Amen and the unity of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

[Nick Ginex]

Excellent Job of the Greek, Bowman; Nick says that Amen means "Truth," Jesus says "I am the Truth," therefore, Jesus is still Amen. (John 14:6)

Come on Reese, you can do much better than that to prove Amen is Jesus. Are you also going to make a liar out of Jesus as has Mr. Bowman?

I have already provided why Jesus cannot be Amen. Unless, you are agreeing that God introduced Himself to mankind in the name of Amen. Why should Jesus adopt another name? Does it appear to be foolish to think Jesus believes he is Amen ? Unless, Jesus truly believes he is the "beginning of the creation of God?"

Reece, you may have something there, that is Jesus is Amen, the God that was first to be worshipped as the one-universal God!!

Amen existed before the Torah was written and in truth, Jesus acknowlwdges that fact. We have much to thank Jesus for telling the Truth.

Hooray!! Reece you have possibly arrived at truth spoken by Jesus himself.

[Bowman]

I have already provided why Jesus cannot be Amen. .

No, you have not.

[Nick Ginex]

Reese, May 5, 2011, 5:37 AM; Ginex Response on Red, May 7, 2011

I congratulate you for reading The Dawn of Conscience by James H. Breasted. You raised many questions and gave much support to defend your Christian beliefs that God was a loving God and gave mankind all the wisdom and set of morals from the beginning of his creation of human beings. Unfortunately, I am in agreement with Mr. Breasted that mankind was not placed on this earth with the knowledge of morality to conduct his life in reverence to Him.

Reece, you believe that our loving God gave mankind the moral code at the time He created us. However, God saw there was a need to give Moses over 600 commands because somehow mankind forgot how to conduct their lives. Was this because God was negligent in the first place to teach His children a moral code? Maybe God should have taught mankind how to read and write so that they would not forget the moral code God taught them. Do you really believe God took the time to teach the 600 or more commands and judgments to His first created children? If not the 600 commands, ordinances and judgments at least the Ten Commandments?

My dear Reese, give credit where credit is due. Stop trying to ignore the achievements of the Egyptian Priesthood to develop a set of morals for their people to live in harmony and built one of the greatest empires of the past. If there were other civilizations as smart as the Egyptians, surely they should have left some work of their building skills, art, and signs of knowing how to write.

Reesce, you are an intelligent man. Do not let your beliefs lock out knowledge we have acquired from our past. You should thank God that He made the Egyptians a spiritual people and gave them the ability to acknowledge that there is indeed, one-universal God. I will entertain only your last question because you already know my beliefs about the origin of God and how mankind developed not only the belief in God but a moral code to live by before the Torah was ever written.

And there you have it; man is an animal? I do appreciate that you provided sources in your book; but as prestigious as they are, I simply cannot reconcile their views on human origins with that of a loving God. Can you? If so, how? How does a loving God create an immoral human and give them no moral guidance for millions of years?

Reece, I was a small boy when I was able to realize, without reading any books, that man is closely associated with the animals that surround us. I was able to observe that they also have two eyes, two ears, two arms, two legs, a heart, lungs, digestive system, and similar capability for reproduction. I thought how wonderful that God has made all of us from the same origins of life because many of our genes are the same. Humans are blessed with the ability to speak and use their hands to communicate and build the world we now live in.

So yes, Reece, we are part of the animal kingdom but endowed with a higher level of intelligence to control our environment and build communities. It did not happen overnight that God gave us the knowledge to communicate and work together. But if you wish to believe the Bible is the source of all knowledge by the imagination of men who have had revelations, then as long as you’re happy that's all that matters. You believe what you believe, but I will believe in the knowledge acquired by intelligent people from former generations.

Remember, I wrote FUTURE OF GOD AMEN to inform people how mankind came to believe in one-universal God. If you could prove me WRONG with facts and evidence, not your opinions and beliefs, I would be most grateful. I am not a liar and a cheat who will make up all possible reasons to have you believe what I wrote. The book has reputable references, facts, and findings. If you wish to call the book "GARBAGE" like our illustrious Mr. Bowman, then I can only reply, "You may believe anything you desire as long as you are happy and comfortable with your beliefs in God." I will not denigrate your beliefs, so have the integrity to respect my beliefs.

Unlike you and Mr. Bowman, my God is the God of ALL PEOPLE, the creator of all there is. He is not a polytheistic God consisting of three (3) PERSONS. You have had the benefit of reading why I do not trust the Church Fathers for fabricating the concept of the Trinity.

I will make you understand one more time my Christian beliefs:

1. There is only one-universal God, all knowing and the creator of all there is.

2. Jesus is the Son of God, made flesh to give mankind the Word of God - to love one another.

3. The Holy Spirit is not another 'Person', but is the Spirit of God. It is God's Spirit that pervades the universe and brings knowledge to intelligent life forms about the existence of God. This means not only human beings, but knowledge of God to life existing in other parts of our universe.

FUTURE OF GOD AMEN was written not to dissuade anybody from their beliefs, but to come to know the TRUTH - how man came to conceive one-universal God. Reece, Knowledge is a Wonderful Gift - Ginex, therefore embrace it.

[Nick Ginex]

Thanks brother Reece.

Our case is air-tight.

Let's watch Nick run....

Yea Mr. Bowman, a man of a few words because he does not have the ability to think and form cohesive modules of thought.

As your one-liners show, you are unable to critique FUTURE OF GOD AMEN with ideas of your own.

Certainly, use the Bible as your source, but then show our readers that YOU KNOW HOW TO THINK.

[Nick Ginex]

No, Brother.

You willfully ignored my last post (#404, detailing the Greek) which exposed your argument for the sham that it is.

Go back and read about the fatal flaw in your methodology with a level-head this time, and you will no doubt wish you had never written your book.

Mr. Bowman, if you feel your argument is correct, let us review your thoughts why you are correct.

By just quoting a few lines of Greek verse means nothing because it does not display your reasoning and ability to think.

Come, Mr. Bowman, show our readers that you are smart enough to show why any portion of FUTURE OF GOD AMEN needs correction.

I thought you were going to critique the book, but instead, you have resorted to your one-liners, like "garbage."

Is that the best kind of reasoning you could produce? Seems like you already lost the debate because you have no logical thoughts to offer.

I am waiting to see how you explain your argument. My conclusions are fully explained in FUTURE OF GOD AMEN.

DO NOT REVEAL TO OUR READERS THAT YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF DEFENDING YOUR POSTION(S).

[Nick Ginex]

You should have thought twice before quoting from the Book of Revelation to deny the Trinity.

The Book of Revelation provides irrefutable proof of the Trinity, Nick.

Mr. Bowman, once again you make a statement but you appear to be INCAPABLE to explain or substantiate the irrefutable proof.

Please show our readers that you possess the ability to explain why you believe the TRINITY is advocated in the Gospels and Revelation.

When you do so, please make your argument clear so our readers are able to understand you do not believe in a polytheistic concept.

[Nick Ginex]

You have been exposed as knowing absolutely nothing about the very verse you are using as the premise for your entire argument.

Your failure to address the Greek shows your lack of confidence in your position.

You can't even provide a single, solitary reference to any scholar who interprets Rev 3.14 as you do.

You have absolutely nothing, Nick.

Zero.

Once again Mr. Bowman, Rev 3:14 you provide "ZERO" evidence. You are supposed to show us your ability to explain in Rev 3:14 why Jesus is Amen. I have already explained why Jesus was referring to the greatest Egyptian God, Amen, who existed for 2.000 years before the birth of Jesus. The past evidence of the existence of Amen cannot be denied. Jesus was knowledgeable about the influence Amen had on the development of the Judaic and Christian religions.

Fortunately, Jesus is a MAN OF TRUTH who has revealed knowledge that few scholars have been exposed to. The hymns that describe Amon As the Sole God are real, positive proof that has surfaced over the past 100 years. No wonder scholars of religious history are ignorant of Amen and, religious leaders will avoid revealing the TRUTH to their worshippers. Why? Because they do not believe Jesus Christ has given them the TRUTH, which means they are hypocrites.
.

[Nick Ginex]

You can yell all you want, Nick...it won't change the grammatical fact that Jesus is 'The Amen' in this verse.

You wasted alot of your $ on a fictional book, brother...

Prove it Mr. Bowman; that Jesus is the "Amen" without resorting to grammar but facts and evidence as I have.

If you have read FUTURE OF GOD AMEN, you will have ample evidence that this God profoundly influence the development of the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic religions.

You have nothing Mr. Bowman to prove that Amen is not, "the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God."

Jesus gives us the Truth, embrace it.

[Nick Ginex]

You willfully ignored my last post (#404, detailing the Greek) which exposed your argument for the sham that it is.

Go back and read about the fatal flaw in your methodology with a level-head this time, and you will no doubt wish you had never written your book

Mr. Bowman, you are ignoring the TRUTHFUL words of Jesus and prefer make a liar out of him then give up your belief in the TRINITY.

Is it because the very foundation of your TRINITY concept, a FABRICATION by the Chirch Fathers, will be proven to be FALSE?

Let us again review why my interpretation is correct; that it is backed up with historical data and actual findings that prove Amen was the greatest Egyptian God; a God revered for over 2,000 years before the birth of Jesus.

You have not shown that you understand the facts and findings presented in the book, FUTURE OF GOD AMEN. All the information is there to prove the authenticity of the Egyptian religion having existed for more than 3,000 years before Jesus. There is no doubt that the Hebrews were influenced by Egyptian beliefs and their extensive moral code.

For your instruction, I provide the following for you and not one-liners that are derogatory; a technique you like to employ.

The book, Future of God Amen provides information that has surfaced for god-loving people to learn how mankind conceived the belief in one-universal God. You are willing to call this book "garbage" because of your fears that to learn Amen existed as one of the greatest Egyptian Gods for over 2,000 years before the birth of Jesus could be accepted and appreciated by people. Yes, my dear man, the book was written to inform people AROUND THE WORLD that Jesus was referring to a God that was first associated with being the first universal God of all people. You try to deny proof provided in Future of God Amen given by the Priesthood of Amon with written scripture, "Amon As the Sole God." To inform our readers that you are "full of garbage", I am providing a few excerpts from Future of God Amen, Pages 167 and 175, to make them aware that the idea of a God, the creator of all there is, existed before the Bible (Torah) was written.

Mr. Bowman, read it and weep. With a little humility you might be able to accept the TRUTH of Jesus's words that Amen is, "the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God." What you need Mr. Bowman is a little more knowledge in your limited understanding of human history and perhaps the verses below can be of benefit to you. At least, I pray that you can appreciated that Jesus was referring to a God that has greatly influenced the development of the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic religions.

In The Hymn to Amon-Re, the god Amen-Re is viewed as the supreme god that creates and sustains life. The following excerpts are provided to emphasize Amen as the “Creator and Maker of all that is:”
Hail to thee, Amon-Re, . . .

Lord of what is, enduring in all things, enduring in all things,.

Lord of eternity, who made everlastingness . . .
Who made what is below and what is above, . . .
The chief one who made the entire earth, . . .

Thou art the sole one, who made all that is,
[The] solitary sole [one], who made what exists . . .
Father of the fathers of all the gods,
Who raised the heavens and laid down the ground,
Who made what is and created what exists; . . .

Maker of all mankind, Creator and Maker of all that is . . .


Amon As the Sole God, 100th Stanza

The first to come into being in the earliest times. Amon, who came
into being at the beginning, so that his mysterious nature is unknown.
No god came into being before him; there was no other god with him,
so that he might tell his form. He had no mother, after whom his name
might have been made. He had no father who had begotten him and
who might have said: “This is I!” Building his own egg, a daemon 2
mysterious at birth, who created his (own) beauty, the divine god that
came into being by himself. All (other) gods came into being after he
began himself.

Amon As the Sole God, 200th Stanza

Mysterious of form, glistening of appearance, the marvelous god
of many forms. All (other) gods boast of him, to magnify themselves
through his beauty, according as he is divine. Re is united with his
body. He is the great one who is in Heliopolis . . .

The procreator of the primeval gods, who brought Re to birth; he
completed himself as Atum, a single body with him. He is the All-Lord,
the beginning of that which is. His soul, they say, is that which is in
heaven . . .

One is Amon, hiding himself from them, concealing himself from
the (other) gods, so that his (very) color is unknown. He is far from
heaven, he is absent from the underworld, (so that) no gods know his
true form. His image is not displayed in writings. No one bears witness
to him . . . He is too mysterious that his majesty might be disclosed,
he is too great that (men) should ask about him, too powerful that
he might be known. Instantly (one) falls in a death of violence at the
utterance of his mysterious name, unwittingly or wittingly . . .

To the Egyptian belief that Amon is the sole god, “the All-Lord, the beginning of that which is.” it is Jesus Christ that confirms Amenis, “the beginning of the creation of God.”

Mr. Bowman, hopefully, you are becoming more knowledgeable about History to appreciate the meaning of Jesus words in Revelation 3:14. I will pray for you to be open to new information and not throw stones at a book and its author who only desires to inform ALL PEOPLE of the TRUTH about how man first came to conceive one-universal God.[/COLOR]

[Bowman]

Prove it Mr. Bowman; that Jesus is the "Amen" without resorting to grammar but facts and evidence

Simple exegesis, Nick…


3.14

και τω αγγελω της εν λαοδικεια εκκλησιας γραψον ταδε λεγει ο αμην ο μαρτυς ο πιστος και [ο] αληθινος η αρχη της κτισεως του θεου


In seven out of seven sequential verses, the formula ‘tade legei’ (demonstrative accusative; indicative verb) precedes the nominative singular masculine article ‘o’.

This translates into what is being stated by the epithets listed after the formula.

This means that listed epithets belong to Jesus – they do not represent separate entities.



However, let’s apply your faulty logic in a consistent manner to the preceding identically formulated verses leading up to your one-hit-wonder, and observe the results…





2.1


τω αγγελω τω εν εφεσω εκκλησιας γραψον ταδε λεγει ο κρατων τους επτα αστερας εν τη δεξια αυτου ο περιπατων εν μεσω των επτα λυχνιων των χρυσων


According to your reasoning, Jesus is saying here that another entity holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks amongst the seven candlesticks.

This contradicts with Rev 1.13 & 1.20 which state that the Son of Man is amongst the seven candle sticks and holds the seven stars in His right hand.



2.8


και τω αγγελω τω εν σμυρνη εκκλησιας γραψον ταδε λεγει ο πρωτος και ο εσχατος ος εγενετο νεκρος και εζησεν


According to your reasoning, Jesus is saying here that another entity called ‘The First & the Last’ was dead but now lives.

This contradicts with Rev 1.11, 1.17 & 22.13 which have Jesus as ‘The First & the Last’.

How does God come back from the dead, unless it was talking about Jesus in the first place, Nick?





2.12


και τω αγγελω της εν περγαμω εκκλησιας γραψον ταδε λεγει ο εχων την ρομφαιαν την διστομον την οξειαν


According to your reasoning, Jesus is saying here that another entity has a sharp double-edged sword

This contradicts with Rev 1.16 which states that Jesus is the one having the sharp two edged sword.




2.18


και τω αγγελω τω εν θυατειροις εκκλησιας γραψον ταδε λεγει ο υιος του θεου ο εχων τους οφθαλμους [αυτου] ως φλογα πυρος και οι ποδες αυτου ομοιοι χαλκολιβανω


According to your reasoning, Jesus is saying here that another entity is called ‘The Son of God’.

This contradicts with the whole of the entire Holy Bible.




3.1

και τω αγγελω της εν σαρδεσιν εκκλησιας γραψον ταδε λεγει ο εχων τα επτα πνευματα του θεου και τους επτα αστερας οιδα σου τα εργα οτι ονομα εχεις οτι ζης και νεκρος ει


According to your reasoning, Jesus is saying here that another entity holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars.

This contradicts with Rev 1.20 which states that Jesus holds the seven stars in His right hand.




3.7

και τω αγγελω της εν φιλαδελφεια εκκλησιας γραψον ταδε λεγει ο αγιος ο αληθινος ο εχων την κλειν δαυιδ ο ανοιγων και ουδεις κλεισει και κλειων και ουδεις ανοιγει


According to your reasoning, Jesus is saying here that another entity called ‘Holy and True’ holds the key of David.

This contradicts with Rev 5.5 & 22.16 which have Jesus as the legacy of David.



Now...look the other way and pretend (again) that you were never answered,

[Nick Ginex]

Bowman, May 9, 2011; Ginex Response in Red May 11, 2011

Mr. Bowman, I have copied your rebuttal and pasted them below so that our readers can learn that you are incapable of presenting a convincing argument with logical thoughts. Once again you resort to Greek syntax and grammar but lack the ability to prove your case as to WHY

JESUS IS NOT AMEN WHO WAS THE GREATEST EGYPTIAN GOD FOR OVER 2,000 YEARS BEFORE THE BIRTH OF JESUS.
You are misinterpreting Jesus in Revelation 3:14, where he proclaims Amen as:

The faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.

Mr. Bowman, I will provide your incomplete and unsupported responses below before I show you how to use logic and common sense when responding.

Simple exegesis, Nick…

3.14
In seven out of seven sequential verses, the formula ‘tade legei’ (demonstrative accusative; indicative verb) precedes the nominative singular masculine article ‘o’.

This translates into what is being stated by the epithets listed after the formula.

This means that listed epithets belong to Jesus – they do not represent separate entities.

However, let’s apply your faulty logic in a consistent manner to the preceding identically formulated verses leading up to your one-hit-wonder, and observe the results…


2.1
According to your reasoning, Jesus is saying here that another entity holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks amongst the seven candlesticks.

According to my reasoning? I never referred to this candlestick verse.

This contradicts with Rev 1.13 & 1.20 which state that the Son of Man is amongst the seven candle sticks and holds the seven stars in His right hand.

[COLOR="red"]Explain what this has to do with Jesus saying Amen is, “the faithful and true witness the beginning of the creation of God.”[/COLOR]

2.8
According to your reasoning, Jesus is saying here that another entity called ‘The First & the Last’ was dead but now lives.

What reasoning are you referring to since I never referred to the First and the Last? Again, you are incapable of explaining yourself? Please show our readers that you are capable of thinking logically and fairly.

This contradicts with Rev 1.11, 1.17 & 22.13 which have Jesus as ‘The First & the Last’.

How does God come back from the dead, unless it was talking about Jesus in the first place, Nick?

What has coming back from the dead have to do with what Jesus proclaimed in Revelation 3:14?

2.12
According to your reasoning, Jesus is saying here that another entity has a sharp double-edged sword.

Again, what reasoning are you referring to since you are incapable of explaining your correlation. What about this other entity? You do not appear to back up your references with logical thought.

This contradicts with Rev 1.16 which states that Jesus is the one having the sharp two edged sword.

Explain yourself. What is your point regarding Jesus is not Amen?

2.18
According to your reasoning, Jesus is saying here that another entity is called ‘The Son of God’.

Mr. Bowman, you are confused because Jesus is the Son of God. How could it be another entity?

You need to explain why Jesus is, or is not, Amen. But it appears that you are incapable of forming logical thought to arrive at a conclusion.

This contradicts with the whole of the entire Holy Bible.

In what way does “this?” contradict the entire Bible? Explain yourself if you are capable.

3.1
According to your reasoning, Jesus is saying here that another entity holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars.

[COLOR="red"]What reasoning are you referring to? I have no understanding of the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. What does these spirits and stars have to do with Amen “being the beginning the creation of God?”[/COLOR]

This contradicts with Rev 1.20 which states that Jesus holds the seven stars in His right hand.

Again, why does this contradiction have anything to do with Amen being “the faithful and true witness?”

3.7
According to your reasoning, Jesus is saying here that another entity called ‘Holy and True’ holds the key of David.

This contradicts with Rev 5.5 & 22.16 which have Jesus as the legacy of David.

Again, in what way does this contradiction have anything to do with Jesus pronouncement that Amen is, “the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God?”[/

Now...look the other way and pretend (again) that you were never answered.

I’m looking right at you Brother. You are the one that runs and hides behind Greek syntax and grammar. By providing a line of scripture here and there without explaining your logic of the point you’re trying to make shows our readers that you are a poor communicator. You can only answer with phrases from the Bible without offering any basis for what you believe or trying to prove.

I will now provide for you, once again, the common sense logic or reasons why Amen cannot be Jesus when Jesus proclaimed to those that hath an ear (Revelation 3:13). First, let us reiterate the most profound words proclaimed by Jesus in Revelation 3:14:

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write:
These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.

Analyses of Rev 3:14:

1. Jesus is referring to Amen, another entity than himself because he clearly says Amen is the faithful and true witness. Jesus could equally have said to write:

“I am the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.”

2. We know that Amen does not mean “So be it” or “Verily” and so on, because Jesus is speaking about an entity. That entity had existed and is therefore Amen, the

GREATEST EGYPTIAN GOD THAT EXISTED MORE THAN 2,000 YEARS BEFORE JESUS.

3. Amen was truly CREATED within the minds of men before 2,000 BCE. Before the Moses Exodus, the Egyptian Priesthood of Amon had documented scripture that revered Amen as:

The One-Universal God, the Creator of All There Is.

Jesus is correct that Amen was created. Whereas God, the Father of Jesus, existed from the beginning and was NOT CREATED.

4. FUTURE OF GOD AMEN documents with facts and actual findings that Amen existed as an Egyptian God for more than 2,000 years before Jesus appeared as a Son of God.

Mr. Bowman it appears that you cannot refute the existence of Amen; and the fact that this God had had a profound influence on the development of the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic religions. To do so is to call “HISTORY GARBAGE.” But Mr. Bowman, you rather call the book, FUTURE OF GOD AMEN “Garbage.” Mr. Bowman, you show no respect for the work of actual evidence provided by the Egyptian temples, tombs, and monuments that preserved the hieroglyphics that gave the modern world knowledge of the spirituality of the Egyptian people.

Mr. Bowman, you need to acknowledge that it was the Egyptian Priesthood that developed the concepts of the soul, a hereafter upon living a life of righteousness, the belief in one-universal God, and even the Son of God, which many Roman leaders lauded over themselves before and after the appearance of Jesus. Looks like the Church Fathers also copied the Son of God belief.

5. Mr. Bowman, you must realize that Jesus was well aware of the existence of Amen as an Egyptian God because Jesus was informed by the Holy Spirit of God and also his teachers. Jesus was brought up under the guidance of highly schooled Jewish priests; as was his mother Mary.

Therefore, Jesus was a Man of God who could only reveal the TRUTH that Amen was indeed, the beginning of the creation of God.

6. There is only one other conclusion that can be made about Amen and that is he is Jesus. But that admits that God is Amen who first introduced Himself to the Egyptians. God slowly formed in the minds of men. After the Egyptians worshipped many gods, God finally was revealed by the Egyptian Priesthood who declared God as the Creator of All There Is.

In summary, there is nothing wrong in admitting that the Egyptian people were able to worship one-universal God and that God formed the basis for the development of the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic religions. It is the arrogance and pride of religious leaders that promote the idea that their God is the TRUE God. Any sensible person knows there is only one God that created all there is. The problem is that different groups of people have taken the beliefs of the Egyptians and made them accommodate their own traditions and culture, whereby there are fundamental differences in how all people view the “one” God.

FUTURE OF GOD AMEN was written to show the weaknesses of the Torah, Gospels, and Koran. But more importantly, it provides recommendations to bring religious leaders of the three major religions together and unify their beliefs in the “ONE GOD.”

Mr. Bowman, once again I have given you logical thoughts based upon facts instead of biblical verses that are the revelations of righteous men who have made grave errors in writing events in the Bible. Remember this, my dear Mr. Bowman, not all that is written in the Bible is true because it is beset with forgeries, inconsistencies, and myths. No book is entirely free of errors and I would include my book as well. The best we can hope for is that every effort by writers is to seek the TRUTH. That was the main intent of FUTURE OF GOD AMEN, which was written to inform people around the world how man first conceived “the beginning of the creation of God.”

Mr. Bowman, I wish for you to refrain from giving our readers your one-line verses without commentary or support in making a logical conclusion. It seems you are not capable of using your head to teach others what you sincerely believe in. Too bad, because I thought you were intelligent enough to contribute knowledge to the rest of us who truly want to know God.

If you persist in giving your one-liners of verse without any logical thought, I will tell you now that I will not respond to you because it would be wasting my time and time of our readers.

[Bowman]

You just keep going from bad to worse, brother Nick.

Not only do you avoid the original Greek like the plague, but apparently you cannot even take the time to read context in English, either.

Each address, to each assembly, you have already acknowledged as emanating from Jesus. But then did you bother to read how each address ends? Apparently you have not. Each address ends with The Spirit (to pneuma) as the one making the address!

So…who is actually making the address, brother? Jesus or the Spirit? Or…don’t you as of yet comprehend the Trinity?

As already stated, you picked the wrong Biblical Book if you want to attempt to thwart the Trinity.

I will now provide for you, once again, the common sense logic or reasons why Amen cannot be Jesus when Jesus proclaimed to those that hath an ear (Revelation 3:13). First, let us reiterate the most profound words proclaimed by Jesus in Revelation 3:14:

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write:
These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.

Analyses of Rev 3:14:

1. Jesus is referring to Amen, another entity than himself because he clearly says Amen is the faithful and true witness. Jesus could equally have said to write:

“I am the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.”

You ignore the preceding six addresses leading up to this one, and then start to put your own rendering on it without any regard to Greek grammar.

According to your logic (or lack of it) this verse should also read…. “I am the Amen, the faithful witness, ……”

It took you three days to come up with this lame reply, brother?

Come on, Nick, put forth some effort.

[reece1984]

Reece, May 4, 2:15 AM; Ginex Response in RED



Reece, perhaps you would like to refute the observation made by religious scholars below:

"Revelation 1:11: The phrase "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and," (KJV) which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. It is also found in the New King James Version (NKJV) and in the 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) The latter are basically re-writes of the original KJV. Modern English, is used, but the translators seem to have made little or no effort to correct errors. The Alpha Omega phrase "is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation or in Bruce Metzger's definitive 'A Textual Commentary' on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994..."

I don't dispute that, but that isn't the Scripture I used. I blieve it was the one in Revelation 22 which you are ignoring? And while those scholars show that the one in 1:11 was edited by a scribe, they are in agreement on the one I sent you in Rev 22 where Jesus IDs himself as Alpha and Omega; so please deal with it and stop sidestepping the issue with bogus passages that I never used as evidence. What does Jesus mean when he calls himself Alpha and Omega?

[reece1984]

[COLOR="red"]I congratulate you for reading The Dawn of Conscience by James H. Breasted. You raised many questions and gave much support to defend your Christian beliefs that God was a loving God and gave mankind all the wisdom and set of morals from the beginning of his creation of human beings. Unfortunately, I am in agreement with Mr. Breasted that mankind was not placed on this earth with the knowledge of morality to conduct his life in reverence to Him.

Reece, you believe that our loving God gave mankind the moral code at the time He created us. However, God saw there was a need to give Moses over 600 commands because somehow mankind forgot how to conduct their lives. Was this because God was negligent in the first place to teach His children a moral code? Maybe God should have taught mankind how to read and write so that they would not forget the moral code God taught them. Do you really believe God took the time to teach the 600 or more commands and judgments to His first created children? If not the 600 commands, ordinances and judgments at least the Ten Commandments?

(1) I would never be so foolish to accuse an all-loviing, all-wise, perfect God, of negligence! Human parents may fail in their obligations to their children, but God? No way! If you choose to believe that God is negligent, that's up to you, but in that case then you make God to be less of a caring Father.

(2) No, I don't believe God gave so many laws to the first humans in the beginning, not 600. For on thing, the ritual sacrifices and holy days of the law of Moses were unncessary at the time God created the first humans. The animal sacrifices prefigured or pointed to the death of Christ. Since God created man perfect, free from sin (which is only logical that a perfect God creates nothing with defects in it), there was no need for rituals pointing to a Messiah; there was no need for a Savior back then.

Also, the law of Moses was specific to the Jews living in Palestine, and were given laws that related to their unique situation. The 4th Commandment, for example, keep the sabbath holy, was given to commemorate their deliverance from Egyptian slavery. (Deu 5:15) The first humans were never in slavery nor was an Egypt at the time, so such a law could not apply back then. It is my belief that God gave the first human basic principles of how to love each other, which is the greatest commandment, for how can we love God whom we have not seen when we hate those whom we can see? So what I am saying is that humans in the beginning would have known about kindness, compassion, as well as what things were morally wrong or unnatural, such as bestiality, incest, rape, adulery and so forth. God gives laws and principles to suite the situation at the time. Some of the ten commandments were obviously known at the beginning of man's history; God wouldn't want his children worshipping stones and trees, so they knew not to have other gods beside him, and murder was obviously wrong! Would you permit your kids to kill each other and not intervene? Do you not care? Why then, accuse God of the same uncaring, permissive attitude towards humans in the beginning of man's creation, that you yourself wouldn't hold for your children? It seems to me, that if your position is true, then you are a better father than God himself was to the first generations of humans.

(3) It's not that God was negligent, but rather, humans have a tendancy to forget or to ignore God, and so at times we need reminders. As your kids were growing up, I'm sure you had to repeat the same lesson more than once before they got it. When God says something once, we don't tend to keep it in mind always. We need reminders; and also, future generations need to discover God for themselves. Its not enough to hear about him, we need to experience him. The Israelites were in slavery for a long time in Egypt, and they had forgotten much that their ancestors knew about Yahweh, so they needed reminders. He also gave news laws in accordance with his purpose for setting up a priesthood and temple that would prepare their minds and hearts for the Messiah.

My dear Reese, give credit where credit is due. Stop trying to ignore the achievements of the Egyptian Priesthood to develop a set of morals for their people to live in harmony and built one of the greatest empires of the past. If there were other civilizations as smart as the Egyptians, surely they should have left some work of their building skills, art, and signs of knowing how to write.

The passage of time has eroded much of mankind's history. We can't be sure that the oldest building discovered is the first ever to be constructed.

[COLOR="red"]Reece, I was a small boy when I was able to realize, without reading any books, that man is closely associated with the animals that surround us. I was able to observe that they also have two eyes, two ears, two arms, two legs, a heart, lungs, digestive system, and similar capability for reproduction. I thought how wonderful that God has made all of us from the same origins of life because many of our genes are the same. Humans are blessed with the ability to speak and use their hands to communicate and build the world we now live in.

Similarity in two paintings proves only that they had one painter, not that they both evolved from a common ancestor. God's style is reflected in the many things he has made. I can easily prove evolution is not true. I could list many similarities between planets, but thats no proof one evovled from the other. They had the same creator. Why are all planets round? Why didn't God make some cube? Or dont' you believe God can do that? Is God limited? The similarity in style doesn't prove evolution. If you think the similarities between us and apes proves evolution, then the dissimilarities definitely disprove the doctrine; for we have more differences with animals than we have things in common; and I'd love to have a discussion on Tweb on evolution alone. But right now, I no longer have internet access, so I can't get online often. I have to go by my cousin.

I thank you for the rest of your remarks. I can only agree to disagree. You have spent so much time focusing on what so-called historical facts are, that you don't seem to realize what these "facts" would imply about God. For me, God is the greatest conceivable being; and I rather be an atheist, than to believe in a God who stood by and did nothing to teach us right from wrong for thousands of years of barbarism, in a God who created immoral beings on this earth. If we are just animals, then why should rape, for example, be wrong? When a male shark forces himself on a female shark and coupulates with her, he mates with her, but doesn't rape her! Yet, when one human does it to another, its rape? Are we not just animals, as you say? No! There is a dimension to us no human can have! Evolution cannot be proven. If God created a race of illiteral savages, and watched us run to ruin for milleniums before he somehow inspired the Egyptians to write Scripture, I would have to reject that God as being less loving, less good, and less perfect. Is Breasted even a believer in God anyway? Unlike you, Breasted doesn't even believe in the Bible. Is that whom I should take advice from for religious training?

[Nick Ginex]

REESE, 5/13/2011, 10:50AM; GINEX Response in RED, 5/13/2011

(1) I would never be so foolish to accuse an all-loviing, all-wise, perfect God, of negligence! Human parents may fail in their obligations to their children, but God? No way! If you choose to believe that God is negligent, that's up to you, but in that case then you make God to be less of a caring Father.

Reese, it is nice that you believe God gave His creations knowlwdge of a moral code. The problem though, is that you are making an assumption that you cannot prove.

(2) No, I don't believe God gave so many laws to the first humans in the beginning, not 600. For on thing, the ritual sacrifices and holy days of the law of Moses were unncessary at the time God created the first humans. The animal sacrifices prefigured or pointed to the death of Christ. Since God created man perfect, free from sin (which is only logical that a perfect God creates nothing with defects in it), there was no need for rituals pointing to a Messiah; there was no need for a Savior back then.

[COLOR="red"]I agree, God did not make His creations with any sin to be passed on from generation to generation. Unfortunately, the Church Fathers do not agree with you with their interpretation of the apple eaten by Eve./COLOR]

Also, the law of Moses was specific to the Jews living in Palestine, and were given laws that related to their unique situation. The 4th Commandment, for example, keep the sabbath holy, was given to commemorate their deliverance from Egyptian slavery. (Deu 5:15) The first humans were never in slavery nor was an Egypt at the time, so such a law could not apply back then. It is my belief that God gave the first human basic principles of how to love each other, which is the greatest commandment, for how can we love God whom we have not seen when we hate those whom we can see? So what I am saying is that humans in the beginning would have known about kindness, compassion, as well as what things were morally wrong or unnatural, such as bestiality, incest, rape, adulery and so forth. God gives laws and principles to suite the situation at the time. Some of the ten commandments were obviously known at the beginning of man's history; God wouldn't want his children worshipping stones and trees, so they knew not to have other gods beside him, and murder was obviously wrong! Would you permit your kids to kill each other and not intervene? Do you not care? Why then, accuse God of the same uncaring, permissive attitude towards humans in the beginning of man's creation, that you yourself wouldn't hold for your children? It seems to me, that if your position is true, then you are a better father than God himself was to the first generations of humans.

The laws given to Moses by God was needed because the Jews were worshipping calfs and forgot all that God taught them according to your belief God gave them a moral code to live by. But again, you have constructed a hypothetical belief that God gave His creations knowledge of right and wrong. The more sensible belief is that mankind developed right and wrong in order to live harmoniously together.

(3) It's not that God was negligent, but rather, humans have a tendancy to forget or to ignore God, and so at times we need reminders. As your kids were growing up, I'm sure you had to repeat the same lesson more than once before they got it. When God says something once, we don't tend to keep it in mind always. We need reminders; and also, future generations need to discover God for themselves. Its not enough to hear about him, we need to experience him. The Israelites were in slavery for a long time in Egypt, and they had forgotten much that their ancestors knew about Yahweh, so they needed reminders. He also gave news laws in accordance with his purpose for setting up a priesthood and temple that would prepare their minds and hearts for the Messiah.

Yahweh appeared much later in the lives of the Jews and was not know until Abraham communicated with Him. Yes, there was Noah, but he received only one command from God.

The passage of time has eroded much of mankind's history. We can't be sure that the oldest building discovered is the first ever to be constructed.




Similarity in two paintings proves only that they had one painter, not that they both evolved from a common ancestor. God's style is reflected in the many things he has made. I can easily prove evolution is not true. I could list many similarities between planets, but thats no proof one evovled from the other. They had the same creator. Why are all planets round? Why didn't God make some cube? Or dont' you believe God can do that? Is God limited? The similarity in style doesn't prove evolution. If you think the similarities between us and apes proves evolution, then the dissimilarities definitely disprove the doctrine; for we have more differences with animals than we have things in common; and I'd love to have a discussion on Tweb on evolution alone. But right now, I no longer have internet access, so I can't get online often. I have to go by my cousin.

I thank you for the rest of your remarks. I can only agree to disagree. You have spent so much time focusing on what so-called historical facts are, that you don't seem to realize what these "facts" would imply about God. For me, God is the greatest conceivable being; and I rather be an atheist, than to believe in a God who stood by and did nothing to teach us right from wrong for thousands of years of barbarism, in a God who created immoral beings on this earth. If we are just animals, then why should rape, for example, be wrong? When a male shark forces himself on a female shark and coupulates with her, he mates with her, but doesn't rape her! Yet, when one human does it to another, its rape? Are we not just animals, as you say? No! There is a dimension to us no human can have! Evolution cannot be proven. If God created a race of illiteral savages, and watched us run to ruin for milleniums before he somehow inspired the Egyptians to write Scripture, I would have to reject that God as being less loving, less good, and less perfect. Is Breasted even a believer in God anyway? Unlike you, Breasted doesn't even believe in the Bible. Is that whom I should take advice from for religious training?

Reece, you believe evolution cannot be proven. But by the same token, the existence of God cannot be proven. God is able to exist within the minds of those who have faith in the belief that there was an unknowable, mysterious, incomprehensible force called "God" that created all there is.

How we worship God and use God to improve the morality of mankind is a responsibility religious leaders are failing to do. Whether you are of Judaic, Christian, or Islamic faith, there is no agreement that the "God" they pray to is the SAME-UNIVERSAL GOD. As a consequence, these religions will fail in the future because that do not honor the TRUTH about the past. They have not, and will not, believe in the words of Jesus that AMEN is, "the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God."

In spite of the words coming from Jesus, even the Christians do not honor the truthfulness of the God they pray to. It is because, the religious leaders are arrogant and fearful to embrace history of how man first conceived one-universal God.

I predict that the major religions will crumble and die because they fail to honor the words of Jesus who has set a challenge before them to embrace a COMMON BOND who is AMEN.

The Egyptians were the first people to experience and worship one-universal God.