The Word of Wisdom: Isn't it Confusing?

From an INC Fanatics that try hard to be a cool antagonist. Let me get this as straight as it could Job Bautista.

Seems like a perfect example of "Tell me that you're ignorant, without telling me that you're ignorant". I'll sum it up for you Job Bautista and pay attention to the shaded parts. Will you?

From "True to the Faith" Manual -

An INC troll that Can't Keep up the Greek Usage.

Here's the Guy from one of the INC trolls that keeps his screenshot just to laugh at something he didn't even understand.

And so far, I'm still waiting on his ideology. Still, he got nothing on the table.
 

This is a post from one of the supposed
antagonists who can't
keep up the discussion.

In one of the OP where he tries to open up some old selected screenshots that he didn't even bother taking all the rest of the discussion. Rather just select the best part that he thinks I'm wrong in a certain topic last time that we discuss in regards to Hebrews 1:8.

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

He tries to insist that the ὁ Θεὸς (which is 'The God or O God') is nothing more than The Father, which basically it is if this was addressed to the context. So, I ask him to present something out of his own understanding. There he came up with a source not even relevant to the topic. Let's try to see what he meant -

His attempt on diverting the topic and declaring a winner by just simply using a term irrelevant to the main topic. Here he thinks as an absolute value of "ὁ Θεὸς" has the same meaning as the Tetragrammaton, which obviously addresses directly to the Father. Yes of Course since He (YHWH) is God. And yet the subject is, how are you going to reconcile that same usage to Christ in Hebrews 1:8 which you (INC) believe that it is not his title. So, back to my question, how are you gonna use that in our subject?

And here's the Best Part he didn't think about using the same website that doesn't even support their ideology-

Did you catch it? Okay here's the thing -

First, the website seems confusing if you're about to learn Biblical and/or Doctrinal Studies. It's not an Official Scriptural Greek Source and not even an INC-supported website. So, what's your point here? Can you sustain your ideology by just looking at someone's teaching?

Second, the Tetragrammaton was used to denote God given name even during the Old Testament, and most normal Christian believers use the same title to address God the Father, of course, if you're a Christian believer God (Theos) if the usage says all about the father, but not all (which is theos) denotes about God the Father. That depends on the usage.

Here's the example from 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 that says this -

3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

The Greek translation of this verse clearly said about "ho theos" as follows -

3 εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔστιν κεκαλυμμένον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν, ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις ἐστὶν κεκαλυμμένον, 

4 ἐν οἷς ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἐτύφλωσεν τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 Nestle 1904

The underlined Greek which is (ὁ θεὸς) ho theos has nothing to do with Christ or the Father. And yet the usage was clear. So, did I define you as uneducated about your own ideology that you can't define? It perfectly does.

And back to the topic -

Here's the Greek to English from Hebrews 1:8

And the part where he insisted
that I'm supposed to be wrong.
Seriously bro?

Here are the comments that he thinks would count as the stand of his poor ideology. Let's try to see that -

Jerry Nuñez Bustillo mag basa ka tagalog na yan , huwag puro bunganga ang pinangbabasa mo

Funny, how you're trying to defend your comments by just telling someone to read your poor understanding. And see who's bubbling too much here? Haven't you watched yourself lately?

Maraming Beses na nating nakikita at naririnig na palaging ginagamit ang mga talata ng Hebreo 1:8 para patunayan na Dios daw talaga si Cristo.Sapagkat mismo ang AMA daw ang tumawag na Dios sa anak. .narito ang nilalaman ng talata.

Hebreo 1:8 “ Nguni't tungkol sa Anak ay sinasabi, ANG IYONG LUKLUKAN, OH DIOS, ay magpakailan man; At ang setro ng katuwiran ay siyang setro ng iyong kaharian.”

And look at here, he's trying to bend the topic by his own ideology that he can't even stand. I have ask you already to present your side about your said understanding on "Ho Theos" as God the Father in Hebrews 1:8, and there you are trying to make a good diversion pretending you know something. Where's your laughing now? And where's your presentation of the Text? My presentation is simple "Ho Theos" simply means "O God" in Hebrews 1:8 and you're trying to make fun of it by simply grabbing something not even relevant to the subject. Was this everything your poor ministers taught you?

ang pinaka Key word nila jan ay "Tungkol sa anak ay sinabi" Ganyan agad mag haka haka karamihan para palabasin na Dios talaga si Cristo.Ganito ang payo ng Biblia :

Yes, exactly. So why are you using the term "God the Father" addressing the Sons in Hebrews 1:8 since we're talking about the Son of God? Did you catch it already? Or maybe no, because of your poor understanding.

Roma 12:16 “ Mangagkaisa kayo ng pagiisip. Huwag ninyong ilagak ang inyong pagiisip sa mga bagay na kapalaluan, kundi makiayon kayo sa mga bagay na may kapakumbabaan. Huwag kayong mga pantas sa inyong sariling mga haka. ”

So, what's the relevance of this text to our subject? Just an escape plan Sheila/Manuel (it's the same troll using different names)?

Para di tayo magkarun ng haka haka. kung kinikilala ba talaga ng AMA na Dios ang ANAK nya. ay dapat walang kontradiksyon..Kung sa Ibang salin naman ng Biblia, ano kaya ang mas malinaw na nakasulat?narito po.:

Hebrews 1:8

"But of the Son he says, `GOD IS YOUR THRONE forever and ever! And a righteous sceptre is the sceptre of his kingdom! `" (Goodspeed)

Hebrews 1:8 "He says of the Son, `GOD IS THY THRONE for ever and ever, thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity`." ( Moffat Translation)

This has been the oldest Goodies that most INC use as the correct translation of their Unitarian teachings. The question is, can you sustain it? How many INC ever read the Godspeed and Moffats translation that could testify that it is the actual translation of biblical text? No one, of course. They don't use that scripture but rather pick up just one of it here and another one there to satisfy their doctrine.

Maliwanag ang banggit sa mga verse na ito: “ GOD IS YOUR THRONE” o “GOD IS THY THRONE” na sa tagalog ay “ANG DIYOS AY IYONG LUKLUKAN” Mas lalong pinalinaw sa atin.

Of Course, if that's what your ministers say using your own selected bible version to satisfy the doctrine of INC. I agree, why not?

Alam po ba kaya nila na ang talatang yan ay quoted po mula sa AWIT 45:6.? Dapat nating malaman na ang sinasabi sa Hebreo 1:8 ay isang propesiya o hula tungkol sa pagdating ng Mesias na mababasa sa Lumang Tipan na sinipi mula sa Mga Awit 45:6 na nagsasabi ng ganito: Ating pong basahin ang nasabing talata sa Bibliang isinalin ng mga Judio sa panahon natin ngayon:

Psalms 45:6 "THY THRONE, GIVEN OF GOD, endureth for ever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom." (Jewish Publications Society of America Translation )

And there are the excuses, using the same passage as quoted in the old testament with a poor textual understanding. Christ mostly quoted the old testament which is his own words and the Apostles even Paul knows how this was addressed and to whom it was addressed. You're simply telling me that Paul as the Apostle to the Gentile is wrong in his understanding using the text by quoting the Old Testament. Can you justify that?

Maliwanag na sinasabi sa talatang iyan na isinalin ng mga Judio na: “ THY THRONE, GIVEN OF GOD” o sa Filipino ay “ANG IYONG LUKLUKAN, BIGAY NG DIYOS”

Come again? "Isinalin ng mga Judio"? From what translation or version was that? Does this mean you don't know where it was translated or any biblical background? Should I educate you about that?

Malinaw na malinaw po na "ANG IYONG LUKLUKAN AY BIGAY NG DIOS?."At ito ay binigyang linaw naman sa unahan ng kapitulo na ang Diyos ay magbibigay ng kaniyang kaharian sa isang HARI.

Just as I have said, if that's what your minister told you so, then it was best for you. It could be the best translation for your INC ideology. The question remains, does he have the right to simply select only the best part for your doctrine or just use it for INC's sake? See how you fail?

Some of the screenshots were deleted accidentally from my phone so I have to dig it somewhere in my History or in the Group History. I'll be back for part 2 if I got some of it.

Joseph Sin that LDS acknowledge?

So, as I observe the Group and some of the posts that I found were too childish and senseless. I don't know if they have the credibility to discuss Christianity or just love arguing something that's not even necessary for salvation. This Christian group is getting absurd that Christlike behavior is not even observed, rather provoking anger or hatred. But let's get to it anyway.

Okay, so here's some childish OP.
I don't know how this guy
think of us as LDS.
Seems like they misunderstood
Joseph Smiths Calling
VS as perfect man a prophet.
Did he said anything he sinless?

So, what is it we are looking for? What is the answer that satisfy the question? What is supposed to be discussed in such senseless OP? We as humans believe everyone makes plenty of mistakes and even Joseph Smith is not good about it. But let's just get to the answer using a scriptural statement rather than taking the bait. This wouldn't lead us somewhere, rather it just leads us to become childish.

Below are the list of quotes that possibly a good response, unless you don't like it -

Mormon 9:31 Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

...Who, among all the Saints in these last days can consider himself as good as our Lord? Who is as perfect? Who is as pure? Who is as holy as He was? Are they to be found? He never transgressed or broke a commandment or law of heaven—no deceit was in His mouth, neither was guile found in His heart. And yet one that ate with Him, who had often drunk of the same cup, was the first to lift up his heel against Him. Where is one like Christ? He cannot be found on earth....

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)

And here's some Biblical Passage - 

1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

The quote goes on. These are but just few quotes about LDS teachings on the life of Joseph. To think Joseph Smith Jr. was as just as Christ or sinless, isn't  a constructive criticism. Why bother opening up something not even close to reality?

Every sins that can be acknowledged of course everyone can easily acknowledge it. But there's not point in it by just looking up a sin and just a sin nothing more, nothing less. Why would everyone do that? Moses, David, Solomon, Abraham, Job and so on, were normal people who sinned throughout their lives. Do we need to acknowledge it?