From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

For once the ayatollahs of Iran have got things right, aided by a bit of
AI, which in this instance is also absolutely right.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15735911/Iran-propaganda-video-trolls-Trump-showing-thrown-Hell-Jesus.html

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 16/04/2026 03:30, Kendall K. Down wrote:

For once the ayatollahs of Iran have got things right, aided by a bit of
AI, which in this instance is also absolutely right.

including Jesus punching him in the mouth?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15735911/Iran-propaganda-video- trolls-Trump-showing-thrown-Hell-Jesus.htm

If DJT does go to the entity downstairs then surely his fate isn't
decided until he pops his clogs. Beside of which, I don't know what the
fuss is about, he merely depicted himself as a red cross doctor healing Jeffery Epstein. Anyway, DJT and Jesus are good buddies now.

https://static.independent.co.uk/2026/04/15/14/00/President-Donald-Trump-shared-an-AI-generated-image-of-Jesus-hugging-him-on-Truth-Social-Wednesday.png?quality=75&width=1368&auto=webp

I blame Paula White, she likened him to Jesus about a week before and
DJT must have thought "Hmmm maybe I am""





--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 16/04/2026 12:08, John wrote:

including Jesus punching him in the mouth?

You have a problem with that?

If DJT does go to the entity downstairs then surely his fate isn't
decided until he pops his clogs.

There is such a thing as the unpardonable sin - though of course I do
not know who is guilty of it.

Beside of which, I don't know what the
fuss is about, he merely depicted himself as a red cross doctor healing Jeffery Epstein.-a Anyway, DJT and Jesus are good buddies now.

A distinct lack of red crosses, didn't you notice?

I blame Paula White, she likened him to Jesus about a week before and
DJT must have thought "Hmmm maybe I am""

I wouldn't put it past him.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 16/04/2026 20:02, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 16/04/2026 12:08, John wrote:

including Jesus punching him in the mouth?

You have a problem with that?

Absolutely, don't you? Jesus would have turned the other cheek like He
told His followers to do.

If DJT does go to the entity downstairs then surely his fate isn't
decided until he pops his clogs.

There is such a thing as the unpardonable sin - though of course I do
not know who is guilty of it.

In the context of why Jesus said it, I suspect it's when someone
denounces a work of the Holy Spirit as being of the devil.




--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 18/04/2026 00:56, John wrote:

Absolutely, don't you?-a Jesus would have turned the other cheek like He told His followers to do.

I take it, then, that you are not familiar with the Bible. Old Testament stories are too numerous to mention, but even in the New Testament, from Annias and Saphira to the book of Revelation, we have clear indications
that God is not to be mocked and that He will punish sinners.

You are getting confused between what is appropriate for a private
individual and what is appropriate for the King of the Universe and the
Judge of all flesh.

God may in mercy overlook sin, hoping that the sinner will repent. Or He
may allow rulers to continue to sin because they are simply
representative of those they rule. That is even more true of an elected
ruler.

In the context of why Jesus said it, I suspect it's when someone
denounces a work of the Holy Spirit as being of the devil.

That is certainly the immediate context. Usually, however, it is
considered to be when someone has rejected the Holy Spirit for so long
and so consistently that they no long recognise His voice and are thus incapable of conviction and repentance.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 18/04/2026 04:59, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 18/04/2026 00:56, John wrote:

Absolutely, don't you?-a Jesus would have turned the other cheek like
He told His followers to do.

I take it, then, that you are not familiar with the Bible. Old Testament stories are too numerous to mention, but even in the New Testament, from Annias and Saphira to the book of Revelation, we have clear indications
that God is not to be mocked and that He will punish sinners.

If God was to strike Donald dead for blasphemy then I would have no
argument. If Jesus was to swoop down from Heaven and punch Donald and
leave him with a bloody mouth or nose then I would, because it
completely goes against the ethos of what Jesus stood for.

You are getting confused between what is appropriate for a private individual and what is appropriate for the King of the Universe and the Judge of all flesh.

God may in mercy overlook sin, hoping that the sinner will repent. Or He
may allow rulers to continue to sin because they are simply
representative of those they rule. That is even more true of an elected ruler.

All we know about Jesus is from the bible. Which bit of the Sermon on
the Mount would have Jesus giving Donald a smack in the mouth? Are you suggesting that once He ascended to Heaven Jesus would no longer have
that same ethos?



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 20/04/2026 11:02, John wrote:

If God was to strike Donald dead for blasphemy then I would have no argument.-a If Jesus was to swoop down from Heaven and punch Donald and leave him with a bloody mouth or nose then I would, because it
completely goes against the ethos of what Jesus stood for.

As Jesus is God, the distinction you are trying to make is nonsense.

All we know about Jesus is from the bible. Which bit of the Sermon on
the Mount would have Jesus giving Donald a smack in the mouth?-a Are you suggesting that once He ascended to Heaven Jesus would no longer have
that same ethos?

Again, you are confusing private morality with the morality appropriate
to a government.

If you grabbed a thief and locked him in your back bedroom, even
overnight, you would end up in gaol. Yet the government can grab that
same thief, for the same crime, and lock him up for several years. If
you cannot see the difference between what is private and what is public behaviour, it's no wonder that you get confused.

As for the sermon on the mount, try Matthew 5:13, 22, 29; 7:13, 23, 27

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 20/04/2026 15:07, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 20/04/2026 11:02, John wrote:

If God was to strike Donald dead for blasphemy then I would have no
argument.-a If Jesus was to swoop down from Heaven and punch Donald and
leave him with a bloody mouth or nose then I would, because it
completely goes against the ethos of what Jesus stood for.

As Jesus is God, the distinction you are trying to make is nonsense.

Once Jesus (the man) ascended to Heaven, was He a sperate entity or did
Yahweh and Jesus become one and the same? Was the Word Yahweh before He became Jesus or were there two entities (Yahweh and the Word)

Does the bible explicitly state that Yahweh became flesh? If you
believe that, who was Jesus praying to?

Other than John 8:58 (and I doubt even that was a claim from Jesus that
He was God) Jesus never stated that He was God, in fact He did the
opposite; John 17:3 Mark 10:18

Furthemore, I think John 10:30 and onwards are quite important. The
Jews thought Jesus was God, and picked up stones to throw at Him, but
Jesus then denies He is God "Is it not written in your Law, rCyI said, you
are godsrCO? If he called them gods to whom the word of God camerCoand Scripture cannot be brokenrCo do you say of him whom the Father
consecrated and sent into the world, rCyYou are blaspheming,rCO because I said, rCyI am the Son of GodrCO?

So there you go, He's the Son of God, but He isn't God. I've been back
to Psalm 82, which I believe Jesus is referring to, and hey guess what,
these "gods" were mortal. (Side note: when did Psalms become part of
the Jewish law?)

All we know about Jesus is from the bible. Which bit of the Sermon on
the Mount would have Jesus giving Donald a smack in the mouth?-a Are
you suggesting that once He ascended to Heaven Jesus would no longer
have that same ethos?

Again, you are confusing private morality with the morality appropriate
to a government.

So it's ok for Jesus to execute violence, yet He abhors the same
behaviour from His followers? Explain the moral absolute of that for me please.

If you grabbed a thief and locked him in your back bedroom, even
overnight, you would end up in gaol. Yet the government can grab that
same thief, for the same crime, and lock him up for several years. If
you cannot see the difference between what is private and what is public behaviour, it's no wonder that you get confused.

Do they have different laws in Wales? You can't be jailed (not sure why you're still using an oudated term but hey) for locking a burglar in a
room and would be commended by the police for doing so.

Now if you beat the chit out of the burglar first (or even just punched
them in the mouth) then fine, you have also committed a crime and should
be punished for it.

As for the sermon on the mount, try Matthew 5:13, 22, 29; 7:13, 23, 27

You've lost me there. I've looked up every verse you've referenced
there and none suggest that Jesus wouldcarry out violence on a living
person. Indeed they suggest that if you don't live a life carry



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

Sorry, I stopped mid sentence without realising.

On 21/04/2026 14:27, John wrote:

On 20/04/2026 15:07, Kendall K. Down wrote:

As for the sermon on the mount, try Matthew 5:13, 22, 29; 7:13, 23, 27

You've lost me there.-a I've looked up every verse you've referenced
there and none suggest that Jesus wouldcarry out violence on a living person. Indeed they suggest that if you don't live a life

dedicated to following Jesus, then you are paying lip service to being a Christian, and it won't get you into Heaven.

In no way does it nullify teaches in His sermon, indeed verse 11 is
quite pertinent imo







--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 21/04/2026 14:27, John wrote:

Once Jesus (the man) ascended to Heaven, was He a sperate entity or did Yahweh and Jesus become one and the same?-a Was the Word Yahweh before He became Jesus or were there two entities (Yahweh and the Word)

We need to distinguish between Christian belief and fact. The two may -
or may not - be the same.

So Christian belief - the doctrine of the Trinity - holds that God is
made up of Three Persons. We are also taught that one of those Persons
became a Man without in any sense ceasing to be God.

Does the bible explicitly state that Yahweh became flesh?-a If you
believe that, who was Jesus praying to?

No, there is no such statement that I can think of. However there are
hints which point in that direction, such as the statement that Jesus
made all things whereas Genesis says that YHWH made the world.

Please remember that prayer, despite our human misuse of it, is not a
shopping list of requests, it is properly communion with God. In that
sense Jesus certainly communicated with/communed with the other Two
Persons of the Trinity.

So there you go, He's the Son of God, but He isn't God. I've been back
to Psalm 82, which I believe Jesus is referring to, and hey guess what, these "gods" were mortal.-a (Side note: when did Psalms become part of
the Jewish law?)

Jesus was using typical Jewish word-play, in which context is
unimportant. Yes, the "elohim" in Psalm 82 were mortal - the word
probably means "judges" in that context - but it is still the word "god"
and no one would have quibbled over Jesus' use (misuse?) of the text.

So it's ok for Jesus to execute violence, yet He abhors the same
behaviour from His followers?-a Explain the moral absolute of that for me please.

I did, in the illustration of locking a thief in your bedroom.

Do they have different laws in Wales?-a You can't be jailed (not sure why you're still using an oudated term but hey) for locking a burglar in a
room and would be commended by the police for doing so.

You might think that, but in fact a year or so back a shop manager who
locked a shop-lifter in his office until the police arrived was charged
with false imprisonment and found guilty. I forget what his punishment
was, but the shoplifter was let go with a pat on the back.

You've lost me there.-a I've looked up every verse you've referenced
there and none suggest that Jesus wouldcarry out violence on a living person.

Apart from sending them to hell, you mean?

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 21/04/2026 20:43, John wrote:

dedicated to following Jesus, then you are paying lip service to being a Christian, and it won't get you into Heaven.

And what is the alternative to being in heaven?

Do you think the damned queue to enter hell with smiles and laughter? Or
do you think the common phrase "cast into hell" might actually be the case?

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 22/04/2026 05:19, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 21/04/2026 14:27, John wrote:

Once Jesus (the man) ascended to Heaven, was He a sperate entity or
did Yahweh and Jesus become one and the same?-a Was the Word Yahweh
before He became Jesus or were there two entities (Yahweh and the Word)

We need to distinguish between Christian belief and fact. The two may -
or may not - be the same.

So Christian belief - the doctrine of the Trinity - holds that God is
made up of Three Persons. We are also taught that one of those Persons became a Man without in any sense ceasing to be God.

So is your belief that there are 3 persons in Heaven, who each identify
as God (singular)?

Does the bible explicitly state that Yahweh became flesh?-a If you
believe that, who was Jesus praying to?

No, there is no such statement that I can think of. However there are
hints which point in that direction, such as the statement that Jesus
made all things whereas Genesis says that YHWH made the world.

Hints are one thing, and I agree that certain verses point that way, but
other verses specifically state Jesus isn't God, most specifically John
17:3 If Jesus says He isn't God, then I have to take His word for it.

I'm pretty convinced Paul never considered that Jesus was God. He
states he believes there is one God, and identifies only the Father as
being so. 1 Corinthians 8:6

Please remember that prayer, despite our human misuse of it, is not a shopping list of requests, it is properly communion with God. In that
sense Jesus certainly communicated with/communed with the other Two
Persons of the Trinity.

I can't recall a single bible verse were Jesus prayed to the Holy Spirit.

So there you go, He's the Son of God, but He isn't God. I've been back
to Psalm 82, which I believe Jesus is referring to, and hey guess
what, these "gods" were mortal.-a (Side note: when did Psalms become
part of the Jewish law?)

Jesus was using typical Jewish word-play, in which context is
unimportant. Yes, the "elohim" in Psalm 82 were mortal - the word
probably means "judges" in that context - but it is still the word "god"
and no one would have quibbled over Jesus' use (misuse?) of the text.

But he wasn't declaring Himself to be God though. He says in the text
that He is the Son of God. If He was God, He wouldn't have declared
that the Father was greater than He was. The Greek word theos can mean
God's representative.

So it's ok for Jesus to execute violence, yet He abhors the same
behaviour from His followers?-a Explain the moral absolute of that for
me please.

I did, in the illustration of locking a thief in your bedroom.

You aren't executing violence, you're merely detaining someone until the police arrive, which isn't a criminal offence.

Do they have different laws in Wales?-a You can't be jailed (not sure
why you're still using an oudated term but hey) for locking a burglar
in a room and would be commended by the police for doing so.

You might think that, but in fact a year or so back a shop manager who locked a shop-lifter in his office until the police arrived was charged
with false imprisonment and found guilty. I forget what his punishment
was, but the shoplifter was let go with a pat on the back.

I've had a google and there are 3 or 4 incidents of shoplifters locked
in a shop. One in Newcastle was apprehended by police and no action
taken against the store manager. Another in Derby was locked in a shop
and was told by police he would be prosecuted if he didn't let the man
go, maybe it's this incident you're thinking of?

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-11808549/Police-warned-hero-shopkeeper-release-thief-face-prosecution.html

Whilst I'm not codoning the police reaction, locking someone in a shop
who then threatens to set fire to it with customers present is probably
not the wisest thing to do. I do think though that the police should
have treated it as an emergency and sent officers racing to the scene.

You've lost me there.-a I've looked up every verse you've referenced
there and none suggest that Jesus wouldcarry out violence on a living
person.

Apart from sending them to hell, you mean?

If a person is dead, and their final destination is hell, is violence involved? My objection is not that DJT will go to hell, but that Jesus
sends him there with a smack in the mouth. It's that bit I disagree
with yet you are agreeing with it, why?



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 22/04/2026 18:38, John wrote:

So is your belief that there are 3 persons in Heaven, who each identify
as God (singular)?

I uphold the doctrine of the Trinity as probably the best that mere
humans can do to define something we do not really understand. However I
am quite prepared to find, when we meet God face-to-face, that the
doctrine is totally wrong or even blasphemous. Or, of course, that we
simply do not have the mental capacity to understand the reality.

Hints are one thing, and I agree that certain verses point that way, but other verses specifically state Jesus isn't God, most specifically John
17:3 If Jesus says He isn't God, then I have to take His word for it.

I believe that we have to take *everything* into account and cannot say
"this is more important than that" or "this right and that is wrong".

I'm pretty convinced Paul never considered that Jesus was God.-a He
states he believes there is one God, and identifies only the Father as
being so.-a 1 Corinthians 8:6

Certainly Paul did not believe the doctrine of the Trinity, which was
only settled several centuries later. However I do not think that his statements are contrary to the doctrine.

I can't recall a single bible verse were Jesus prayed to the Holy Spirit.

If Jesus was fully human, as we believe, then I presume His prayers
followed the usual pathway described in Romans 8, where the Spirit takes
our words and transmits them to the Father. I don't specifically pray to
the Holy Spirit either, but I have no doubt that He is involved every
time I pray.

But he wasn't declaring Himself to be God though. He says in the text
that He is the Son of God.-a If He was God, He wouldn't have declared
that the Father was greater than He was. The Greek word theos can mean
God's representative.

The Creeds take account of that and state that the Father was indeed
greater than the human Jesus, even though the two are equal in reality.

I've had a google and there are 3 or 4 incidents of shoplifters locked
in a shop.-a One in Newcastle was apprehended by police and no action
taken against the store manager.-a Another in Derby was locked in a shop
and was told by police he would be prosecuted if he didn't let the man
go, maybe it's this incident you're thinking of?

Possibly. I think there have been more than one incident. I agree that
police inaction means, in effect, that the police are conniving with the criminals.

If a person is dead, and their final destination is hell, is violence involved? My objection is not that DJT will go to hell, but that Jesus
sends him there with a smack in the mouth.-a It's that bit I disagree
with yet you are agreeing with it, why?

So if God condemns someone to hell and points to the gateway into the
Pit and the person refuses to go, what do you think is going to happen?
God will shrug and say, "Oh well, in that case I'll let you off"? Or
some form of physical force will be employed? Whether that will involve
a smack in the mouth or not is irrelevant. Physical force is physical
force, no matter its precise methodology.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 23/04/2026 21:21, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 22/04/2026 18:38, John wrote:

So is your belief that there are 3 persons in Heaven, who each
identify as God (singular)?

I uphold the doctrine of the Trinity as probably the best that mere
humans can do to define something we do not really understand. However I
am quite prepared to find, when we meet God face-to-face, that the
doctrine is totally wrong or even blasphemous. Or, of course, that we
simply do not have the mental capacity to understand the reality.

If you find out ultimately that it's a false doctrine, wouldn't it be
safer to find out beforehand whether it is or not, would it not send you crashing down to hell?

If the latter then you're no doubt safe.

Hints are one thing, and I agree that certain verses point that way,
but other verses specifically state Jesus isn't God, most specifically
John 17:3 If Jesus says He isn't God, then I have to take His word for
it.

I believe that we have to take *everything* into account and cannot say "this is more important than that" or "this right and that is wrong".

Would you not add more weight to various verses? For instance I would
add more weight to 1 Corinthians 6:8 and John 17:3 than I would to John
8:58 or John 1:1-3, because the latter two "could" mean something
different whereas I find the other two to be quite specific.

I'm pretty convinced Paul never considered that Jesus was God.-a He
states he believes there is one God, and identifies only the Father as
being so.-a 1 Corinthians 8:6

Certainly Paul did not believe the doctrine of the Trinity, which was
only settled several centuries later. However I do not think that his statements are contrary to the doctrine.

I find 1 Corinthians 6:8 is contrary to the doctrine. Throughout Paul's epistles he talks of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. In
Ephesians 4:4-6 he talks of one God, one Lord.

snip

If a person is dead, and their final destination is hell, is violence
involved? My objection is not that DJT will go to hell, but that Jesus
sends him there with a smack in the mouth.-a It's that bit I disagree
with yet you are agreeing with it, why?

So if God condemns someone to hell and points to the gateway into the
Pit and the person refuses to go, what do you think is going to happen?
God will shrug and say, "Oh well, in that case I'll let you off"? Or
some form of physical force will be employed? Whether that will involve
a smack in the mouth or not is irrelevant. Physical force is physical
force, no matter its precise methodology.

You talk as if we'll still have a human body, which I don't think will
be te case. I would imagine though, if you're at the great white throne
as a non believer, and judged not to be in the book of life, you would
be that much in awe and fear you would just be in hell in an instant.
If hell is just annihilation, as I think you believe, then basically
you'll just be no more.



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 24/04/2026 10:22, John wrote:

If you find out ultimately that it's a false doctrine, wouldn't it be
safer to find out beforehand whether it is or not, would it not send you crashing down to hell?

I cannot find any Biblical reason to reject the doctrine, simply because
the Bible does not address the issues raised in it. I am not aware of
any verse, for example, which would decide whether Jesus was homo-ousios
or homoi-ousios or whether He has one will or two.

I choose to err on the side of a) orthodoxy and b) respect for Jesus. If country A sends an emissary to country B, I don't think that excessive
respect for the emissary would be considered a fault.

Would you not add more weight to various verses?-a For instance I would
add more weight to 1 Corinthians 6:8 and John 17:3 than I would to John
8:58 or John 1:1-3, because the latter two "could" mean something
different whereas I find the other two to be quite specific.

Possibly - and yet Paul and John wrote those other verses and, I
presume, intended what is said in them. They cannot be omitted from any consideration.

I find 1 Corinthians 6:8 is contrary to the doctrine.

Really?

I suspect a typo and you mean 8:6, which you referenced earlier. Notice
that in 8:6 Paul says "one God, the Father, of whom are all things", yet
in Colossians 1:16 Paul says that Jesus created all things "and by Him
all things consist" (17). I accept both statements, regarding one as
simply an expansion of the other.

You talk as if we'll still have a human body, which I don't think will
be te case. I would imagine though, if you're at the great white throne
as a non believer, and judged not to be in the book of life, you would
be that much in awe and fear you would just be in hell in an instant. If hell is just annihilation, as I think you believe, then basically you'll just be no more.

The Creed speaks of "I believe in the resurrection of the body", so it
is Christian teaching that we will still (or rather, again) have a human
body.

The final fate of the wicked is annihilation, but they are annihilated
by hell fire which, I have no doubt, is extremely unpleasant. And I have
no information on how long the process of annihilation will take, though
I believe that it will be longer for some than for others.

The main thing is to not end up there, after which questions of duration
are academic.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

* "Kendall K. Down" <10sms8j$24ic8$1@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 27 Apr 2026 06:29:56 +0100:

AFAIC John wins this round.

On 24/04/2026 10:22, John wrote:

If you find out ultimately that it's a false doctrine, wouldn't it
be safer to find out beforehand whether it is or not, would it not
send you crashing down to hell?

I cannot find any Biblical reason to reject the doctrine, simply
because the Bible does not address the issues raised in it. I am not
aware of any verse, for example, which would decide whether Jesus was homo-ousios or homoi-ousios or whether He has one will or two.

As long as you admit it is not positively adduced, and you also admit it
is not a "salvation issue"

I choose to err on the side of a) orthodoxy and b) respect for
Jesus. If country A sends an emissary to country B, I don't think that excessive respect for the emissary would be considered a fault.

There are certain doctrines that are blatantly suspect on linguistic
grounds. The (defined) Perfection of God entering an (defined)
Imperfect world is an example. It plays on a fundamental contradiction
of terms, and through the incompleteness theorem, once admitted (even in error), your consent to it can be manipulated for any purpose
whatsoever.

As part of your orthodoxy, your the submission to the creed is required
because that is the instrument through which your heresy can be
proclaimed, based on your affirmation/denial of something you do not comprehend, and cannot possibly comprehend (by definition), and then
your properties can be escheated, and your guru can hand them over to
satan and his bankers. etc etc. This would have been the practical
reason for the creeds even if you don't seem them as such now. These
creeds have nothing to do with salvation they are not slavation issues,
as you grant, but they only have to do with your business on earth,
involving the manipulation of legal loopholes and to keep the churches market-competitive for the banks. It is from this perspective that the
debate on creeds can be seen to be fruitless



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 27/04/2026 06:29, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 24/04/2026 10:22, John wrote:

I find 1 Corinthians 6:8 is contrary to the doctrine.

Really?

I suspect a typo and you mean 8:6, which you referenced earlier. Notice
that in 8:6 Paul says "one God, the Father, of whom are all things", yet
in Colossians 1:16 Paul says that Jesus created all things "and by Him
all things consist" (17). I accept both statements, regarding one as
simply an expansion of the other.

I did indeed mean 8:6, well spotted.

I'm going to lay aside Colossians 1:16 for the time being. I've re-read
the chapter this morning and it's certainly interesting. I'm not
convinced it's saying Jesus is God, but certainly closer than I thought
Paul's understanding was. I will delve into this further though.

In 1 Corinthians 8:6 I think the difference is much greater. Paul is
stating here that only the Father is God. Picking up on your quote "of
whom are all things" it's interesting how Paul describes Jesus in the
same sentence (my emphasis). In John 17:3 Jesus also says the same.
"And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God,
*and* Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (NKJV) Again my emphasis.

yet for us there is one God, the Father, *of* whom are all things, and
we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, *through* whom are all things,
and through whom we live. (NKJV) (I think that also links into Paul's phrasing of Colossians 1:16-17 but as I say, I need to look at it more closely.

And that's the sticking point for me, two clear passages saying only the Father is God, with no clear passages saying Jesus is God, bar John
1:1-3 and John 8:58. John 1:1 has a plausible explanation. John 8:58
not so easily, but if you take that as Jesus being the I AM uttered in
the OT, then you have to say the God of the Old Testament was Jesus, it
means Jesus is also the Father.


I've snipped ressurected bodies and the subject of hell for now. I'm currently working through something on the latter, so it will link in to
that.



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 27/04/2026 10:17, Madhu wrote:

As long as you admit it is not positively adduced, and you also admit it
is not a "salvation issue"

I think that showing a lack of respect for Jesus might be a salvation issue.

As part of your orthodoxy, your the submission to the creed is required because that is the instrument through which your heresy can be
proclaimed, based on your affirmation/denial of something you do not comprehend, and cannot possibly comprehend (by definition), and then
your properties can be escheated, and your guru can hand them over to
satan and his bankers. etc etc.

Only you could come up with an entirely spurious link between the
doctrine of the Trinity and Western banks. You really do have a bee in
your bonnet!

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 27/04/2026 13:32, John wrote:

I'm going to lay aside Colossians 1:16 for the time being. I've re-read
the chapter this morning and it's certainly interesting.-a I'm not
convinced it's saying Jesus is God, but certainly closer than I thought Paul's understanding was.-a I will delve into this further though.

By all means; but it must be part of your evaluation of Jesus' status.

And that's the sticking point for me, two clear passages saying only the Father is God, with no clear passages saying Jesus is God, bar John
1:1-3 and John 8:58.

But that is precisely what you cannot do - bar those two references.
They are clear passages saying that Jesus is God. To claim that there
are not passages and then admit that there are passages means that you
are contradicting yourself.

John 1:1 has a plausible explanation. John 8:58
not so easily, but if you take that as Jesus being the I AM uttered in
the OT, then you have to say the God of the Old Testament was Jesus, it means Jesus is also the Father.

Certainly the God of the Old Testament may well have been Jesus. Why
that leads you to conclude that Jesus is therefore the Father is beyond me.

Personally I think that YHWH is a composite of all Three Persons, which
is why in Genesis 2 you have the composite YHWH-Elohim - YHWH-Gods.

I am sure I have pointed it out before, but Hebrew has three gramatical numbers: singular, plural and dual. In English, where we only have two
numbers - singular and plural - plural can be anything more than one. In Hebrew, however, plural can only be anything more than two, therefore a minimum of three.

Elohim is a plural and indicates a minimum of three. I am sure God
revealed Himself in Hebrew, knowing that His Triune nature would be an integral part of the language.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 27/04/2026 21:51, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 27/04/2026 13:32, John wrote:

I'm going to lay aside Colossians 1:16 for the time being. I've re-
read the chapter this morning and it's certainly interesting.-a I'm not
convinced it's saying Jesus is God, but certainly closer than I
thought Paul's understanding was.-a I will delve into this further though.

By all means; but it must be part of your evaluation of Jesus' status.

And that's the sticking point for me, two clear passages saying only
the Father is God, with no clear passages saying Jesus is God, bar
John 1:1-3 and John 8:58.

But that is precisely what you cannot do - bar those two references.
They are clear passages saying that Jesus is God. To claim that there
are not passages and then admit that there are passages means that you
are contradicting yourself.

John 1:1 has a plausible explanation. John 8:58 not so easily, but if
you take that as Jesus being the I AM uttered in the OT, then you have
to say the God of the Old Testament was Jesus, it means Jesus is also
the Father.

Certainly the God of the Old Testament may well have been Jesus. Why
that leads you to conclude that Jesus is therefore the Father is beyond me.

Personally I think that YHWH is a composite of all Three Persons, which
is why in Genesis 2 you have the composite YHWH-Elohim - YHWH-Gods.

I am sure I have pointed it out before, but Hebrew has three gramatical numbers: singular, plural and dual. In English, where we only have two numbers - singular and plural - plural can be anything more than one. In Hebrew, however, plural can only be anything more than two, therefore a minimum of three.

Elohim is a plural and indicates a minimum of three. I am sure God
revealed Himself in Hebrew, knowing that His Triune nature would be an integral part of the language.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 27/04/2026 21:51, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 27/04/2026 13:32, John wrote:

John 1:1 has a plausible explanation. John 8:58 not so easily, but if
you take that as Jesus being the I AM uttered in the OT, then you have
to say the God of the Old Testament was Jesus, it means Jesus is also
the Father.

Certainly the God of the Old Testament may well have been Jesus. Why
that leads you to conclude that Jesus is therefore the Father is beyond me.

I don't believe He is, but that's the conclusion one must reach if you
say Jesus was the God of the OT, because Jesus states in John 20:17 that
His Father was His God, and also the Father and God of the Jewish people.





--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 28/04/2026 22:55, John wrote:

I don't believe He is, but that's the conclusion one must reach if you
say Jesus was the God of the OT, because Jesus states in John 20:17 that
His Father was His God, and also the Father and God of the Jewish people.

You really struggle with both the Trinity and the Incarnation, don't you!

The orthodox teaching is that there is One God, Who consists in Three
Persons. The Three are One, but they are also Three. Needless to say,
there is nothing on earth to which the Trinity can be compared[1], which
is why people fall into the sort of errors you are making.

As a further complication, the Second Person of the Trinity became a
Man, a totally human perfectly ordinary man, while at the same time
remaining totally divine. Although, as divine, He was fully equal to the Father and the Spirit, as a man He was subordinate to Them.

Thus the man Jesus could refer to the Father as "my God" without in any
way lessening His own status - or should I say, statuses!

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

Note 1: The closest thing to the Trinity is the relationship of Adam and
Eve (and, indeed, any husband and wife), for according to Scripture, a
husband and wife are one flesh, yet they are manifestly two persons. (In Adam's case, where Eve was made out of his rib, she was very literally
one flesh with her husband!)

So we believe that the Three Persons of the Godhead are three but of one substance.

As for the Incarnation, the closest analogy I can come up with if that
of an avatar in Second Life. Thor the Warrior God whom you encounter on
the Second Life golf course, is fully avatar, fully digital, yet behind
him is a rather weedy plumber from Luton. As Thor, this person is
subject to the rules of Second Life (whatever they may be) but as
plumber he can do things Thor would never be allowed to do. The two -
Thor and the plumber - are one; the avatar would not exist without the
plumber and if questioned Thor would have to refer to the plumber as "my controller". He might even, if he encountered your avatar, tell you that
the owners of Second Life are "my god and your god" and be telling
nothing but the truth!

However these are just illustrations and no doubt theologians will be
able to pick holes in them.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2