What equipment do the servants of God and Christ need?

Biker, just as gentle and friendly a word as is possible. The actual condemnation you bring upon yourself was contained in a post you made some time ago, where you claimed that now the "true" translation of the Bible was easily available, no one had any excuse for being wrong. Such were your words....."no excuse". So, be very careful if you wish to justify yourself before God by being "right", because..... in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

You choose to justify yourself by a correct interpretation of a text, a book, and claim no one has any excuse for getting it wrong.

Those who rather, instead, trust the grace and mercy of God, trust and have faith in the nature of the Divine, and who leave others to the same measure........need have no fear.

And which translation do you deem correct in order to "iron out" any inconsistencies?

How do you know the translation you're using isn't flawed?

Colossians

Composition

During the first generation after Jesus, Paul's epistles to various churches helped establish early Christian theology. Written in the 50s while Paul was in prison, Colossians is similar to Ephesians, also written at this time.[2] Increasingly, critical scholars ascribe the epistle to an early follower writing as Paul. The epistle's description of Christ as pre-eminent over creation marks it, for some scholars, as representing an advanced christology not present during Paul's lifetime.[3] Defenders of Pauline authorship cite the work's similarities to Philemon, which is broadly accepted as authentic.[1]

[edit] Date

The letter is supposed (or intended) to be written by Paul at Rome during his first imprisonment. (Acts 28:16, 28:30) If the letter is not considered to be an authentic part of the Pauline corpus it might be dated during the late 1st century, possibly as late as the 80s.[4]
However, as with several epistles attributed to Paul, critical scholarship disputes this claim.[7] One ground is that the epistle's language doesn't seem to match Paul's, with 48 words appearing in Colossians that are found nowhere else in his writings and 33 of which occur nowhere else in the New Testament.[8] A second ground is that the epistle features a strong use of liturgical-hymnic style which appears nowhere else in Paul's work to the same extent.[9] A third is that the epistle's themes related to Christ, eschatology and the church seem to have no parallel in Paul's undisputed works.[10]

This was wriiten "un verifiably" by Paul in order to put down a growing movement of gnosticism in the Church and refocus Christ as the head of the church. Which would explain why Col 1: 15-20 is exaulting Christ the way it does.
It is still unknown whether this uprising happened within Pauls' lifetime and whether he wrote Colossians. Most think it is doubtful.

Paul was the "antichrist", the enemy of the Jerusalem Jewish followers of Jesus led by Jesus' brother James, the Beast of Revelation, and the Dead Sea Scrolls' "spouter of lies". If you're gonna believe in demons, start there.

Maybe to you, but not to me.` It does not judge, it contains God's judgements.



So do you class law books and history books as supreme rulers then? Of course not, and neither is the Bible such. It carries the standards by which religious teachings, and people's actions can, and will be judged. It carries a historical record for us to learn from. It also carries prophecy some of which applies to these days and beyond, so we cn recognise where we are in the stream of time. There is nothing else that can do all these things, and we have no other standard by which to judge the teachings that were prevalent in Jesus time, and those that are now.

Being God's word it warrants respect, but it is not the book itself which is important, it is the words it contains because they are the word of God. His sole communication with man for about 2,000 years.

Wrong, it was all there from Genesis through to Malachi. They didn't call it the bible, they simply called it Holy Scripture or God's word` sometimes simply scripture. However, the number of references between the "NT" and "OT" in a good reference bible shows the extent to which scripture was referred to, quoted cited or explained throughout the "NT".

Nor was it one book, because books weren't invented. It was a collection of scrolls, a library, and guess what, that is precisely what the word bible means. It comes from the Greek Biblos which literally means library.

Why is it called the bible? because it is a collection of 66 books gathered in one place. Therefore it is literally a "Biblos", a library.

No I donp't worshi pt, which would make it an idol, and is the only thing that would, but I do respect it rgeatly for what it is, what it contains, and the protection it can provide for us against being led astray.

Why do you think Mainstream Churches want it ignored? Because it exposes their lies, that's why.

I would hope that I will be judged by the same measure that I judge others, because that measure is what the bible teaches. I don't expect to match it perfectly by any means, one would need to be perfect to do that, but I hope my efforts to do so will be recognised.

It is not myself I wish to prove right, because if I am it is only because I have listened to what Christ taught when on earth, and what the word he transmitted to earth from his Father tells me.

At least I am not a "double minded" or indecisive, man as is condemned in scripture. Hopefully I have misunderstood very little of it, I have certainly done all in my power not to, with God's guidance. I am sure that HE will reveal thins to me in the future as He has in the past, when He feels I need them.

It is you who does not trust the "Grace and Mercy of God2 because you shelter from it in the teachings of Apostates, but of course you will not recognise that because it means you cannot have the "easy ride" that their teachings offer you, because you will actually have to do something to gain it.

If only you would open your eyes and see that you are ignoring God in favour of the words of men, before it is too late.

How can any word that draws me away from God be truly friendly? It cannot, and neither can any of yours for that reason.

I do not see any one translation as being infallible, though I do think that the NWT is my favourite for a number of reason. I use many sources for "ironing out" the problems if I find anything that doesn't fit in with the rest of scripture, or sometimes simply to confirm that what I am finding really does.

I do not know in absolute terms that any of them aren't flawed. Some are more obviously flawed than others, and sometimes I even refer to old manuscripts to check things out, but as I say, I can and do use any translation to prove the integrity of scripture.

If I was absolutely sure of one infallible translation I would no longer feel the need to check any out with other manuscripts or original language comparisons. Surely that is self evident?

If Paul were the Antichrist, why did his teachings not contradict any of Christ Why would an Antichrist tell others to imitate him only in the ways he imitated the Christ.

That is a ridiculous and totally unsupportable slander (or is it libel I can never remember which is which.

If you are going to make such a scurrilous claim you have better be able to substantiate it.

No, the Antichrist is what became the modern "Christian" church, and I can substantiate that because of their provably false teachings.

I am sorry but I cannot take seriously anyone making sucha wild and provably false accusation.

But don't you change the meaning of the words?

some of them need a suture needle and some thread applied to the mouth...

No, I use the meaning that fitts the context, to do otherwise would be to change their meanings. What matters is what the word is actually used to mean, how else can you understand what the person is saying.

If a youngster tells me something is "wicked" do I take it as what the word means, or what he means?

How can you possibly know what he means ... and after 2000 years what he actually meant is just a guess.

And if the jewish leaders took up stones to stone jesus when he said before abraham was I am ... they sure believed that jesus just said that he was the same god that revealed himself to Moses.

So either they did not take up stones or they misinterpreted what jesus had just said.

So which is it?

How difficult can it be to work it out/ The simplest answer is, context.

As i have already deomonstrated the "Before Abraham was I am" bit is a mistranslation probably deliberately introduce to try to bolster the pagan idea of a trinity. I shall however re paste the earlier examples from early manuscripts, which show that.

Why do I say they show that? because what they say in these "alternative" translations fits into the context of the bible, and agrees with other scriptures describing Jesus as the first creative act by God.

Jesus—In Existence Before Abraham

Joh 8:58—“before Abraham came into existence, I have been” Gr., ???? ??????? ???????? ??? ????
(prin A?bra?am? ge?ne?sthai e?go? ei?mi?)


Fourth/Fifth Century

“before Abraham was, I have been” Syriac—Edition: A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London, 1894.

Fifth Century “before ever Abraham came to be, I was” Curetonian Syriac—Edition: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, by F.Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904.

Fifth Century “before Abraham existed, I was” Syriac Pes***ta—Edition: The Syriac New Testament Translated into English from the Pes***to Version, by James Murdock, seventh ed., Boston and London, 1896.

Fifth Century “before Abraham came to be, I was” Georgian—Edition: “The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John,” by Robert P. Blake and Maurice Brière, published in Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4, Paris, 1950.

Sixth Century “before Abraham was born, I was” Ethiopic—Edition: Novum Testamentum . . . Æthiopice (The New Testament . . . in Ethiopic), by Thomas Pell Platt, revised by F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.

As for what the Jewish leaders really thought it is hard to say. What the scriptures make clear is that they were looking for any excuse to accuse him of blasphemy. They obviously realised, on reflection that what Jesus said wouldn't hold, but they tried with false witnesses at his mockery of a trial with other sayings to prove the same thing.

You have to realise that for a scripture to be accurately understood it has to fit in with the rest of the bible story. There is not one example of Jesus claiming to be other than God's son, nor is there one accurately translated scripture that shows that the Apostles thought of him as God. In fact at Luke 18:18,19 Jesus even refused to be called "good" because he felt that should be reserved for his Father.

Luke 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
Luke 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, [even] God. (NKJV)

The expression of surprise by Thomas has been ruled out many times as an expression of surprise. Even John 1:1 has been shown many times to be a mistranslation biased to back up the trinity teaching, and even the KJV has now removed the interposed verse between 1 John 5: 6-9 in it's 21st century revision the NKJV.

1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood.
1 John 5:7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
1 John 5:8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.
1 John 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for the witness of God is this, that he hath borne witness concerning his Son. (NKJV)

As far as biblical support goes, the pagan trinity teaching is well and truly dead now, it just hasn't laid down yet because some refuse to accept they are wrong.

Then why did they pick up stones to stone him? Or is that part mistranslated also?

Surely they did not just stone people for no reason.

No it is not a mistranslation certain offences against the Mosaic Law were punishable by stoning. That is why Joseph took Mary away to marry her when he discovered that she was pregnant and why, because an unmarried pregnant girl would automatically have been stoned to death under the Mosaic Law. Blasphemy was another one. In fact some were even stoned to death for using God's name, since the Jews had by that time taken on a pagan superstition that taught that the name was too holy for human lips.

Even parents were instructed to stone to death a rebellious son, though one assumes the rebelliousness would have to be obvious and extreme. If it were serious enough, only the parents were allowed to stone the child to death so I guess that restriction prevented it from being applied too freely.