; and (EVEN, THAT IS) one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." Mar 12:29 "...The first of all the commandments is... The Lord our God is one Lord" QUESTION #174) I'll bet you Trinitarians wish that first commandment had never been written, don't you? It would make your life a lot easier if it hadn't been written, wouldn't it? But that is the commandment that we all will be judged by! Why don't/can't you just OBEY IT even at the cost of your own personal interpretations? WHY MUST YOU INSIST ON FORMULATING PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS TO SKIRT AROUND IT, DIMINISH IT, COMPROMISE IT, AND ULTIMATELY AND ACTUALLY TO DISOBEY IT- THE VERY FIRST COMMANDMENT??? It is because- 1Jo 2:4 "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." The God breathed scripture says GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH! Rom 9:5 "...As CONCERNING THE FLESH CHRIST CAME, WHO IS OVER ALL, GOD blessed for ever. Amen." 1Jo 5:20 "...Jesus Christ. THIS IS THE TRUE GOD, AND eternal life." (Remember, punctuation in scripture is NOT inspired!) ((All these (scriptures) are just as abundant in Trinitarian language as the ones I wrote out above. Paul was unquestionably a Trinitarian.)) In order to define, describe, and declare the doctrine of the Trinity, some or all of the following terminology is REQUIRED- Trinity, Holy Trinity, Divine Trinity, Triune, Three-in-one, Three-of-one, "God the Son", "God the Holy Ghost," Separate Persons, Separate Egos, Separate Individuals, Divine Plurality, Divine Individuality, Divine Unity. QUESTION #175) Where does Paul use ANY of the above terminology ANYWHERE in ANY of his epistles? NONE of this terminology, nor ANY descriptive language anywhere in the Bible defines these concepts. Not in Paul's writings, nor in the whole Bible! Instead, Paul wrote that God gives prophets (1 Cor. 12:18 &28), and Paul says Jesus is the one and the same that gave the gift of prophecy- (Eph 4:7-11), and Paul said the Spirit is the one who gives the gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 12:11), and yet Paul says- "ALL THESE WORKETH THAT ONE AND THE SELFSAME PERSON" (1 Cor. 12:12) QUESTION #176) So how is it that Paul teaches a Trinity if this God, Jesus, and the Spirit who gives the gift of prophecy IS ONE AND THE SELFSAME SPIRIT ACCORDING TO PAUL? WAS PAUL TRYING TO DECEIVE US? QUESTION #177) Why do Trinitarians not believe Paul when he said "All these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit"? Do Trinitarians think they know something Paul did not? QUESTION #178) Would a Trinitarian say, referring to God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost that- "all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit"? Why then did Paul? It is because Paul WAS NOT A TRINITARIAN, that's why! It is because when Paul asked His Lord what His name was He said it was Jesus, NOT "Holy Trinity"!!! Paul asked, Act 9:5, "Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I AM JESUS whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." QUESTION #179) If Paul is a Trinitarian, as you have accused him of being, where does Paul ANYWHERE specifically describe the Godhead as Separate Persons? QUESTION #180) If the Holy Ghost in the church is a Separate Person from Jesus, why did He say His name is Jesus? Was the Holy Spirit deceiving Paul? Paul was a Jews Jew- Phi 3:5 "Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee" And if the godhead turned out to be a Trinity of Separate Persons, this would have been a MONUMENTAL change in Jewish thought and doctrine! It would have been MUCH MORE than Jesus merely fulfilling the law, as He said. And it therefore, would have been a MAJOR CONCERN of Paul's to communicate this doctrine clearly, and completely, for he said- Act 20:27 "...I HAVE NOT SHUNNED TO DECLARE UNTO YOU ALL THE COUNSEL OF GOD. 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock... 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also OF YOUR OWN SELVES SHALL MEN ARISE, SPEAKING PERVERSE THINGS, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. 32 AND NOW, BRETHREN, I COMMEND YOU TO GOD, AND TO THE WORD of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified." QUESTION #181) Since Paul did not shun to declare unto us ALL THE COUNSEL of God, and since the things he wrote are the commandments of the Lord, WHERE DOES PAUL COMMAND US TO BELIEVE IN A TRINITY OF PERSONS? Where does Paul say, as you, that those who don't believe in a Trinity of Persons are heretics? Did Paul lie to us then in that he really DIDN'T "declare unto us ALL the counsel of God"? Did Paul have an INCOMPLETE understanding of the godhead that could only be revealed centuries later by pagan philosophers in Christian garb? Questions 182 through 185- John did not use Trinitarian language. ((Also read Rev. 1:4-5, "...Grace to you and peace from HIM WHO IS AND WHO WAS AND WHO IS TO COME and from the SEVEN SPIRITS who are before His throne, and from JESUS CHRIST, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead and the ruler over the kings of the earth." As we can also see, John was undeniably a Trinitarian.)) I also suggest to you that you read ALL of Revelation, and how it INTERPRETS ITSELF! For example Rev. 1:1 Rev 1:1 "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" NOT the revelation of John. NOT the revelation of the Trinity doctrine. VERY SPECIFICALLY- 1 "The REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST." Rev 1:4 "John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, FROM HIM WHICH IS, AND WHICH WAS, AND WHICH IS TO COME QUESTION #182) Who does JOHN reveal is "He which is, and which was, and which is to come"? Rev 1:8 "I AM ALPHA AND OMEGA, the beginning and the ending, saith THE LORD, WHICH IS, AND WHICH WAS, AND WHICH IS TO COME, the Almighty. QUESTION #183) And who is this "Alpha and Omega" who is "He which is, and which was, and which is to come"? Rev 22:13 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last... 16 *I JESUS*..." (No wonder it's called "the Revelation of Jesus Christ!) QUESTION #184) So how is it, or where is it that John says that "He which is, and which was, and which is to come" is a Separate Person from Jesus Christ? How is it then, that this also proves JOHN WAS NOT A TRINITARIAN, he merely wasn't afraid to mention multiple attributes of God? QUESTION #185) Why does John tell us in another place that Jesus (the Alpha and Omega) is "He which is, and which was, and which is to come" if, according to you, in verse 4 he means to demonstrate that they are Separate Persons? Is John trying to confuse us, OR ARE YOU AND YOUR TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE TRYING TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE and trying to ADD to the word of God what SPECIFICALLY IS NOT THERE? Rev 22:18 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, IF ANY MAN SHALL ADD UNTO THESE THINGS, GOD SHALL ADD UNTO HIM THE PLAGUES THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK" Questions 186 through 188- The Seven Spirits. ((Also read Rev. 1:4-5, "... SEVEN SPIRITS who are before His throne, and from JESUS CHRIST..." As we can also see, John was undeniably a Trinitarian.)) QUESTION #186) Who, or what, does JOHN THE REVELATOR himself interpret these Seven Spirits to be? Are there now 9 persons in the godhead- the Father, the Son, and the Seven Spirits? Why doesn't John just come out and say these are Separate Persons if that's what he is trying to show us? (After all, John was also a Jew, and being such, he would have thereby believed in the purest form of monotheism known to the world!) Rev 4:5 "And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God." Rev 5:6 "And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood A LAMB AS IT HAD BEEN SLAIN, having seven horns and SEVEN EYES, WHICH ARE THE SEVEN SPIRITS OF GOD sent forth into all the earth." QUESTION #187) Are you now going to try telling me that the eyes of Jesus are Separate Persons from God? How is that NOT what you are saying since John says that's what they are, and you used them as evidence that John was a Trinitarian? Why do you have to get absurd in order to prove your doctrine? If it says it, quote it, if it doesn't, deny it, what is so hard about that? QUESTION #188) Isaiah had another interpretation of what the Seven Spirits of Jesus were. Are they all Separate Persons also? Isa 11:1 "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: 2 And (1) the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, (2) the spirit of wisdom and (3) understanding, the spirit of (4) counsel and (5) might, the spirit of (6) knowledge and of the (7) fear of the LORD" Question 189- Sabellius and Modalistic Monarchianism. ((This "Oneness" doctrine arose about the third century AD as the result of the teachings of a man named Sabellius... )) Please allow me to quote Webster's (1959) Dictionary under the heading "Monarchianism" which is also known as modalism- "...an anti-Trinitarian doctrine or theory CURRENT IN THE CHURCH OF THE 2ND & 3rd centuries in several forms, the common principle of which was that God is a single person as well as a single being... THE ADHERENTS OF THIS... WERE NUMEROUS. In the West they were called Patripassians... while in the East they were usually grouped together under the name of Sabellius". QUESTION #189) If Sabellius vas not around until the third century, but the doctrine of the Oneness of God vas current, with numerous adherents in the 2nd century, how can Sabellius be said to have "logically put together the whole doctrine"? How is this not a ploy to attempt to discredit the Oneness doctrine out of being the more ancient, and therefore undefiled, doctrine? What factual historical evidence do you have for this accusation? Questions 190 through 194- The introduction of the Trinity to Christianity. "A gullible religious world has been DUPED into supposing that Catholicism was dominant as of AD 300-350, and that there was nothing else. NOTHING IS MORE UNTRUE. Jerusalemic Christianity had continued under the names of Modalistic Monarchianism, Noetism, Sabellianism, and Patripassianism. These represented Deut. 6:4, 'Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.' They were numerically superior as of AD 320. (See A.C. McGiffert, pp. 236, 239; R.A. Knox, p. 58; Blunt pp. 332, 340, 412; L. Duchesne, pp. 292-295). These writers prove that Catholicism was weak, and mostly confined to Italy, Sicily, and Greece... Oneness Apostolic Christian preachers like Noetus, Sabellius, Artemon, Paul of Samosata, Bryllus, Donatus, and thousands of others spread Jerusalemic theology... Most people of the 20th century have almost no real concept of theological conditions in the Roman Empire as of AD 160-330. But it was an Empire dominated by Oneness Apostolic Christians adhering to Acts 2:1-4, 38 and Deuteronomy 6:4 principles. This is easy enough to prove. Unfortunately, THESE WERE BY ROME SLANDERED AS HERETICS... How did Catholicism become dominant? Answer, BY BECOMING A POWERFUL AGENCY OF THE ROMAN STATE, HAVING ROMAN LAW BEHIND IT, AND POLITICAL POWER OF A ROMAN EMPEROR... Constantine and the Catholic hierarchy decided that all religions except Catholicism must be systematically erased from the Empire." Rev. M. M. Arnold, D.D., Th.D., Nicea and the Nicene Council, pp. 15-17. This is the church you are claiming allegiance to that deemed the monarchians heretics! Next, I quote World Book, 1984, vol. l9- "TRINITY... belief in Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit was FIRST DEFINED by the earliest general council of churches. This was the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD". HISTORICAL FACT shows that it was the Oneness doctrine that immediately followed the apostles. It was the Trinity doctrine that was the late comer, not even being defined until the 4th century. The council of Nicea, in 325 AD, IS THE ACTUAL BEGINNING OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. It is at that point in history that a Roman Emperor merged his pagan theological empire with nominal Christianity. There are many books which document the extent to which the Roman Catholic Church introduced ancient pagan forms of worship under Christian names and titles ("The Two Babylons" by Rev. Alexander Hyslop stands out as a supreme example). There is also much documentation of the atrocities the Roman Catholic Church committed against believers (as for example, in "Fox's Book of Martyrs" edited by William B. Forbush). It was the Roman Catholic Church which presumed to take Bibles away from the laity teaching that the priests alone could understand it's words. It was the Roman Catholic Church that took the world into that thousand years of spiritual darkness called "the dark ages". Time would fail me, or any other single publication, to list all the unspeakable atrocities of the Catholic Church. Which atrocities remain, at least officially, undenied, unapologized for, and unrepented of by the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, history does point to certain individuals who paved the way to the council of Nicea. They were called Christian apologists. They took on themselves the nasty job of reconciling Christianity with Roman paganism. These were men such as Athenagoras, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Some of these so-called Christians continued to wear the philosophers palliums, distinguishing themselves as philosophers (a practice continued to this day by Roman Catholics, and others). These were men who set the stage for putting their interpretations of the scriptures in authority above God's Word (another practice continued to this day by so-called Christians). But it was at that council of Nicea that the tide was turned against truth, and true Christianity. It was at the council of Nicea that Pagan/Christianity was given the blessing and backing of the Roman Emperor. QUESTION #190) Are you NOT aware that it is the Roman Catholic Church, in it's very first organized rebellion against God's word, that rejected the doctrine of the Oneness of God, by esteeming the traditions of men to be of greater authority? Are you NOT aware that it is to that church that you have associated yourself when you stated- "Christians at that time vehemently spoke out against such blasphemy and excommunicated the people who held such doctrine "? QUESTION #191) What other results of the Nicene council, and others do you also agree with? "One Nicene law made Sunday to be of interest to Catholics. Council members decreed that their newly invented dogma was to be called 'orthodoxy.' Doctrines that differed were to be called 'heresy.' Actually council members legislated that Easter was to be held on the first Sunday after the first full moon of the spring season. This tenet was concretely established... After 325, as noted, the Catholic religion and the (Roman) Empire were regarded as one institution. (J. Laux, p. 355). The power of Roman legions guarded and protected Catholicism, but no other religion. Ecclesiastical canons and political laws were entered on the same books, and one could not be distinguished from the other! (Laux,p. 355). It was a legal offense, a crime, to differ with the Catholic religion; and a person could be imprisoned, his goods confiscated or suffer capital punishment, for daring to publicly repudiate Catholic dogma. (Robinson, earlier Ages, p. 393)... At Nicea Constantine signed into Roman Law, or else accepted as Law, one of the most lethal of documents that the earth ever witnessed... differing with Catholic they (Oneness) maintained that Mary was the natural mother of those who are in the NT called the brethren of the Lord. (Matt. 13:5-56). Mind you, the Catholic hierarchy referred to Bible-believers as heretics if they thought that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, had other children..." Rev. M. M. Arnold, D.D., Th.D., Nicaea and the Nicene Council, pp 38-40. QUESTION #192) Do you believe the councils were correct in setting the dates for holidays? Is it scriptural to anathematize people for NOT holding the first Sunday after the first full moon of the spring season? Col 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." See also Gal 4:9 & Rom 14:5 QUESTION #193) Do you also hold with those depraved men that presided over those councils, and excommunicated all who would not abide by their decisions, that Mary is NOT the mother of the Lord's brethren? Mat 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us?..." see also Matt. 12:46, John 2:12, 7:3,5, 1 Cor. 9:5, Gal. 1:19. QUESTION #194) Do you really believe your precious councils had the authority to change God's word, and His commandments? Do you really believe everything they determined at those councils? Then why do you support them or justify them AT ALL? Why do you not rather "come out of her (completely) my people that ye be not partaker of her sins?" (Rev 18:4)? Questions 195 through 200- The early church "Creeds." ((Teachings such as this (Oneness) and others that attacked the Trinity, like that of Arius, motivated the early church to define Biblical teaching through the use of creeds. Trinitarianism didn't pop up all of a sudden at the time these creeds were written, but were in existence the whole time - the true church of Christ had always held to this teaching. There are the Nicene, the Apostle's and the Athanasian creeds, to name a few. These are not held as Scripture but were written simply to lay down the truths of Scripture clearly.)) Excuse me again, Pilgrim, but this sounds like another prime example of a cop-out answer. QUESTION #195) Where does God give the councils of man the authority to add to, or even to supplement the word of God? How is this council not just an excuse to change the doctrines as specifically stated in scripture? QUESTION #196) Did any of the "councils" found in the book of Acts have to redefine, or to add to or supplement the word of God by the interpretations of men, or by terminology of pagan philosophers? QUESTION #197) How did the council in Acts 15 end, but by James MERELY QUOTING SCRIPTURE TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT? Act 15:12 "Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul.... 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared... 15 AND TO THIS AGREE THE WORDS OF THE PROPHETS; AS IT IS WRITTEN, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." QUESTION #198) If known unto God are all His works from the beginning, how come He wasn't able to supply the apostles with the correct terminology in order to define the Trinity, if it truly be of God??? "After Constantine had issued his decree from Milan (313 AD), making the Christian religion the standard religion of the Roman Empire, he called the first Ecumenical, or General Council of the Church, at Nicea, a town in Asia Minor, (325 AD). The council was called for the purpose of harmonizing the different sects that existed among the Christians and to make rules and regulations for the government of the churches throughout the Empire, AND TO DECIDE THE FORMULA AND PRACTICE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH adopted by Constantine, which is named the Nicene Creed... The two most prominent representatives at this Council were Arius, a presbyter from Alexandria, and Athanasius, a deacon, also from Alexandria, each representing a different view of Christianity. THE ARGUMENTS at this Council MUST HAVE BEEN VERY HEATED at times, because as H. G. Wells tells us, ARIUS AND ATHANASIUS ENGAGED IN A FIST FIGHT BEFORE THE EMPEROR. However, the doctrine of the Holy TRINITY WAS ADOPTED, Arianism was denounced." -Sweney Munsen, Antichrist in History, page 7. QUESTION #199) Why did Constantine have to decide the formula & practice of the Christian church if it were already being practiced, and was already taught in the scriptures? Can a pagan, murdering Emperor be more insightful into the truths of God's Word than God's own word itself? QUESTION #200) Are fist fights the way doctrine is to be determined in Christ's church, in your opinion Pilgrim? Are such men who engage in fist fights to be considered as spiritual models of righteousness and spiritual understanding and leadership in your eyes? Did you even realize it was these types of men you are supporting and condoning the actions of by supporting the doctrines developed at their councils? Mat 7:16 "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Please continue with the 226 questions disproving the doctrine of the Trinity. QUESTION 201 Return to the Table of Contents for the 226 questions Return to the preface for the studies on the doctrine of the Oneness of God in the name of Jesus Christ. Read real conversations on the topic of Oneness vs. Trinity. |