Another one of your famous decoys.
WHAT part of my question did you NOT grasp?
Answer it!
No decoy at all, matter of fact it’s the decoy you throw in accusing me of decoys that is the real decoy you throw in, in order to alleviate your basic lack of understanding of the historical Christian faith along with church history, as if you knew it you would know your version is coming from individual decedents who originally first departed from the CC.
You would also know what you adhere to has originated from the division of Protestantism and coming from the outcome of American religious revival after revival
I don’t grasp what you say along with what you don’t grasp what I say, as when you truly understand Christianity and history you will realise your take is null and void
I notice you threw in another decoy to Mr G, to avoid addressing where he nailed you with the Bible.
You often do it to him, it appears to be a trait of yours.
Very funny, Mrg along with you are only good for misquoting verses, matter of fact by your logic Mrg has also nailed you as his take is completely different than yours
Do explain why the WT version of anti-trinitarian is completely different than yours yet you use the same bible, matter of fact also do explain why all the other non-trinitarian don’t agree among themselves yet all Trinitarian being, CC, Protestants, Orthodox etc. all agree on the theology nature of Christ and the Trinity
It also appears that it’s a trait of yours to accuse me of decoys when actually you are throwing this as a decoy as you are oblivious to history and rather like to stick only with the bible as you can twist and render verses like you, please to suit your narrative
Again, face the truth, you CC's cannot stand anyone saying you can rely on the Bible alone, as it shows up many of your traditions as flaws.
The fact is all of what’s in the bible is derived from what’s inbuild in the catholic faith, with you only taking misconception of the faith coming due from history, seen as truth by you
Then this concept must also be found in the bible, that is “bible alone” to hold any water, the fact is it’s not taught in the bible, it’s an invention by Luther as he was excommunicated by the CC and had nothing to fall back on, it’s that simple
Like I asked you 7 years ago, show in the bible that only the bible must be used
Then, which bible, Hebrew, Greek, Septuagint, Latin, Bede, Lindisfarm, John Whcliffe, William Tyndale, Erasmus, Miles Converdale, The Great Bible, King James, The new King James, NWT and countless others, plus numerous denominational take on what the bible is saying
These are some basic facts among many that you should be acquainted with, all using the same bible alone, they all assume to have nailed the CC, but all have different teaching not only with the CC but along with each other
Why? are they all different when using and relying on the bible alone this is the part of my question which you do NOT grasp? As when you grasp it you will realise that the notion of bible alone only leads to division after division has it has, having no substance
Why should I believe your version above any other version of bible understanding
Why is your rendering on verses are superior to say the WT
Answer it!
Here is a basic example of divisions to which we never had before the concept of bible alone came about and you’re advocating
Expand