discourse on confusion by trivial minute by trinitarians

8/3/2019 Discourse on Confusion by Trivial Minute by Trinitarians

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discourse-on-confusion-by-trivial-minute-by-trinitarians 1/10

Discourse on Confusion by Trivial Minute by Trinitarians

COMMENTS BY TRINITARIANS ON TRIVIAL AND MINUTE AND ANSWERS WITH 'BIG

PICTURE' IN MIND TO THEM.

Trinitarians confuse themselves and others by striving to pay attention

to the trivial and minute instead of the 'Big Picture'. They argue

trivial and minute points to try and prove their myth has Biblical

backing that it does not. In fact they get so wrapped up in this

pursuit of trivial they start believing the product of their own

confusion. As an example, one believer in the Trinity actually said

the following in response to something I said, the Trinitarian's

response was:

"Go back and read my response to your quote of Barclay. Barclay tried

to show a relationship to translating an anarthruous (no article)

DIABOLOS in John 6:70 as "you are a devil" to implying the same thing

should be done in John 1:1c, "the Word was a God/god." One problem...

John 6:70 has EIS - one/a. John 1:1c does not.

I have pointed out that if John had wanted to say that Jesus (the Word)

was "a god" all he needed to do was add an EIS as in John 6:70. And

since you have been unable to show how John could have more strongly

proclaimed that the Word was fully God than he did in the Greek in John

1:1c, what can be said?

I have shown how John COULD have expressed John 1:1c as "and the Word

was a god." (By adding EIS.) You have not shown how John could have

added an article before THEOS. You have not shown how John could have

arranged the predicate nominative structure in John 1:1c so as to make

it more clear that the Word was fully God.

Forget all this other stuff. If you cannot do what I did - demonstrate

how John could have expressed as translated by the NWT, then you have

admitted that John could not have expressed the Word as fully God more

strongly than he did. If you think he could have made it more clear,

then just HOW, in Greek, could he have done that?

If you care to, give an example somewhere else in John where a parallel

structure to the predicate nominative structure of John 1:1c was used

and which resulted in an indefinite sort of translation."

The answer to this absurdity of the trivial and minute is as follows,

clearly showing the 'Big Picture':

"I have long learned in translating that one must take in consideration

the entire context, not one small point which in an overall translationbecomes meaningless and this with modern languages. Now with respect

ancient languages this fact becomes of the utmost importance since no

one today can say with absolute certainty exactly what is so. But if

one does not do so, he must surely be in error as later John wrote in

many places to the contrary in rather clear language. So are you

trying to say John contradicts himself or what. I have already

brought out this fact elsewhere as follows:

John 17 proves the Trinity is nothing but God (YHWH) dishonoring false

doctrine, a myth or legend, see the following.



John 17:1-19, "These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to

heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the

son may glorify thee: 2 even as thou gavest him authority over all

flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal

life. 3 And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only

true God, and him whom thou didst send, [even] Jesus Christ. 4 I

glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou

hast given me to do. nd now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own

self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. [Note,

here he partitions his Father (YHWH) to give him back the glory he

previously had; whereas, if he were one in a Trinity as some falsely

claim this would of course be senseless]. 6 I manifested thy name unto

the men whom thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou

gavest them to me; and they have kept thy word.[Note, here Jesus

(Yeshua) openly acknowledges that his followers were given to him by

his Father (YHWH) clearly showing two distince spirit beings; thus no

Trinity] 7 Now they know that all things whatsoever thou hast given me

are from thee:[ ][Note, here Jesus (Yeshua) openly acknowledges that

all he has was given to him by his Father (YHWH) clearly showing, oncemore, two distince spirit beings; thus no Trinity] 8 for the words

which thou gavest me I have given unto them; and they received [them],

and knew of a truth that I came forth from thee, and they believed that

thou didst send me. :[ ][Note, here Jesus (Yeshua) openly acknowledges

that the words he spake were given to him by his Father (YHWH) clearly

showing, once more, two distince spirit beings; thus no Trinity] 9 I

pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast

given me; for they are thine: :[ ][Note, here Jesus (Yeshua) openly

acknowledges that his followers were given to him by his Father (YHWH)

clearly showing, once more, two distince spirit beings; thus no

Trinity] 10 and all things that are mine are thine, and thine are mine:

and I am glorified in them.

11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I

come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given

me, that they may be one, even as we [are]. :[ ][Note, here Jesus


his Father (YHWH) clearly showing, once more, two distince spirit

beings; thus no Trinity, and also they, the followers, were one in the

same sense that he was one with his father; that of unity in purpose]

12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given

me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of

perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. :[ ][Note, here Jesus


his Father (YHWH) clearly showing, once more, two distince spirit

beings; thus no Trinity, and also they, the followers, were one in the

same sense that he was one with his father; that of unity in purpose]

13 But now I come to thee; and these things I speak in the world, thatthey may have my joy made full in themselves. 14 I have given them thy

word; and the world hated them, because they are not of the world, even

as I am not of the world. :[ ][Note, here Jesus (Yeshua) openly

acknowledges that his followers were given to him by his Father (YHWH)

clearly showing, once more, two distince spirit beings; thus no

Trinity] 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them from the world,

but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil [one]. 16 They are not

of the world even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the

truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, even



so sent I them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify

myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth." (ASV).

Clearly these scriptures show that the false God (YHWH) dishonoring

doctrine of the trinity is nothing but a myth, a legend of the words of

men as foretold by 2 Corinthians 4:4, "in whom the god of this world

hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel

of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn [upon

them].

But as I have previously stated:

"I have answered your question and you have failed to acknowledge same,

to wit:

IN translating from one language to another and especially with respect

to one that handles articles quite different, you use an article if

that aids the meaning that the original writer intended whether strict

language 'rules of thumb' call or do not call for it. The Bible is

harmonious throughout and if a translated item does not agree with the

remainder, a good translator who is not biased will take that into

consideration.

Now let's look at the context in brief and the translational constructs

used. First consider a biased translation of John 1:1-4, "1 In the

beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was

God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made

by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him

was life; and the life was the light of men." (Authorized King James

Bible; AV). The first translational construct clearly shows the Word,

Jesus (Yeshua), "was with God." The next translational construct

clearly says "and the Word was God"; now we have a mutual contradiction

and/or impossibility as one can NOT BE WITH SOMEONE AND BE THAT

SOMEONE, this does NOT jive with English usage as all should clearly

know. The next translational construct for John 1:2 says, "The same

was in the beginning with God." Clearly here again the same

impossibility. Clearly this translational construct, the 2 part of

John 1:1 can NOT BE CORRECT AS IT IS OUT OF HARMONY WITH CONTEXT. Why

anyone would have a problem seeing this obvious impossible situation is

beyond me. But some keep asking the same none sensible question over

and over on an obvious case where an item does NOT agree with context.

And the great German Bible Scholar and translator Dr. J. J. Griesbach

in his The Word for Word English Translation from Koine Greek to

English from The Vatican Manuscript #1209 definitely did not see it as

you falsely claim and not being a Koine Greek expert myself I will go

with his way which is as follows:

John 1:1-5 & 14, "1 In a beginning was the word, and the word was with

the God, and a god was the Word 2 This was in a beginning with the God.

3 All through it was done; and without it was done not even one, thathas been done. 4 In it life was, and the life was the light of the men,

5 and the light in the darkness shines, and the darkness it not

apprehended." And "14And the Word flesh became, and tabernacied among

us, (and we beheld the glory of him, a glory as of an only-begotten

from a father,) full of favor and truth,"



And neither did other excellent scholars who did NOT let any bias they

may have had as an individual effect their honesty in translating such

as the following:

The Complete Bible: An American Translation. Contributors: Edgar J.

Goodspeed - translator, J. M. Powis Smith - transltr. Publisher:

University of Chicago Press. Place of Publication: Chicago. Publication

Year: 1939.:

John 1:1-5 & 14, "1 IN THE beginning the Word existed. The Word was

with God, and the Word was divine. 2 It was he that was with God in 3

the beginning. Everything came into existence through him, and apart

from him 4 nothing came to be. It was by him that life came into

existence, and that life 5 was the light of mankind. The light is

still shining in the darkness, for the darkness has never put it out."

And "14 So the Word became flesh and blood and lived for a while among

us, abounding in blessing and truth, and we saw the honor God had given

him, such honor as an only son receives from his father."

A New Translation of The Bible by James Moffatt, D.D., D.Litt.:

Johnn 1:1-5 & 14, "The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos

was with God, the Logos was divine. 2 He was with God in the very

beginning: 3 through him all existence came into being, no existencecame into being apart from him. 4 In him life lay, and this life was

the Light for men; 5 amid the darkness the Light shone, and the

darkness did not master it." And "14 So the Logos became flesh and

tarried among us; we have seen his glory-glory such as an only sone

enjoys from his father-seen it to be full of grace and reality."

Which clearly shows that the translation of John 1:1 is definitely in

question with respect what it should be. That is until you consider

the context so I do NOT plan to get into silly differences about small

points, but point to the obvious fact that your desired rendering does

not fit to context. All the silly coloring in your post change nothing.

This Trinitarian clearly missed the point as shown my his following

comment:

"(Concerning John 1:1c) This does not address the very significant

question... how could John have expressed it in the Greek so as to make

it more clear that the Son is God in essence? I have demonstrated that

the NWT rendering of "a god" (in John 1:1c) is not valid. The

arguments regarding the lack of an article are completely irrelevant.

And these rules concerning the usage of the article are NOT "rules of

thumb."'

The answer to the Trinitarian, you obviously missed what John was

trying to express as clearly shown in the Book of John as follows:

John 1:34 - :And I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God."

John 1:49 - :

Natan'el said, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of

Isra'el!"

John 1:51 - :

Then he said to him, "Yes indeed! I tell you that you will see heaven

opened and the angels of God going up and coming down on the Son of

Man!"

John 3:16 - :



"For God so loved the world that he gave his only and unique Son, so

that everyone who trusts in him may have eternal life, instead of being

utterly destroyed.

John 5:25 - :

Yes, indeed! I tell you that there is coming a time -- in fact, it's

already here -- when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God,

and those who listen will come to life.

John 6:27 - :

Don't work for the food which passes away but for the food that stays

on into eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For this is

the one on whom God the Father has put his seal."

John 11:4 - :

On hearing it, he said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is

for God's glory, so that the Son of God may receive glory through it."

John 11:27 - :

She said to him, "Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Messiah, the

Son of God, the one coming into the world."

John 13:31 - :

After Y'hudah had left, Yeshua said, "Now the Son of Man has been

glorified, and God has been glorified in him.

John 19:7 - :The Judeans answered him, "We have a law; according to that law, he

ought to be put to death, because he made himself out to be the Son of

God."

John 20:31 - :

But these which have been recorded are here so that you may trust that

Yeshua is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by this trust you may

have life because of who he is.

[source -(The Complete Jewish Bible - Copyright 1998 by David H. Stern.

Published by Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc.)]

As can clearly be seen from these scriptures, John was clearly making

the case that Jesus (Yeshua) was NOT God (YHWH), but the Son of God

(YHWH).

Also, you have NOT demonstrated what you claim and to what Bible you

are referring to? Perhaps the Interlineary Word for Word English

Translation of Dr. J. J. Griesbach of the Vatican Manuscript #1209?

Or Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, "and the Word was a God.", or

the work of , Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology, "selbst ein

Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]?

And:

you are making an assumption with respect the use of an article and we

all know what assumptions are. Second, Only two of Jesus" (Yeshua's)Apostles were 'lettered' men, Luke and Paul, John was not, and I very

strongly doubt that when he wrote John 1:1 he was even thinking of

modalism. I believe if you will but look at 1 Corinthians 15:27-28,

"for "He put everything in subjection under his feet."m But when it

says that "everything" has been subjected, obviously the word does not

include God, who is himself the one subjecting everything to the

Messiah. 28 Now when everything has been subjected to the Son, then he

will subject himself to God, who subjected everything to him; so that

God may be everything in everyone. " (The Complete Jewish Bible -



Copyright 1998 by David H. Stern. Published by Jewish New Testament

Publications, Inc.) which clearly shows the relationship, otherwise

the statement, ", obviously the word does not include God, who is

himself the one subjecting everything to the Messiah", so now I hope

you see the error in your reasoning. And Third, as I have said many

times in the past, the first rule of translation is NOT the wasting

time with minute trivials such as an article, but in rendering the

exact thoughts of the original article; to wit, his/her thoughts and

this can best be done by having a translational construct in agreement

with context., as I previously said:

translating from one language to another and especially with respect to

one that handles articles quite different, you use an article if that

aids the meaning that the original writer intended whether strict

language 'rules of thumb' call or do not call for it. The Bible is

harmonous throughout and if a translated item does not agree with the

remainder, a good translator who is not biased will take that into

consideration.

Now let's look at the context in brief and the translational constructs

used. First consider a biased translation of John 1:1-4, "1 In the

beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word wasGod. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made

by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him

was life; and the life was the light of men." (Authorized King James

Bible; AV). The first translational construct clearly shows the Word,

Jesus (Yeshua), "was with God." The next translational construct

clearly says "and the Word was God"; now we have a mutual contradiction

and/or impossibility as one can NOT BE WITH SOMEONE AND BE THAT

SOMEONE, this does NOT jive with English usage as all should clearly

know. The next translational construct for John 1:2 says, "The same

was in the beginning with God." Clearly here again the same

impossibility. Clearly this translational construct, the 2 part of

John 1:1 can NOT BE CORRECT AS IT IS OUT OF HARMONY WITH CONTEXT. Why

anyone would have a problem seeing this obvious impossible situation is

beyond me. But some keep asking the same none sensible question over

and over on an obvious case where an item does NOT agree with context

And:

The Trinitarian's statement:

"that Jesus is God?"

Is ridicules prima fascia since it is likewise a well known fact that a

son is NOT his father as you are trying to convince me of. This is

utterly ridicules contention and one without redeeming features. Just

why do you think God (YHWH) gave us the terms father and son, and had

divinely inspired writers use these terms in explaining his

relationship to his Son, Jesus (Yeshua)? Obviously to explainheavenly things in things mankind can understand, not so man could

twist them and come up with what is impossible, prima fascia.

In stating this, this Trinitarian, also clearly overlooked the

following by, Uriyah the Messiahite:

"John 5:26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has

granted the Son also to have life in himself



John 6:57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the

Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me.

By the words of Jesus, Jesus was not eternal; he was given to have life

in himself and lives because of the Father. A eternal being cannot be

given to have life in themselves, and they do not depend on others to

live. " [source - writing of Uriyah the Messiahite]

HOW BELIEVERS IN THE TRINITY HAVE REACTED TO OTHER ISSUES IN THE PAST,

A STUDY IN ABSURDITY;

It is a well known fact that in the middle ages that the Catholic

church and many of the so called reformed groups taught and believed in

the Ptolemaic System. This is the theory that the sun and the other

planets revolved around the earth as opposed to the Copernican System

that the planets including the earth revolved around the sun.

In fact one of the trivial minute these Trinitarians used to "prove"

the Ptolemaic System theory was that when a blade of straw fell to the

ground it reflected sun light in such a manner as to prove and/or showthe sun was revolving around the earth. Many arguments and discussions

over this silly trivial minute were carried on instead of looking at

the 'Big Picture' just as the nonsense over the trivial with regard to

John 1:1 previously shown. This is a repeat of the same narrow viewing

which is when looked at in perspective and objectively absurd. All

should seek to gain an understanding of the 'Big Picture' and not get

drawn into argument over narrow trivial that is definitely not

profitable. This type of narrow thinking reflects back to my response

to a Trinitarian on a similar narrow thinking on translation which was:

""I have long learned in translating that one must take in

consideration the entire context, not one small point which in an

overall translation becomes meaningless and this with modern languages.

Now with respect ancient languages this fact becomes of the utmost

importance since no one today can say with absolute certainty exactly

what is so. But if one does not do so, he must surely be in error as

later John wrote in many places to the contrary in rather clear

language. So are you trying to say John contradicts himself or what"

But let's look with respect to what absurdities the Trinitarians in the

past took this Ptolemaic System. They even burnt a very learned

Italian, Giordani Bruno, to death at the stake for not indulging in

their absurd narrow arguments attempting to prove the un-provable, the

Ptolemaic System, at the stake. Why?

He took the 'Big Picture" approach and showed that the Ptolemaic System

was wrong. Now of course this is absolutely absurd, but it shows to

what extremes groups go to when they get wrapped up in trivial minuteinstead of elevating discussions to the general or 'Big Picture.' See:

"Giordano Bruno[jOrdA´nO brOO´nO] Pronunciation Key, 1548-1600, Italian

philosopher, b. Nola. He entered the Dominican order early in his youth

but was accused of heresy and fled (c.1576) to take up a career of

study and travel. He taught briefly at Toulouse, Paris, Oxford, and

Wittenberg, but, personally restless and in constant opposition to the

traditional schools, he found no permanent post. His major metaphysical

works, De la causa, principio, et uno (1584, tr. The Infinite in

Giordano Bruno, 1950) and De l'infinito, universo et mondi (1584), were



published in France. Further works appeared in England and Germany.

Bruno also wrote satire and poetry. In 1591 he returned to Venice,

where he was tried for heresy by the Inquisition. After imprisonment at

Rome, he was burned to death. Bruno challenged all dogmatism, including

that of the Copernican cosmology, the main tenets of which, however, he

upheld. He believed that our perception of the world is relative to the

position in space and time from which we view it and that there are as

many possible modes of viewing the world as there are possible

positions. Therefore we cannot postulate absolute truth or any limit to

the progress of knowledge. He pictured the world as composed of

individual elements of being, governed by fixed laws of relationship.

These elements, called monads, were ultimate and irreducible and were

based on a pantheistic infinite principle, or cause, or Deity, manifest

in us and in all the world. Bruno's influence on later philosophy,

especially that of Spinoza and Leibniz, was profound.

See P. H. Michel, The Cosmology of Giordano Bruno (tr. 1973); S. Drake,

Copernicus : Philosophy and Science: Bruno : Kepler : Galileo (1973);

F. A. Yates, Lull and Bruno (1982)."[source - The Columbia Electronic

Encyclopedia Copyright (c) 2003, Columbia University Press.]

Now Let's look at the facts, 'Big Picture', with respect this theory of

the Ptolemaic System, by considering the Copernican System model or

theory and how it differed from the Ptolemaic System model by looking

at some facts.

The Copernican Model: A Sun-Centered Solar System"

The Earth-centered Universe of Aristotle and Ptolemy held sway on

Western thinking for almost 2000 years. Then, in the 16th century a new

idea was proposed by the Polish astronomer Nicolai Copernicus (1473-

1543).

The Heliocentric System.

In a book called On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies (that was

published as Copernicus lay on his deathbed), Copernicus proposed that

the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the Solar System. Such a

model is called a heliocentric system. The ordering of the planets

known to Copernicus in this new system is illustrated in the following

figure, which we recognize as the modern ordering of those planets.

The Copernican Universe

In this new ordering the Earth is just another planet (the third

outward from the Sun), and the Moon is in orbit around the Earth, not

the Sun. The stars are distant objects that do not revolve around the

Sun. Instead, the Earth is assumed to rotate once in 24 hours, causing

the stars to appear to revolve around the Earth in the oppositedirection.

Retrograde Motion and Varying Brightness of the Planets

The Copernican system by banishing the idea that the Earth was the

center of the Solar System, immediately led to a simple explanation of

both the varying brightness of the planets and retrograde motion:

1. The planets in such a system naturally vary in brightness because

they are not always the same distance from the Earth.



2. The retrograde motion could be explained in terms of geometry and a

faster motion for planets with smaller orbits, as illustrated in the

following animation.

"Brahe, Tycho , 1546-1601, Danish astronomer. The most prominent

astronomer of the late 16th cent., he paved the way for future

discoveries by improving instruments and by his precision in fixing the

positions of planets and stars. From Brahe's exact observations of the

planets, Kepler devised his laws of planetary motions (see Kepler's

laws). Brahe's achievements included the study of a supernova (first

observed in 1572 and now known as Tycho's supernova) in the

constellation Cassiopeia and the discoveries of a variation in the

inclination of the lunar orbit and of the fourth inequality of the

moon's motion. He never fully accepted the Copernican system but made a

compromise between it and the Ptolemaic system. In the Tychonic system,

the earth was the immobile body around which the sun revolved, and the

five planets then known revolved around the sun. Given funds by the

Danish king Frederick II, Brahe built on the island of Ven a castle,

Uranienborg, and an observatory, Stjarneborg. He was deprived of his

revenues by Christian IV in 1596 and left Ven (1597); in 1599 he

settled near Prague under the patronage of the German emperor RudolfII. He published (1588) De mundi aetherii recentioribus phaenomenis,

the second volume of a projected three-volume work on his astronomical

observations; from an incomplete manuscript and notes Kepler edited

Volume I, Astronomiae instauratae progymnasmata (1602). Brahe's

Astronomiae instauratae mechanica (1598) contained his autobiography

and a description of his instruments.

The preface of Osiander, pretending that the book of Copernicus

suggested a hypothesis instead of announcing a truth, served its

purpose well. During nearly seventy years the Church authorities

evidently thought it best not to stir the matter, and in some cases

professors like Calganini were allowed to present the new view purely

as a hypothesis. There were, indeed, mutterings from time to time on

the theological side, but there was no great demonstration against the

system until 1616. Then, when the Copernican doctrine was upheld by

Galileo as a truth, and proved to be a truth by his telescope, the book

was taken in hand by the Roman curia. The statements of Copernicus were

condemnned, `ùntil they should be corrected''; and the corrections

required were simply such as would substitute for his conclusions the

old Ptolemaic theory.

That this was their purpose was seen in that year when Galileo was

forbidden to teach or discuss the Copernican theory, and when were

forbidden `àll books which affirm the motion of the earth.''

Henceforth to read the work of Copernicus was to risk damnation, and

the world accepted the decree. The strongest minds were thus held fast.

If they could not believe the old system, they must pretend that they

believed it; - and this, even after the great circumnavigation of theglobe had done so much to open the eyes of the world! Very striking is

the case of the eminent Jesuit missionary Joseph Acosta, whose great

work on the Natural and Moral History of the Indies, published in the

last quarter of the sixteenth century, exploded so many astronomical

and geographical errors. Though at times curiously credulous, he told

the truth as far as he dared; but as to the movement of the heavenly

bodies he remained orthodox - declaring, `Ì have seen the two poles,

whereon the heavens turn as upon their axletrees.'' [source - Warfare

of Science with Theology Chapter III: Astronomy]



As can clearly be seen, Trinitarians get wrapped up in their own

pursuit of trivial and are not capable of opening up to the more

general or 'Big Picture' at a higher level or plain. That is why this

myth or legend created by ancient Greek philosophers just like the

Ptolemaic System theory. The only reason they are not still backing

the Ptolemaic System theory today is that it was so badly shown by true

science to be in error that even these diehard lovers of trivial and

minute could no longer argue against the Copernican System model as

modern science has made this completely impossible. Now they content

themselves with trying to defend the absurdity of the Trinity another

myth or legend created by ancient Greek philosophers originally

introduced into so called Christianity, actually apostate or

counterfeit Christianity by a pagan Roman Emperor as an attempt to gain

religious unity to beef up his slowly crumbling empire. When so called

Christian Bishops permit a pagan to call a so called Christian Church

Council, Council of Nicea of 325 AD you know they have departed from

the true ways of Christ. This Council of Nicea of 325 AD even usurped

God's (YHWH's) exclusive legitimate right to declare which day was the

Sabbath day by declaring that it was Sunday; whereas, God (YHWH) had

declared it was Saturday which is quite clear if you look at theSpanish word for Saturday, 'Sabado.'

Now to know the truth, go to:

1) http://religioustruths.yuku.com/

2) http://www.network54.com/Forum/403209/

3) http://religioustruths.lefora.com/

If you wish more information and/or wish to ask a question or what

ever, contact me by leaving a PM (personal message) at

http://religioustruths.yuku.com/

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the

image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579,

written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does

The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!

discourse on confusion by trivial minute by trinitarians

Documents