PCE Advocated as Having...

8/7/2019 PCE Advocated as Having...

1/49

Thread Title: PCE advocated as having

Post 77 OneBook 1-10-11

I gave Duncan in Post 67, [QUOTE=OneBook;1913326][COLOR="Blue"]Maybe

the question for Duncan at this point is when he says [I][U]the Bible[/U][/I], justwhat [I][U]Bible[/U][/I] does he mean? Has Duncan been mislead all these yearsby reading 1 John 5:7,8 in a KJB?[/COLOR][/QUOTE], the opportunity to declarehis faith in the only Bible he claims to have ever read, the KJV, or looked at. Yethe side steps the questions, as he does all questions.

Please note the below Post are from an earlier Thread titled, 1 John 5:7.

Duncan in Post 21 takes a strong stand on the KJV using the word ordained.Doesnt this language sound like something Avery would use or OneBook?[QUOTE=tduncan;1856 484 ]I firmly believe God ordained the KJV to come about

during the period of the rise of the English language and the spread of colonialism throughout the world (another topic). I love the KJV and prefer it over any other version. It is what I have memorized out of, studied, and taught from.[/QUOTE] Note, he stated he preferred the KJV over any other version. Howcould he make such a statement and yet declare he had never read anythingelse, see Post 174? [QUOTE=tduncan;1863 572 ]I have never used another version...Show me where I have posted that I used another version.

I have never looked at any other version. Period.[/QUOTE] Y ou decide.

Duncan (Posts 94,161) uses the term, 100% pure Scripture. Yet he lacks the

integrity to take a stand against other versions or those on this forum using other versions or declaring the imperfections of the KJV.[QUOTE=tduncan;1860 244 ]We hold the KJV to be 100% Scripture....[/QUOTE][QUOTE=tduncan;1862380]You seem to forget that I have repeated stated that Iuse the KJV exclusively and consider it 100% pure Scripture.[/QUOTE]

In Post 34 of this Thread Duncan states, [QUOTE=tduncan;1909670]Scripturesays the devils believe...yet they are condemned.[/QUOTE] Duncan would do wellto review his statement and discover what he missed. The devils arentcondemned for believing in God. In fact James is telling the brethren they havesomething in common with the devils, James 2:19 Thou believest that there isone God; thou does well: the devils also believe, and tremble .

Duncan, you may not like it, you may declare otherwise, but there is no denyingyou believe the KJV just like me, just like Steve, and just like Lisa. You simply donot have the courage and the integrity to take a stand against your friends on thisforum.

1


2/49

Response to TDUNCANPost 79 and 80 1-10-11Post 81 OneBook

Tduncan,[QUOTE=OneBook;1914689]Duncan, you may not like it, you may declareotherwise, but there is no denying you believe the KJV just like me, just like Steve,

and just like Lisa.[/QUOTE]

Thank You for the agreement.

[QUOTE=tduncan;1914743]I do believe the KJV. I have never denied that in anyway, shape, or form.[/QUOTE]

Then you state:[QUOTE=tduncan;1914743]The difference between Avery and myself is that I believe what is in it. Avery does not.[/QUOTE]

No, the difference is you dont agree on the doctrine of the Trinity. You clearly stateyou have disagreements with others. This is proven by the following:[QUOTE=tduncan;1914747]I have disagreed with many of the non-KJVOs onhere.....FSSL, Ransom (even have gotten a few reds from him), Timotheos, jbh, andothers.[/QUOTE] Yet, you have in common with them an issue over the Trinity andSteves view of it.

[QUOTE=tduncan;1914743]The difference between Avery and myself is that Ibelieve what is in it. Avery does not.[/QUOTE]

Clearly from the below statement by Steve, you are wrong. You have yet to declareyour belief in 1 John 5:7,8 in the KJV as being 100% pure Scripture, ordained of God. Is it really so difficult to take a stand. Simply review Steves position on thisas stated below:

[QUOTE=Steven Avery;1856716][COLOR="DarkRed"]"the versions that omit theheavenly witnesses are errant, with a vital Bible verse (snipped)".[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

If you would come clean about 1 John 5:7,8 in the KJV being 100% pure Scripture,ordained of God, it could be said you are both right, you simply disagree on thedoctrine of the Trinity.[QUOTE=tduncan;1914743]Both of us cannot be right.[/QUOTE] I seriously doubt you have the courage or integrity to do it. Your failureto do so can only lead people to believe you have something else in common withCU, FSSL, Ransom, Timotheos, jbh, and others.

[QUOTE=tduncan;1914747]One of the KJVOs...[/QUOTE]You keep saying this likeyou are not KJVO. Come on Duncan, come out of the closet!

Heres a challenge for you, settle the above matter and Ill respond to your Trinityconcerns!

2


3/49

Response to TDUNCANPost 82,83 1-10-11Post 84 OneBook

Post 82 - For the umteenth and final time, I accept the I John passage as 100%

Scripture. I have said this before on many occasions and if you would take the timeto read my posts on the issue you could verify this. Unfortunately, you have nointegrety whatsoever on the matter.

Post 83 - Never have nor ever will be KJVO simply because the position has zeroscriptural foundation.

Gotta love the inconsistency....

Post 84 - Then simply state, you believe 1 John 5:7,8 as found in the KJV, is 100%pure Scripture, ordained of God...

I have read your post more than you care to admit. In fact my last two post beyondany doubt demonstrate I have reviewed your post many time in making my points,time and time again.

You could settle all this by simply posting in your next response YES, and it issettled. I will then take up your Trinity challenge.

Well, I was about to Post then I received your Post 83. So, Im figuring you will nottake up the challenge.

3


4/49


5/49

Response to TDUNCANPost 87 1-10-11Post 88 OneBook

Post 87 - I have stated it is 100% Scripture and the pure Word of God. I am notsure what more you want from me but evidently nothing I say will please you.

May God have mercy on you. I am done with you.

Post 88 Duncan is it really that difficult to say, I believe I John 5:7,8 in the KingJames Bible is 100% pure Scripture, ordained of God. Easy, attach the phrase King

James Bible to your statement and its settled. Dont worry about pleasing me, trypleasing the Lord. Dont worry about what others may think, simply say what ispleasing to the Lord. If you dont believe I John 5:7,8 in the KJB is 100% pureScripture, ordained of God, then be honest and say you dont believe it. That wouldbe better than making some absurd statement like, May God have mercy on you. Iam done with you.

As concerns Gods mercy on me:I Timothy 1:13-16Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtainedmercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord wasexceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. This is a faithfulsaying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to savesinners; of whom I am chief.

[Hold for a future post - Steve if I was to ask you:

How many are there in heaven that bear record? What would you answer?

How many are there in earth that bear witness? What would you answer?

Is the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost one?

Is the Spirit, the water, the blood one?]

5


6/49

Response to TDUNCANPost 91 1-10-11Post 92 OneBook 1-11-11

Quote: FSSL Post 90 1-10-11

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons Using software to ignore the discussion, yet assuming what you think you see is not sensible... But then again... Avery has his own dictionary!

Post 91 - And is supported by posters who have their own agendas....or simplydisregard Scripture for the sake of friendship.

But what can you expect?

Post 92 Speaking of agendas...or simply cowering out of a challenge, it allamounts to youve been caught Duncan!

It appears I was correct when I stated: [QUOTE=OneBook;1914949]So, Imfiguring you will not take up the challenge.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=OneBook;1914949]Then simply state, you believe 1 John 5:7,8 asfound in the KJV, is 100% pure Scripture, ordained of God...

You could settle all this by simply posting in your next response YES, and it issettled. I will then take up your Trinity challenge.

Well, I was about to Post when I received your Post 83. So, Im figuring you willnot take up the challenge.[/QUOTE]

CU, in light of TDs, Post 91 to FSSLs, Post 90, do you really expect me tobelieve the below. Although they do have a common enemy which sometimesleads to a friendship[QUOTE=christundivided;1914703]Onebook take my wordfor it.... tduncan has never be befriended me in any sense of the term. Nor hashe FSSL, that I can tell. He has always been consistent in his position.[/QUOTE]

I believe it was Condoleezza Rice who said: "We need a common enemy to uniteus." It appears TD and FSSL have bonded.

Oh yes, it seems Duncan doesnt know the definition

of[QUOTE=tduncan;1914989]I am done with you.[/QUOTE]He simply lacks thecourage to take up the challenge.

6
http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/92611-pce-advocated-as-having-a-qualitative-difference-spiritually-post1915065.html#post1915065


7/49

Response to FSSLPost 93 1-11-11Post 94 OneBook

Quote: Post 91 by tduncan 1-10-11

Originally Posted by tduncan And is supported by posters who have their ownagendas....or simply disregard Scripture for the sake of friendship. But what can you expect?

Right! The KJVO movement, since it is not based on a proper interpretation of theBible, is filled with those who are heretics. Anyone can be a member of the cult if they subscribe to a man-made, word-perfect ideology.

Post 94 FSSL, what Bible would that be? Would it be the one that doesnthave I John 5:8 or the one that changes I John 5:7,8? Would it be the oneDuncan claims to believe, but cant bring himself to confess he believes the sameBible as OneBook, Steven Avery, Michael D. ONeal, etc.? Just which one wouldit be? Should I quit believing in God because the devils believe in God? ByDuncans logic I should.

7
http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/92611-pce-advocated-as-having-a-qualitative-difference-spiritually-10.html#post1915171


8/49

Response to TDUNCANPost 95 1-11-11Post 97 OneBook 1 11- 11

Quote: Post 94 by OneBook 1-11-11

Originally Posted by OneBook FSSL, what Bible would that be? Would it be the one that doesnt have I John 5:8 or the one that changes I John5:7,8? Would it be the one Duncan claims to believe, but cant bring himself to confess he believes the same Bible asOneBook, Steven Avery, Michael D. ONeal, etc.? Just whichone would it be? Should I quit believing in God because thedevils believe in God? By Duncans logic I should.

Post 95 - Barry, unfortunately this is the same dishonesty used by Kinney when heposted on a regular basis. I state I used the KJV exclusively and believe it to be

100% pure Scripture...but because I do not believe the KJVO position is Scripturalsomehow I do not believe and use the same KJV as they do.

This is what a desire to be friends on the basis of which Bible you use leads to. Sadto say, they will welcome anyone into the fold as long as they defend the KJV.Holding to and defending the doctrines found in the Bible becomes nothing morethan a speed bump on the way to trumpeting KJV supremacy. Denying theTrinity......disregarding church membership.....what's next? I suppose, based ontheir position, someone could deny the virgin birth or Jonah being swallowed by agreat fish and yet say "I believe in the pure KJV as 100% Scripture" and bewelcomed with open arms. Sorry but that doesn't fly with me.

Post 97 - Barry (aka FSSL), maybe you would answer the following. Is I John5:7 and 8 in the KJV, 100% pure Scripture, ordained of God? Duncan and I doagree on this point? He simply lacks the courage to let his real position beknown. Im not asking you to take a position one way or the other concerningKJVOism. I am simply asking you one question and one question only, Is IJohn 5:7 and 8 in the KJV, 100% pure Scripture, ordained of God?

I would ask Duncan, In the New Testament what kind of great fish was it thatswallowed Jonah, but he probably would not answer?

Was it (a) the sea creature, ISV (b) a huge fish, NIV (c) the great fish, ESV or (d)the whale, KJV?

8


9/49

Response to FSSLPost 98 1-11-11Post 99 OneBook 1 11- 11


Originally Posted by OneBook Barry (aka FSSL), maybe you would answer the following.Is I John 5:7 and 8 in the KJV, 100% pure Scripture,ordained of God?

I have no reason to believe it is Scripture. There is no evidence that it is. I certainlybelieve the Trinity and will defend it against those who don't! So... instead of defending a textual matter, stop giving Avery comfort in his heresy.


I would ask Duncan, In the New Testament what kind of great fish was it that swallowed Jonah, but he probablywould not answer?

Was it (a) the sea creature, ISV (b) a huge fish, NIV (c) thegreat fish, ESV or (d) the whale, KJV?

Since there is no Hebrew word for "whale" and this was a generic word for largefish... it doesn't really matter what it was... It was a fish that was large. What I doknow and what I focus on is the fact that God prepared a very unconventional way tobring His prophet into obedience.

Post 99 Duncan for some reason chose to remove what he posted in Post 95.However, I had saved it out, and my Post 97 was based on Duncans comments.

I see from Duncans deleted post the two of you know each other by first name,but your not friends?

I do appreciate your honesty. Your response will now provide an answer toDuncan s Post 35 statement ,[QUOTE=tduncan;1909676]I have no idea whobelieves the verses do not belong in the Bible.[/QUOTE ]

The four options I provided were all from the New Testament. I allowedDuncans statement was from Jonah 1:17. That is why I was very careful to stateNew Testament. However, Duncan just might agree with your position.

Duncan did state in Post 95, I suppose, based on their position, someone coulddeny the virgin birth or Jonah being swallowed by a great fish (emphasis mine)and yet say "I believe in the pure KJV as 100% Scripture" Really, I believe thisstatement is just another instance of GOT-YA.

Again, FSSL, thank You for being honest.

9


10/49

Response to FSSLPost 100 1-11-11Post 101 OneBook 1 11- 11

Post 100 - Why would tduncan know my position on 1 John 5:7? I never stated itthis abruptly before on this board.

But it doesn't matter anyways does it OneBook? You don't care if a person actuallyBELIEVES the verse... you just want to debate the textual critical aspects of it.

Post 101 Here let me help you FSSL. You misunderstand when you say ,[QUOTE=freesundayschoollessons;1915930]Why would tduncan know myposition on 1 John 5:7?[/QUOTE] < Post 100

Duncan is pretending to be ignorant on the below subject. Now, you have helped

me to take the blinders off tduncans eyes when hesays [QUOTE=tduncan;1909676]I have no idea who believes the verses do notbelong in the Bible.[/QUOTE] He can no longer claim, I have no idea whobelieves the verses do not belong in the Bible, for he knows you, FSSL.

You could not be more wrong about it mattering FSSL. The fact a personbelieves I John 5: 7 and 8 is very important. I could care less about debating thetextual critical aspects of any verse.

I surfed your website and was surprise to find no reference to a belief in theTrinity http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/about-us/what-we-believe/ I saw

statements pertaining to lots of doctrinal beliefs, just none about the Trinity.

10


11/49

Response from AveryPost 102 1-12-11Post 105 OneBook 1 14- 11


Originally Posted by OneBook I surfed your website and was surprise to find no referenceto a belief in the Trinity http://www.freesundayschoollessons.o...at-we-believe/ I saw statements pertaining to lots of doctrinal beliefs, just none about the Trinity.

The reason the word Trinity is not on that page: FSSL is a bit uncomfortable with theword Trinity

"a more descriptive term would be Tri-unity, which suggests the three-in-oneness of

God better than the word Trinity."

That's OK, John Calvin was accused because of his not using the word Trinity in hisoriginal Geneva Confession. Also, nothing from FSSL about the Athanasian Creed,another point of contention against John Calvin and often considered a necessity.

=================Here are highlights.

"Human reason alone cannot fathom the Trinity, nor can logic explain it fully."

"three persons..individual, distinct persons....The Persons do not exist or actindependently of one another."

The economic Trinity..."essentially equal, there is a functional or administrative chain of command...God theFather is head of the Trinity without any essential difference between any member of the Trinity. "

=================

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

....No church father quotes the verse.. this text is of limited value in proving theTrinity

=================

At the Council of Carthage of 481, hundreds of bishops used the heavenly witnessesverse in their faith statement contra the Arians. The list of church writers who quotethe heavenly witnesses is quite long and strong.

11
http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/about-us/what-we-believe/http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/about-us/what-we-believe/


12/49

Erasmus .. "with a lengthy footnote asserting his disbelief in its authenticity."

. I'd like to read this claimed assertion of disbelief in the annotations.Remember, Erasmus has the verse nicely included right in his Paraphrase.

Post 105 [quote=Steven Avery;1916139][color="navy"]The reason the wordTrinity is not on that page: FSSL is a bit uncomfortable with the word Trinity[/color][color="darkred"] "a more descriptive term would be Tri-unity, whichsuggests the three-in-oneness of god better than the word Trinity."[/color][/quote]< Post 102 - Steve

Post 105 An I thought FSSL was completely honest. Guess he was simplysomewhat open an honest

What is clear from Church history is there have been and continues to be muchcontroversy over Johannine Comma and the doctrine of the Trinity, Tri-unity or even the heavenly witnesses. John Gill wrote much about the issue and wasconvinced of the legitimacy of the Johannine Comma. Even Tertullian is referringto it around 200-220 A.D.

The bottom line is you are going to line up one way or the other with thepassage. It is not difficult to understand why Arius would reject the Scripture, or even a modern day JW. What is difficult to understand is why professing Biblebelieving Christians do not see the importance of this Scripture?

12


13/49

Response to FSSLPost 103 and 104 1-12-11Post 106 OneBook 1 14 - 11


Originally Posted by OneBook The fact a person believes I John 5: 7 and 8 is very important. I could care less about debating the textual critical aspects of any verse.

I surfed your website and was surprise to find no referenceto a belief in the Trinity http://www.freesundayschoollessons.o...at-we-believe/ I saw statements pertaining to lots of doctrinal beliefs, just none about the Trinity.

Post 103 - If you are unable to see statements about the Trinity in our statement of faith which is only 700 words, how then are you able to see the Trinity in the entireKJV?! It is beginning to be quite obvious that OneBook does not know what theTrinity is...

Get off the forum and get your head into the Bible and start learning about our God!

It is always interesting to watch a KJVO provide fodder for a person who denies theTrinity

Quote: Post 102 by Steven Avery 1-12-11

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

The reason the word Trinity is not on that page: FSSL is abit uncomfortable with the word Trinity

Post 104 (See Revision Below) - Don't you love it when Avery assumes?

You don't need to use the word "Trinity" to give a statement of faith about it. While Ido prefer "Triunity," I use "Trinity" more often.

Quote: Post 102 by Steven Avery 1-12-11

Originally Posted by Steven Avery The reason the word Trinity is not on that page: FSSL is abit uncomfortable with the word Trinity

Revision of Post 104 - Don't you love it when Avery assumes? For days, Avery hastold us what Crystal said, even though we can read with our own eyes! NOW, Averytells us what motivated me to write the statement of faith on my website...

1) I didn't write it, but I worked with a team of people editing it. Not once did wediscuss using the word "Trinity" nor not using it. Not one of us were uncomfortablewith the word "Trinity."2) You don't need to use the word "Trinity" to give a statement of faith about it.

13
http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/about-us/what-we-believe/http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/92611-pce-advocated-as-having-a-qualitative-difference-spiritually-11.html#post1916139http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/92611-pce-advocated-as-having-a-qualitative-difference-spiritually-11.html#post1916139http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/92611-pce-advocated-as-having-a-qualitative-difference-spiritually-11.html#post1916065http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/about-us/what-we-believe/


14/49

While we do prefer "Triunity," you will find that we use "Trinity" more often than"Triunity" in our writings.

Post 106 - I believe this is what you thought I couldnt see

that the infinite and holy God exists in three persons: God the Father, God the Son,and God the Holy Spirit. Each divine person is identical in nature and perfection, but isdistinct in function.

That sure sounds like 1 John 5:7, but then yall dont accept 1 John 5:7 asScripture.

Since FSSL now confirms his/their preference for Tri-unity maybe he would beso kind as to explain the difference between the doctrine of the Trinity or thedoctrine of the Tri-unity.

[QUOTE=freesundayschoollessons;1916177]While we do prefer "Triunity," youwill find that we use "Trinity" more often than "Triunity" in our writings.[/QUOTE]< Post 104 FSSL

14


15/49

Response to FSSL

Post 107 1-14-11[NOTE Post 108 was from CU]Post 109 OneBook 1 14 11

Quote: Post 106

Originally Posted by OneBook ...maybe he would be so kind as to explain the differencebetween the doctrine of the Trinity or the doctrine of theTri-unity.

You can read the link Avery provided...

Then, why is it that I am being questioned and you never question Avery?

Post 109FSSL, either I am missing something or you are flustered, but the only link I sawin Steves Post 102 was the link I provided from your web page.

I needed a good laugh this morning and you have provided it. Rather thananswering what should have been a simple question, you responded like a child:

[QUOTE=freesundayschoollessons;1917581]Then, why is it that I am beingquestioned and you never question Avery?[/QUOTE] < Post 107

If you cant get straight who is writing what, how can you be trusted to tell mewhat the Scriptures teach? If you cant explain what you believe then how am Isuppose to learn?

15


16/49

Response to AveryPost 111 1-14-11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery For there are three that bear record in heaven,the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:and these three are one.

....No church father quotes the verse.. this text is of limited value in proving the Trinity

Here is another section where FSSL gives his textual theory about the heavenlywitnesses.

Give some background on 1 John 5:7-8a. Almost certainly added to the text laternot original. In no Greek text prior to 11th century, and very few thereafter. No earlychurch father quotes it. None of the ancient version have it. It likely was first amarginal note that a scribe added to the text.

On AV1611 FSSL gave his theory that if a Muslim attacks a Bible verse .. you shouldnot defend the verse as the pure word of God. Presumably this hands-off surrenderthe Bible theory would extend to the resurrection account of the Lord Jesus in theending of Mark, the Pericope Adultera, "God was manifest in the flesh" and dozens of other verses.

There are other passages, without controversy, that prove the trinity. So, don'tworry about using 1 John 5:7. You don't want to step into a textual debate with aMuslim. You will just get distracted. See John 1:1, 1 John 5:20, Titus 2.13

Our discussion on Priscillian and related issues (on this forum, before I switched himto ignore) is around here:

Alan England Brooke summarizes the Knstle theory on Priscillianhttp://www.fundamentalforums.com/bib...ml#post1485279

16
http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/70646-well-av1611-com-appears-to-be-finished-15.html#post1485279http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/70646-well-av1611-com-appears-to-be-finished-15.html#post1485279


17/49

Response to FSSL

Post 110 1-14-11Post 112 OneBook 1 14 11

I am responding as a believer asking you why you are more interested in asking meabout my orthodoxy than you are Avery's heresy. I'm not the first person on thisboard to ask.

It is a simple, yet revealing question. Laugh it off if you must...

You did say, very clearly above that "I surfed your website and was surprise to findno reference to a belief in the Trinity http://www.freesundayschoollessons.o...at-we-believe/ I saw statements pertaining to lots of doctrinal beliefs, just none about the

Trinity."Which you just showed is entirely wrong because there are at least three statementspertaining to the Trinity in the statement of belief... or are a very poor writer...

Post 112One more timeYour link does not work. This again demonstrates what I said:[QUOTE=OneBook;1917599]If you cant get straight who is writing what, howcan you be trusted to tell me what the Scriptures teach? If you cant explain whatyou believe then how am I suppose to learn?[/QUOTE]

Speaking of a poor writer[QUOTE=freesundayschoollessons;1917617]... or are

a very poor writer...[/QUOTE]

17


18/49

Response to FSSL


Here are my orthodox beliefs on the Trinity (Triunity). Read, learn and bug someoneelse who REALLY needs to accept Christ (ie. Avery)

Post 114So, if one can not deal with simple mistakes they make, or readingcomprehension they bail out -

[QUOTE=OneBook;1917599]FSSL, either I am missing something or you areflustered, but the only link I saw in Steves Post 102 was the link I provided fromyour web page. [COLOR="Blue"][see my Post 101][/COLOR]...If you cant getstraight who is writing what, how can you be trusted to tell me what theScriptures teach? If you cant explain what you believe then how am I supposeto learn?[/QUOTE]

Here again you seem to be saying you have provided your orthodox beliefs onthe Triunity, yet I do not see anything to consider. Does this mean you donthave anything, or you lack the ability to put it into words? Surely having a teamto work with should produce something about this preference for Triunity over Trinity. You really remind me of my Free Will Baptist Pastor from about fortyyears ago. When I kept asking him about John 10:28 he responded very muchlike you have. Pastor ONeal had challenged me at that time to memorize thisblessed verse of Scripture.

The following website I found to be interesting. Mr. Keathley has provided whatyou have failed to provide - http://bible.org/article/trinity-triunity-god

18
http://bible.org/article/trinity-triunity-godhttp://bible.org/article/trinity-triunity-god


19/49

Response to FSSL


I'm not going to hold the hand of a compromising idiot to find things on my site.

Revision of Post 115 - I'm not going to hold the hand of a compromising idiot tofind things on my site.

You already said "I surfed your website and was surprise to find no reference to abelief in the Trinity http://www.freesundayschoollessons.o...at-we-believe/ I saw

statements pertaining to lots of doctrinal beliefs, just none about theTrinity ."

Sorry... but there is nothing that will overcome your inability to be honest.

Post 116

You really are quite the egotist and quite testy.

Please do not kid yourself about my abilities to discover -

http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/category/systematic-theology/doctrine-of-god/

However, after perusing the above link I failed to see a definition of Triunity anddecided to do my own research.

The more flustered you get the more careless you are, the below link does notwork. I do hope you manage your Graphics business better.

Can anyone beside me confirm this link does malfunction?

[quote=freesundayschoollessons;1918145][url]http://www.freesundayschoollessons.o...at-we-believe/[/url][/quote]

Barry, you should have left your post alone and not edited it.

19
http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/category/systematic-theology/doctrine-of-god/http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/category/systematic-theology/doctrine-of-god/http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/category/systematic-theology/doctrine-of-god/http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/category/systematic-theology/doctrine-of-god/


20/49

Response to FSSL


Post 127 - So OverLook is Avery's lackey...

I don't owe Avery any explanation. Because he lacks sources and misuses them.He obviously does not have any more source material than de Jonge. I believede Jonge is right on. I have source material on this subject that will be added assupportive footnotes. But, since it is not important to me right now... I will addthem later.

Why should I continue to engage you on this? You don't care what 1 John 5:7means. You only care if nonTrinitarians and Trinitarians agree if it is scripture.THAT is pathetic.

Revision of above Post - So OverLook is Avery's lackey...

I will make corrections to that lesson... written back in 1992. Nevetheless... it is notScripture and Erasmus did not think it was either.

Why should I continue to engage you on this? You don't care what 1 John 5:7means. You only care if nonTrinitarians and Trinitarians agree if it is scripture. THATis pathetic.

Post 128I am certainly learning the value of saving your post out before responding. Youpost so hastily you are constantly having to make corrections. You originallystated in Post 127 - [QUOTE=freesundayschoollessons;1918346] I don't oweAvery any explanation. Because he lacks sources and misuses them.[/QUOTE]You evidently realized something he stated in Post 125 was correct and thereforeedited your Post.

Now, back to where I was before I discovered you were making revisions to your Original Post, and Im suppose to look to you for answers?

I know what 1 John 5:7 means because I can read. FSSL, no version of theBible you use has the verse, and that is the reason you could not agree to[QUOTE=OneBook;1918199]Three bear record in heaven - the Father, the Word,and the Holy Ghost and these three are one...[/QUOTE]

20


21/49

If I did not care what I John 5:7,8, etc. says I would not continue to engage you. Ido what I do in hopes that some who read these Post will be helped by seeingthat Bible correctors are not the only one with answers.

! Corinthians 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth

to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.Response to FSSLPost 131 1-15-11Post 135 OneBook 1 15 11

Quote: Post 130 - OneBook

Originally Posted by OneBook Well, I don't know about all that, but it would seem smarter for you to do your homework before posting...what excusehave you for the other blunders?

What other accusations do you have up your sleeve?Besides... I'm done with you... Your actions here prove that Biblical truth isexpendable. You are satisfied with someone believing 1 John 5:7 is Scripture whilethat same person DENIES the very nature of God.

Do you deny the Trinity as well? We are still waiting...

Rock on in your own compromising world of superstitions!

Post 135I will guess someone is a reference to Steve?

It sounds like you are saying 1 John 5:7 is Scripture?

All I have seen Steve do is challenge definitions of the Trinity.

There is no verse equal to I John 5:7 and 8 for defining the Trinity and yet thevery people who claim to believe in the Triunity reject the verse, as Scripture. Anindividual (Steve) whom you claim rejects the Triunity believes the verse is 100%pure Scripture, just like Duncan, of course this does not include you. Do I denythe doctrine of the Trinity or the Triunity, no I do not.

My discussions with you are about the legitimacy of I John 5:7 and 8 as found inthe AV1611.

Tell me FSSL will the only people in heaven be people who believe just like you?

21


22/49

Response to FSSLPost 136 1-15-11Post 137 OneBook 1 16 11

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneBook All I have seen Steve do is challenge definitions of theTrinity.

AND I have never challenged a definition of the Trinity, YET you are questioning my

clear, orthodox position... We get it!You were active on this thread when he claimed that he is a nonTrinitarian ... Whynot start asking him for clarification?

Quote:

There is no verse equal to I John 5:7 and 8 for defining theTrinity...

Well... then start honing in on Avery...

Quote:

Do I deny the doctrine of the Trinity or the Triunity, no I donot.

Then you need to start defending it.

Quote:

Tell me FSSL will the only people in heaven be people whobelieve just like you?

The people destined for heaven are those who believe in the Trinity among otherthings. Those who deny the Trinity are destined to Hell... One cannot deny thenature of God and say they believe in Him... You are foolish to support Avery on thisforum. For all you do is confirm his apparent destiny.

Post 137[QUOTE=freesundayschoollessons;1918479]AND I have never challenged adefinition of the Trinity, YET you are questioning my clear, orthodox position... Weget it!

You were [URL="http://www.fundamentalforums.com/1886221-post158.html"]activeon this thread when he claimed that he is a nonTrinitarian[/URL]... Why not startasking him for clarification?[/QUOTE]

22
http://www.fundamentalforums.com/1886221-post158.htmlhttp://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/92611-pce-advocated-as-having-a-qualitative-difference-spiritually-14.html#post1918462http://www.fundamentalforums.com/1886221-post158.html


23/49

No need to inquire at this point. Steve has no issue with I John 5:7 and 8, only youand your WE followers.

I clearly stated my issue with you or as you seem to have become the designatedspeaker for WE. [QUOTE=OneBook;1918462]There is no verse equal to IJohn 5:7 and 8 for defining the Trinity and yet the very people who claim tobelieve in the Triunity reject the verse, as Scripture. An individual (Steve) whomyou claim rejects the Triunity believes the verse is 100% pure Scripture, just likeDuncan, of course this does not include you

My discussions with you are about the legitimacy of I John 5:7 and 8 as found inthe AV1611.[/QUOTE]

Also it appears to me the WE team is doing its best to nail Steve and Im simplynot interested in helping out Bible rejecters.

[QUOTE=freesundayschoollessons;1918479]The people destined for heaven arethose who believe in the Trinity among other things. Those who deny the Trinityare destined to Hell...[/QUOTE]

Surely with such a strong statement as this you will have no problem provingScripture to defend such an accusation, please provide a couple of references?

23


24/49

Response to FSSL-CoverdalePost 138/139 1-16-11Post 154 OneBook 1 17 11

We are witnessing an utterly gospel deficient poster's attempt to have it both ways in1 John 5:7. KJVOs commonly point to 1 John 5:7 as the clearest passage on theTrinity, YET, OverLook is allowing the passage to be rendered meaningless. Whatmore do we need to prove that the KJVO is NOT interested in themeanings/implications of Scripture. They are just concerned that 1 John 5:7 be

considered Scripture.OverLook, why should we take you seriously?

Without the Trinity, there could be no incarnation. Without any incarnation, there isno gospel. Paul says: For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto theFather. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizenswith the saints, and of the household of God;" Ephesians 2:8

Denying the Trinity IS denying the gospel. Those, who say they believe in the Trinityand want to equivocate because of a silly forum connection are compromisers.

For Avery's sake... get off the forum and into your Bible and get convinced that the

Trinity is worth fighting for!

Post 139 CoverdaleQuote: Post 137

Originally Posted by OneBook No need to inquire at this point. Steve has no issue with I

John 5:7 and 8

OneBook, are you saying that so long as a person claims to accept 1 John 5:7 thatthey do not need to explain what they understand the verse to mean and that theycan even hold a position that in effect denies and contradicts what the verse statesor means?

OneBook, do you assert that a person actually have no issue with 1 John 5:7 evenwhen they hold a view that in effect denies that this verse teaches the Trinity?

Post 154Lets see, in I Corinthians 15, Paul makes no mention of the Trinity as part of thegospel. In Ephesians 1:13, Paul makes no mention of the Trinity as part of thegospel. In Acts 16:30, Paul makes no mention of believing the Trinity to be

24


25/49

saved. Well, you did it again, Ephesians 2:8 is not what you quoted. ReallyFSSL, youve got to do better.

However John in I John 5:1 writes Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christis born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is

begotten of him.

Response to CoverdalePost 159 1-17-11Post 163 OneBook 1 17 11

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneBook

Steve also believes just what the verse states and I don't remember seeing the word trinity in the verse.

If you do not know what he claims that 1 John 5:7 means, how can youreally know that he believes what the verse states?

1 John 5:7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the HolyGhost: and these three are one.

1 John 5:7 names three persons: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. Asstated, it is clear that these three are distinct or separate from each other. Thisverse shows that the Father is not the Word. The Father is not the Holy Ghost. TheWord is not the Father. The Word is not the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is not theFather. The Holy Ghost is not the Word. These three are three distinct somethings.These three are not three nothings. These three are not three names for the oneperson or else they would not be a distinct three. Likewise, they are not threemanifestations of the same person since they are each distinct from each other. Theyclearly are three as well as one ["these three are one"]. The words "these three areone" would be a brief definition or explanation for the word Trinity, which affirmsthat it is taught in the verse. If these three are not persons as is indicated by therest of the New Testament, what are these three? Do you really know what StevenAvery claims these three are?

Were you merely posturing and playing games by throwing out your false accusationlikely based on his misrepresentations, distortions, or speculations?

These three named individuals: The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost are oneGod.

You may choose to continue to defend, rationalize, or excuse Steven Avery's denialof what 1 John 5:7 states and teaches. Are you implying that you agree with hisdenial?

Your question is based on your own false accusation, and it has no basis in truth. An

25


26/49

improper or invalid question based on incorrect assumptions or on false accusationsshould not be answered.

You do not answer the proper question [in bold type above] based on your ownassertion while you demand that your improper question based on a false accusationbe answered.

Post 163

Rick, that is a slick post, based upon your definition of what is truth I have noobligation to answer you. You like Duncan step up to the plate and just cantcommit to what you lead your audience to believe.

26


27/49

Response to CoverdalePost 170 1-17-11Post 1 OneBook 1 1 11

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneBook One last thought...I don't care for your use of the word

somethings, but I would not fall out with you about it...In my earlier explanation, I started with three persons. Since Steven Avery deniesthat the three are persons, this time I started with the explanation that the three are"somethings," not three nothings, and then explain why the three equal"somethings" would be three equal persons [the Father, the Word, and the HolyGhost] that are one God.

Quote:Originally Posted by OneBook

Steve also believes just what the verse states and I don't remember seeing the wordtrinity in the verse.

If you do not know what he claims that 1 John 5:7 means, how can youreally know that he believes what the verse states?

If you do not care for the reference to "three somethings" leading up to the pointthat these three are persons, how can you keep defending Steven Avery's three"unknowns" that he will not explain at all? Do you actually know what he claims thatthese three are since so far he opposes the understanding that these three personsare one God?

PostSimple

27


28/49

Response to CUPost 179 1-18-11Post 181 OneBook 1 18 11Quote:

Originally Posted by OneBook It is interesting you are so given too accusing me of beinga LIAR. CU have you considered the use of that word in

regards to the TRINITY? The Lord gave you a verse stating,For there are three that bear record in heaven. Yet youmake God a liar by rejecting God's record of his Son.

I don't reject God's record of His Son. Your accusations are ignorant.

Quote:

So, you might desire to reconsider who the real LIAR is...

Oh yes, I have life, eternal life - I John 5:11 And this is therecord, that God hath given to us (OneBook) eternall life,and this life is in his Son.

Have I said anything against 1 John 5:11? I reality I haven't said much against 1John 5:7-8. I have actually said... I have no problem with it being included. Itdoesn't actually hurts anything to include the text. Do I think its part of the originaltext? No.

Quote:

I John 5:10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness inhimself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar;because he believeth not the record that God gave of hisSon.

Might you consider such verses as ..

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thounot known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayestthou then, Shew us the Father?

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

28


29/49

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are inearth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities,or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Post 181If you believe not the record God gave of his Son, I John 5:7, you are in a state of rejecting Gods witness, 1 John 5:8 and as John stated clearly in I John 5:10, youmake God a liar.

If this be true please provide me the link where you stated the following:[QUOTE=christundivided;1919707] I have actually said... I have no problem withit being included. [/QUOTE]

You used my quote [QUOTE=OneBook;1919684]I John 5:10 He that believethon the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hathmade him a liar; because he believeth not [COLOR="blue"]the record[/COLOR]that God gave of his Son.[/QUOTE] and then attempted to connect fiveverses [QUOTE=christundivided;1919707]Might you consider such verses as ...[/QUOTE] of Scripture to I John 5:10. I love the verses you provided. However,the record in I John 5:10 is a reference back to I John 5:7. The five scripturesyou provided clearly are proof texts for the Word was God. However, they do notdemonstrate the Trinity.

29


30/49

Response to FSSLPost 182 1-18-11

Post 184 OneBook 1 18 11Isn't it obvious that OneBook is not able to find the Trinity? I wonder why he evenbelieves it? Perhaps he does not... Those who believe something, passionately, arethose who DEFEND it!

Post 184Lets seeJohn 10:30 I and my Father are one. Where did you find the Trinity inthis verse? Not only did I not find the Trinity in the verse, neither did you.

Response to CUPost 183 1-18-11Post 185 OneBook 1 18 11

At this point it is clear you never made any such statement:[QUOTE=christundivided;1919707] I have actually said... I have no problem withit being included. [/QUOTE]

I John 5:6 goes with I John 5:8 go together, but then you are too busy trying totell me what I think.

30


31/49


Quote:

Originally Posted by OneBook At this point it is clear you never made any such

statement:It might have been a little before your time here but here it is....

http://www.fundamentalforums.com/1740238-post3.html

Quote:

I John 5:6 goes with I John 5:8, but then you are too busytrying to tell me what I think.

I never meet anyone that would claim the extended text of verse 7 and 8 aredemanded based on context. Are you making that claim?

CUs Proof - Post 3 5-11-2010 02:10 PM Thread heavenly witnesses scripture or tampering of man?

I John 5: 7-8 is a difficult verse to deal with textually. I can say I agree with theteaching of the text completely. In other words, the KJV rendering is TRUE. MeaningI believe what the verses says to be TRUE. Yet, to say the words are original to thehands of the writer? I can honestly say I do not know. There is not reference before200 AD.

Post 187Excellent. I went to the thread and found it interesting to read. You never answered the question, but no need at this point. My guess is you would answer (b) or (e). Interestingly enough Duncan on the same thread also failed toanswer, but at this point Im not surprised at anything he says. You stated:[QUOTE=christundivided;1740238]Yet, to say the words are original to the handsof the writer? I can honestly say I do not know.[/QUOTE] Thank you for beinghonest. So, the words might have been in the original?

31
http://www.fundamentalforums.com/1740238-post3.htmlhttp://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/92611-pce-advocated-as-having-a-qualitative-difference-spiritually-19.html#post1919822http://www.fundamentalforums.com/1740238-post3.html


32/49

I would attempt an answer to your question, but Im unsure of what you mean by:[QUOTE=christundivided;1919832]I never meet anyone that would claim theextended text of verse 7 and 8 are demanded based on context.[/QUOTE]Understanding a verse by context is not something new.

I John 5:6 water, blood, Spirit, witnessI John 5:8 water, blood, Spirit, witnessI John 5:9 witnessI John 5:10 witness


Originally Posted by OneBook Excellent. I went to the thread and found it interesting toread. You never answered the question, but no need at this

point. My guess is you would answer (b) or (e).Interestingly enough Duncan on the same thread also failed to answer, but at this point Im not surprised at anythinghe says.

So I don't need to answer and you then demand I answer? Talk about dishonestly.

Quote:

You stated: Thank you for being honest. So, the wordsmight have been in the original?

I don't believe there is any concrete evidence to support it as original. There aremany well respected men that include it because of its teaching alone. I do not dothe same but recognize their desire to do so.

Quote:

I would attempt an answer to your question, but Im unsureof what you mean by: Understanding a verse by context isnot something new.


Oh, so "witness" settles the need for verse 8 in the KJV?

How about the ESV?

(ESV) the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

Post 191

32


33/49

What in the world are you talking about? [QUOTE=christundivided;1919874]So Idon't need to answer and you then demand I answer? Talk about dishonestly.[/QUOTE] Silly, (b) or (e) would be basically the same answer, and your answering at this point really doesnt matter since your position is well known. If it will make you feel better go ahead an answer.

So, concrete or no concrete you did say: [QUOTE=christundivided;1740238]Yet,to say the words are original to the hands of the writer? I can honestly say I donot know.[/QUOTE] Since the verse does exist in the AV1611 then just maybe itdid exist in the originals? That to me is some good concrete.

What did you mean by this statement? [QUOTE=christundivided;1919832]I never meet [sic] anyone that would claim the extended text of verse 7 and 8 aredemanded based on context.[/QUOTE] Because this statement is wrong .

[QUOTE=christundivided;1919874]Oh, so "witness" settles the need for verse 8in the KJV?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=christundivided;1919874]How about the ESV?

(ESV) the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.[/QUOTE]Well lets just consider it for a moment in light of the following statement youmade: [QUOTE=christundivided;1740238]I John 5: 7-8 is a difficult verse to dealwith textually. I can say I agree with the teaching of the text completely. In other words, the KJV rendering is TRUE. Meaning I believe what the verses says to beTRUE. Yet, to say the words are original to the hands of the writer? I can

honestly say I do not know.[/QUOTE] You at least have enough sense to allow itand use it.

Here is I John 5:7,8 from the ESV:

7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; andthese three agree .

Tell me, CU do they agree or are they one ? In fact there is no reference to theTrinity in I John 5:7,8 in the ESV, thank you for asking.

33


34/49


Originally Posted by OneBook What in the world are you talking about?Silly, (b) or (e)would be basically the same answer, and your answering at this point really doesnt matter since your position is well known. If it will make you feel better go ahead an answer.

So you did understand what I wrote.... I mean you did answer it. How can you say..

What in the world are you talking about?

Quote:

So, concrete or no concrete you did say:Since the versedoes exist in the AV1611 then just maybe it did exist in theoriginals? That to me is some good concrete.

I got it... Everything that is in the AV1611 was in the originals.. I get it ...

Quote:

What did you mean by this statement?Because thisstatement is wrong.

You endlessly amaze me. You're talking in circles. You ask me what I mean by thisstatement.. and then claim its wrong. Both can not be true. Either say I am wrong orask me what I meant.

Quote:Well lets just consider it for a moment in light of thefollowing statement you made:You at least have enoughsense to allow it and use it.

Here is I John 5:7,8 from the ESV:

7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water

34


35/49

and the blood; and these three agree.

Tell me, CU do they agree or are they one ? In fact there isno reference to the Trinity in I John 5:7,8 in the ESV, thankyou for asking.

I didn't say it showed the Trinity.. Here, lets review...

You said

I would attempt an answer to your question, but Im unsure of what you mean by:Understanding a verse by context is not something new.


I said...

Oh, so "witness" settles the need for verse 8 in the KJV?

(ESV) the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

And then you ask me

How about the ESV showing the Trinity in the verses?????

The conversation was about the "context" of the verses and your demand that verse9 and 10 requires the inclusion of the extended versions of verse 7 and 8.

What planet are you on Onebook? It is pitiful how KJVOist constantly change thesubject in an attempt to control a conversation.

Post 205Again, concrete or no concrete you did say:[QUOTE=christundivided;1740238]Yet, to say the words are original to the handsof the writer? I can honestly say I do not know.[/QUOTE] Since the verse doesexist in the AV1611, then just maybe it did exist in the originals? That to me issome good concrete.

CU, you failed to answer the following, give it try.[QUOTE=OneBook;1919909]Tell me, CU do they [I][COLOR="Blue"]agree[/COLOR][/I] or are they [I][COLOR="blue"]one[/COLOR][/I]?[/QUOTE]

Well, now I understand what extended version means. I like many others believeI John 5:7 and 8 to be the correct version. I mean you already admitted:[QUOTE=christundivided;1740238]Yet, to say the words are original to the hands

35


36/49

of the writer? I can honestly say I do not know.[/QUOTE] I can honestly say Ibelieve I John 5:7 and 8 is as real as I John 1:1.


Quote:

Originally Posted by OneBook Steve, would you confirm:(1) I know very little about you.(2) I do not know what you believe about anything other than you believe the AV1611 is 100% pure Scripture.(3) I don't have time right now to respond to CD's post 196, but after reading it two time I think I'm seeing why hehas problems with defining persons.

Shalom,

Thomas

PSBased upon your recent response to me, I now believe youare saved.

Avery hasn't defined "persons" himself. He simply doesn't accept "persons" at all.

Here Onebook. Take a look at this definition. Pay attention to # 3

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person

Quote:

a : one of the three modes of being in the TrinitarianGodhead as understood by Christians b : the unitarypersonality of Christ that unites the divine and humannatures

I'd bet that Avery will not accept this definition. I know you will accept it.. But I betAvery doesn't. Why don't you ask him for me. He has me on ignore. You can justquote my post and he will answer it... At least that is what he says he does.

36
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personhttp://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/92611-pce-advocated-as-having-a-qualitative-difference-spiritually-21.html#post1920462http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person


37/49

Post 210Thank you for providing the link. I went to it and found it interesting. I surfed abit on the website, and found some interesting information. You might desire tocheck out these links.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trinityhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/605512/Trinityhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40747/Athenagoras?anchor=ref287415

At this point I am not influenced by what any of those links provided.

I have stated before my issue with anyone is [QUOTE=OneBook;1918462]There is no verse equal to I John 5:7 and 8 for defining the Trinity and yet thevery people who claim to believe in the Triunity reject the verse, as Scripture.[/QUOTE]

I am sure you know who the Father is.I am sure you know who the Word is.I am sure you know who the Holy Ghost is and God by inspiration has given us IJohn 5:7 telling us these three in heaven bear record and these three are one.How difficult is that too understand. Steve and I have not discussed thisstatement; Im going to take a chance and say he will agree with it.[QUOTE=OneBook;1920427]Well, now I understand what [I]extended version[/I]means. I like many others believe I John 5:7 and 8 to be the correct version.[/QUOTE ]

In closing, the ESV destroys not only the witness of God but the record in heaven

God has given us. You asked me in Post188[QUOTE=christundivided;1919874]How about the ESV?

(ESV) the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.[/QUOTE] Iresponded in Post 191 and 205 with the below and you have yet to respond.[QUOTE=OneBook;1920427]CU, you failed to answer the following, give it try.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=OneBook;1919909]Tell me, CU do they [I][COLOR="Blue"]agree[/COLOR][/I] or are they [I][COLOR="blue"]one[/COLOR][/I]?[/QUOTE]

37
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trinityhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/605512/Trinityhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40747/Athenagoras?anchor=ref287415http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trinityhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/605512/Trinityhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40747/Athenagoras?anchor=ref287415


38/49


Originally Posted by OneBook Thank you for providing the link. I went to it and found it interesting. I surfed a bit on the website, and found someinteresting information. You might desire to check out these links.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trinity http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...605512/Trinity http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...chor=ref287415

At this point I am not influenced by what any of those links provided.

Why not? I mean you did ask for a definition and now you have one.

Quote:

I have stated before my issue with anyone is

I am sure you know who the Father is.I am sure you know who the Word is.I am sure you know who the Holy Ghost is and God byinspiration has given us I John 5:7 telling us these three inheaven bear record and these three are one. How difficult isthat too understand. Steve and I have not discussed thisstatement; Im going to take a chance and say he willagree with it.

He doesn't. He ignored it. Why do you think he ignored it?

Quote:

38
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trinityhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/605512/Trinityhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40747/Athenagoras?anchor=ref287415http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/92611-pce-advocated-as-having-a-qualitative-difference-spiritually-post1921121.html#post1921121http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trinityhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/605512/Trinityhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40747/Athenagoras?anchor=ref287415


39/49

In closing, the ESV destroys not only the witness of God butthe record in heaven God has given us. You asked me inPost188 I responded in Post 191 and 205 with the belowand you have yet to respond.

I have answered your question in the form of a rhetorical question.

It doesn't destroys anything. "Witness" being in all the verses in question, in theKJV, doesn't establish the validity of their origins.

If you want to honestly discuss the use of "persons" in the doctrine of the Trinity, wecan.

It is obvious that Avery does not believe in the Trinity. He simply masks his unbelief in the his objections to the term "persons". Yet "persons" is a common useddescription of the "Godhead".

Quote:

FSSL, would you consider the Ethiopian eunuch saved? Yet,Philip never asked him about his belief in the Trinity. Philipsimply said, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thoumayest. The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christis the Son of God.

Do you believe I am saved Onebook? I have openly confessed Jesus Christ as theSon of God and Lord of my life. Yet, doctrinally we differ in our beliefs. We differ somuch in our beliefs you probably question whether I am "saved" or not. I can tell youthat your buddy "Oneal" doesn't believe I am. Ask him.

In like manner with Avery... Avery has been presented with the doctrine of the"Trinity". A doctrine that he does not accept. He may have confessed Christ Jesus as

Lord/Son of God. Yet, he denies the clear teaching of the "persons" of the Godhead.

Why would you accept him as part of the beloved and yet reject me? Might it bebecause he is KJVO?

Post 215Not really [QUOTE=christundivided;1921200]He doesn't. He ignored it. Why doyou think he ignored it?[/QUOTE] Your first mistake is, the statement was directedto you not Steve. I'm confident of Steve's position on this. You are the one whoignored it.

This was not designed to be a trick statement on my part. It is not a statementleading to a confession of the Trinity. [QUOTE=OneBook;1921121]I am sure youknow who the Father is.I am sure you know who the Word is.I am sure you know who the Holy Ghost is and God by inspiration has given us IJohn 5:7 telling us these three in heaven bear record and these three are one.How difficult is that too understand.[/QUOTE]

39


40/49

You really would have been wise to have not brought up the ESV. You areaware the word witness is not even used in I John 5 in the ESV. I wonder why?How can you even speak of their origin when you have alreadyconfessed [QUOTE=christundivided;1740238]Yet, to say the words are original tothe hands of the writer? I can honestly say I do not know.[/QUOTE] I know this

was a statement in reference to the verse, but the verse would include the wordwitness .

[QUOTE=christundivided;1921200]It doesn't destroys [sic] anything. "Witness"being in all the verses in question, in the KJV, doesn't establish the validity of their origins.[/QUOTE] It destroys the witness in verse 6, 8, and the witness of God, verse 9 and very interesting to me verse 10you, CU reject the record thatGod gave of his Son back in verse 7the Word is the Son!

You just keep avoiding the question, why? [QUOTE=OneBook;1919909]Tell me,CU do they [I][COLOR="Blue"]agree[/COLOR][/I] or are they [I]

[COLOR="blue"]one[/COLOR][/I]?[/QUOTE]If you can say as Paul declared in I Corinthians 15:11 Therefore whether it were Ior they, so we preach, and so ye believed, then I can accept your testimony of salvation.

[QUOTE=christundivided;1921200]Do you believe I am saved Onebook? I haveopenly confessed Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Lord of my life. Yet,doctrinally we differ in our beliefs...Why would you accept him as part of thebeloved and yet reject me?...[/QUOTE]

40


41/49

Response to FSSLPost 216 1-20-11Post 221 OneBook 1 21 11Quote:

Originally Posted by OneBook FSSL, would you consider the Ethiopian eunuch saved? ...FSSL, would you consider the jailer at Philipi saved?

If they denied the Trinity, would they be believers?

Quote:

FSSL, would you agree when Paul spoke to the Corinthiansin I Corinthians and declared to them the gospel (1) Christdied for our sins (2) Christ was buried and (3) Christ roseagain the third day. All this was done according to thescriptures. Yes, I believe this would make Steve a savedman.

Then all of the demons and Satan are believers because they know these things tobe true.

Post 221Lets see:John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he thatbelieveth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. Andhe answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.Acts 16:30,31 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, andthy house.

If they denied the Trinity, would they be believers? You can not deny what is notan issue and you will not find in the Scriptures where it was ever an issue. Theanswer to was the Ethiopian eunuch saved is simple, yes he was saved.However, since you need something more concrete (I believe that was the word

41


42/49

CU used.) then we only need look at I John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesusis the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth himalso that is begotten of him.

So, all the demons and Satan are believers because they know these things to

be true. Well spoken, however there are a couple problems. The demons andSatan are Christ rejecting believers, I John 4:3 And every spirit that confessethnot that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is itin the world. Jude 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the

judgment of the great day.


Originally Posted by OneBook Don't you just love John 5:47 But if ye believe not hiswritings, how shall ye believe my words? Do you have hiswords?

Sure.

Quote:

OneBook > Great verse did you miss the statement ..Wespeak that we do know. How does that balance againstyour statement

I didn't miss it at all....To say YOU know something is NOT the same as the Godhead saying THEY knewsomething.

Quote:

John 3:11 great verse and it demonstrates the translatorsof the AV1611 knew the difference between testify andwitness

and that would be?????

Before you answer. You should realize that the Greek source for "testify" in John3:11 is often translated "witness" in the KJV. A couple of those verses are

Joh 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

and

Joh 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me.Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

42


43/49

So, even in the KJV we have testify and witness used interchangeably.

Why can't you recognize the testimony/witness of the KJV you love so dear?

Post 241[QUOTE=christundivided;1921720]I didn't miss it at all....To say YOU know something is NOT the same as the Godhead saying THEYknew something.[/QUOTE] You honestlystated [QUOTE=christundivided;1740238]Yet, to say the words are original to thehands of the writer? I can honestly say I do not know.[/QUOTE] you did notknow; the Holy Spirit bore record in I John 5:7 (AV1611) to its existence,something neither you or the ESV can claim.

You really do not know the difference between witness and testify? So, checkthis out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness

Both words are used in my beloved 1611. However, in I John 5 the ESVcompletely removes the word witness. It is interesting the ESV used both wordsin John 3:11 and yet it chose to remove the word witness in I John 5.

Someone is trying to do away with the witness in I John 5? Could John 8:44 holdthe answer?Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was amurderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is notruth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, andthe father of it.

43
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witnesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness


44/49


Originally Posted by OneBook

You really do not know the difference between witness and testify? So, check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness

Both words are used in my beloved 1611. However, in I John 5 the ESV completely removes the word witness. It isinteresting the ESV used both words in John 3:11 and yet it chose to remove the word witness in I John 5.

Both words are more than just "used in the beloved 1611". The words are usedinterchangeably for a single Greek source word. I gave you 2 examples and there areover a dozen times this happens in the KJV.

Why do you reject the witness/testimony of your beloved KJV?

Quote:

Someone is trying to do away with the witness in I John 5?Could John 8:44 hold the answer?Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your fatherye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, andabode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.

When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is aliar, and the father of it.

LOL. It must be the KJV that's destroying the "witness".. I mean "witness is not inverse 7 of the KJV.

Why do you selectively apply your made-up rule and exclude the KJV from youdemand that word "witness" is deciding factor of what is right and what is wrong?You're a hoot!

44
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witnesshttp://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/92611-pce-advocated-as-having-a-qualitative-difference-spiritually-25.html#post1922342http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness


45/49

Post 248 OneBookIt seems I need to re-post some of what I wroteearlier [QUOTE=OneBook;1921233]You really would have been wise to have not

brought up the ESV. You are aware the word [I][COLOR="Blue"]witness[/COLOR][/I]is not even used in I John 5 in the ESV. I wonder why? How can you even speak of their

origin when you have already confessedI know this was a statement in reference to theverse, but the verse would include the word [I][COLOR="blue"]witness[/COLOR][/I].

It destroys the witness in verse 6, 8, and the witness of God, verse 9 and very interestingto me verse 10you, CU reject the record that God gave of his Son back in verse 7theWord is the Son![/QUOTE]

If you want to see what you stated in the followingquote [QUOTE=christundivided;1923258]The words are used interchangeably for asingle Greek source word.[/QUOTE] done correctly in the AV1611 then read I John5:9. Naturally the ESV translators did not know the difference between a witness

and the testimony of a witness. So, I John 5:9 in the ESV has no witness, andyou don't know the difference between the two words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness

Witness are usually only permitted to testify to what they experienced first hand.In most cases, they may not testify about something they were told ( hearsay ).This restriction does not apply to expert witnesses. Expert witnesses, however,may only testify in the area of their expertise .

45
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witnesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witnesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay


46/49


Originally Posted by OneBook It seems I need to re-post some of what I wrote earlier

If you want to see what you stated in the following quotedone correctly in the AV1611 then read I John 5:9.Naturally the ESV translators did not know the differencebetween a witness and the testimony of a witness. So, I

John 5:9 in the ESV has no witness, and you don't know the difference between the two words.

Verse 7 of 1 John 5 in the KJV.... does not contain the word "witness".

Does it? You have built a case for the KJV text based solely on the use of "witness" inthe KJV. Here... let me remind you...

Quote:

I would attempt an answer to your question, but Im unsureof what you mean by: Understanding a verse by context isnot something new.

I John 5:6 water, blood, Spirit, witnessI John 5:8 water, blood, Spirit, witnessI John 5:9 witness

I John 5:10 witness

Why doesn't verse 7 contain the word "witness"?

I mean.. you're the one that said "witness" is what identifies the TRUE text.

Quote:

46


47/49

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WitnessWitness are usually only permitted to testify to what theyexperienced first hand. In most cases, they may not testifyabout something they were told (hearsay). This restrictiondoes not apply to expert witnesses. Expert witnesses,however, may only testify in the area of their expertise.

Funny. You set aside the use of testify and witness interchangeably in the KJV. Iwonder why you're posting a wiki article?

Might it be... that you can't find a definition that doesn't contain "bear witness"?

Also, in the verses in question..... is there any doubt all "witnesses" or "testimony"isn't "first hand?"

In fact the ESV in verse 7 contains the word "testify" and relates a "first hand""witness" of that testimony...

You're really failing at this "Onebook". Maybe Oneal can help you out... or maybe"Steven and BP" can plow some "New Ground" for you.

Post 250 OneBook 1 28 11

The answer to your continued question as to why the word witness is not in verseseven is simple, if only one could read. In providing a quote I made, you failed todemonstrate where in that quote I made reference to verse seven.

Lets revisit my Post 181 [QUOTE=OneBook;1919794]CU, if you believe not therecord God gave of his Son, I John 5:7, you are in a state of rejecting Godswitness, 1 John 5:8 and as John stated clearly in I John 5:10, you make God aliar.[/QUOTE] You clearly do not believe the record as given in I John 5:7 in theAV1611 based upon this comment youmade [QUOTE=christundivided;1740238]Yet, to say the words are original to thehands of the writer? I can honestly say I do not know.[/QUOTE] You did notice inI John 5:10 that John speaks of both the witness and the record.

47
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witnesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness


48/49

Response to CUPost 256 1-27-11


Quote:

Originally Posted by OneBook CU, I did mention verse 7 and I did not ignore it. You areavoiding your lack of knowledge concerning the differencebetween a witness and a testimony.

Let me see if I can pin you down to anything...

1. Why doesn't verse 7 say "witness" when you demand it of the other verses?

You presented a wiki article without any application to the verses in question. None.How you present a argument that takes the "wiki" article and applies it the verses Imentioned.

2. Your post of the wiki article was an attempt at addressing "testify" without anyspecifics. You did not post a definition for "testify" because the definition of testifyincludes "bear witness".

Is "testify" defined as to "bear witness" Onebook?

Post 257 OneBook

LOL

[QUOTE=christundivided;1926470]Let me see if I can pin you down to anything...[/quote]

48


49/49

The reason verse 7 does not say witness is because it says record, wasnt thatsimple? In the other verses (I John 5:6,8,9 and 10) it states witness, isnt thatalso simple?

I presented the Wiki article to help you understand the difference between a

witness and a testimony . Obviously, you do not know a witness can givetestimony and yet a witness can witness/testify to something. Typically in a triala witness (I John 5:6,10) is called to testify (I John 5:9) to what they witnessed.In this case the record God gave of his Son as given in I John 5:7.

[QUOTE=christundivided;1926470]1. Why doesn't verse 7 say "witness" whenyou demand it of the other verses?

You presented a wiki article without any application to the verses in question.None. How you present a argument that takes the "wiki" article and applies it theverses I mentioned.[/quote]

Response to CUPost 2 1-2-11


PCE Advocated as Having...

Documents

Transcript of PCE Advocated as Having...