Posted by Richard Smit on June 05, 2006 at 14:25:24:
In Reply to: Revelation 13 [explained posted by cpnel on May 28, 2006 at 11:55:12:
I have spent a bit of time, giving some attention, to what you have written.
What you have to say is “not something new” that I have not come across or seen before.
In actual fact, about 25 years ago, I was a member of a “Christian” Church that had more or less the same to say about “the whole of Christiandom” – mainly nothing good.
The only ones not deceived - were them, and me, provided I adhered to what they taught and followed their beliefs. You could say that they came pretty close to being, what some would call a cult, with Christian overtones.
Where are they to-day?
They no longer exist. The whole Church disbanded. I wasted years of my life trying to fathom out what happened! All in the name of “their” Christianity
What can we “actually” (real life) say about Christians. They were first called Christians in the book of Acts just a few years after the death of Jesus Christ and until today, some two thousand years later, they are still called Christians and they are still around.
Horribly scattered, I must sadly admit, and “divided by sin” throughout many centuries, God our most loving and forgiving Father, still draws close and calls each and every one of us (sinners), to seek Him, to know Him and to love Him with all our strength.
I can “see” that you are serious and passionate about what you believe. Certainly it is not my responsibility to attempt to change what you believe and have written or the manner in which you communicate it to others. I’m sure you already know, that only you and God together, can do that.
The same principle however, applies to every human being that has ever lived on earth.
Therefore, for me, what you have written, is just “another (part) of many interpretations” of the book “Revelation”.
And its not “new” – I’ve seen it before.
As far as Bible translations go let me say the following:
Most Christians are aware of the translation problems and ”so called errors” in present day Bibles. I had a “huge battle” (and I mean huge) with this for many years myself. Today I accept the KJV “together” with the NIV, - translated versions - as the closest to the original versions I’ll ever get. There are “some” other translated versions that I also read, mainly for “keeping up to date” with modern day versions of the Bible. And I must admit that I do not have a major problem with them.
The basic “Gospel” message (The Good News) is the same. There are some however that I totally reject - for very specific reasons but I’ll leave this for another day.
As far as the Trinity is concerned let me say the following:
“Let us not make the error of confusing the “origin” of a doctrine with its later “formulation”. Everything has a “beginning” and an “end” and it is for this reason that the people of God have always striven to deepen their understanding of what God has revealed.
Some Unitarians claim that the Trinity was not developed until the Council of Nice in 325 AD. Others claim - not until The Council of Constantinople in 381 AD or later with the Athanasian creed.
Some anti-Trinitarians argue that the doctrine was only invented when the word “Trinity” was first used.
Some, as you have written, say that satan created the Trinity in 325 AD as a schizophrenic being - one being impersonating, at times the Father, at times the Son, and at times the Spirit.
For me, this is absurd and ludicrous.
What is forgotten is one irrefutable fact. In order for the doctrine of the Trinity to be defined and defended against “heretics” (past and present), who were attacking the doctrine, it had to already exist. They were objecting and challenging something that the Christian Church (Christians) already believed from the very beginning, although not fully formulated and defined as it is today. There was no need for it in the early days, as a careful reading of the “New” Testament proves.
I believe the Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God. Of one substance. But three separate and identifiable “persons”.
Why do I believe this? This is exactly what I find in the “New Testament”.
Ephesians 1: 2-14 is just one of numerous and many verses that convinces me.
But you say, we are deceived, by incorrect and corrupt Bible translations!
Are you saying that not one Bible we have today is correct?
Why then do you quote verses from “a Bible” (a more correct version-your words) that has the same words and/or a similar meaning that I have in the Bibles I use?
Please, let me know, which Bible you use. I’d like to check it out, in “minute” detail.
Who translated it, what are their credentials, who published it, when was it translated, and from which ancient manuscripts was it translated. What’s the big secret?
If I could offer you my friendship, and because of my own very unpleasant experiences over many years in the past, seeking the truth, then as a friend, I would caution and counsel you, to “take the greatest care”, for your own sake, in following what appears to me, in reality, to be a strange philosophy with Christian overtones.
But is this not what you did, when you first “warned” Dr. Jansen of the consequences she and her readers may have to face.
Have you not obtained your information and historical facts from what others have written in their books. Have you not given your or their interpretation of these historical facts. How do you know that the facts you supply and your interpretations of these are correct. Do you have some special insight.
Personally, I don’t think so.
You do exactly what “you accuse” Dr Janson of doing. And the sad thing is, that you cannot “see” it.
Why do you tell us “only to refer to scripture” but you yourself don’t.
Why in fact, would I or anyone else for that matter, want to believe or support anything, you have to say.
And so we could go on – forever – its happened before, many times, and I’m quite sure it will happen again.
Christians disagreeing, bickering and fighting with each other (the dragon perhaps !).
To serve what and who’s purpose?
Unless you are prepared to say that you are not a Christian – or as you define a Christian (Christianity) to be - as “one of the seven religion heads of the dragon because it looks like a lamb but is in fact the dragons voice” …. and ….. “the dragon is satan”.
Actually, the bottom line, the way I understand it, you are saying that a Christian is satan.
Christians and Christianity can’t be separated.
I don’t know where you get this nonsense from and in any case it is only your (or the organization you follow) interpretation of what Christianity (a Christian) is.
Just be “absolutely honest with yourself” and ask yourself one question.
Did you get what you have said and written, the interpretation, from God or from men.
Many Christians, I believe, are afraid to stand up and defend what they believe. Many do not want to become involved in various different debates and arguments that have been raging and going on for 2 000 years. Most of these arguments have led to religious wars and multiple deaths (thousands) in the past. So, it’s not surprising!
I wonder where these arguments will lead us to - in this so called modern age!
Thanks, but no thanks.
I’ll stick to what I have come to believe – the very hard way – over many years.
And lastly, I’m not afraid to defend what I believe.