Traveler

Traveler: "Is it crap that Paul first used the actual word Cherubim in the original text of scripture?" Jason: Since it's not true? Yes. Let me repost what was mentioned earlier about Cherubim: They are FIRST mentioned in connection with the expulsion of our first parents from Eden (Gen. 3:24). Me: Is it crap that the original text of the Old Testament is Hebrew and not Greek? You are wrong in your assumption about Cherubim: Your reference is not to any original text. Cherubim is not a Hebrew word. If you checked another of your post you would know that the origin of the Hebrew equivalent has been lost and there is not accurate modern translation. Cherubim is used as the translation from the Old Testament because of Paul’s use of that term in the New Testament. And you say original text of the sacred scripture is crap? Traveler: "Is it crap that Jesus is revealed in scripture as the ““Only Keeper of the Way””?" Jason: Let's discuss the verse and it's context, then we'll know. Me: John 14:6 “....I am the WAY, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”. In chapter 14 - Jesus is talking about his Father house and says he will prepare a place for those that believe. He is asked how believers will know the way. Verse 6 is his response. If you know of any other scripture that identifies a different keeper lets hear it. Or if you think there is a way other that by Jesus - I would be interested. Traveler: "Is it crap that Jesus and only Jesus is revealed in scripture to posses all of the symbols of the Cherubim that keep the way to the Tree of Life?" Jason: Again, references please. Me: Revelation Chapter 19 - Again lets see your reference that better demonstrates the fulfillment of the symbolic prophesy of Genesis 3:24. Traveler: "I want all to LDS posters to note carefully the exchange that has taken place on this thread - and when the claim is made by non-LDS that the Bible holds all truth - remember how quickly Biblical scriptures and their historical context were abandoned and non-scripture sources became authority." Jason: I NEVER said that Watts or Cirlot's texts were of greater or even equal authority to the Bible. They are just scholars giving their informed opinions. Like everyone else out there. Me: Exactly my point - why did you not think to use the scriptures - is it because you could not find one that said what you want? I do not remember you quoting a single scripture to indicate Cherubim are Angels. If you believe Cherubim are Angels you have to have gotten the belief from somewhere. If this important question is not answered in the scriptures then either you refuse to accept scripture or the scriptures are incomplete or some other reason - Perhaps you can tell me. Jason: So you're still full of crap, and I hope you realize just how dumb you really are one day. Me: I would rather be a dumb full of crap follower of Jesus and his truth - than a cleaver smooth talking Pharisee. Tell me, is your statement more likely to come from the lips of Jesus (or one of his disciples) or a Pharisee? - You do not have to answer that last question - but I wonder why you have such a hard time discussing interpretation of scripture with LDS yet you choose to come to a LDS website to discuss interpertation of scripture. If you disagree, would it not be better to provide me (and other LDS) with a better behavioral example and scripture understand of context and meaning? The Traveler

Is it crap that Paul first used the actual word Cherubim in the original text of scripture?Is it crap that Paul spoke and wrote in Greek and knew that Cherubim in Greek and to the people who could read and understand Greek meant g-d? Is it crap that Jesus is revealed in scripture as the “Only Keeper of the Way”? Is it crap that Jesus and only Jesus is revealed in scripture to posses all of the symbols of the Cherubim that keep the way to the Tree of Life? If the Bible is crap then my friend Jason is correct to rely on other sources. If the Bible is incomplete and lacking in understanding doctrine he is justified in diverting focus on scripture by asking non-biblical questions like “please tell me about the angel Zophiel,(Spy of God).” I want all to LDS posters to note carefully the exchange that has taken place on this thread - and when the claim is made by non-LDS that the Bible holds all truth - remember how quickly Biblical scriptures and their historical context were abandoned and non-scripture sources became authority. Testimony of truth goes beyond words and includes deeds - Sometimes what a person does speaks so laude you cannot hear a word they say. The Traveler

The Tree of life represents eternal life with the Father. The fall of man prevented man form partaking of the Tree of Life. In the scriptures cherubim always come in two's. There is a reason for this that I do not have time to cover right now. The Cherubim were not meant to keep man from the tree of life but to "Keep the way" or to make sure man is qualified before partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Life. Now ask yourself - Who do the scriptures testify of? Who is the keeper of the way to eternal life? Who said I am the way the truth and the life - No man comes unto the Father but by me? Now if you want to understand the symbolism concerning the flaiming sword - ask yourself this: Where in scripture does man encountering a being with fire and a sword on their way to eternal life? I know of one place in scripture - Revelation Chapter 19. Cherubim my friends are g-ds. The scriptures testify of this truth but only for those that have eyes to see and ears to hear. The Traveler

Since "perfect" can only be one thing...ie you are either perfect or not perfect...then it stands to reason that only a god can be perfect. Part of being perfect is being complete. If we do not attain the potential for which we were created then we are incomplete and thus not "perfect". It would make sence that Cherbum, Seraphim, and Angels, are as D&C say are those who did not keep the new and everlasting covenant and did not pass by the angels....but became angels. These are just ranks of angels...or servants of God. So they are infact His children. Actually perfect means complete as far as covenants and proving oneself in the trial of the covenant. This is why Jesus referred to his Father as perfect and not himself - he had not completed his conventual trial. What is a Cherub? A Cherub is not an angel??? There is not a single scripture that tells us that a Cherub is an angel. If fact there is not any ancient record keeper anywhere prior to the advent of the Apostles that even suggested that a Cherub is an angel. The Book of Enoch that list a complete ranking of angels does not list Cherub as an angel. Where and when did the notion that a Cherub is an angel come from. It was manufactured during the Dark Ages by Trinitarian conspiracy to avoid the problems knowing the truth about Cherubs causes the Trinitarian creed. . The ancient Hebrew word in the Old Testament that is translated into Cherub has no translation in any modern language - So how did we get the translation in today’s Bibles as Cherub. The answer has to do with Paul. Paul who was an expert in doctrine and the Greek language made reference to the Cherubim of the Old Testament and wrote Cherubim in the Greek - and it stuck. A couple of thing about the word Cherub. It is a Greek word for a g-d. One of the most famous Greeks Cherub (g-d) is Cupid. Remember the Greek g-d with the love arrows? Paul spent most of his ministry teaching Greeks and various peoples that spoke Greek. Paul was an expert in the Greek language and an expert in doctrine. His letters now comprise much of the New Testament and were written mostly in Greek. Why would Paul use a Greek term that means a kind of g-d and address Greeks in their own language and use a term that means g-d and never make a correction that a Cherub is not a g-d but really an angel? Duh - it is because he knew that a Cherub was a g-d. Why explain the truth when is was understood by almost everyone of his time? So why do so many Christians think a Cherub is an angel? Because the Trinitarians have been teaching this misleading doctrine for almost 2000 years without any scriptural reference and few question the Trinitarian authority - especially Trinitarians that make up the large majority of Christians. The Traveler

I have identified several scientist that have studied the effect of environment on behavior - even non-cognitive behaviors. Pavlov, and B.H Skinner. There are studies in the behavioral sciences. We know that environment always plays a role in humans to help determine behavior. What we do not know is exact cause - effect relationships. For example not every boy that grows up with a dominate mother figure will develop homosexual tendencies but a significant number of homosexuals do - but not all. Not everybody that grows up in poor neighborhoods will become a gang member - but a lot do. I am suggesting that we do know enough to realize that by glamorizing homosexuality and teaching impressionable children that it is as desirable for homosexuals to marry as it is for men and women; it can have a definite effect both on the children and society. Or to teach that same sex couples are as qualified to raise children as any married man and women. I do not know of any study that is conclusive enough in support of homosexuality to justify altering our society by the force of law to accept homosexuality without any reservations. Those of you that are convinced based on what you think is scientific proof ought to be willing to allow some question without turning in hatred to those of us that are not so convinced. The hate response only convinces me you have no real basis beyond blind prejudice for your opinion. The Traveler

Since man was created to physically resemble G-d that leaves us with an interesting question concerning the notion of many G-ds or if the G-d that created man ever intended that man become just like him. So the question is - if G-d intended that man not be just like him in what manner or charactortistic (according to the sacred scriptures) are we to avoid becoming like G-d? The Traveler

Part of our reward in eternity comes from our pursuit of knowledge about G-d. Perhaps I overemphasize certain truths that was taught anciently by prophets that were vessels of great truth. Sometimes I think there are precious truths lost in translations and interpretations and variant readings among various teachers of religion. At best the discussion concerning “ehad” was incomplete. Never-the-less I would introduce another ancient term with its meaning. This term comes to us from Genesis 1:26 “And G-d said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:” The two words I would focus on are “image” and “likeness”. The ancient Hebrew words recorded in scripture for these terms are “pesel” and “temuna”. “Pesel” is translated into image. But the more complete meaning is a physical model of a physical thing - a statue is a good understanding of “pesel”. This is not an abstract concept or theoretical representation but a real physical replica. The term “temmuna” is translated into likeness but would be better understood as a picture that gives a physical looking representation of the original. I would point out that the creation listed in Genesis is a physical creation and the sacred scriptures tell us that man physical creation is modeled after the physical characteristic of G-d. This point is made even more clear in verse 27: “So G-d created man in his own image, in the image of G-d created he them.” To emphasize that G-d has a tangible physical form this verse forces the issue twice making certain we know G-d has a physical body just like the physical body that was created and made for man. This parallel understanding of the sacred relationship between G-d and man is one of the most important notions in true Christianity. Jesus said that the first and great commandment is to love G-d and the second is like the first - to love your neighbor. Because man is a physical replica of G-d the two commandments are tightly coupled and cannot be separated. How does this relate to the discussion about “ehad”. First is the clarity of the ancient understanding in the scriptures. And second - however you understand, think or believe of that which is G-d to you, it better include a physical form or you cannot honestly say that the ancient scriptures (from which we all claim is the basis of whatever Bible version we think is correct) agree completely with your notion of what G-d really is. The Traveler

Thanks again for your efforts. I do not define friendship as agreement. Rather I think friendship comes from respect when there is disagreement. I may not agree with your concepts but I think I understand better now that I did. If you ever want to discuss a topic with me - I would be honered - most likely a little crazy but honored. The Traveler

I do not know of a single study that had indicated variant responses to cognitive conditioning linked to autotomic biologic responses have no link to environmental influences. Pavlov demonstrated that there was a definite link to environmental conditioning to cognitive recognition of external stimuli to autotomic (sympatric nervous system) responses. Studies done in systematic desensitization, aversion therapy and biofeedback have all demonstrated that cognitive recognition can alter every emotion and personality habit. Even basic fears and other non voluntary responses can be altered. B.H. Skinner, Pavlov and many other have conducted studies in the science of behavioral modification (brain washing). I have never seen as study that indicated that reproductive behavior cannot be altered in the higher primates - including humans. And there were some wild studies done in Germany under Hitler. My only point is this - how can we deal with any topic if facts are to be ignored and emotions allowed to dictate opinions. How can there be love if truth is ignored and prejudice rules. If there is any proof the demonstrates that environmental conditioning plays no role in human reproduction behavior - I have never heard of such a study or experiment. If there were just one believer in homosexuality unrelated to environmental conditioning that would put forth their understanding in step by step scientific methodology then I would gladly change my mind. If such a thing has been demonstrated beyond scientific doubt why won’t anyone share the truth? If something has been demonstrated - or anyone thinks it has been demonstrated would you please share in a scientific manner, because I just have not been able to connect to all this emotional charged opinions of prejudice. Where are "all these studies" posters keep talking about? Will someone start naming them? The Traveler

I had the good dose of it in my childhood by someone pretending to be a national Boy Scout Leader - I discovered that any attempt to expose such behavior results in exactly what we have see on this form. Demonize anyone that attempts to expose the truth. Can't we stick with the issues and get away from the name calling. The following are my concerns that have not answered: 1. Is there a natural drive for all species (higher life forms - especially intelligent life forms) to reproduce? 2. Is there any scientific evidence that those engaged in homosexual activities have natural sympatric (non-cognitive) responses that are not part of the nog-cognitive natural urge to reproduce? 3. Is the "sex" drive in homosexuals completely unrelated to the natural drive of the species to reproduce? 4. Can cognitive stimulations to the natural drive to reporduce be altered by the learning processes in intelligent species (as per Pavlov)? 5. How logical is it that homosexuality be considered natural and gender roles be considered dependent results of environmental conditioning? If there are issues you would like considered please present them and lets discuss the issues without all this attitude of hate. Is such a thing possible? The Traveler

It would help if you would provide the conclusively proven independent studies and the unbiased sponsor. Since you are a scientist I am sure you would not make your statement without real unbiased undisputed backing. Thanks The Traveler

Thank you Ray: The other point that has been overlooked has to do with the word "yahed". "Yahed" has to do with parts coming together to form a single being. "Ehad" in this form is used to describe many beings uniting is a cause - but not becoming parts of a separately defined single being. From what I understand Trinitarians are trying part of the meaning of "ehad" in place of "yahed" to define what they believe in the G-dhead. That there are plural aspects (or persons) but instead of coming together for a cause (not an actual being) but forming one single being ("yahed") that is G-d. I have attempted to present the understanding of the difference between "ehad" and "yahed" but I have the impression that this understanding is too much of a threat and will not make a difference. But all discussion aside. I believe above all else that G-d would have us be loving and kind over understanding correct doctrine. I believe Maureen is a loving and kind person. I would trust her (I think Maureen is a her) over an expert in doctrine that lacks love. I apologize to Maureen for any of my word that have seem harsh and thank her for her efforts. The Traveler

I find this interesting. How can one of something exist. Especially if the one could produce more? I realize that perhaps there are reasons - but none that I find reasonable. The other problem is that G-d want us to be "one" with him. I submit the more we are "one" with G-d the more like him we become. Is this true or false? If his will becomes our will and his thoughts become our thoughts - why can't we be G-ds? What is it that definds G-d that G-d hold back. What does he have that we cannot? I do not believe there is any such thing. If either of you believe there is then perhaps you have some idea or example or something that you can relate to me. Now Maureen and Snow - We have already agreeded that "ehad" is the unitining of many for a common cause. "Ehad" is the oneness of G-d in the scripture. If there is "ehad" G-d and we can be one with that G-d - why are we any less a part than Jesus or any other person that is a part of that oneness? Do not the scriptures testify that as humans in covenant we are already the children of G-d? The Traveler

As I said the study was the most complete ever on a population. All of the excuses made are accounted for including where they grew up where the live and their age. I am sorry the randomness that should have been just is not there. The study accounts for every excuse made by curvette. I am not trying to shove anything down anyone's throat. However, I do wish that the issue could be discussed without name calling (homophobic) or accusations of obsession. Granted this was Canadian society not the good old USA. But does environment make a difference? If we are to believe some, that claim that in other populations homosexuals are randomly produced at 10 to 15 percent then the only answer is that environment makes a difference. The difference in age cannot be ignored as easy as curvette suggest. If a society that is more open to homosexuality produces much higher percentages of homosexuals 70%. Then we can honestly admit that norms within society do impact wether or not homosexual tendencies are developed. Why not realize truth - why not embrace truth - why consider truth a disadvantage - why dislike someone that will consider truth, counting them as the enemy? The Traveler

It is not random throughout the population. Something has to account for concentrations. Any other possibilities?

Once I spent a month alone in the desert living on only what G-d provided. It was a spiritual quest. The rain I experienced was a welcome blessing and gave me a different prospective than I have had from watching rain from a front porch. Rain cleans, brings new life and sustains existing life.The Traveler

The Canadian government just completed a study of homosexuals in their population. The percentage of homosexuality that they discovered was about 1%. The study was the largest most complete study of such a thing on a population. It was also discovered that the percentage of homosexuals is higher in heavenly populated areas and 70 percent higher among the under 30 population as compared to the over 30 population. It would appear that environment has more effect than the politically correct point of view will admit. The Traveler

I’m slowly starting to see how you think Traveler. From your quote I’m guessing you believe in a multitude of Gods. You believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are really 3 gods. That’s why you find the Trinity so hard to accept, because the Trinity is emphatic about the existence of only one God (remember ehad). The Trinity denies this notion implying that without their unity they could not be G-d and G-d would cease to exist. If I am understanding the statement of yours correctly I would say Yes, that is correct. The Trinity sees God as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That God would not exist without all 3 persons of this godhead. In fact the Trinity states that God has always existed as these 3 persons. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. They are God individually and as a unity. They are not 3 separate Gods, they are one God (ehad). M. First I want to say that I am greatly impressed in your effort to understand. You went to a lot of work to learn more about "ehad". Thank you. If you were to study ancient Hebrew you would learn that in the united form “ehad” is plural. It requires that there are many. You can be happy sometimes and sad other. You can be strong at times and week at other. Your person can be expressed in many different ways. That is because you personality has different expressions. But all these expressions come together in you as a single individual. The expression for this kind of coming together in ancient Hebrew is “yahed”. “Yahed” is the singular expression of many different parts in one soul. This is why I have attempted to express that the Trinity has been putting a round peg in a squar hole for 2000 years and saying that it fits. But the scripture does not tell us G-d is “yahed”. The scriptures say G-d is “ehad” which means many working together. “Yahed” is many parts of something that is a single thing. The bottom line is that the scriptures just do not say what you have been lead to believe. Have you ever tried to convince someone of truth when they want to believe the lie? They will treat every truth that fits with contempt and embrace any deception that justifies the lie. When you (or anyone) are borne of the of the spirit or borne of G-d then it is said that you are “one” with G-d. Jesus prayed that all that followed him would be “one” in this manner and he further explained that he and the Father are “one” is this very manner. The next very important notion is that by becoming one with G-d we become like G-d. Usually if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is logical to assume that it is a duck and not a tree. If something is like G-d why would it not be true to say it is a G-d? If G-d created all things and can do anything - why would he not create G-ds? Because G-d is evil? Because if there were many there could not be “ehad” and would fight among themselves? Think! If G-d can create a “ehad” with mankind that has fallen and fights among themselves by nature - could not G-ds be “ehad” that are loving, kind, full of grace and service and willing to lay down their life for the benefit of others be “ehad”. If there can only be a singular G-d then there cannot be a G-d because G-d by definition can do anything. If there are no other G-ds then either there is a lack of power which means he is not really G-d or he is selfish and will not share, which is not the nature of a loving G-d. The Traveler

Again I would point out that the unity of husband and wife is not one single body. There are two bodies of flesh. In fact they still have their own separate DNA. The color of their eyes does not change nor does the color of their skin. Their "UNITY" is not "yahed" it is "ehad".And now you have another word to look up - good luck. I think you would have better luck talking to a Rabbi or University professor that teaches ancient Hebrew. Once you understand the meaning of “yahed” you will understand how the doctrine of the Trinity extends the definitions to incorrect meanings taking advantages of translations and differences of language. The Traveler

I looked up the word “ehad”, just to make sure Traveler knew what he was talking about because sometimes I think he’s from another planet. From what I found (which was difficult), ehad means one as in singular or one as in unity. This statement of Traveler’s is strange: If this meaning is used it implies that there are by definition multiple G-ds. I totally disagree! It does not in any way mean multiple. In fact the word ehad when referring to God validates the Trinity, because Trinity is describing a Tri-unity. The 3 persons of the Godhead are a unity and exist together as one God. For example, this explanation: III. Unity of Multiple Entities Viewed as One The Bible gives us models or examples of heavenly things (cf. Hosea 12:10) to help us in understanding heavenly and divine concepts. It is God’s way of helping us to visualize heavenly concepts. By understanding the earthly example, we can transfer that understanding to the related heavenly concept, and, thus, come away with a better understanding of the heavenly concept. One example of this biblical modeling can be seen with the use of the Hebrew word “ehad” used in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” (NKJ) This Hebrew word, used in this passage to describe the singularity and uniqueness of God, is the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (NKJ). Here we have an example of two entities, that is, a man and wife, coming together and forming one entity. Each is a separate person and can function separately, but their union in marriage is to create a oneness. Here we have a model presented to us that can be used to help us understand the concept of the Trinity, that is, three “persons” comprising one divine substance, that of God. Obviously, the union of the husband and wife is not a perfect union into one, but it does give us an insight into the heavenly concept of the Trinity pointing to “one” being a perfect divine union of three. http://www.foundationsforourfaith.com/trinity.htm M. As I said there are two definitions of "ehad". You are correct in the plural definition. It is a definition of plural unity. This is very much one of the correct definitions. A unity does not imply a single element but a common unity of multiple separate distinctly different units. The concept of difference also implies not equal. Which is exactly what Jesus meant when he said he is less than his Father. But the Trinity implies that they are equal - one not being greater than the other. Also note that on several occasions the scriptures refer to a plurality of G-ds with one acting as leader - with phrases such as "let US make man in OUR image". Also there is not a single reference to “Person” the Father, “Person” the Son and “Person” the Holy Ghost. The reference is G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost. The stand of LDS is that there us a unity of G-ds. That because of the fall there is only one G-d, G-d the Son, that is the mediator. Meaning there is only one single G-d - G-d the Son that all by himself is the keeper of the way back to the Tree of Life. Without the Son man cannot deal with any other G-d especially the Father. There is nothing of heaven that comes to man except it comes only By the Son. And man will never see the Father except by the Son. I would also point out that in the unity of the G-d head is okay for the Son to be a G-d and understood as a differentiable distinctively different G-d. Likewise the Father is G-d even without the Son is still G-d. “Ehad” only tells us that they are united in their cause but that each by themself is G-d. The Trinity denies this notion implying that without their unity they could not be G-d and G-d would cease to exist. The Traveler

I have not had time to read all the post so I don't know if some points were covered are not. First I would like to explain that ancient Hebrew did not understand fractions. What I am attempting to say is that those that followed Satan were not equal to 1/3 of all our Father's spirits. What the one third means is that the society of heaven was divided 3 ways. There was in the society three choices. If the 3 parts were the same size is not understood to ancient Hebrews. Satan's plan was one of the choices. We know that the Father's plan that was backed by Jesus was one of the other choices. The final choice is left to some speculation. I would point out that there are 3 degrees or glories of heaven - I submit that this is no coincidence. Second. There is an assumption of some ignorance. In the light of heaven there was no ignorance. Those that sided with Satan declared war against G-d in full knowledge that it would cost them eternal life with G-d. Third. The war is not over. The battle for heaven has been lost but the war for the souls of mankind continues. The third notion is the most telling part of this war. In this we learn that the actual cause of the war had to do with the souls of man. Without the truth of the restoration most religions would have you think that Satan and his legions risked it all in a hopeless war to keep man from being washed clean of sin. But man was created clean without sin in Eden to begin with. Why would Satan care if man was washed clean of sin or not? Can we really think Satan so stupid to wage war over that? We also know that the sin of Satan is selfishness and pride. This lets us know that he and his followers wanted something and they wanted it for themselves and had no intension of sharing. G-d on the other hand is neither selfish nor prideful. So why is mankind such a focal point for the plan of G-d and the plan of Satan? Because Satan and his followers, in their pride, wanted to ascend to the highest of heaven and have that for themselves alone. They wanted to deny repentance and make heaven exclusive. And that is their beginning of sin that they will not let go. Alma tells us we must be striped of our pride. The pride that makes us think we are better and deserve more than someone else. Can Satan and his legions repent? This question is completely wrong - the real question we should ask ourselves is can we repent and be striped of pride? The Traveler

All I asked is for an example of such an institution that does not provide lip service but allows their neighbors to worship as they expect them to allow them to worship. I asked if you could provide evidence of such a society between the years 329 AD and 1649 AD. Having observed your responses - the only conclusion that appears rational to me is that you are not Christian and have no intention of helping me. This is based on your insistence that I have said things that I have not said and calling me insane for asking for a demonstration of true Christianity during that time according to what you say is a Christian.Yes I am LDS but before I consider something else I believe a true Christian will demonstrate a more excellent way. This you have not done. The Traveler

Lets look at Mountain meadows. Was it the exception or the rule? Was it according to doctrine of the institution of LDS or was it counter to the Doctrine and published declarations of the LDS institution? Was it a practice of the Majority of LDS or an localized minority? If you believe the LDS institution was responsible for Mountain Meadows then tell me what protestant religious institutions are responsible for the KKK.As for the Utah war? What did the institution of the LDS Church do that convinces you that it was wrong and that those that declared the war were Christian in doing so? Here is my point. There were no followers of Jesus Christ for over 1000 years (392 AD to 1649 AD.) Jesus said where 2 or more gather in his name there is love. Tell me when was the first time a Trinitarian society passed a law to allow a non Trinitarian to practice their religion without risking to their life. Was there a society of Christian Monks or something the sheltered non-Trinitarians? Where did 2 gather in the name of Jesus during the more than 1000 years 392 - 1649? If Jesus taught a true doctrine - why can institutions change his doctrine, ordinances and organization and call themselves Christian? But the question I want to know the answer to more than anything else - What institution do you claim to be an institution to preserve all that Jesus taught. Who rightfully maintains the title of Christian today and throughout history? The Traveler

In this enlightened day and age, one would think so, but in reality it is alive and well and growing strong on ChristianForums. B) I wonder if something is being missed here. The question is why was there ever an inquisition or if it has been done away with. If the inquisition is counter to the doctrine and teaching of Jesus how can we say that Christian institutions were involved? Can we all agree that Christianity was not being practiced or taught by the institutions that gave us the inquisition? If the inquisition is acceptable to Christians - Why has the practice ended? Clearly it cannot be both ways - it is eather part of the kingdom of G-d or it is part of the Kingdom that opposes G-d. The finel question is by what authority was the inquisition practiced? and by what authorty was it altered and changed? The Traveler

QUOTE 1. The Trinity denies the Fall of man. Meaning that in the fall man was excommunicated from G-d the Father. Wrong! ?????? Please explain - If it is possible for man to come unto the Father by an name change of the Father or the father pretending to be someone else then man has not fallen. If man can approach the Father or has ever approached the Father since the fall of Adam then there was no real fall. Are you telling me that it is the Doctrine of the Trinity that Man has had no interface of any kind of contact with the Father since the fall? That it is the Son of G-d and only the Son that deals with man throughout all Scripture since the fall? QUOTE 2. The Trinity denies that Jesus is the only mediator and intercessor for man with the Father. Wrong! ???? With who did Moses deal with according to the doctrine of the Trinity? The Father or the Son? QUOTE 3. The Trinity denies the Christ - that he is the G-d of the Old Testament that presented himself to man in the ““Name”” of the Father. Because he represents the Father in the name of the Father the Trinity doctrine denies that he can take upon himself the name of the Father - Therefore they claim man (Moses, Abraham and others) needs no mediator but that the G-d of the Old Testament was the Father. Wrong! It does just the opposite. ????Really? What person of the G-d head did Moses receive the 10 commandments from? QUOTE 4. The Trinity denies the scriptures in their most pure Hebrew from. In all cases of the ancient Hebrew where the scriptures speak of ““one”” G-d the Hebrew word ““ehad”” is used. ““Ehad”” has two meanings. The first is the counting meaning of one. If this is what is meant it means that in always that we can consider G-d we can only count one. Therefore G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost is three and for any Christian that believes in the G-dhead they know that the singular meaning of G-d is incorrect. The second meaning of ““ehad”” is the plural united meaning, such as when a man and women become one (ehad) flesh through marriage. If this meaning is used it implies that there are by definition multiple G-ds. A concept denied by the Trinity doctrine. Therefore in all cases for defining ““ehad”” G-d the Trinity doctrine denies any possibility presented in scripture. I am not familiar with the word "ehad", but considering you got 1 to 3 wrong I wouldn't be surprised if this one is way off too. The is a very important notion. Your ignorance here, on this point is one possible reason that you has such great misunderstanding on the other points. QUOTE 5. No prophet ancient or Modern has ever endorsed the Trinity doctrine. In addition no ancient documents prior to the Creeds where the Trinity doctrine was invented has the doctrine been presented. Only by wild speculation of interpretations by man is the Trinity established. Only in your opinion. As I have read translation of the original documents from which the Trinity Doctrine came - In particular the Nicene Creed. It is stated specifically that the reason for creation of the creed is because the Scriptures were not sufficient. I want you to think on that notion as I ask this next question. Can you supply any documentation that indicates any Christian apologist tied the Doctrine of the Trinity directly to specific scripture prior to 600 AD. Would you please supply that Christian apologist and their reference. The reason I ask the above question is because it is my opinion - and I would dearly love to be corrected by some historical document. As near as I can determine the Trinity doctrine being supported by scripture is fabrication of modern times because of criticisms that has arisen. And that the connection of scripture is only established by variant readings based on speculations in interpretations and translations. For example: discovery of ancient commentary such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and other finds indicate that interpretations used today by Trinitarians was not part of the ancient tapestry of understanding. Can you provide any historical documentation to demonstrate otherwise. All I ask is that you back up your prejudice with some historical reference. Thanks The Traveler