<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Christian Freedom Ministries</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cfmin.com/xp1/?feed=comments-rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cfmin.com/wp1</link>
	<description>The Religious Stuff and all things are possible except skiing through a revovling door.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:13:47 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on AN ENCOURAGING THOUGHT ABOUT DEATH by Under the Sun - What Does It Mean? &#124; Life Now and Hereafter</title>
		<link>http://www.cfmin.com/wp1/?p=840&#038;cpage=1#comment-746</link>
		<dc:creator>Under the Sun - What Does It Mean? &#124; Life Now and Hereafter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:13:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cfmin.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/an-encouraging-thought-about-death/#comment-746</guid>
		<description>[...] Some related studies written by others (We do not necessarily agree with all conclusions given.) An Encouraging Thought About Death Limbo - A Catholic-Invented Doctrine ­ Updated June 17, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Some related studies written by others (We do not necessarily agree with all conclusions given.) An Encouraging Thought About Death Limbo &#8211; A Catholic-Invented Doctrine ­ Updated June 17, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Truth regarding the falsehood of the trinity by Cokefan</title>
		<link>http://www.cfmin.com/wp1/?p=373&#038;cpage=1#comment-744</link>
		<dc:creator>Cokefan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2009 06:10:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cfmin.com/wp1/?p=373#comment-744</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the summary. This is a fascinating topic!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the summary. This is a fascinating topic!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Is there any historical proof that Jesus existed? by The Invisible Man</title>
		<link>http://www.cfmin.com/wp1/?p=577&#038;cpage=1#comment-509</link>
		<dc:creator>The Invisible Man</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:46:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cfmin.wordpress.com/2007/08/02/is-there-any-historical-proof-that-jesus-existed/#comment-509</guid>
		<description>I find it amazing that so many people believe that this one book on this one pale blue dot in this one solar system...in this one galaxy among billions of other known galaxies...in this one inconcievably large universe holds the one and only truth...the final word on just what the hell is going on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find it amazing that so many people believe that this one book on this one pale blue dot in this one solar system&#8230;in this one galaxy among billions of other known galaxies&#8230;in this one inconcievably large universe holds the one and only truth&#8230;the final word on just what the hell is going on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Is there any historical proof that Jesus existed? by Nathan</title>
		<link>http://www.cfmin.com/wp1/?p=577&#038;cpage=1#comment-508</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 03:17:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cfmin.wordpress.com/2007/08/02/is-there-any-historical-proof-that-jesus-existed/#comment-508</guid>
		<description>also discussed in Zeitgeigt and many other articles, writings, videos, interviews and so on, there is mention of the rfid chip.  this chip is to planted under a persons skin and control all currency and track where people are and what they are doing at all times.  now, is this chip what the bible calls the &quot;mark of the beast&quot;?  because that&#039;s what it sounds like to me.  AND is this chip being developed because it was talked about in the bible?  a conspiracy kind of thing to make to prove the bible true. or was it talked about in the bible because it was going to happen (was a prophecy)?  if the first is the answer, then maybe religion is controlled by government to control us.  and if the second is the answer, isn&#039;t it IRONIC that videos, writings, and what-not trying to disprove the bible also try to prove that this prophecy (the chip=mark of the beast) is REAL?  because this would in fact prove itself in this sense.  let me know if i&#039;m way off here.  just random thoughts</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>also discussed in Zeitgeigt and many other articles, writings, videos, interviews and so on, there is mention of the rfid chip.  this chip is to planted under a persons skin and control all currency and track where people are and what they are doing at all times.  now, is this chip what the bible calls the &#8220;mark of the beast&#8221;?  because that&#8217;s what it sounds like to me.  AND is this chip being developed because it was talked about in the bible?  a conspiracy kind of thing to make to prove the bible true. or was it talked about in the bible because it was going to happen (was a prophecy)?  if the first is the answer, then maybe religion is controlled by government to control us.  and if the second is the answer, isn&#8217;t it IRONIC that videos, writings, and what-not trying to disprove the bible also try to prove that this prophecy (the chip=mark of the beast) is REAL?  because this would in fact prove itself in this sense.  let me know if i&#8217;m way off here.  just random thoughts</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Is there any historical proof that Jesus existed? by Nathan</title>
		<link>http://www.cfmin.com/wp1/?p=577&#038;cpage=1#comment-507</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:50:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cfmin.wordpress.com/2007/08/02/is-there-any-historical-proof-that-jesus-existed/#comment-507</guid>
		<description>first, i am a christian who is searching for my own answers to life, faith, religion, and everything.  i don&#039;t believe i have even close to all the answers and don&#039;t claim to be a devout student, scientist, historian, or anything of the sort. i am a &quot;normal&quot; human being just learning what i can to base my own beliefs on truth or the closest we can say is the truth.  i am questioning irony.  i base my life off irony and that everything contradicts itself.  the bible is written, supposedly by god, through men.  the bible itself says people make mistakes even when they are acting by gods hand because we are only human and make mistakes. therefor, parts of the bible could and most likely are wrong even if written with pure intentions.  there are many things that are like this and shouldn&#039;t be taking completely seriously but used as a reference point. and if it is contradicting does that prove itself wrong?  no, because everything contradicts itself. with one you can&#039;t have the other kind of thing.  there are two points to everything.  good and evil, light and dark, left and right.  everything.  anyway, i don&#039;t want to explain my whole belief to contradictions. this comment comes from a mind searching for truth very openly and soaking in from all angles any evidence used to conclude faith, religion, beliefs and whatever else and is pure curiosity put towards ASTROLOGY disproving religion and jesus and his resurrection, birth, and very existence.  in Zeitgeist, the movie (and several other articles, writings, and theories i&#039;ve found) there is a lot of mention of this (astrology being used to come up with religions and the belief that each religions &quot;gods&quot; (Jesus, Horus, Mithra, Dionysus, Krishna).  my question is:  should the facts that astrology match most, if not all, religious theories concerning the birth everything else of gods and whatever be used to disprove religion?  or should we take in to account the irony of these matches PROVING religion?  what if all these facts matching are meant to align?  what if that&#039;s the point?  maybe they match to prove that the son of god is real?  maybe they match to prove what people believe it disproves?  please tell me your thoughts on this.  i will explain any of these kind of scattered thoughts if you have any questions concerning contradictions and whatever.  just please tell me what you think about matching astrology and religion proving god and what-not.  thank you</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>first, i am a christian who is searching for my own answers to life, faith, religion, and everything.  i don&#8217;t believe i have even close to all the answers and don&#8217;t claim to be a devout student, scientist, historian, or anything of the sort. i am a &#8220;normal&#8221; human being just learning what i can to base my own beliefs on truth or the closest we can say is the truth.  i am questioning irony.  i base my life off irony and that everything contradicts itself.  the bible is written, supposedly by god, through men.  the bible itself says people make mistakes even when they are acting by gods hand because we are only human and make mistakes. therefor, parts of the bible could and most likely are wrong even if written with pure intentions.  there are many things that are like this and shouldn&#8217;t be taking completely seriously but used as a reference point. and if it is contradicting does that prove itself wrong?  no, because everything contradicts itself. with one you can&#8217;t have the other kind of thing.  there are two points to everything.  good and evil, light and dark, left and right.  everything.  anyway, i don&#8217;t want to explain my whole belief to contradictions. this comment comes from a mind searching for truth very openly and soaking in from all angles any evidence used to conclude faith, religion, beliefs and whatever else and is pure curiosity put towards ASTROLOGY disproving religion and jesus and his resurrection, birth, and very existence.  in Zeitgeist, the movie (and several other articles, writings, and theories i&#8217;ve found) there is a lot of mention of this (astrology being used to come up with religions and the belief that each religions &#8220;gods&#8221; (Jesus, Horus, Mithra, Dionysus, Krishna).  my question is:  should the facts that astrology match most, if not all, religious theories concerning the birth everything else of gods and whatever be used to disprove religion?  or should we take in to account the irony of these matches PROVING religion?  what if all these facts matching are meant to align?  what if that&#8217;s the point?  maybe they match to prove that the son of god is real?  maybe they match to prove what people believe it disproves?  please tell me your thoughts on this.  i will explain any of these kind of scattered thoughts if you have any questions concerning contradictions and whatever.  just please tell me what you think about matching astrology and religion proving god and what-not.  thank you</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Elohim &#8211; Does This Word Indicate a  Plurality of Persons in a Godhead? by Alexwebmaster</title>
		<link>http://www.cfmin.com/wp1/?p=728&#038;cpage=1#comment-631</link>
		<dc:creator>Alexwebmaster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:43:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cfmin.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/elohim-does-this-word-indicate-a-plurality-of-persons-in-a-godhead/#comment-631</guid>
		<description>Hello webmaster
I would like to share with you a link to your site
write me here preonrelt@mail.ru</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello webmaster<br />
I would like to share with you a link to your site<br />
write me here <a href="mailto:preonrelt@mail.ru">preonrelt@mail.ru</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Is Jesus his own father Jehovah (Yahweh)? by wellwateredgarden</title>
		<link>http://www.cfmin.com/wp1/?p=76&#038;cpage=1#comment-345</link>
		<dc:creator>wellwateredgarden</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:30:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cfmin.wordpress.com/2007/05/26/defining-the-origins-of-the-trinity/#comment-345</guid>
		<description>Ame and AMEN!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ame and AMEN!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ON NEWTON AND THE TRINITY by Paul Williams</title>
		<link>http://www.cfmin.com/wp1/?p=752&#038;cpage=1#comment-652</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Williams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:42:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cfmin.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/on-newton-and-the-trinity/#comment-652</guid>
		<description>Hi there, may I share with you something I put on my blog yesterday?

Isaac Newton: Scientist and Biblical Scholar

Newton’s study of the Old Testament was, as was to be expected, rigorous and thorough. He had more than thirty different versions or translations of the Bible. He learned Hebrew in order to study the original texts of the prophets. He began a notebook in which he schematised his study, with headings such as ‘Incarnatio’ and ‘Deus Pater’. He amassed a huge library of biblical and patristic literature. He read all the authorities of previous centuries, and assimilated the most modern texts of seventeen-century theology in his desire for knowledge. He wished to become the master of his subject, as he had previously become the master of optics and the master of mathematics. At his death he left a manuscript on biblical matters, incomplete, of some 850 pages as well as a mass of assorted papers and notes.

In particular he became preoccupied with a dispute of the forth century, during the course of which he determined that the true faith – Protestantism, as he conceived it – had taken a perverse and highly injurious turn. The great controversy was between Arius and Athanasius. Athanasius propounded what had then become the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, in which Christ is seen as equal or ‘consubstantial’ with God. Arius denied the doctrine of the Trinity by denying that Christ was of the same substance as God. The views of Athanasius were accepted at the Council of Nicaea in 325, and of course became a part of the Nicene Creed.

But in the course of his intense study of the biblical texts Newton concluded that Athanasius had perpetuated a fraud. He had interpolated key words into the sacred Scriptures to support his argument that Christ was God. In that endeavour he had been supported by the Church of Rome, and from that corruption of the texts had sprung the general corruption of the Christian Church itself. The purity and faith of the early church had been destroyed by superstitious zealots who were intent upon bowing down before the illusion of the Trinity or Three In One. His mathematical, as well as his spiritual, creed directly opposed their position. In his support of Arius Newton was proclaiming that the priests and bishops of the Church were practising idolatry in their worship of Christ. Newton discovered, in the words of a fellow Arian, ‘that what has been long called Arianism is no other than Old uncorrupted Christianity; and that Athanasius was the grand and very wicked Instrument of that Change’. In his notebook Newton declared that ‘the Father is God of the Son’.

Newton also believed that the true religion was derived from the sons of Noah, and had been transmitted by Abraham, Isaac and Moses. Pythagoras was a convert to this religion, and passed it on to his disciples. Christ was a witness to that primitive faith in his simple commandments to love God and to love one’s neighbour. In a later document Newton declared that we must worship ‘the only invisible God’…at the peril of our souls ‘we must not pray to two Gods’. We must not worship Christ. Christ had been filled with divine spirit, but he was not God.

The fact was that, in the mid-seventeenth century, Arianism was still considered to be a dangerous heresy. If Newton had admitted his faith he would have been stripped of his university appointments, as were other and less cautious Arians. So he did not discuss these matters openly. He reserved his theological conversations for fellow believers. The full scale of his religious heterodoxy was not revealed until after his death, and even then the knowledge of it was suppressed by those scholars who believed that the father of English science must be above suspicion. To all outward appearances he remained a firm and orthodox member of the Church of England…

Extract from Peter Ackroyd’s biography of Newton, pp 52-54.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727), the English genius, was the author of ‘Principia’, one of the most important books in the history of science and discoverer of gravity

from my blog:

http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/isaac-newton/#comments</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi there, may I share with you something I put on my blog yesterday?</p>
<p>Isaac Newton: Scientist and Biblical Scholar</p>
<p>Newton’s study of the Old Testament was, as was to be expected, rigorous and thorough. He had more than thirty different versions or translations of the Bible. He learned Hebrew in order to study the original texts of the prophets. He began a notebook in which he schematised his study, with headings such as ‘Incarnatio’ and ‘Deus Pater’. He amassed a huge library of biblical and patristic literature. He read all the authorities of previous centuries, and assimilated the most modern texts of seventeen-century theology in his desire for knowledge. He wished to become the master of his subject, as he had previously become the master of optics and the master of mathematics. At his death he left a manuscript on biblical matters, incomplete, of some 850 pages as well as a mass of assorted papers and notes.</p>
<p>In particular he became preoccupied with a dispute of the forth century, during the course of which he determined that the true faith – Protestantism, as he conceived it – had taken a perverse and highly injurious turn. The great controversy was between Arius and Athanasius. Athanasius propounded what had then become the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, in which Christ is seen as equal or ‘consubstantial’ with God. Arius denied the doctrine of the Trinity by denying that Christ was of the same substance as God. The views of Athanasius were accepted at the Council of Nicaea in 325, and of course became a part of the Nicene Creed.</p>
<p>But in the course of his intense study of the biblical texts Newton concluded that Athanasius had perpetuated a fraud. He had interpolated key words into the sacred Scriptures to support his argument that Christ was God. In that endeavour he had been supported by the Church of Rome, and from that corruption of the texts had sprung the general corruption of the Christian Church itself. The purity and faith of the early church had been destroyed by superstitious zealots who were intent upon bowing down before the illusion of the Trinity or Three In One. His mathematical, as well as his spiritual, creed directly opposed their position. In his support of Arius Newton was proclaiming that the priests and bishops of the Church were practising idolatry in their worship of Christ. Newton discovered, in the words of a fellow Arian, ‘that what has been long called Arianism is no other than Old uncorrupted Christianity; and that Athanasius was the grand and very wicked Instrument of that Change’. In his notebook Newton declared that ‘the Father is God of the Son’.</p>
<p>Newton also believed that the true religion was derived from the sons of Noah, and had been transmitted by Abraham, Isaac and Moses. Pythagoras was a convert to this religion, and passed it on to his disciples. Christ was a witness to that primitive faith in his simple commandments to love God and to love one’s neighbour. In a later document Newton declared that we must worship ‘the only invisible God’…at the peril of our souls ‘we must not pray to two Gods’. We must not worship Christ. Christ had been filled with divine spirit, but he was not God.</p>
<p>The fact was that, in the mid-seventeenth century, Arianism was still considered to be a dangerous heresy. If Newton had admitted his faith he would have been stripped of his university appointments, as were other and less cautious Arians. So he did not discuss these matters openly. He reserved his theological conversations for fellow believers. The full scale of his religious heterodoxy was not revealed until after his death, and even then the knowledge of it was suppressed by those scholars who believed that the father of English science must be above suspicion. To all outward appearances he remained a firm and orthodox member of the Church of England…</p>
<p>Extract from Peter Ackroyd’s biography of Newton, pp 52-54.</p>
<p>Isaac Newton (1642-1727), the English genius, was the author of ‘Principia’, one of the most important books in the history of science and discoverer of gravity</p>
<p>from my blog:</p>
<p><a href="http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/isaac-newton/#comments" rel="nofollow">http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/isaac-newton/#comments</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ADDRESSING THE CONFUSION OF THE TRINITY by certain person</title>
		<link>http://www.cfmin.com/wp1/?p=562&#038;cpage=1#comment-459</link>
		<dc:creator>certain person</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:41:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cfmin.wordpress.com/2007/07/22/addressing-the-confusion-of-the-trinity/#comment-459</guid>
		<description>Hey, all this material was written by David C. Pack in his book &quot;Trinity - is God three-in-one?&quot; I really like it. For further literature you may visit www.thercg.org</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, all this material was written by David C. Pack in his book &#8220;Trinity &#8211; is God three-in-one?&#8221; I really like it. For further literature you may visit <a href="http://www.thercg.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.thercg.org</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Is there any historical proof that Jesus existed? by JohnE</title>
		<link>http://www.cfmin.com/wp1/?p=577&#038;cpage=1#comment-492</link>
		<dc:creator>JohnE</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:02:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cfmin.wordpress.com/2007/08/02/is-there-any-historical-proof-that-jesus-existed/#comment-492</guid>
		<description>I must say your comment is pretty ridiculous :) What you write is debunked old news, you certainly need to brush-up on atheistic apologetics. Even atheists admit Jesus existed. For a discussion see http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/was-jesus-an-historical-figure</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I must say your comment is pretty ridiculous <img src='http://www.cfmin.com/wp1/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  What you write is debunked old news, you certainly need to brush-up on atheistic apologetics. Even atheists admit Jesus existed. For a discussion see <a href="http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/was-jesus-an-historical-figure" rel="nofollow">http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/was-jesus-an-historical-figure</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
