Sunday 26 July 2015

False Witnessing: What is it?

We all know about lying, a deliberate false statement or the withholding of information at a time when it should be given, but how many of us have really stopped to think about another aspect of lies and deception? Namely, the subject of baring false witness against our neighbour.

Here are a few texts for us to dive into:

Exodus 20:16 You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

Exodus 23:1 Do not spread false reports. Do not help a guilty person by being a malicious witness.

Exodus 23:7 Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.

Leviticus 19:11 Do not steal. "'Do not lie. "'Do not deceive one another.

A very important thing to note especially in the context of Exodus 23, we see TWO charges to the Israelites, Don't spread a false report and have nothing to do with a false charge.

How lightly do we make an accusation towards someone, be they a heretic, an unbeliever or even a fellow believer? Those who are in Christ must not partake in spreading either a rumour, a lie or even a half truth about an individual.

Too many times have we all engaged in a false charge, but what takes courage is humility in taking it back and apologizing to the individual. Any charge is serious and in order for us to be truth seekers, any charge we make against a man must be backed up with evidence, otherwise we could end up believing any old "truth" that is spouted.

While Christians are not under the TANAKH and that they needn't be put to death, there are the consequences of our actions leading to us being discredited and needing to rebuild the trust that has ultimately been destroyed. A building that has to be rebuilt may take time to rebuild, but in the end, the result is a strong building again, so it is with building trust, it's rebuilding the bridge to put it a certain way.

A false charge can lead to damaging an individuals reputation while at the same time build up a deceiver who rightly DESERVES to have their reputation dragged through the mud.

I bet you can guess how YHWH feels about that?
Proverbs 17:15 Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent-- the LORD detests them both.

This great piece of wisdom in particular is indeed true. If you lie about an innocent party or individual, you are truly evil and the same is true if you let a guilty person off the hook. God hates the act of false witness as much as any lie and even the following command DEMANDS truth from the individuals in question:

Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

Now does this mean you can establish a lie against someone? No, because as we know God hates false witness and this context cannot be used as a means to establish ANY and ALL statements, the command in question pertains to a statement BUILT on truth itself.

Look at also this in Isaiah 5:

Isaiah 5:21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
    and shrewd in their own sight!
22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine,
    and valiant men in mixing strong drink,
23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe,
    and deprive the innocent of his right!
24 Therefore, as the tongue of fire devours the stubble,
    and as dry grass sinks down in the flame,
so their root will be as rottenness,
    and their blossom go up like dust;
for they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts,
    and have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.

What do we have here? In Isaiah 5 we have woes being pronounced on the people of Israel and those who acquit the guilty and depriving the innocent of having true justice given. I know it's referring to a court case but acquitting the guilty is a very grave thing to do regardless of where it is done.

Here is another context:
Deuteronomy 19:15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil[c] from your midst. 20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

There is a principle here that is of value to Christians today and it ultimately boils down to investigating a witness makes and if it is a false one, he is to be dealt with accordingly, not in the sense of a Hebrew court, but discipline of the brethren in Christ. The person's claims are NOT to be taken at face value, but need to be looked into and if the claims are false, the person who made the false claim needs to seriously repent and apologise to the individual for the lie and slander that they have spread.

Let this be a warning to us all and may God give us humility to admit our wrong doings.

Answering Judaism.

Wednesday 15 July 2015

Compendium of rumours refuted

In light of a recent text sent to me by xgamer (surprise surprise), I have decided to put the lies to rest and make the refutations easy to find, I'll simply place the following into one article for you to find. Check the following links:

Here is what xgamer sent to me:
"Xgamer_Julian: may be you should stop harrassing me and DK's rooms under ur bobo557 name 
Xgamer_Julian: Answering_judaism came n there last night cussing me, sam shamoun, and dk out

Seriously xgamer, you are not fooling anyone, you are not doing yourself a favour. Quit embarrassing yourself.

Answering Judaism.

FYI. I don't care what you think of my response to cbd94, I let the audience judge our words:
(The bobo557 was a typo on the part of cbd94 and he did correct the others, but we'll put that aside.)

Tuesday 14 July 2015

Does the word Catholic lead to Rome? Response to cbd94

What does the word Catholic mean? Why don't we find out?

"117. Petilianus said: "If you wretched men claim for yourselves a seat, as we said before, you assuredly have that one of which the prophet and psalmist David speaks as being the seat of the scornful. [2134] For to you it is rightly left, seeing tha118. Augustin answered: Here again you do not see that this is no kind of argument, but empty abuse. For this is what I said a little while ago, You utter the words of the law, but take no heed against whom you utter them; just as the devil uttered the words of the law, but failed to perceive to whom he uttered them. He wished to thrust down our Head, who was presently to ascend on high; but you wish to reduce to a small fraction the body of that same Head which is dispersed throughout the entire world. Certainly you yourself said a little time before that we know the law, and speak in legal terms, but blush in our deeds. Thus much indeed you say without a proof of anything; but even though you were to prove it of some men, you would not be entitled to assert it of these others. However, if all men throughout all the world were of the character which you most vainly charge them with, what has the chair done to you of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and which Anastasius fills to-day; or the chair of the Church of Jerusalem, in which James once sat, and in which John sits today, with which we are united in catholic unity, and from which you have severed yourselves by your mad fury? Why do you call the apostolic chair a seat of the scornful? If it is on account of the men whom you believe to use the words of the law without performing it, do you find that our Lord Jesus Christ was moved by the Pharisees, of whom He says, "They say, and do not," to do any despite to the seat in which they sat? Did He not commend the seat of Moses, and maintain the honor of the seat, while He convicted those that sat in it? For He says, "They sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." [2135] If you were to think of these things, you would not, on account of men whom you calumniate, do despite to the apostolic seat, in which you have no share. But what else is conduct like yours but ignorance of what to say, combined with want of power to abstain from evil-speaking?"

"-- 90. Petilianus said: "If you declare that you hold the Catholic Church, the word catholic' is merely the Greek equivalent for entire or whole. But it is clear that you are not in the whole, because you have gone aside into the part."
91. Augustin answered: I too indeed have attained to a very slight knowledge of the Greek language, scarcely to be called knowledge at all, yet I am not shameless in saying that I know that holon means not "one," but "the whole;" and that kath' holon means "according to the whole:" whence the Catholic Church received its name, according to the saying of the Lord, "It is not for you to know the times, which the Father hath put in His own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in Judea, and in Samaria, and even in the whole earth." [2101] Here you have the origin of the name "Catholic." But you are so bent upon running with your eyes shut against the mountain which grew out of a small stone, according to the prophecy of Daniel, and filled the whole earth, [2102] that you actually tell us that we have gone aside into a part, and are not in the whole among those whose communion is spread throughout the whole earth. But just in the same way as, supposing you were to say that I was Petilianus, I should not be able to find any method of refuting you unless I were to laugh at you as being in jest, or mourn over you as being mad, so in the present case I see that I have no other choice but this; and since I do not believe that you are in jest, you see what alternative remains."

Looking at the references at a first glance, you would think that they somehow a reference to the Roman Catholic Church. However, such is folly and anachronistic.

Granted even if the word Catholic did not mean whole, but meant on the whole, that does nothing to show that Romanism even existed in the time of Augustine or was even the early church. It is nothing but empty words.

I'll comment on a few things that cbd94 said in an article response to me:

"Even today the heretics use this argument, belittling the Catholic Church to a mere Greek phrase. St. Augustine refutes this evil attempt to justify separation from the One Church of Christ by accurately defining what the Catholic Church is."
The true church of Jesus Christ are the individuals who believe and trust in him, it is NOT an institution. God knows who his people are and will bring them out of the false churches to worship him.

To suggest that the word "Catholic" automatically refers to the Roman Church which is run by the papacy, is quite frankly nonsense. I don't see how the word Catholic leads to this conclusion.

The context in which cbd94 uttered his statement links to the comments made by Augustine made in the second quotation above. Go to the article here for the context of cbd's words:

"Any so-called church that is not built upon The Lord, in vain do it's people build. To those who join a Church other than the Catholic Church"
But what is the Catholic Church, The true church collectively? or the Roman Catholic Church which did not exist in the time of Augustine and those before him.

"St. Augustine gives another criteria for a Church to be "Catholic", that is, it must have a permanent union to apostolic seat, even if someone evil or bad sits upon it. Notice how St. Augustine refers to Anastasius as sitting upon the Chair of Peter. Some may say that by also referring to the Seat of James, in Jerusalem, that St. Augustine is denying the preeminent nature of the Seat of Peter, but this is refuted by St. Augustine himself"

What is Augustine's position on what Primacy is? William Webster makes the following observation:
"According to Augustine the Apostles are equal in all respects. Each receives the authority of the keys, not Peter alone. But some object, doesn’t Augustine accord a primacy to the apostle Peter? Does he not call Peter the first of the apostles, holding the chief place in the Apostleship? Don’t such statements prove papal primacy? While it is true that Augustine has some very exalted things to say about Peter, as do many of the fathers, it does not follow that either he or they held to the Roman Catholic view of papal primacy. This is because their comments apply to Peter alone. They have absolutely nothing to do with the bishops of Rome. How do we know this? Because Augustine and the fathers do not make that application in their comments. They do not state that their descriptions of Peter apply to the bishops of Rome. The common mistake made by Roman Catholic apologists is the assumption that because some of the fathers make certain comments about Peter—for example, that he is chief of the apostles or head of the apostolic choir—that they also have in mind the bishop of Rome in an exclusive sense. But they do not state this in their writings. This is a preconceived theology that is read into their writings. Did they view the bishops of Rome as being successors of Peter? Yes. Did they view the bishops of Rome as being the exclusive successors of Peter? No. In the view of Augustine and the early fathers all the bishops of the Church in the East and West were the successors of Peter. They all possess the chair of Peter. So when they speak in exalted terms about Peter they do not apply those terms to the bishops of Rome. Therefore, when a father refers to Peter as the rock, the coryphaeus, the first of the disciples, or something similar, this does not mean that he is expressing agreement with the current Roman Catholic interpretation.


"Augustine states that Peter is the first and head of the apostles and that he holds a primacy. However he does not interpret that primacy in a Roman Catholic sense. He believes that Peter’s primacy is figurative in that he represents the universal Church. Again, he explicitly states that Christ did not build his Church upon a man but on Peter’s confession of faith. Peter is built on Christ the rock and as a figurative representative of the Church he shows how each believer is built on Christ. In Augustine’s view, Peter holds a primacy or preeminence, but none of this applies to him in a jurisdictional sense, because he says that ‘Christ did not build his Church upon a man.’ We can not get a clearer illustration that the fathers did indeed separate Peter’s confession of faith from Peter’s person. In commenting on one of Augustine’s references to Peter and the rock, John Rotelle, the editor of the Roman Catholic series on the Sermons of Augustine, makes these observations:
‘There was Peter, and he hadn’t yet been confirmed in the rock’: That is, in Christ, as participating in his ‘rockiness’ by faith. It does not mean confirmed as the rock, because Augustine never thinks of Peter as the rock. Jesus, after all, did not in fact call him the rock...but ‘Rocky.’ The rock on which he would build his Church was, for Augustine, both Christ himself and Peter’s faith, representing the faith of the Church (emphasis mine) (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993), Sermons, Sermon 265D.6, p. 258-259, n. 9)
Augustine does not endorse the Roman Catholic interpretation. Again and again he states that the rock is Christ, not Peter. Augustine claims no exclusive Petrine succession in the Roman bishops and no papal office.

Also, if someone is evil and NOT righteous in the sight of Christ, we are to flee from such individuals. If the Popes truly sat in the apostolic seat of Peter, we would expect them to be holy men. They may not be perfect, but they at least attempt by God's grace to live a holy life. The fact of the matter is, the Popes have NOT lived righteous lives and have lived evil, wicked and deplorable lives, some in recent years even endorsing religions of the pagans, including the Muslims.

Keith Thompson has commented on the subject of the evil popes throughout history and this is the article he wrote:

Before anyone shouts "WHAT ABOUT THE SINS DONE BY PROTESTANTS?" Let me say, any Protestant in history should not of committed any kind of sin and yes any Catholic killing would of been wrong too. Once again, a Christian who is holy may not be perfect, but they by God's grace will repent should they fall into sin.

As Thompson notes in his closing statement in the article (bold emphasis mine):
"There are many other atrocities one could highlight (including the inquisitions). Suffice it to say, this track-record of unspeakable abominations coming out of Romanism era after era demonstrates very clearly that this system is not the fulfillment of God’s salvation plan on the earth. Romanism is not the arbiter of God’s kingdom. She is not God’s holy bride, the true seed of Abraham who is given the role of spreading the gospel to the lost in a Christian manner. Although no one expects God’s people to always be one-hundred percent perfect all the time, this constant track-record of abominations and atrocities in Catholic history century after century prove that this type of thing is commonplace in papalism. This system resembles a satanic cult more than it does the fulfillment of God’s plan on the earth. It is because Roman Catholicism, far from representing God and being God’s sanctified bride, is actually Satan’s greatest counterfeit, an apostate church which, as a church, had its lampstand removed long ago."

Similar statement to mine above, No one is saying a Christian is going to be perfect, but someone who has a constant track record of doing evil with no repentance, one MUST call into question their faith. The article above gives every reason to question Rome and it's popes. No, Christians are not to submit to the evil demands they give.

Don't misunderstand me, Protestants do believe in submission to elders in their churches, but not blind submission.

Scroll down to the section in John MacArthur's article on elders where it says "What is the elder's relation to the congregation?" for more information:

But the case and point, there is not a shred of evidence that points us to submitting to the papacy, not even Matthew 23 is a counter example. Let's take a look:

"23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12
For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."

Jesus is anathematizing the Pharisees for their wickedness and hypocrisy. He tells the disciples to obey them but not emulate them. However, the text itself is NOT a proof text for Christians to obey false teachers, such as the Pope, Since the very same Jesus says to us "Beware of false teachers". The Pope is NOT above examination and when we do examine him, he fails the test of being a true teacher.

Moving on:

"So to be Catholic, a Church must be:

1. A Communion of Churches, united in doctrine, spread throughout the world

2. Apostolic, with a line of succession back to the Apostles
3. Respectful to the authority of the Chair of Peter specifically, and the Bishops in general.

Anybody who builds a "Church" that does not abide by these three concepts, "In vain do its builders build". They cannot be called Christians, in any sense. So when bobo557 writes, "God didn't decree anything about the Roman Catholic Church being the instrument of salvation," that is false. There is no Church outside the Catholic Church, and outside the Catholic Church nobody can be saved."

The bobo557 was a typo on the part of cbd94 and he did correct the others, but we'll put that aside.

The burden of proof is on cbd94 to show that his church goes back to the apostles themselves and to be honest, looking at the New Testament as historical documents, we do NOT have any of the tenants of Romanism at all. No belief in the seat of Peter.

Show me biblically speaking (either explicitly or implicitly, both are fine) where the Chair of Peter is required of Christians.

A succession, namely the apostolic line would be those who have the true teachings of the apostles, Something which Rome does not have by virtue of the fact that it has added countless false teachings over the years, Thus my point that "God didn't decree anything about the Roman Catholic Church being the instrument of salvation", stands.

I won't go into detail here, I'll just simply link to previous papers that I have written:

"Bobo577 says he plans to leave the Anglican "church". I pray that he does. The Anglican "church" was founded by a medieval king who separated from the Catholic Church in order to get a divorce. In other words, he was willing to cut not only himself, but all of his fellow countrymen, off from salvation so he could commit adultery. Nobody should be a member of such a "church". I hope that Bobo577 takes this time in transition from the Anglican "church" to find out more about the Catholic Church. I pray that he will become a Christian and partake in the gift of God, that is, His Church. I would like to extend an official invitation to bobo577 to join the Catholic Church."

I'll pass on the invitation to "join the Catholic Church", because I already have Jesus Christ, He is absent from Rome and the gates of hell HAVE overcome the Roman Catholic Church and have done so for many years. So I'll stick to Jesus who is the head of the church, not the Pope.

As for the history of Anglicanism, Go here:
One of the points in the article, is this:
"There is a public perception, especially in the United States, that Henry VIII created the Anglican church in anger over the Pope's refusal to grant his divorce, but the historical record indicates that Henry spent most of his reign challenging the authority of Rome, and that the divorce issue was just one of a series of acts that collectively split the English church from the Roman church in much the same way that the Orthodox church had split off five hundred years before."

This is isn't to defend Henry the VIII's issue on divorce, but hopefully it will bring to light certain issues regarding him. I would suggest cbd94 actually carefully looks into the issue before rashly making claims.

Answering Judaism.

PS. While not relevant to the article, this is just a repeated point about the bobo557 nic:

This is to ensure that people do NOT abuse cbd's typo.

17th of July 2015. See the following article with respect to the subject of elders, I remembered that this article came to mind today:

Wednesday 8 July 2015

The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit: A response to Gomerozdubar

Five questions to address, let's begin.
1:What is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit according to Evangel?
To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is when you are so evil, you attack the Spirit of God and attribute the works of the devil to it. See the following verses: Mark 3:28-30, Matthew 12:31-32, Luke 12:10.

2:Can a believer or non-believer blaspheme the Holy Spirit today? 
A believer in Jesus cannot do this, If they could, they would have no remorse or fear. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit can happen today, although it is not common and only an unbeliever is capable of this or an apostate from the faith.

3:Is blasphemy against the Holy spirit an eternal sin without forgiveness?
It's eternal, because the one who commits it, cuts themselves off from the very entity that Jesus sends to the believer to regenerate them.

4:Who will forgive blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?
No one, because it is an unforgivable sin.

5:If guilty of eternal sin, what hope can be offered those eternally damned without forgiveness?
If the person believes that they have committed blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, it's a 100% chance that it hasn't happened. Those who have attacked the Holy Spirit and have no fear, are the ones who have no hope of salvation.

Answering Judaism.

Tuesday 7 July 2015

A response to Doris Letting on the Trinity 2

The problem with that is that YHWH is conclusively identified as ALONE being the Father in SEVERAL passages and verses. Hebrews 1:1-2, clear.cut and straightforward with no room for misinterpretation, also  tells us that it was the Father ALONE speaking throughout the OT, and NOT the son or some triune fantasy; and the God of the OT, YHWH, makes it more than clear the He alone is the Most High God and there is no other elohim next to HIm: "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his SERVANT Jesus." Acts 3:13

And no, of course homoousios is not found in the Bible, trinitarian terminology most definitely can not be found in the Bible, but neither can the philosophy or the concept. 

The articles I posted refute your claim that the Trinity isn't in the Bible. Also:
Though the article here doesn't mention Hebrews 1, it comments on the various passages utilized in the chapter, the three categories laid out, the supremacy, deity and messiahship of Christ.

Acts 3:13 itself goes on to refute you: "13 The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. 14 You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. 15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. 16 By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has completely healed him, as you can all see."

I know not of any prophet who himself is called the author of life, Only God is called that. We can see here the Father, raised the son from the dead, glorifying him. Jesus is referred to in this context as the author of life, a reference to Jesus bringing all things into existence. So much for using the context against me. I don't deny that the contexts of the Old Testament make it clear that YHWH alone is God, Trinitarians agree with that statement every step of the way, so you bringing those texts to the table does no damage to the Trinity. I am still waiting for a response to the comment by James White that I raised. 
God is spirit (John 4:24), but never once does the Bible delve into the ontological nature or substance/essence of God, yet this is the very foundation of trinitarian doctrine. Please, show me even one single verse even remotely hinting about the divine "God-sustance". You can do it trinitarian style, with partial verses taken out of context and glued together with other passages. You still can't find it! Because it is not there. And since  trinitarian doctrine states that the very nature of their alleged oneness is in substance, that is how Deu. 6:4 have to be defined from a trinitarian perspective.
John 4:24 is a reference to who the true followers of Jesus are, namely those who worship in spirit and in truth. The Bible shows us who God is, namely who he is, whether he is Trinitarian or not (I contend he is the former.). 

I'm a monotheist, you're not. You pay lipservice to the concept. I believe in one God. You believe in three. Oh, sorry, I forgot to take the necessary semantic detour. You believe in "three "person" that are each fully God". (Yeah, that solves the problem. Wonder if God will for for it when that day comes?) If trinitarianism really is monotheism (which it isn't) why did trinitarian apologists feel he need to invent the term "trinitarian monotheism"?
Correction, I am a monotheist. Don't give me this rubbish that of "I forgot to take the necessary semantic detour". One God, Three divine persons, one being, One YHWH, That's the Trinity, is NOT that hard. Using Trinitarian Monotheism AND Unitarian Monotheism is just another way of distinguishing between the two monotheism types.

Getting back to Deuteronomy 6:4 above, A disagreement I have with my fellow Trinitarians is this, The Shema DOES NOT talk about Trinitarianism OR Unitarianism, God's nature is NEVER addressed in the Shema, it is addressing how many gods exist. Nevertheless, The Trinity can be asserted based on the biblical context. It is the Unitarian position that must establish itself by ripping verses out of context.

Triad: "a group of three, especially of three closely related persons or things"
Triad teaches there are THREE Gods, Trinity teaches ONE God. Try again Doris.  
According to trinitarian doctrine the holy spirit is God, the son is God, the Father is God. They are all fully God in their own capacity, they're not manifestations of the same person (modalism), they are distinct "persons" (they're only God when you don't count them of put them in a numerical context), and they don't constitute one God as a whole (partialism). That's the literal definition of polytheism.
Polytheism teaches there are multiple Gods, the Trinity does not. While i'll give you credit for making clear they are persons, not manifestations, as we agree modalism is heresy, That still doesn't excuse you of misrepresenting the Trinity and claiming it's polytheistic.

The trinitarian instinct to deny they're polytheists is an admission of guilt and you don't even get it. Would would you even deny it if you don't ackowledge the Bible teaches a God that is numerically one. 

I need not repeat myself on the Shema. Can you show me where God is taught to be numerically one?

"Perhaps it is you who are worshiping an idol Doris" That's an interesting allegation since I have the exact same God as Jesus; the Father ALONE. Your God is not the Father ALONE. So how are you following Jesus now?

I am still waiting for a proper response to the subject of the worship of Jesus in the papers. True Christians have "the same God as Jesus" as you put it, which is the Father. However, as pointed out in my papers, especially the article response to droptozro, Because Jesus is a man, he would relate to the Father as his God, which he does numerous times. But also made claims about himself which only God is able to claim. The Father said "This is my son, listen to him". and considering the fact Jesus made claims about himself that NO man can claim, It tells you that he is YHWH God, though is not the Father. So yes I am following Jesus and I extend that invitation to you to repent of your heresy.

So why do you have a God next to YHWH? Don't you know that's a crime? ANd you're misrepresenting His name too, yet another violation. And angel means messenger. So your argument is that the messenger is not a  messenger... well, as you see it holds no water.

No, One person (God the Son), Is next to another (God the Father). No violation or sin there. 
Let me explain:
"Are you telling me, that the angel is a mere representative and is not God? I did say earlier that context determines if the angel is God or not and that speaking on behalf of God, is not what makes the angel God, that is important. We need to be careful when we look at the nature of the angel of the LORD. It is important to remember that Angel doesn't mean necessarily a created divine entity, Angel comes from angelos which means messenger and the Hebrew for messenger is malak."

I do NOT deny that Angel means messenger, my point is that the particular messenger in the Old Testament, in my articles on the angel of YHWH, that there is one particular angel who is ontologically God:

Answering Judaism.

A response to Doris Letting on the Trinity

 The old compound unity lie. Echad means one and funcion the same way the word 'one' does in English. Nothing in the context suggest a unity of plurality.  And Deuteronomy 6:4 is NOT the only verse asserting the oneness of the Most High God, it's stressed like no other principle in the Bible. And the numerical context,  the supremacy of the Most High and the exclusion of other supposed deities, makes it utterly clear beyond doubt in several verses: the onenes of God has NOTHING to do with one in 'unity' or 'agreement' (or substance) between pluralities, but ONE singular, ONE-PERSON God that alone is the Most High.

"I am YHWH, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God." Isaiah 45:5

Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God." Isaiah 45:14

My argument was not Echad proves the Trinity in the Shema, my argument is that Echad CAN be plural or singular based on the context of a passage. Furthermore, No reference where it says "I am God, there is no other", preaches against the Trinity or assert there is only one God. For that matter as James White pointed out:
"Every single time, that the context does not demand that we see a particular individual operating differently than the others, would be a reference to the Triune God. So any time where God's general activities, God's general attributes or in reference, can be referred to the entire Godhead acting in unity."

This statement from White applies to ALL the contexts of the Old Testament that are similar to Isaiah 45:5 and 45:14. The argument I am making is that NONE of the texts cited in your comments talk about the nature of God, they only have YHWH proclaiming there are no other Gods but he.

The problem with the trinitarian oneness however (one probelm rather, there are maaany problems) is that according to trinitarian doctrine and dogma they are one in substance/essence, homoousios, a concept adopted from Neoplatonism. The problem with that i that the Bible NEVER, not even once, delve into the ontological nature and substance/essence of God. Please, show where the Bible speak of the "divine substance". Better yet, show me where Deuteronomy 6:4 speak of the divine God-substance constituting the compound triad. Because that 's what your link is claiming the verse says. Sounds like pure paganism to me,

Can you show me what the source is where you are getting what you are claiming? homoousios is just a term used to describe the substance of the Trinity. What matters isn't the terminology being in the Bible, what matters is if the concept is there. As long as the CONCEPT of the Trinity is found, that's all that matters.

Again, if you read my article, I didn't say that Deuteronomy 6:4 spoke on the " divine God-substance constituting the compound triad" (A triad is not the same as the Trinity BTW), I said:
"The answer is simple, It simply means that there is only ONE God, that's all it means. It is not a proof text for the Trinity, nor a proof text against it."


"In light of what Deuteronomy 6:4 ACTUALLY teaches, not what Unitarians want it to teach and even what Trinitarians assert, We can see the Trinity is neither proven by the Shema nor refuted, because both Trinitarians and Unitarians ARE BOTH MONOTHEISTS. The Shema is a creed of Monotheism, not of Unitarianism."

Case and point, the Shema is NOT a proof texts for either of us when it comes to the nature of God. I wasn't arguing if the Shema taught the Trinity.

And I've saved the clincher for last; the Father ALONE is conclusively identified in several verses and passages as ALONE being YHWH; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the OT. An YHWH, as asserted by Jesus, in clear-cut verses, excludes everyone else from laying claim to the position of Most High God.

Scripture will bear witness against you when that day comes. Repent of the trinity idol and start worshipping the Most High God in spirit and truth as Jesus taught you to do.
I already worship the God that Jesus worshiped, plus, you haven't covered the points I made in the second article specifically:

For evidence of the Trinity, see the following:

(The point about Isaiah 9:6 I need to rethink on).
Again, I point you back to the articles I wrote in response to droptozro:

Perhaps it is you who are worshiping an idol Doris.

Answering Judaism.