Trinitarians are Polytheists

reply to post by Akragon

So how did you come to the conclusion that Zeus is Gods name?

Found it in wikipedia. Dyeus ph2tēr, actually. It's just language. The word itself is not the thing. The word (label) brings the thing to mind. But whether I sleep, wake, live, or die, the sky still is. My mind did not make it, neither will thoughtlessness cause it to cease.

I didn't know Zeus was a trinity?

I didn't say He was. Dias is the blue daylight sky. There is a night time sky also. Her, I may not know. See, I'm still a coward. It seems my personal religion is a bit half of something bigger.

reply to post by pthena


the sky?

If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

reply to post by Akragon

I really don't know about kingdoms. Why would I begrudge the birds preceding me? What does being first get you anyway? I know you know the answer to that one.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by Akragon

I really don't know about kingdoms. Why would I begrudge the birds preceding me? What does being first get you anyway? I know you know the answer to that one.

edit on 11-5-2013 by pthena because: (no reason given)

Wouldn't it be saying that the physical world precedes what we are?

Its not about being first, more like recognising the physical, even what you see... as compared to relying on what is within

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by pthena

 

But in Genesis 18 one of the three "men" was the Lord, the other two were angels.

Correct. Which means the three men were not the trinity as many trinitarians claim.

reply to post by Akragon

Wouldn't it be saying that the physical world precedes what we are?

Yes, for some that may be the case.

Gospel of Thomas 29) Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit,
it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the
body, it is a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this
great wealth has made its home in this poverty."

recognising the physical, even what you see... as compared to relying on what is within

Didn't I write somewhere in this thread about the heart?

Blessed is she who upon hearing a good word, says "Yes, that's how I've felt in my heart for the longest time that it must actually be! It's like coming home, and the words are my address, I know where I live now!"

reply to post by pthena

Didn't I write somewhere in this thread

Blessed is she who upon hearing a good word, says "Yes, that's how I've felt in my heart for the longest time that it must actually be! It's like coming home, and the words are my address, I know where I live now!"

I might have missed that...

So back to the original question... Where did Zeus come from?

im just trying to understand your beliefs

reply to post by Akragon

I don't know where Zeus came from. He preceded me. And, the reality of Dias preceded all myths.

The myths failed to give the answers too. Only lesser gods can successfully be personified in such a way that they can participate as characters in a story. The myths hold some truths about the lesser gods. The highest God, no, the novel cannot be written with Him as a character.

You may be familiar with the C.S. Lewis Narnia books. The emperor across the sea is always the emperor across the sea. All the personified divine action is performed by Aslan the lion, son of the Emperor across the sea. It's like that.

reply to post by pthena


Something like this... Perhaps?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by adjensen

 

and that led to various theologians sitting down and trying to figure out what was really going on, and the Doctrine of the Trinity was what they came up with.

so basically the dominant group/s decided what God is?!!!

Um... no, where did I say anything like that?

I said that they developed the Doctrine of the Trinity to explain the evidence in the Bible and among early Christians that Jesus was God, and that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinctive hypostasis (persons.) The Ebionites (who were strict Jews) rejected the evidence in the Bible that Jesus was divine and settled on him being the Jewish Messiah. The orthodox position was not to reject any of it, but rather to reconcile it, which the Doctrine of the Trinity does.

what came first the belief that Jesus pbuh is god(which may or may not be true) or the compilation of Bible? If the Bible has been compiled and the only gospels selected are ones that resonate with the already formed belief then Bible is also no proof for that belief or the trinity that was invented to reconcile anything.
Its ultimately people(majority and/or powerful) who decided to make one belief 'official' and brand others as heratics!

(5:72) And surely they disbelieved when they said: 'Christ, the son of Mary, is indeed God'; whereas Christ had said: 'Children of Israel! Serve Allah, Who is your Lord and my Lord.' Allah has forbidden Paradise to those who associate anything with Him in His divinity and their refuge shall be the Fire. No one will be able to help such wrong-doers.
(5:73) Those who said: 'Allah is one of the Three', certainly they disbelieved, for there is no god save the One God. And if they do not give up this claim, all who have disbelieved among them shall be subjected to painful chastisement. (5:74) Will they not, then, turn to Allah in repentance, and ask for His forgiveness? Allah is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate.
(5:75) The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger before whom many Messengers have passed away; and his mother adhered wholly to truthfulness, and they both ate food (as other mortals
do). See how We make Our signs clear to them; and see where they are turning away!
(5:76) Say: 'Do you serve, beside Allah, that which has no power either to harm or benefit you, whereas Allah alone is All-Hearing, All-Knowing?'
(5:77) Say: 'People of the Book! Do not go beyond bounds in your religion at the cost of truth, and do not follow the caprices of the people who fell into error before, and caused others to go astray, and strayed far away from the right path.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by pthena

 

But in Genesis 18 one of the three "men" was the Lord, the other two were angels.

Correct. Which means the three men were not the trinity as many trinitarians claim.

I've never heard anyone claim the three "men" in Genesis 18 were the persons of the Trinity. Anyone I have ever read or heard preach says the Lord mentioned was a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus, the Son of God. These OT appearances of the Son are called "Christophanies" in theology.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by pthena

 

But in Genesis 18 one of the three "men" was the Lord, the other two were angels.

Correct. Which means the three men were not the trinity as many trinitarians claim.

I've never heard anyone claim the three "men" in Genesis 18 were the persons of the Trinity. Anyone I have ever read or heard preach says the Lord mentioned was a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus, the Son of God. These OT appearances of the Son are called "Christophanies" in theology.

edit on 11-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

The Son did not exist at that time. He was born much later.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by pthena

 

But in Genesis 18 one of the three "men" was the Lord, the other two were angels.

Correct. Which means the three men were not the trinity as many trinitarians claim.

I've never heard anyone claim the three "men" in Genesis 18 were the persons of the Trinity. Anyone I have ever read or heard preach says the Lord mentioned was a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus, the Son of God. These OT appearances of the Son are called "Christophanies" in theology.

edit on 11-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

The Son did not exist at that time. He was born much later.

He took on flesh much later at the incarnation. He existed in glory that He shared with the Father before the foundation of the world.

Jesus said this Himself.

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.". (John 17:5)

reply to post by truejew


When moses spoke to God he heard Gods voice but how can this be if God's voice is so loud that no man can hear his voice and live?

reply to post by pthena


The Gods in zeus are none other than the fallen angels of the book of enoch and doesnt exist anymore because that head of the beast has fallen as with egypt and babylon and so on. Thats why people try to use egypt as the way christianity was founded and its similar because its all tied together with the fallen and they had since the fall to lay the ground work for this deception.

reply to post by logical7

what came first the belief that Jesus pbuh is god(which may or may not be true) or the compilation of Bible?

Books were considered for inclusion in the canon based on three criteria:

1. Apostolic connection - they had to have been written by an Apostle, or with the assistance of one
2. Harmonious inclusion - they had to be in harmony, in general agreement, with existing canonical scripture
3. Widespread use - they had to be in general circulation, used by most of the churches in existence

So, to say that the Bible was reflective of orthodox Christianity at its earliest is true, but there is no indication that it was written disingenuously to reflect a fictional Jesus who met the needs of those churches. If one wishes to dismiss the accuracy of the Bible on that account, then there is no need to discuss the Bible, because you have written the whole of the text off as being not credible.

Regardless of one's point in that argument, it is not argued that the earliest Christians, including Jesus' Apostles, worshipped him as God, completely in contradiction to Judaism, and that's where we are.

reply to post by WarriorOfLight96


He lowered himself to human laguage so that Moses could hear him and listen, but how could this be?
He is too power full to waste his time to speak to humans?
The answer is love for he lowered his voice to give this message to Moses and he could understand God, so who is to say the God cant come down and become flesh to speak with his creations and he still does this.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by pthena

 

But in Genesis 18 one of the three "men" was the Lord, the other two were angels.

Correct. Which means the three men were not the trinity as many trinitarians claim.

I've never heard anyone claim the three "men" in Genesis 18 were the persons of the Trinity. Anyone I have ever read or heard preach says the Lord mentioned was a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus, the Son of God. These OT appearances of the Son are called "Christophanies" in theology.

edit on 11-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

The Son did not exist at that time. He was born much later.

He took on flesh much later at the incarnation. He existed in glory that He shared with the Father before the foundation of the world.

Jesus said this Himself.

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.". (John 17:5)

edit on 11-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

The Son of God had glory with the Father before the Son was born because He was in God's plan. There is no "God the Son" Spirit. The Spirit of the Son of God is the Father.


Ephesians 4:4 KJV
[4] There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

reply to post by Akragon

It's been a while since I've read the Apocryphon of John.

I'm fairly certain that there is some one behind it all. Monad if that's what people want to call the One. What strikes me is how He is described as ineffable, which by definition means 1)Too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words: 2) Too sacred to be uttered.

Do you see the irony of describing Him as indescribable in words, and then going to great length describing Him in words. That's really what I see as the foolishness of the mystery religions.

Nevertheless, I will quote some that I think seems good to me:

"He is the invisible Spirit, of whom it is not right to think of him as a god, or something similar. For he is more than a god, since there is nothing above him, for no one lords it over him.
The Apocryphon of John

Behind seems more accurate in my mind than above.

So you caught me in foolishness. Sky Father is not the One, but rather one of the ones. Yet the contemplation of the one, informs of the One. But not in a bunch of words.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Anyone I have ever read or heard preach says the Lord mentioned was a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus, the Son of God.

People retrofitting an explanation to reconcile the inconsistency between the Old Testament description of whoever the Hebrew deity was, and God of the New Testament. These would be fundamentalist who you were listening to, who don't want to admit that the Old Testament is not 'inerrant', because they are Dispensationalists, and that belief system is built on the foundation that every word in the OT is true and must come to pass as it says.

These OT appearances of the Son are called "Christophanies" in theology.

What 'theology' is that where they retrofit a NT god type person into the OT? Not any kind of serious theology.
If you look up Christophany in Wikipedia, it says that academics generally use that word to describe NT references.
Seems the current fad of describing OT occurrences of Christophany's is rather recent and comes from a professor at Liberty University, a fundamentalist Dispensationalist school. The author of this is not a real trained theologian but someone who went to preacher school.