Mr anony:
Lol dude, describing you accurately is not slander. . . .unless you have an unfavourable opinion of yourself. There is a difference between avoiding discussion on the very topic you created and not being able to discuss because of job constraints.

I am still yet to see you present any reasons why you believe that Christ did not exist before He came to the world. Mind you, it was you who initiated the topic not us.

This is an open forum where I can open a million articles and do whatever I want with them , including but not limited to ignoring or not responding to certain people, reading without commenting, replying comments 3 years down the line and so on and so forth.

If you are not comfortable with this approach, accept my sympathy.

Mee234:
Bros HE was talking about him pre existing Abraham because the question He was answering was '' though are not yet 50....... '' not between u and father Abraham who greater

The "though are not yet 50" is the misundestanding of the Sanhedrin. I take the side of the Messiah Yahshua, not the side of the Sanhedrin that were out to entrap Yahshua in his words. The Sanhedrin falsley accused Yahshua of blasphemy by making himself out to be "God" when in fact he had told them that he was the SON of Yahweh ["God"]. They also falsely accused him of breaking the Sabbath http://frank4yahweh.xanga.com/729504257/did-yahshua-messiah-break-the-sabbath .

Why would anyone use the deceptive words of the Sanhedrin to defend a doctrine that Yahshua did not teach? No, he was or is not Yahweh, but he is as Scripture clearly teaches and asks us to believe and confess, that He is the Messiah the SON of the living Yahweh ["God"]. This is what was exactly revealed to Kepha by Father Yahweh Himself:

Yahshua replied, "Blessed are you, Simon ben [son of] Yahnah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven (Mattithyah [Matthew] 16:17).

Note that this verse makes known that FATHER Yahweh was not flesh and blood, but spirit. His SON Yahshua was flesh and blood, so he can not be his own FATHER Yahweh ["God"]. Any simplton knows that one can not be their own father and that one can not be their own son!

I would encourage you to read and study the following article:

Virgin Birth Issues
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/topicindex/225-virgin-birth-issues.html

Frank4YAHWEH:

Yes, I know that you disagree with me and I have read and studied a large number of translations of this prophecy in the so-called "Old Testament" and the so-called "New Testament", but again, this prophecy said that she was a young woman or maiden in it's original state in the so-called "Old Testament.", not a virgin. Note that the translation that you submitted not only uses the word 'virgin', but also goes so far as to embelish with other specific words in this translation to promote the "vigin birth" doctrine compared to the translation that I had submitted previously:

"Mark! The maiden will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call His name Immanuel" --a word which signifies 'God with us' (Mattithyah [Matthew] 1:23 - Weymouth New Testament).

If you can not see the embelishment in the translation that you submitted, then you are blind!

FTI, I am not an inerrantist concerning Scripture translations. I believe that there is bias in translation and especially by Trinitarian translators.

"The author of the Gospel of Matthew used the Septuagint's translation of the Hebrew word almah as the Greek parthenos (unequivocally a virgin) in support of his concept of the virgin birth of Jesus. Scholars agree that almah has nothing to do with virginity 'per se', but many conservative Christians still judge the acceptability of new Bible translations by the way they deal with Isaiah 7:14." SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14

Mary was engaged to be married to Joseph - Fact

As was the customer of those days , she was a virgin, a position strengthened by bible accounts - Fact

She was found to be with child, in other words pregnant before the consummation of her marriage with Joseph - Fact

Joseph decided to put her away because of the enormous shame that will result if his fiancée was found to be with child before marriage.- Fact

An Angel told Joseph in a dream that this child was of the Holy Spirit, in other words the act of conceiving was supernaturally initiated by the Spirit of GOD- Fact

The bible debunks your position all over, sorry Sir.

frosbel:

Mary was engaged to be married to Joseph - Fact

As was the customer of those days , she was a virgin, a position strengthened by bible accounts - Fact

She was found to be with child, in other words pregnant before the consummation of her marriage with Joseph - Fact

Joseph decided to put her away because of the enormous shame that will result if his fiancée was found to be with child before marriage.- Fact

An Angel told Joseph in a dream that this child was of the Holy Spirit, in other words the act of conceiving was supernaturally initiated by the Spirit of GOD- Fact

The bible debunks your position all over, sorry Sir.

No, it is erroneous translations that you are attempting to debunk my position by and this error most certainly is not "all over" your so-called "Holy Bible", but has only been placed in a few passages of Scripture.

FYI, not all so-called "Holy Bible" translations use the word 'virgin'. I side with the translations that do not use the word 'virgin' since in the original prophecy it speaks of a young woman or maiden and I am already aware of another prophecy that says that Yahshua would be of the seed of and a desendant of David. This prophecy allows for a proper translation of the words that have been erroneously translated as 'virgin'.
http://www.freewebs.com/frank4yahweh/pareidolia.htm

Yahshua can not be a descendant of David and of the seed of David and at the same time be miraculously born of a 'virgin.' So, I have to choose between these two concepts and find that I must choose that he was in fact of the seed of and a descendant of David and not born of a 'virgin' as it has been falsely translated using the Greek Septuagint. In their translating from the Greek Septuagint they in turn inherited the Greek concept of a 'virgin' birth that is a concept that goes along with their Greek soter (saviour) that was born of a virgin. The so-called "Church" changed many doctrines taught in Scripture to match pagan doctrines to better encourage these pangans to convert to thier form of Christianity.

He will speak against the Most High and oppress His set apart people and try to change the set times and His instruction [torah, law]. The set apart people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time (Daniyl 7:25).

I would encourage you to read and study the following article:

Virgin Birth Issues
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/topicindex/225-virgin-birth-issues.html

Frank4YAHWEH:


The problem is, nowhere in Scripture is it made known that he existed before His birth and nowhere in Scripture is there one verse telling or the Messiah himself telling people that he existed before his physical birth. There is no verse in Scripture that clearly or actually says 'Yahshua existed before his physical birth.' nor is he ever recorded in the so-called "New Testament" as saying 'I existed before my physical birth.'

I was going to reply you but when I saw you use the phrase "so called New Testament" I decided not to bother. It makes no sense arguing with someone when we don't have anything in common upon which to base our arguments. If you don't respect the New Testament, there is no point proving anything to you from it.

frosbel:


This is an open forum where I can open a million articles and do whatever I want with them , including but not limited to ignoring or not responding to certain people, reading without commenting, replying comments 3 years down the line and so on and so forth.

If you are not comfortable with this approach, accept my sympathy.

Lol, I don't have any problem with how you choose to respond or not respond but then you equally shouldn't have a problem with me calling you out or criticizing your character either. It is an open forum remember.

It works both ways my friend

Mr anony:
Lol, I don't have any problem with how you choose to respond or not respond but then you equally shouldn't have a problem with me calling you out or criticizing your character either. It is an open forum remember.

It works both ways my friend

Oh please criticize my character, because that's what losers in a debate do when they have lost an argument.

Frank4YAHWEH:

Yahshua can not be a descendant of David and of the seed of David and at the same time be miraculously born of a 'virgin.' So, I have to choose between these two concepts and find that I must choose that he was in fact of the seed of and a descendant of David and not born of a 'virgin' as it has been falsely translated using the Greek Septuagint. In their translating from the Greek Septuagint they in turn inherited the Greek concept of a 'virgin' birth that is a concept that goes along with their Greek soter (saviour) that was born of a virgin. The so-called "Church" changed many doctrines taught in Scripture to match pagan doctrines to better encourage these pangans to convert to thier form of Christianity.

He will speak against the Most High and oppress His set apart people and try to change the set times and His instruction [torah, law]. The set apart people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time (Daniyl 7:25).

I would encourage you to read and study the following article:

Virgin Birth Issues
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/topicindex/225-virgin-birth-issues.html

Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ , Son of GOD and King of the new heaven and earth ?

I don't understand frosbel o, you open a thread for the sake of it and you sound so proud that you can't back the topic up.

What is wrong with u ?

Mr anony:
I was going to reply you but when I saw you use the phrase "so called New Testament" I decided not to bother. It makes no sense arguing with someone when we don't have anything in common upon which to base our arguments. If you don't respect the New Testament, there is no point proving anything to you from it.

ask him what he means first before jumping to conclousions.

Problem is you are confined within the walls of tradition and need to start looking at scripture from an independent perspective.

For example you still refuse to admit that all the Trinity stuff you so fanatically defend is PAGAN in it's entirety , what makes you think you are not wrong on so many other things ?

Anyway , we hold hat Jesus is the Messiah , the Son of GOD and ruler of God's new kingdom on this earth , if you believe this there is HOPE.

Ciao !

shdemidemi: I don't understand frosbel o, you open a thread for the sake of it and you sound so proud that you can't back the topic up.

What is wrong with u ?

proud ?

Hmm, you still have not responded to my question !

frosbel:

proud ?

Hmm, you still have not responded to my question !

what question?

shdemidemi:
what question?

go back a few pages.

@Frank4YAHWEH:

Just realised you are black Hebrew Israelite, and you still observe the LAW especially the Sabbath, sorry mate we are miles apart in our theology and the virgin birth doctrine you promote is false.

Mr anony:
I was going to reply you but when I saw you use the phrase "so called New Testament" I decided not to bother. It makes no sense arguing with someone when we don't have anything in common upon which to base our arguments. If you don't respect the New Testament, there is no point proving anything to you from it.

I have never said that I have no respect for the so-called "New Testament". Have you not seen me in this forum thread constantly quoting it?

frosbel:

Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ , Son of GOD and King of the new heaven and earth ?

That is exactly what it is that I believe and what Scripture ask me to confess and believe. What I do not believe and confess is the foolish, false, demonic, and deceptive doctrine "Jesus IS Go!", since nowhere in Scripture is this ever said.

"Jesus IS God!"?
http://frank4yahweh.webs.com

frosbel:

Oh please criticize my character, because that's what losers in a debate do when they have lost an argument.

Lolololol, you know, this would have made some sense if you had actually made an argument in the first place. There has to actually be a debate first before you can legitimately say that someone lost it. That's how debates work

So far, you have not given us a single reason why you think that Jesus Christ did not exist before He was born physically.


P/s: I am not criticizing your character to make you look bad - You look bad enough already. I am criticizing your character to make you aware of your defects and in the hope that you will change for the better.

Frank4YAHWEH:

I have never said that I have no respect for the so-called "New Testament". Have you not seen me in this forum thread constantly quoting it?

Let us see how honest you are.

1. Do you believe that the New Testament's account of Jesus Christ is true?
1a. If no, then we have no basis for discussion
1b. If yes, then please give biblical reasons that led you to the conclusion that Jesus Christ did not pre-exist His physical birth

Basically, I don't need any long story. If 1b is true for you, just give your reasons in the following format

Jesus Christ did not exist before his physical birth because.....

frosbel: @Frank4YAHWEH:

Just realised you are black Hebrew Israelite, and you still observe the LAW especially the Sabbath, sorry mate we are miles apart in our theology and the virgin birth doctrine you promote is false.

No, I am not a "black Hebrew Israelite"! LOL! You disobey Fater Yahweh by not obseving the instruction (torah law)! That makes you lawless in accordance with Scripture!

Scripture Speaks of the Lawless and Those Who Obey

For lawlessness is already at work in secret; but only until the man who is now exercising a restraining influence is removed, and then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Master Yahshua will sweep away with the tempest of his anger, and utterly overwhelm by the awful splendour of his coming. - 2 Thessalonians 2:7-8[/b]

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every righteous tree bears righteous fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A righteous tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear righteous fruit. Every tree that does not bear righteous fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Master, Master,' will enter the kingdom of Yahweh, but only the one who does the will of my Father WHO IS IN HEAVEN. Many will say to me at that time, 'Master, Master, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you workers of sin!'(Mattithyah [Matthew] 7:12-23 ).

What is Sin?

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness (1 Yahchanan [John] 3:4 - PLEASE DO READ ON!).

All throughout Scripture we are instructed to turn from sin and not to continue in sin. In your not obeying Father Yahweh's instruction (torah, law), do you believe this is following in His will and that you are righteous in doing so? If so, I would strongly suggest that you read and study the verses above in context as a whole and then wake up out of your stuper and consider being an obedient servant of FATHER Yahweh in following in His SON's example in obedience to his and our FATHER Yahweh's instruction (torah, law) as he was and is.

Father Yahweh's Instruction (Torah, Law)
http://www.freewebs.com/frank4yahweh/law.htm

Mr anony:
Let us see how honest you are.

1. Do you believe that the New Testament's account of Jesus Christ is true?
1a. If no, then we have no basis for discussion
1b. If yes, then please give biblical reasons that led you to the conclusion that Jesus Christ did not pre-exist His physical birth

Basically, I don't need any long story. If 1b is true for you, just give your reasons in the following format

Jesus Christ did not exist before his physical birth because.....

1. Yes, I do, but I believe that many translations of Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word have been twisted ("wrest" - 2 Kepha [Peter] 3:16-17) and added on to and in turn taken away from.

1b. No, I do not believe Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being for the simple fact that nowhere in Scripture is such foolishness taught. It is what is actually said in Scripture that leads me to believe that Yahshua was and is "A MAN" and not "God", "a god", a "God-Man, or an "angel". Scripture clearly teaches that Yahshua came in the flesh and Father Yahweh is not flesh and blood.

Yahshua replied, "Blessed are you, Simeon ben Yahnah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father IN HEAVEN (Mattithyah [Matthew] 16:17).

Note that the verse above clearly reveals that Father Yahweh is not flesh and blood. It is clearly revealed in Scripture that FATHER Yahweh is spirit. It is FATHER Yahweh's SOn who is flesh and blood and who was born a mortal being. It is FATHER Yahweh that is an immoratal being, not His SON Yahshua. Yahshua was born a mortal being that was susepible to death. Father Yahweh can not die! I would be impossible for mere men to execute FATHER Yahweh by nailing Him to a pagan cross! Not true with HIs son, since he was born a moratl being that was susepible tp death.

I figured I would give you a different explanation, since I have previously explained why I do not believe Yahshua pr-existed his birth because of other reasons. Please do review my posts!


Did Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth?
http://frank4yahweh.tripod.com/ByAndThrough.html

Frank4YAHWEH:

1. Yes, I do, but I believe that many translations of Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word have been twisted ("wrest" - 2 Kepha [Peter] 3:16-17) and added on to and in turn taken away from.

1b. No, I do not believe Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being for the simple fact that nowhere in Scripture is such foolishness taught. It is what is actually said in Scripture that leads me to believe that Yahshua was and is "A MAN" and not "God", "a god", a "God-Man, or an "angel". Scripture clearly teaches that Yahshua came in the flesh and Father Yahweh is not flesh and blood.

Yahshua replied, "Blessed are you, Simeon ben Yahnah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father IN HEAVEN (Mattithyah [Matthew] 16:17).

Note that the verse above clearly reveals that Father Yahweh is not flesh and blood. It is clearly revealed in Scripture that FATHER Yahweh is spirit. It is FATHER Yahweh's SOn who is flesh and blood and who was born a mortal being. It is FATHER Yahweh that is an immoratal being, not His SON Yahshua. Yahshua was born a mortal being that was susepible to death. Father Yahweh can not die! I would be impossible for mere men to execute FATHER Yahweh by nailing Him to a pagan cross! Not true with HIs son, since he was born a moratl being that was susepible tp death.

I figured I would give you a different explanation, since I have previously explained why I do not believe Yahshua pr-existed his birth because of other reasons. Please do review my posts!


Did Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth?
http://frank4yahweh.tripod.com/ByAndThrough.html

Ok, now before we proceed further I'd like to address a something you've said here: You have said that you believe the Word of God has been twisted. I'll ask:

1. How exactly do you know that a translation is twisted and another isn't? This is an important question because it wouldn't make sense if you only believe that the bible is twisted in places it doesn't fit with your ideas.

To legitimately claim that the bible is twisted, you have to show that you have access to and correctly understand the original documents then also be able to properly point out exactly where the offending translations have erred.

2. If you can meet the conditions in 1. above (or even if you don't), then please provide which translations if any that you think are not twisted explaining why you think they are more in accordance to the original documents and then we'll work with those.

Once you have provided the translation you want us to work with, then we'll begin investigate and see if according to scripture, Jesus Christ pre-existed His physical birth.

I am keen to hear your reply

Mr anony:

Ok, now before we proceed further I'd like to address a something you've said here: You have said that you believe the Word of God has been twisted. I'll ask:

1. How exactly do you know that a translation is twisted and another isn't? This is an important question because it wouldn't make sense if you only believe that the bible is twisted in places it doesn't fit with your ideas.

To legitimately claim that the bible is twisted, you have to show that you have access to and correctly understand the original documents then also be able to properly point out exactly where the offending translations have erred.

2. If you can meet the conditions in 1. above (or even if you don't), then please provide which translations if any that you think are not twisted explaining why you think they are more in accordance to the original documents and then we'll work with those.

Once you have provided the translation you want us to work with, then we'll begin investigate and see if according to scripture, Jesus Christ pre-existed His physical birth.

I am keen to hear your reply

When one says "The Bible says "Jesus is God.", this is twisting Scripture, since nowhere in ANY TRANSLATION of Scripture does it say this. What it does say throughout the so-called "New Testament" in your own translation is "Jesus is the SON of God." In this section of Scripture it even ask us to believe and confess this:

Whosoever shall confess that Yahshua is the son of Yahweh, Yahweh dwells in him, and he in Yahweh (1 Yahchanan [John] 4:15).

Another example of twisting of Scripture is with the translators. There are words, verses and even whole paragraphs that has been added to Scripture that changes or takes away from the meaning of what is being said. Take a look through the footnotes in the more modern translations and you will find MANY times that these footnotes will say concerning a certain word or words "Not found in the most ancient (or any former)." manuscripts." Many times it is these manuscripts that they used in translating the Scriptures. It only stands to reason that if these words were not in the most ancient or fomer manuscipts, that these words were not there originally and have been added on to the text of Scripture. The title of the first edition of the KIng James translation was "THE HOLY BIBLE, Containing the Old Testament, AND THE NEW: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties special Commandment". You will note that it says close to this on the more modern King James versions centered on the title page. Do you really believe that there were no errors made in translation with this being the practice of the transltors? Do you really believe there was no bias in translation with those translators who were Trinitarians? I do not!

Frank4YAHWEH:

When one says "The Bible says "Jesus is God.", this is twisting Scripture, since nowhere in ANY TRANSLATION of Scripture does it say this. What it does say throughout the so-called "New Testament" in your own translation is "Jesus is the SON of God." In this section of Scripture it even ask us to believe and confess this:

Whosoever shall confess that Yahshua is the son of Yahweh, Yahweh dwells in him, and he in Yahweh (1 Yahchanan [John] 4:15).

Another example of twisting of Scripture is with the translators. There are words, verses and even a whole pargraph that has been added to Scripture that changes or takes away from the meaning of what is being said. Take a look through the footnotes in the more modern translations and you will find MANY times that these footnotes will say concerning a certain word or words "Not found in the most ancient (or any former)." manuscripts." Many times it is these manuscripts that they used in translating the Scriptures. It only stands to reason that if these words were not in the most ancient or fomer manuscipts, that these words were not there originally and have been added on to the text of Scripture. The title of the first edition of the KIng James translation was "THE HOLY BIBLE, Containing the Old Testament, AND THE NEW: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties special Commandment". You will note that it says close to this on the more modern King James versions centered on the title page. Do you really believe that there were no errors made in translation with this being the practice of the transltors? Do you really beleve there was no bias in translation with those transaltors who were Trinitarians? I do not!

You are shifting goal posts. We are not talking about Trinity, we are talking specifically about whether Christ pre-existed His physical birth.

I have not said that errors cannot be made in translations however the only people who can truly say that a text has been mistranslated are people who actually have a good understanding of the language that has been translated from as well as the one that has been translated to. For instance if I wanted to claim that an English text has been mistranslated from Yoruba, I must be able to understand the two languages in order to legitimately make that claim.

Now, in your long response, the question you neglected to answer was if there are any translations that you think are genuine. If you provide such a translation, then we can proceed to do examine the claims you are making. Or do you think that ALL TRANSLATIONS of the bible are twisted?

If you think all translations are twisted, then we cannot have any discussion because all the documents we would have used to base our argument upon would be unnacceptable to you.

So my question again: Which bible translations if any do you think are free from "twisting"?

Mr anony:

You are shifting goal posts. We are not talking about Trinity, we are talking specifically about whether Christ pre-existed His physical birth.

I have not said that errors cannot be made in translations however the only people who can truly say that a text has been mistranslated are people who actually have a good understanding of the language that has been translated from as well as the one that has been translated to. For instance if I wanted to claim that an English text has been mistranslated from Yoruba, I must be able to understand the two languages in order to legitimately make that claim.

Now, in your long response, the question you neglected to answer was if there are any translations that you think are genuine. If you provide such a translation, then we can proceed to do examine the claims you are making. Or do you think that ALL TRANSLATIONS of the bible are twisted?

If you think all translations are twisted, then we cannot have any discussion because all the documents we would have used to base our argument upon would be unnacceptable to you.

So my question again: Which bible translations if any do you think are free from "twisting"?

You asked in your previous post about error in translation and I gave you an examples. Do you believe that the translation that you use is witout error? I do not believe that any translation is without error.

Would you like to show me from your translation where it says "Jesus pre-existed his birth."? I do not believe there is any translation of Scripture that says this.

Yes, I believe that all translations have been twisted, so we have nothing to talk about.

deSika:

The person who says frosbel is not a false prophet is only deceiving himself. There is a thin line between frosbel and atheism

How many more steps to go?

Mr anony:

Nah, frosbel isn't an atheist he's only a heretic

He's almost there, it's only a matter of time unless he makes a u-turn.

Mr anony:

This doesn't change the fact that you've been spewing heresy left, right and center.

So I'm not the only one to have noticed this fact?

Mr anony:
Lolololol, you know, this would have made some sense if you had actually made an argument in the first place. There has to actually be a debate first before you can legitimately say that someone lost it. That's how debates work

So far, you have not given us a single reason why you think that Jesus Christ did not exist before He was born physically.


P/s: I am not criticizing your character to make you look bad - You look bad enough already. I am criticizing your character to make you aware of your defects and in the hope that you will change for the better.

anony , I can call you dishonest and lacking in integrity , but I choose not to descend to that level of personal vendetta, because after all we are only here to voice our opinions on certain church doctrines and debate our position.

My point has been made and hundreds enlightened on the TRUTH , this is what matters to be , not the rants of anony.

OLAADEGBU:

He's almost there, it's only a matter of time unless he makes a u-turn.

U Turn back to the cultic teachings of deeperlife ? God forbid !

Silvereze:

Do you know that jesus has existed even before all creations and God the father created the man with thd help of the son.when the father said (let us) make man in our own image.know ye also that jesus is a spirit personality that existed in heaven. Even peter testified it that he is the true son of GOD.

Please tell him.

benalvino:

Frosbel is so confused. hahaha there is no point wasting time here.

He is not only confused, he is flummoxed.

Mr anony:

Lol, I asked you precisely what you claimed you wanted to discuss and suddenly discussing what you said you wanted to discuss = indulging Mr anony's ego? I see.

When you are ready to repent and submit to God's revelation through scripture and not force it under your feet perhaps then we might have a discussion as brothers. In the meantime I will continue to do the bitter job of pointing out to you that you have gone astray. I will also continue to warn other Christians of your heresies lest you lead them into sin.

Good job. Be your brother's keeper.