Return to Website

GLO's Exposed Discussion Forum

This is the forum area where you can discuss topics related to the Biblical exposure of Greek organizations. All posts are reviewed; if they are offensive they'll be deleted. 

Any copyrighted material contained herein is for: criticism, comments, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. All used in accordance with the Fair Use Exception 17 USC 107. 

GLO's Exposed Discussion Forum
Start a New Topic 
UNITY: Your questions are here.


Yes or No ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please.
If I have others, I will expect you to answer them?

Is Jesus Christ the Messiah?
Was His Jesus' Blood Atonement sufficient to forgive men of their sin?
Is eternal life obtained through Jesus alone?
Is the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, Jesus Christ?
Is Jesus Christ the ONLY way to the Father?
Is Jesus Christ both God and man?
Is He both Lord and God?
Is He both Lord and Christ?
Is He worthy of worship as is God?
Is Jesus Christ the UNIQUE Son of God?
Is their a Second Coming of Jesus Christ?
Has Jesus Christ, The Messiah, come one time already to be our one and only atoning sacrifice?
Was Jesus Christ bodily resurrected?
Did He ascend to heaven?
Is He seated at the right hand of the Father?
Was Jesus Christ born of a virgin?
Was Jesus Christ, Immanuel?
Did He heal the sick, raise the dead and give sight to the blind?
Is the Holy Spirit God?
Does the devil exist?
Was the devil originally Lucifer?
Did Jesus die for the sins of the world?

Remember that these ARE yes or no questions.

Re: UNITY: Your questions are here.

"Is Jesus Christ the Messiah?"
I am still studying this one so i don't have a definitive yes or no answer for you right now.

"Was His Jesus' Blood Atonement sufficient to forgive men of their sin?"

"Is eternal life obtained through Jesus alone?"

"Is the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, Jesus Christ?"

"Is Jesus Christ the ONLY way to the Father?"

"Is Jesus Christ both God and man?"

"Is He both Lord and God?"
lord is any term given to someone that you follow and that you respect (i.e. sarah called abraham lord). Therefore, j*s*s can be a lord, BUT HE IS NOT G-D, so my answer is YES & NO!

"Is He both Lord and Christ?"
still studying the christ part so i have no answer for you on this question!

"Is He worthy of worship as is God?"

"Is Jesus Christ the UNIQUE Son of God?"

"Is their a Second Coming of Jesus Christ?"
still studying this one so i have no comment for this one!

"Has Jesus Christ, The Messiah, come one time already to be our one and only atoning sacrifice?"

"Was Jesus Christ bodily resurrected?
Did He ascend to heaven?"
still studying this one so I do not have an answer for you!

"Is He seated at the right hand of the Father?"
Again, still studying so i don't have an answer for you!

"Was Jesus Christ born of a virgin?"

"Was Jesus Christ, Immanuel?"

"Did He heal the sick, raise the dead and give sight to the blind?"

"Is the Holy Spirit God?"

"Does the devil exist?"

"Was the devil originally Lucifer?"
Not so sure?

"Did Jesus die for the sins of the world?"

Instant Messenger: ,3

Re: UNITY: Your questions are here.

Mr. Hatchett I hope that you understand that on the questions I had no answer for, it was bc I truly have no answer right now.

Many will wonder why I answered the questions the way I did. It little to do with the fact that I am jewish and much to do with the fact that I have studied xianity and church history. I gave definitive answers to things I have comitted to studying for more than 12yrs. Church history teaches that during the first and second centuries the christian church did not teach the divinity of j*s*s

in fact there were bishops in the church that felt that giving j*s*s a divinity status would be considered heresy and the church would be no different for pagan religions

there was one bishop however you was raised in paganisms his whole life and later converted to xianity

he began to introduce the concept of j*s*s being god into the church
this teaching began to divide the church
at the council of nicea the bishops debated the issue of j*s*s and the trinity so that there could be only one teaching in the church
those that followed the belief that j*s*s was god won by a narrow margin of votes
therefore the council RULED that j*s*s was god and forced all of the other bishops who disagreed with that belief accept that teaching or be excommunicated from the church

the thing that is interesting about this whole thing is that in order for them to debate about this concept is evidence that there was no unified church belief in the deity of jesus

today people pick up there bibles and say "well it is right here in the new testament" if it is in the new testament and used to show proof now then why didnt these people way back then believe j*s*s was god

they were closer (in a timeline fashion) to j*s*s existence than we are
if he had just ascended doesnt it make since that all of the churches during that time would speak about him being god? yet there were still churches that did not believe or teach this

if there are specific questions about any of my responses i am willing to address them on a one by one basis

Instant Messenger: ,3

Re: UNITY: Your questions are here.

Unity, I think I asked you before, but I would like to know what your religious belief / religion is if you have any.


Re: UNITY: Your questions are here.

"(Epistle to the Philadelphians, 107 A.D.)

If anyone says there is one God, and also confesses Jesus Christ, but thinks the Lord to be a mere man, and not the only-begotten God...such one is a serpent, that preaches deceit and error for the destruction of men. Such a man is poor in understanding, even by his name, he is an Ebionite.

Ignatius (Epistle to the Philippians, 107 A.D.)

There is one Father, one Son, and one Paraclete (Holy Spirit)...not one person with three names, nor three persons who became incarnate, but three possessed of equal honor.

Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, 150 A.D.)

I wish you to observe (the Scriptures) by which this very man who was crucified by us proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as having been crucified, and as dying.

and Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God...and is the power indivisible and inseparable from the Father, whom (Christ) the prophetic scriptures call God. (CXXVIII)

Melito, Bishop of Sardis (On the Nature of Christ, 160 A.D.)

For, being at once both God and perfect man, he gave us sure indication of His two natures, His deity, by the miracles during the three years after his baptism, and his humanity, by the thirty similar periods before his baptism.

Irenaeus (Against Heresies 180 A.D.)

For the apostles of liberty named no one else God, or named Him Lord, except the only true God and Father, and His Word, who has pre-eminence in all things, and it can be clearly proved that the apostles confessed him as the Lord God who was Creator and spoke with Moses.

For the Father is truly Lord, the Son is truly Lord, the Holy Spirit is fitly designated them the title Lord.

For the sacred books acknowledge with regard to Christ that He is not mere man, and as he is flesh, so also is he spirit, and the Word of God, and God. (Fragment of lost writing of Irenaeus)" Retrieved July 14, 2005 from,

These are what some historians and early church fathers had to say about the divinity of Jesus.

Re: UNITY: Your questions are here.

Mr. Hatchett,

As I stated in my post, there was not a consensus of belief in the 1st & 2nd cent. I chose not to list the sayings of ignatius, athanasius or justin martyr bc I did not feel like debating their stance. As you have posted, they represent some of the "church fathers" who taught on the divinity of j*s*s. However, there is also a very long list of "church fathers" who opposed that teaching. Since I stated that there was no consensus on the divinity of j*s*s, it is logical to assume that some believed in it and some did not. However, the key point is that today, EVERY church believes in his divinity. It is not even questioned. But if it is such an absolute understanding now, why wasn't it back then? Why did they have to debate the issue and then VOTE on it to see what view they would accept. If it was clear that j*s*s was divine, there would have never been a need for a debate. Today jesus' divinity difines xianity, but back then it did not.

As you know I am a medical student and I am currently in a testing block so my time is limited. That is why I have not stated all of the names and listed quotes from actual church documents that state that the church in the first 2 centuries did not teach j*s*s was G-d. Once this block is finished I will give you a THOROUGH list of info. that verifies what I have stated.

I believe in the G-d of Israel (the "old testament"). I believe that everything He taught to moses and spoke through the prophets is true. I believe G-d changes not, therefore He is the same today as He was yesterday. The specific tenets of my faith are those that G-d taught through moses and the prophets in the "old testament". Some examples are:

Personal relationship with Him
Loving all mankind
Observing His commandments
Judge fairly
The coming messiah
Taking care of the widow
Helping the poor
Teaching our children His ways
Being a light to the rest of the world

Re: UNITY: Your questions are here.

So, just to be very clear, are you saying that you do NOT believe any of the New Testament? And also, do you refer to yourself as a Christian?

God bless

Re: UNITY: Your questions are here.


No I am not a xian, I am jewish. I have studied xianity for more than 12yrs. This study of xianity was not done to discredit or disprove any of the xian claims. It was done bc I wanted to know for myself if the xian message was true or not. If I found the message to be true then I would adhere to the message presented by xianity (i.e. j*s*s being the messiah).

All observant jews believe in the messiah, therefore all observant jews are messianic. The difference btwn judaism and xianity is that the messiah concept does not take center focus. Meaning, even if the messiah came, he himself does not get more glory or honor than G-d. There are practicing orthodox jews today who believe their leader is the messiah. Many outside of judaism do not know about them bc they have not started a separate religious practice. Eventhough this is their belief, they do not call themselves messianic jews or anything to the such. They still practice judaism, it is just that they believe their leader is the messiah. There are also a group of orthodox jews who believe j*s*s is the messiah. They are also not well known bc they do not call themselves xian. They continue to practice judaism and adhere to the tenets of the jewish faith.

In judaism there are certain key things that the messiah is suppose to do (as prophecied in the "old testament"). One of the key things is that he is suppose to gather all of the scattered tribes of israel back to the land of israel. He is also suppose to end all wars and the world will only know peace. He is also suppose to adhere to G-d's laws and teach them to all of the nations. There are several other things he is suppose to do, but I am not going to get into all of that on this forum.
Throughout jewish history there have been several people who have risen up and stated they were the messiah. There have been people who have fulfilled some of the criteria, but not all of the criteria. That is the most important thing. If the requirement for the messiah is that he be jewish, well then you have millions of people that fit that criteria, but those million people obviously are not the messiah. There is a long check list for the messiah to fulfill and he is the only person that can fulfill everything on the list. There are some who can fulfill certain items and there are some who can fulfill other items, but if they do not satisfy all of the requirements they are not the messiah. This is one of the dilemmas I ran into with xian teachings. They say that j*s*s is the messiah, but they destroy their claim by indirectly showing the jew every reason why he is not the messiah, such as by stating he did away with G-d's laws. That is why I had to study xianity for myself. I did not want to leave it up to a xian to tell me the "truth" about j*s*s nor did I want some "anti-missionary" group tell me why I should not believe in j*s*s. I wanted to study for myself and if he was the messiah the truth would stand up for itself.

The advantage that I have when it comes to studying xianity is that I am a learned jew. Therefore, I understand the language, culture, customs, and political climate that existed during j*s*s' day. Therefore, I incorporate all of that into my studies. As I studied xianity I noticed alot of things that occured historically that are not spoken about today, such as the fact that the 1st century church worshipped on the sabbath in the synagogues with other jews. And that the 1st century xians continued to go to the temple and offer sacrifices along with other jews. Because I do not want to turn this whole forum into a religious debate on who is right and who is wrong, I will refrain from giving alot of the info. that I know. The info. I found is available to anyone who does a study on church history. There are published documents of the meetings at the council of ladoceia, nicea, and trent, which formalized most of what is known as xian doctrine and belief today. As well as there are several books out that speak about the history of changes in church doctrine and belief.

In addition, I met the person whose father was an archeologist who in the 1960's discovered that the book of matthew was written first and that it was written in hebrew. I studied the book of matthew in hebrew as well as the other gospel writings and I found many inconsistencies from the translation going from the hebrew to the greek. Many of these errors went from simple gramatical errors to complete changes in sentence structure, wording, and context.

I also studied ancient latin translations of the "new testament" that had several sentences deleted and added in when translated into old english versions, that were later translated into modern english. I studied with biblical scholars and linguist with regards to dating certain "new testament" writings. I have also studied with biblical historians to obtain accurate historical information regarding the background to the "new testament" books. All of the info. I have obtained came from xian sources. All of the scholars I studied with were xian scholars. I have studied with catholics, lutherans, pentecostals, messianics, apostolic, c.o.g.i.c., presbytarian, methodist, episcopalian, non-denominational charismatic, 7th day adventist, and evangelical. I have been clear and honest with all groups. I told them that I was studying xianity to see for myself if j*s*s is the messiah. They all allowed me to ask whatever questions I might have and they shared with me what knowledge they had.

After all of that studying my beliefs remain the same. I have however, developed a different perspective with regard to the xianity that existed in the apostles days. I am confident in saying that it is completely different from the xianity that is practiced today. I do have respect for those xian groups like 7th day adventist and unitarian pentecostals who have done some studying and chosen to go back to a more accurate form of xianity.

Instant Messenger: ,3

Re: UNITY: Your questions are here.

I just finished my testing blocking and i am free to answer some questions for at least another 2wks.

I thought I would quickly address a couple of points in my response to 2 questions that were asked of me (immanuel and the virgin birth).

First we must understand that the bible is a book that tells a story. It would be ridiculous for anyone today to go to page 36 of a 400pg book and state that they know the complete message the book is conveying. Unfortunately this is what has happened with many xians when it comes to interpreting the "old testament".

With regards to the virgin birth, the passage quoted in isaiah 7:14 that many read has been mistranslated into english. It makes since for anyone to read the mistranslated english passage and believe there is suppose to be a virgin birth, but in hebrew it reads different. In fact the word used in that passage is also used in other passages in the bible. No where else in the bible is that word used for virgin birth. In fact, it is used in one passage to relate to a harlot. The actual hebrew word for virgin, which is used several times in the bible, is not used in that passage. In addition, that particular text of isaiah is a continuation of previous chapters. The whole story relates to King Ahaz (king of judah) fearing that judah will be conquered by the northern kingdom of israel and the assyrians. G-d sends isaiah to comfort king ahaz and gives him words of prophecy.

As we flow into the passage that speaks about the young woman, it is in relation to the specific prophecy that G-d has for ahaz. The woman and child are just used as a time table reference to let ahaz know when G-d would destroy these 2 armies and their lands lay desolate. The book of kings gives documents the fulfillment of this prophecy.

In addition, names in hebrew always have a metaphorical meaning. Whether it means G-d is a healer, G-d is our saviour, or G-d is strong, these names never meant that the person bearing the name is G-d. The name immanuel fits the passage bc G-d is letting ahaz know that during that time, He will be with him and his people. There are several people today who are called immanuel, but none of us would ever think to call them G-d. And if this mistranslated text was taken literally as to mean virgin then why isn't the rest of the passage taken literally, especially with the name immanuel. J*s*s was named Y'shua (G-d saves or G-d's salvation) not immanuel.

These are the points I wish to address for now. Please remeber that this reply is only to clarify my answers. There are several people who read the english bible and can't understand why I would reply as I have. I would say that the same type of logic applies to everything. Someone could read a Q'uran and say that the message is straight foward and clear, but many xians will not accept that. Someone could read b'hai manuscripts and say the message is clear. This is what has happened with english bibles. Many read and accept it as what was originally written, therefore it must be true. I agree that the english bible states everything clearly and matter of fact like. However, since I know hebrew I am able to look deeper and see that what is translated into english is completely different than what was originally written in hebrew. These little errors change the meaning and context of a passage, and can lead a person to a false ideology.

Instant Messenger: ,3

Re: UNITY: Your questions are here.


Thank you for responding. I actually haven't gotten a chance to really read your responses thoroughly. You really answered in-depth. Soon I will take the time to read your responses.

God bless you

Re: UNITY: Your questions are here.

The Isaiah 7:14 issue has been controversial. What is the word you say is used for virgin in this passage? If this is a prophetic statement then the language used in its fulfillment would also have a say in it. Another distinct difference between Jesus and the other prophets of the Bible is that they did not speak by their own authority as Jesus did. Notice everywhere He decreed a commandment, He would say, But "I" say unto you, whereas ordinary men would say, "thus saith the Lord".

Re: UNITY: Your questions are here.


FYI, on this very website, you'll find in miss axe's "guestbook" an entry where he condemned Jews to hell.

Best wishes,

Re: UNITY: Your questions are here.

Barb thanx for the insight. Mr. Hatchett and I both are very familiar with each other from a different website. He understands my perspective on things, which is why he wanted he me to answer these questions before I posted. He wanted to make sure that his audience understood clearly what "side" of the table I was on.

Nevertheless, I have nothing against him personally nor his stance with regards to denouncing his organization. The confusion he and I have with each other is with regards to biblical interpretations. He is fully aware of that. I belong to a GLO and my interpretations of the bible allow me to stay involved. He denounced his GLO and his interpretation of the bible caused him to denounce.

Mr. Hatchett, I never stated anything about j*s*s or his comments. Please do not twist my statements and make it appear as if I am bashing j*s*s. I am clearly stating why I answered your questions the way I did.

There has NEVER been a controversy on isaiah 7:14. It has always been interpreted from the hebrew in a clear fashion. The controversy is only introduced when individuals wish to mistranslate it and turn it into something it isn't. I purposely did not say the hebrew words (which are indeed used in kings) bc I did not want to turn this into a religious debate. Those who are seeking truth can dig/search deeper and find it. (seek and you shall find)

Instant Messenger: ,3

Re: UNITY: Your questions are here.

HTML sucks! Unity! I was not trying to twist anything you said. As for the fact of Mary's virginity, that is unquestionable. You cannot use one scripture to determine a complete truth. The word used in Isaiah 7:14 is not the only word used for a young woman. This word describes much more than that. Just as many hebrew and greek words have root words and other words that are closely related to them, so is the case with Isaiah 7:14. Not only was Mary a virgin, but she was a young virgin of marriageable age.

Hello Barb! Who is miss axe?

Re: UNITY: Your questions are here.

And by the way, your explanation on how names are used or viewed in the Bible is flawed. There were many people with the same names in the Bible. So what? There was more than one Jesus/Joshua in scripture, BUT ONLY ONE WAS THE "SON OF GOD" IMMANUEL in the LITERAL sense, since Jesus is Jehovah.

Re: UNITY: Your questions are here.

Mr. Hatchett,

You are doing a good job at bating me in. I don't wish to be labor this topic, but I do want to clarify a couple of things:

First remember that I read the bible in hebrew. I do not rely on hebrew interpretations or bible concordances. Hebrew is completely different from english and greek. In order to read hebrew you must be a grammatical and linguistic comprehension.

Ok, my coments with regards to isaiah 7:14 is based on the complete text, not one verse. Meaning I read the verses prior to, as well as after it. I do not grab one verse and then try to develop a meaning behind it. That makes no sense. How can I understand what the other is trying to convey, unless I read the whole text. If you read the text you will see that there are key things in the text that completely do not refer to j*s*s. Many will attempt to get around those statements in the text by allegorizing them. My question to them would be how do you know what part to allegorize and which one to read literally? It appears that certain indiviuals will do anything to make the text fit their meaning (one verse you say it is to be interpreted literally and the next one is allegory-bc it doesn't fit certain events you want it to fit). Anyways, a literal interpetation of the verse reads clearly and it only points in one direction and its fulfillment occured the way G-d said it would (please do not make G-d out to be a liar).

A good analogy regarding this verse is the church today. If a prophet stands up in the church and gives a prophecy to a person about how things will change for them (whether it be financially or spiritually) everyone knows that those events will happen in that person's lifetime. It makes no sense for a prophet to tell someone what is going to happen in his/her life, but it doesn't take place for another 700yrs.

This is the story of isaiah 7:14. The verses leading up to that prepare the stage for the verse. The whole chapter and context of the chapter is in regards to king ahaz and his fear. G-d sent isaiah to show him that he should fear nothing bc G-d is with him. What a beautiful story. Ahaz was a descendent of king david and king david said even though he walks through the valley of the shadow of death, he will fear no evil bc G-d is with him. Now years after all of that, G-d reaches out to his descendent to show that as long as you walk upright He is always there with you.

I am not even going to address your translation of the word immanuel.

Instant Messenger: ,3

Re: UNITY: Your questions are here.

Isaiah was not referring to himself if I follow you coorectly. He was speaking of the Messiah to come. That is the beauty and wonder of the prophecy. And not everything that some so-called "Prophet" says in church about someone will necessarily come to pass. I believe you have severely misjudged me. You see me like you see most other believers. You probably expected me to rip you for the "sea of reeds", but I did not. You probably expected me to say that the KJV is without spot or wrinkle when you discussed its problems, but I did not. That's your flawed thinking about prophets in the church. Do you believe that TRUE prophets are in the chruch today? I will tell you this, I know a whole bunch of FALSE ones.

And about me baiting you; WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN? Been there done that and succeeded.

In order for you to read the O.T. the way "YOU" have, it is necessary to eliminate what "YOU" don't believe. If not, you know there is only one alternative. To bow and confess that Jesus Christ is your ONLY way to G-d!!!!! Which is what I hope and pray most for you. You see, Immanuel, Jesus, Christ, The Lamb of God, The Word made flesh, Kurios, Adonai, I AM, Theos, etc., etc. make a difference when He really is all these things.

Re: UNITY: Your questions are here.

I wanted to continue. I just wanted to say that I noticed what you have been trying to do a long time ago. All you try and do is bring up something in scripture to refute Christianity and to prove that your deeply held beliefs are right. But I do not think you have noticed something. I have learned two from you and I have learned how to defend the faith.

Now back to the virgin issue. If "almah" has no ties to virginity or the state thereof, then why did Jehovah, Gabriel, Mary, Matthew and Luke see it differently. Now what you are saying is that all of these witnesses, especially Mary were wrong. Luke is considered to be a great historian. I believe Mary would KNOW best as to whether or not someone had sexual intercourse with her. This is what not only authenticates the use of the word "almah" but authenticates and confirms a 700 year prophecy. It's called TRUE prophecy, miraculous and an undeniable testimony that God will bring to pass what He speaks through His prophet's mouth.

Next Subject Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: UNITY: Your questions are here.

Mr. Hatchett,

To begin with, I stated that I was explaining why I answered your questions the way I did, not turn this into a religious debate forum. The word almah does not mean virgin and it is not used in the "old testament" to describe ANY virgins. In addition the word almah is only briefly used in the "old testament". There is a hebrew word for virgin and that word is continously used in the "old testament" whenever the author is speaking about a virgin. The passage in isaiah does not use the hebrew word for virgin. It uses a word that was used in other passages to describe various things but never a virgin. It is improbable that a person fluent in the hebrew language as isaiah was, would suddenly decide to not use the hebrew word for virgin, but instead use a different word just to confuse everyone. He uses clear and precise words throughout the text all the way up to the word almah. We are then to assume that he changed his plan and decided to not be so clear with his prophecy and hope that we would figure it out someday in the future. If his prophecy involved the redemption of the nation of israel, then why didn't he just make a proclamation to the whole nation just as previous prophets have done. Why would he go to a single king who wants
G-d to speak to him about his life, and tell him about something that won't happen until way after the king is dead and gone? The fact that isaiah was sent to give a specific message to king ahaz during a specific time about a specific event makes it very difficult to apply the prophecy to anyone other than king ahaz. In addition, the prophecy speaks about certain things that are going to happen to king ahaz's enemies during a specific time in the "child's" life.

The next thing you have wrong is my view of xianity. You want me to be someone that bashes xianity and you be the heroe who defends the faith. Well that is a wrong perspective to have. Judaism (observant/orthodox) does not speak against xianity. We believe that xianity is a good religion and it has caused many people to change their lives and to be better people. There are certain things within xianity that we jews consider idol worship and paganistic, but many xians are unaware of that. Therefore, we feel that those who believe that they are sincerely worshipping G-d, eventhough they may do it in a way that is considered pagan or idol worship, G-d still hears them and envelops them with His grace and mercy.

I speak with regards to what I know. And what I know is the "old testament". I know it from its original language and its original interpretations. Your dialogue with me in regards to the "old testament" appears to have been based off of english translations and hebrew/english dictionary and concordances. Those cannot compare to someone who knows and understands the language of the bible. In the "old testament" G-d is refered to as the G-d of the jews. He does not change in the "new testament" and become the G-d of the xians. He is still the G-d of the jews, and just as paul writes in romans ch. 11, that xians (gentile believers) are not to boast themselves above the jews bc they have been grafted into faith with the jews so that they too can share in the richness of the jews. He then concludes his statements by saying that G-d is faithful to His promises and all of israel shall be saved.

Re: UNITY: Your questions are here.

Why did you ignore the statements of Jehovah, Gabriel, Matthew, Luke and of course Mary. Either ALL of their testimonies are wrong which would make Isaiah wrong ACCORDING to you or Isaiah is right and you are wrong.

Your statement about Almah is your interpretation ignoring the truth about other passages in which the word is used.

WE DISAGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: UNITY: Your questions are here.

You are correct, we do disagree. I did not answer your statments about gabriel, mary and others bc I do want to turn this into a back and forth religious debate. I have plenty to say regarding those comments but it will take us of course and we will have a full fledge religious debate.

Mr. Hatchett, I would however like to thank you for allowing me to express my views on your website and thank you for being courteous to me eventhough we do not see things eye to eye.

Instant Messenger: ,3

Re: UNITY: Your questions are here.

It's really all about love as far as I am concerned. It always has and always will be. Even if I believe someone would go to hell if they died in front of my face does not mean I do not love and have compassion for them. I have expressed not only in word, but in deed. I knew a person who could not stand me die. I could have just stood their and did nothing, but I actually did two things. Witnessed salvation while she was alive and tried to revive her why she lay on the floor dead. So many have absolutely no idea who I really am. The only thing they know about me is all IMPERSONAL html. Just b/c we disagree does not mean I have bad hopes for you. I hope and I am sure you will be a great doctor.

Minister Hatchett