You are on page 1of 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], just
what [I][U]Bible[/U][/I] does he mean? Has Duncan been mislead all these years
by reading 1 John 5:7,8 in a KJB?[/COLOR][/QUOTE], the opportunity to declare
his faith in the only Bible he claims to have ever read, the KJV, or looked at. Yet
he 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’.
Doesn’t this language sound like something Avery would use or OneBook?
[QUOTE=tduncan;1856484]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. How
could he make such a statement and yet declare he had never read anything
else, see Post 174? [QUOTE=tduncan;1863572]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] You 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;1860244]We hold the KJV to be 100% Scripture....[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=tduncan;1862380]You seem to forget that I have repeated stated that I
use the KJV exclusively and consider it 100% pure Scripture.[/QUOTE]

In Post 34 of this Thread Duncan states, [QUOTE=tduncan;1909670]Scripture


says the devils believe...yet they are condemned.[/QUOTE]Duncan would do well
to review his statement and discover what he missed. The devils aren’t
condemned for believing in God. In fact James is telling the brethren they have
something in common with the devils, James 2:19 Thou believest that there is
one God; thou does well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

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

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

Tduncan,[QUOTE=OneBook;1914689]Duncan, you may not like it, you may declare


otherwise, 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 any


way, 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 don’t agree on the doctrine of the Trinity. You clearly state
you have disagreements with others. This is proven by the following:
[QUOTE=tduncan;1914747]I have disagreed with many of the non-KJVOs on
here.....FSSL, Ransom (even have gotten a few reds from him), Timotheos, jbh, and
others.[/QUOTE] Yet, you have in common with them an issue over the Trinity and
Steve’s view of it.

[QUOTE=tduncan;1914743]The difference between Avery and myself is that I


believe what is in it. Avery does not.[/QUOTE]

Clearly from the below statement by Steve, you are wrong. You have yet to declare
your 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 Steve’s position on this
as stated below:

[QUOTE=Steven Avery;1856716][COLOR="DarkRed"]"the versions that omit the


heavenly 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 the
doctrine 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 failure
to do so can only lead people to believe you have something else in common with
CU, FSSL, Ransom, Timotheos, jbh, and others.

[QUOTE=tduncan;1914747]One of the KJVOs...[/QUOTE]You keep saying this like


you are not KJVO. Come on Duncan, come out of the closet!

Here’s a challenge for you, settle the above matter and I’ll respond to your Trinity
concerns!

2
Response to TDUNCAN
Post 82,83 – 1-10-11
Post 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 time
to read my posts on the issue you could verify this. Unfortunately, you have no
integrety whatsoever on the matter.

Post 83 - Never have nor ever will be KJVO simply because the position has zero
scriptural 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 beyond
any 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 is
settled. I will then take up your Trinity challenge.

Well, I was about to Post then I received your Post 83. So, I’m figuring you will not
take up the challenge.

3
Response to TDUNCAN
Post 85 – 1-10-11
Post 86 – OneBook

Post 85 - I don't know what game you are playing....unfortunately, I am not


playing.

Your statement is this...

"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 the
doctrine of the Trinity."

My response was:

"....I accept the I John passage as 100% Scripture..."

Now you say:

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

I have been clear and honest. You keep harping on what I have already answered
time and time again.

You are dishonest and nothing more than a worshipper of Avery. Enjoy yourself and
your heresy.

Post 86 - Duncan, I can understand your frustration at such a simple request. I


am not interested with playing games.

It appears I was correct when I stated: [QUOTE=OneBook;1914949]So, I’m


figuring you will not take up the challenge.[/QUOTE]

You have been caught being dishonest about 1 John 5:7,8 in the KJV being
100% pure Scripture, ordained of God.

[QUOTE=tduncan;1914965]Enjoy yourself and your heresy.[/QUOTE]Acts 24:14


But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship
I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the
prophets.

4
Response to TDUNCAN
Post 87 – 1-10-11
Post 88 – OneBook

Post 87 - I have stated it is 100% Scripture and the pure Word of God. I am not
sure 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 King
James Bible is 100% pure Scripture, ordained of God.” Easy, attach the phrase King
James Bible to your statement and it’s settled. Don’t worry about pleasing me, try
pleasing the Lord. Don’t worry about what others may think, simply say what is
pleasing to the Lord. If you don’t believe I John 5:7,8 in the KJB is 100% pure
Scripture, ordained of God, then be honest and say you don’t believe it. That would
be better than making some absurd statement like, “May God have mercy on you. I
am done with you.”

As concerns God’s mercy on me:


I Timothy 1:13-16
Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained
mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord was
exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful
saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save
sinners; 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
Response to TDUNCAN
Post 91 – 1-10-11
Post 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 simply
disregard Scripture for the sake of friendship.

But what can you expect?

Post 92 – Speaking of agendas...or simply cowering out of a challenge, it all


amounts to you’ve been caught Duncan!

It appears I was correct when I stated: [QUOTE=OneBook;1914949]So, I’m


figuring you will not take up the challenge.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=OneBook;1914949]Then simply state, you believe 1 John 5:7,8 as


found 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 is
settled. I will then take up your Trinity challenge.

Well, I was about to Post when I received your Post 83. So, I’m figuring you will
not take up the challenge.[/QUOTE]

CU, in light of TD’s, Post 91 to FSSL’s, Post 90, do you really expect me to
believe the below. Although they do have a common enemy which sometimes
leads to a friendship…[QUOTE=christundivided;1914703]Onebook take my word
for it.... tduncan has never be befriended me in any sense of the term. Nor has
he 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 unite
us." It appears TD and FSSL have bonded.

Oh yes, it seems Duncan doesn’t know the definition


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

6
Response to FSSL
Post 93 – 1-11-11
Post 94 – OneBook

Quote: Post 91 by tduncan 1-10-11

Originally Posted by tduncan


And is supported by posters who have their own
agendas....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 the
Bible, 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 doesn’t
have I John 5:8 or the one that changes I John 5:7,8? Would it be the one
Duncan claims to believe, but can’t bring himself to confess he believes the same
Bible as OneBook, Steven Avery, Michael D. O’Neal, etc.? Just which one would
it be? Should I quit believing in God because the devils believe in God? By
Duncan’s logic I should.

7
Response to TDUNCAN
Post 95 – 1-11-11
Post 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
doesn’t have I John 5:8 or the one that changes I John
5:7,8? Would it be the one Duncan claims to believe, but
can’t bring himself to confess he believes the same Bible as
OneBook, Steven Avery, Michael D. O’Neal, etc.? Just which
one would it be? Should I quit believing in God because the
devils believe in God? By Duncan’s logic I should.
Post 95 - Barry, unfortunately this is the same dishonesty used by Kinney when he
posted 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 Scriptural
somehow 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. Sad
to 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 more
than a speed bump on the way to trumpeting KJV supremacy. Denying the
Trinity......disregarding church membership.....what's next? I suppose, based on
their position, someone could deny the virgin birth or Jonah being swallowed by a
great fish and yet say "I believe in the pure KJV as 100% Scripture" and be
welcomed with open arms. Sorry but that doesn't fly with me.

Post 97 - 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? Duncan and I do
agree on this point? He simply lacks the courage to let his real position be
known. I’m not asking you to take a position one way or the other concerning
KJVOism. I am simply asking you one question and one question only, “Is I
John 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 that
swallowed 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
Response to FSSL
Post 98 – 1-11-11
Post 99 – OneBook – 1 – 11- 11

Quote: Post 97 by 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 certainly
believe 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.

Quote: Post 97 by OneBook 1-11-11

I would ask Duncan, “In the New Testament what kind of


‘great fish’ was it that swallowed 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?
Since there is no Hebrew word for "whale" and this was a generic word for large
fish... it doesn't really matter what it was... It was a fish that was large. What I do
know and what I focus on is the fact that God prepared a very unconventional way to
bring 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 Duncan’s comments.
I see from Duncan’s 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 to


Duncan’ s Post 35 statement,[QUOTE=tduncan;1909676]I have no idea who
believes the verses do not belong in the Bible.[/QUOTE]

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

Duncan did state in Post 95, “I suppose, based on their position, someone could
deny 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 this
statement is just another instance of “GOT-YA”.

Again, FSSL, thank You for being honest.

9
Response to FSSL
Post 100 – 1-11-11
Post 101 – OneBook – 1 – 11- 11

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

But it doesn't matter anyways does it OneBook? You don't care if a person actually
BELIEVES 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 my
position 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 tduncan’s eyes when he
says[QUOTE=tduncan;1909676]I have no idea who believes the verses do not
belong in the Bible.[/QUOTE]He can no longer claim, “I have no idea who
believes 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 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 reference to a belief in the
Trinity http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/about-us/what-we-believe/ I saw
statements pertaining to lots of doctrinal beliefs, just none about the Trinity.

10
Response from Avery
Post 102 – 1-12-11
Post 105 – OneBook – 1 – 14- 11

Quote: Post 101 by OneBook 1-11-11

Originally Posted by OneBook


I surfed your website and was surprise to find no 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.
The reason the word Trinity is not on that page: FSSL is a bit uncomfortable with the
word 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 his
original 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 act


independently of one another."

The economic Trinity...


"essentially equal, there is a functional or administrative chain of command...God the
Father 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 the
Trinity

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

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

11
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 word


Trinity 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, which
suggests 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 simply
somewhat open an honest…

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

The bottom line is you are going to line up one way or the other with the
passage. 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 Bible
believing Christians do not see the importance of this Scripture?

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

Quote: Post 101 by OneBook 1-11-11

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 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.
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 entire
KJV?! It is beginning to be quite obvious that OneBook does not know what the
Trinity 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 the
Trinity

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 a
bit 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 I
do 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 a
bit uncomfortable with the word Trinity
Revision of Post 104 - Don't you love it when Avery assumes? For days, Avery has
told us what Crystal said, even though we can read with our own eyes! NOW, Avery
tells 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 we
discuss using the word "Trinity" nor not using it. Not one of us were uncomfortable
with the word "Trinity."
2) You don't need to use the word "Trinity" to give a statement of faith about it.

13
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 couldn’t 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 is
distinct in function.”

That sure sounds like 1 John 5:7, but then ya’ll don’t accept 1 John 5:7 as
Scripture.

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

[QUOTE=freesundayschoollessons;1916177]While we do prefer "Triunity," you


will find that we use "Trinity" more often than "Triunity" in our writings.[/QUOTE]
< Post 104 – FSSL

14
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 difference
between the doctrine of the Trinity or the doctrine of the
Tri-unity.
You can read the link Avery provided...
Then, why is it that I am being questioned and you never question Avery?

Post 109
FSSL, either I am missing something or you are flustered, but the only link I saw
in Steve’s Post 102 was the link I provided from your web page.

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

[QUOTE=freesundayschoollessons;1917581]Then, why is it that I am being


questioned and you never question Avery?[/QUOTE] < Post 107

If you can’t get straight who is writing what, how can you be trusted to tell me
what the Scriptures teach? If you can’t explain what you believe then how am I
suppose to learn?

15
Response to Avery
Post 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 heavenly
witnesses.

Give some background on 1 John 5:7-8a. Almost certainly added to the text later—
not original. In no Greek text prior to 11th century, and very few thereafter. No early
church father quotes it. None of the ancient version have it. It likely was first a
marginal note that a scribe added to the text.

On AV1611 FSSL gave his theory that if a Muslim attacks a Bible verse .. you should
not defend the verse as the pure word of God. Presumably this hands-off surrender
the Bible theory would extend to the resurrection account of the Lord Jesus in the
ending 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't
worry about using 1 John 5:7. You don't want to step into a textual debate with a
Muslim. 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 him
to ignore) is around here:

Alan England Brooke summarizes the Künstle theory on Priscillian


http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bib...ml#post1485279

16
Response to FSSL
Post 110 – 1-14-11
Post 112 – OneBook – 1 – 14 – 11

I am responding as a believer asking you why you are more interested in asking me
about my orthodoxy than you are Avery's heresy. I'm not the first person on this
board 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 find
no 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 statements
pertaining to the Trinity in the statement of belief... or are a very poor writer...

Post 112
One more time…Your link does not work. This again demonstrates what I said:
[QUOTE=OneBook;1917599]If you can’t get straight who is writing what, how
can you be trusted to tell me what the Scriptures teach? If you can’t explain what
you 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
Response to FSSL
Post 113 – 1-14-11
Post 114 – OneBook – 1 – 15 – 11

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

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

[QUOTE=OneBook;1917599]FSSL, either I am missing something or you are


flustered, but the only link I saw in Steve’s Post 102 was the link I provided from
your web page. [COLOR="Blue"][see my Post 101][/COLOR]...If you can’t get
straight who is writing what, how can you be trusted to tell me what the
Scriptures teach? If you can’t explain what you believe then how am I suppose
to learn?[/QUOTE]

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

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

18
Response to FSSL
Post 115 – 1-15-11
Post 116 – OneBook – 1 – 15 – 11

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 to
find things on my site.

You already said "I surfed your website and was surprise to find no 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."

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 and
decided to do my own research.

The more flustered you get the more careless you are, the below link does not
work. 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
Response to FSSL
Post 127 – 1-15-11
Post 128 – OneBook – 1 – 15 – 11

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 believe
de Jonge is right on. I have source material on this subject that will be added as
supportive footnotes. But, since it is not important to me right now... I will add
them later.

Why should I continue to engage you on this? You don't care what 1 John 5:7
means. 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 not
Scripture and Erasmus did not think it was either.

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

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

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

I know what 1 John 5:7 means because I can read. FSSL, no version of the
Bible 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
If I did not care what I John 5:7,8, etc. says I would not continue to engage you. I
do what I do in hopes that some who read these Post will be helped by seeing
that 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 FSSL
Post 131 – 1-15-11
Post 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 excuse
have 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 is
expendable. You are satisfied with someone believing 1 John 5:7 is Scripture while
that 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 135
I 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 the
very people who claim to believe in the Triunity reject the verse, as Scripture. An
individual (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 deny
the 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 in
the AV1611.

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

21
Response to FSSL
Post 136 – 1-15-11
Post 137 – OneBook – 1 – 16 – 11

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneBook


All I have seen Steve do is challenge definitions of the
Trinity.
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... Why
not start asking him for clarification?

Quote:

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


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

Quote:

Do I deny the doctrine of the Trinity or the Triunity, no I do


not.
Then you need to start defending it.

Quote:

Tell me FSSL will the only people in heaven be people who


believe just like you?
The people destined for heaven are those who believe in the Trinity among other
things. Those who deny the Trinity are destined to Hell... One cannot deny the
nature of God and say they believe in Him... You are foolish to support Avery on this
forum. For all you do is confirm his apparent destiny.

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

You were [URL="http://www.fundamentalforums.com/1886221-post158.html"]active


on this thread when he claimed that he is a nonTrinitarian[/URL]... Why not start
asking him for clarification?[/QUOTE]

22
No need to inquire at this point. Steve has no issue with I John 5:7 and 8, only you
and your “WE” followers.

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

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

Also it appears to me the “WE” team is doing it’s best to nail Steve and I’m simply
not interested in helping out Bible rejecters.

[QUOTE=freesundayschoollessons;1918479]The people destined for heaven are


those who believe in the Trinity among other things. Those who deny the Trinity
are destined to Hell...[/QUOTE]

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

23
Response to FSSL-Coverdale
Post 138/139 – 1-16-11
Post 154 – OneBook – 1 – 17 – 11

We are witnessing an utterly gospel deficient poster's attempt to have it both ways in
1 John 5:7. KJVOs commonly point to 1 John 5:7 as the clearest passage on the
Trinity, YET, OverLook is allowing the passage to be rendered meaningless. What
more do we need to prove that the KJVO is NOT interested in the
meanings/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 is
no gospel. Paul says: For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the
Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens
with 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 Trinity
and 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 Coverdale


Quote: 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 that
they do not need to explain what they understand the verse to mean and that they
can even hold a position that in effect denies and contradicts what the verse states
or means?

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

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

24
saved. Well, you did it again, Ephesians 2:8 is not what you quoted. Really
FSSL, you’ve got to do better.

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

Response to Coverdale
Post 159 – 1-17-11
Post 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 you
really know that he believes what the verse states?

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

1 John 5:7 names three persons: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. As
stated, it is clear that these three are distinct or separate from each other. This
verse shows that the Father is not the Word. The Father is not the Holy Ghost. The
Word is not the Father. The Word is not the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is not the
Father. 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 one
person or else they would not be a distinct three. Likewise, they are not three
manifestations of the same person since they are each distinct from each other. They
clearly are three as well as one ["these three are one"]. The words "these three are
one" would be a brief definition or explanation for the word Trinity, which affirms
that it is taught in the verse. If these three are not persons as is indicated by the
rest of the New Testament, what are these three? Do you really know what Steven
Avery claims these three are?

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

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

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

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

25
improper or invalid question based on incorrect assumptions or on false accusations
should not be answered.

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

Post 163

Rick, that is a slick post, based upon your definition of what is truth I have no
obligation to answer you. You like Duncan step up to the plate and just can’t
commit to what you lead your audience to believe.

26
Response to Coverdale
Post 170 – 1-17-11
Post 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 denies
that 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 Holy
Ghost] that are one God.

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 you
really know that he believes what the verse states?

If you do not care for the reference to "three somethings" leading up to the point
that 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 that
these three are since so far he opposes the understanding that these three persons
are one God?

Post
Simple

27
Response to CU
Post 179 – 1-18-11
Post 181 – OneBook – 1 – 18 – 11
Quote:

Originally Posted by OneBook


It is interesting you are so given too accusing me of being
a 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 you
make 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 the
record, 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 1
John 5:7-8. I have actually said... I have no problem with it being included. It
doesn't actually hurts anything to include the text. Do I think its part of the original
text? No.

Quote:

I John 5:10
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in
himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar;
because he believeth not the record that God gave of his
Son.
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 thou
not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest
thou then, Shew us the Father?

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

28
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in
earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities,
or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Post 181
If you believe not the record God gave of his Son, I John 5:7, you are in a state of
rejecting God’s witness, 1 John 5:8 and as John stated clearly in I John 5:10, you
make 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 with
it being included. [/QUOTE]

You used my quote [QUOTE=OneBook;1919684]I John 5:10 He that believeth


on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath
made him a liar; because he believeth not [COLOR="blue"]the record
[/COLOR]that God gave of his Son.[/QUOTE] and then attempted to connect five
verses [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 scriptures
you provided clearly are proof texts for the Word was God. However, they do not
demonstrate the Trinity.

29
Response to FSSL
Post 182 – 1-18-11
Post 184 – OneBook – 1 – 18 – 11
Isn't it obvious that OneBook is not able to find the Trinity? I wonder why he even
believes it? Perhaps he does not... Those who believe something, passionately, are
those who DEFEND it!

Post 184
Let’s see…John 10:30 I and my Father are one. Where did you find the Trinity in
this verse? Not only did I not find the Trinity in the verse, neither did you.

Response to CU
Post 183 – 1-18-11
Post 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 with
it being included. [/QUOTE]

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

30
Response to CU
Post 186 – 1-18-11
Post 187 – OneBook – 1 – 18 – 11

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 busy
trying to tell me what I think.
I never meet anyone that would claim the extended text of verse 7 and 8 are
demanded based on context. Are you making that claim?

CU’s 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 the
teaching of the text completely. In other words, the KJV rendering is TRUE. Meaning
I believe what the verses says to be TRUE. Yet, to say the words are original to the
hands of the writer? I can honestly say I do not know. There is not reference before
200 AD.

Post 187
Excellent. 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 to
answer, but at this point I’m not surprised at anything he says. You stated:
[QUOTE=christundivided;1740238]Yet, to say the words are original to the hands
of the writer? I can honestly say I do not know.[/QUOTE] Thank you for being
honest. So, the words might have been in the original?

31
I would attempt an answer to your question, but I’m unsure of what you mean by:
[QUOTE=christundivided;1919832]I never meet anyone that would claim the
extended 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, witness


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

Response to CU
Post 188 – 1-18-11
Post 191 – OneBook – 1 – 18 – 11
Quote:

Originally Posted by OneBook


Excellent. 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
to answer, but at this point I’m not surprised at anything
he 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 words
might have been in the original?
I don't believe there is any concrete evidence to support it as original. There are
many well respected men that include it because of its teaching alone. I do not do
the same but recognize their desire to do so.

Quote:

I would attempt an answer to your question, but I’m unsure


of what you mean by: Understanding a verse by context is
not something new.

I John 5:6 – water, blood, Spirit, witness


I John 5:8 – water, blood, Spirit, witness
I John 5:9 – witness
I John 5:10 – witness
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
What in the world are you talking about?[QUOTE=christundivided;1919874]So I
don'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 doesn’t 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 do
not know.[/QUOTE]Since the verse does exist in the AV1611 then just maybe it
did 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 are
demanded based on context.[/QUOTE]Because this statement is wrong.
[QUOTE=christundivided;1919874]Oh, so "witness" settles the need for verse 8
in 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 let’s just consider it for a moment in light of the following statement you
made:[QUOTE=christundivided;1740238]I John 5: 7-8 is a difficult verse to deal
with 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 be
TRUE. 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 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 and the blood; and
these three agree.

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

33
Response to CU
Post 196 – 1-19-11
Post 205– OneBook – 1 – 19 – 11
Quote:

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 doesn’t 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 verse


does exist in the AV1611 then just maybe it did exist in the
originals? 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 this


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

Quote:

Well let’s just consider it for a moment in light of the


following statement you made:You at least have enough
sense 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
and the blood; and these three agree.

Tell me, CU do they agree or are they one? In fact there is


no reference to the Trinity in I John 5:7,8 in the ESV, thank
you for asking.
I didn't say it showed the Trinity.. Here, lets review...

You said

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

I John 5:6 – water, blood, Spirit, witness


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

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 verse
9 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 the
subject in an attempt to control a conversation.

Post 205
Again, 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 do not know.[/QUOTE]Since the verse does
exist in the AV1611, then just maybe it did exist in the originals? That to me is
some 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 believe
I 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
of the writer? I can honestly say I do not know.[/QUOTE] I can honestly say I
believe I John 5:7 and 8 is as real as I John 1:1.

Response to CU
Post 207 – 1-19-11
Post 210– OneBook – 1 – 20 – 11

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 he
has problems with defining persons.

Shalom,
Thomas

PS
Based upon your recent response to me, I now believe you
are 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 Trinitarian


Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary
personality of Christ that unites the divine and human
natures
I'd bet that Avery will not accept this definition. I know you will accept it.. But I bet
Avery doesn't. Why don't you ask him for me. He has me on ignore. You can just
quote my post and he will answer it... At least that is what he says he does.

36
Post 210
Thank you for providing the link. I went to it and found it interesting. I surfed a
bit on the website, and found some interesting information. You might desire to
check out these links.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trinity
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/605512/Trinity
http://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 the
very 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 I
John 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 this
statement; I’m 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]I
responded 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
Response to CU
Post 214 – 1-20-11
Post 215 – OneBook – 1 – 20 – 11
Quote:

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 some
interesting 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 by
inspiration has given us I John 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 this
statement; I’m going to take a chance and say he will
agree with it.
He doesn't. He ignored it. Why do you think he ignored it?

Quote:

38
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 I responded in Post 191 and 205 with the below
and 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 the
KJV, doesn't establish the validity of their origins.

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

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 used
description of the "Godhead".

Quote:

FSSL, would you consider the Ethiopian eunuch saved? Yet,


Philip never asked him about his belief in the Trinity. Philip
simply said, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou
mayest. The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ
is the Son of God.
Do you believe I am saved Onebook? I have openly confessed Jesus Christ as the
Son of God and Lord of my life. Yet, doctrinally we differ in our beliefs. We differ so
much in our beliefs you probably question whether I am "saved" or not. I can tell you
that 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 be
because he is KJVO?

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

This was not designed to be a trick statement on my part. It is not a statement


leading to a confession of the Trinity.[QUOTE=OneBook;1921121]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 I
John 5:7 telling us these three in heaven bear record and these three are one.
How difficult is that too understand.[/QUOTE]

39
You really would have been wise to have not brought up the ESV. You are
aware 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 already
confessed[QUOTE=christundivided;1740238]Yet, to say the words are original to
the 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 word
witness.

[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 10…you, CU reject the record that
God gave of his Son back in verse 7…the 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 I
or 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 have


openly 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 the
beloved and yet reject me?...[/QUOTE]

40
Response to FSSL
Post 216 – 1-20-11
Post 221 – OneBook – 1 – 21 – 11
Quote:

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 Corinthians


in I Corinthians and declared to them the gospel (1) Christ
died for our sins (2) Christ was buried and (3) Christ rose
again the third day. All this was done according to the
scriptures. Yes, I believe this would make Steve a saved
man.
Then all of the demons and Satan are believers because they know these things to
be true.

Post 221
Let’s see:
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that
believeth 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. And
he 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, and
thy house.

If they denied the Trinity, would they be believers? You can not deny what is not
an issue and you will not find in the Scriptures where it was ever an issue. The
answer 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
CU used.) then we only need look at I John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus
is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him
also 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 and
Satan are Christ rejecting believers, I John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth
not 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 it
in 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.

Response to CU
Post 240 – 1-21-11
Post 241 – OneBook – 1 – 22 – 11
Quote:

Originally Posted by OneBook


Don't you just love John 5:47 But if ye believe not his
writings, how shall ye believe my words? Do you have his
words?
Sure.

Quote:

OneBook > Great verse did you miss the statement ..We
speak that we do know. How does that balance against
your statement
I didn't miss it at all....
To say YOU know something is NOT the same as the Godhead saying THEY knew
something.

Quote:

John 3:11 great verse and it demonstrates the translators


of the AV1611 knew the difference between testify and
witness
and that would be?????

Before you answer. You should realize that the Greek source for "testify" in John
3:11 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
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 THEY
knew something.[/QUOTE]You honestly
stated[QUOTE=christundivided;1740238]Yet, to say the words are original to the
hands of the writer? I can honestly say I do not know.[/QUOTE] you did not
know; the Holy Spirit bore record in I John 5:7 (AV1611) to it’s existence,
something neither you or the ESV can claim.

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 is interesting the ESV used both words
in 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 hold
the answer?
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a
murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no
truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and
the father of it.

43
Response to CU
Post 242 – 1-23-11
Post 248 – OneBook – 1 – 24 – 11
Quote:

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 is
interesting 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 used
interchangeably for a single Greek source word. I gave you 2 examples and there are
over 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 father
ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and
abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.
When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a
liar, and the father of it.
LOL. It must be the KJV that's destroying the "witness".. I mean "witness is not in
verse 7 of the KJV.

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

44
Post 248 – OneBook
It seems I need to re-post some of what I wrote
earlier[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 the
verse, 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 interesting
to me verse 10…you, CU reject the record that God gave of his Son back in verse 7…the
Word is the Son![/QUOTE]

If you want to see what you stated in the following


quote[QUOTE=christundivided;1923258]The words are used interchangeably for a
single Greek source word.[/QUOTE] done correctly in the AV1611 then read I John
5:9. 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, and
you 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
Response to CU
Post 249 – 1-27-11
Post 250 – OneBook – 1 – 28 – 11
Quote:

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 quote


done correctly in the AV1611 then read I John 5:9.
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, 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" in
the KJV. Here... let me remind you...

Quote:

I would attempt an answer to your question, but I’m unsure


of what you mean by: Understanding a verse by context is
not something new.

I John 5:6 – water, blood, Spirit, witness


I John 5:8 – water, blood, Spirit, witness
I 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
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.
Funny. You set aside the use of testify and witness interchangeably in the KJV. I
wonder 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 verse
seven is simple, if only one could read. In providing a quote I made, you failed to
demonstrate where in that quote I made reference to verse seven.

Let’s revisit my Post 181[QUOTE=OneBook;1919794]CU, if you believe not the


record God gave of his Son, I John 5:7, you are in a state of rejecting God’s
witness, 1 John 5:8 and as John stated clearly in I John 5:10, you make God a
liar.[/QUOTE] You clearly do not believe the record as given in I John 5:7 in the
AV1611 based upon this comment you
made[QUOTE=christundivided;1740238]Yet, to say the words are original to the
hands of the writer? I can honestly say I do not know.[/QUOTE] You did notice in
I John 5:10 that John speaks of both the witness and the record.

47
Response to CU
Post 256 – 1-27-11

Post 257 – OneBook – 1 – 28 – 11

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneBook


CU, I did mention verse 7 and I did not ignore it. You are
avoiding your lack of knowledge concerning the difference
between 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 I
mentioned.

2. Your post of the wiki article was an attempt at addressing "testify" without any
specifics. You did not post a definition for "testify" because the definition of testify
includes "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
The reason verse 7 does not say witness is because it says record, wasn’t that
simple? In the other verses (I John 5:6,8,9 and 10) it states witness, isn’t that
also 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 give
testimony and yet a witness can witness/testify to something. Typically in a trial
a 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" 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 I mentioned.[/quote]

Response to CU
Post 2 – 1-2-11

Post 2 – OneBook – 1 – 2 – 11

49