Trinitarians are Polytheists

reply to post by NOTurTypical

In a previous post you wrote:

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

In this post, you wrote:

He took on flesh much later at the incarnation.

Didn't I write that attention should be paid to the fact that these three men ate the food?
The eating of food is offered in the gospel of Luke as proof of flesh and blood existence.

39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself ! Touch me and see; a ghost[spirit] does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." 40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.
Luke 24:39-43 (New International Version)

Compare this with an angel of the LORD appearances such as:

Judges 6: KJV
19 And Gideon went in, and made ready a kid, and unleavened cakes of an ephah of flour: the flesh he put in a basket, and he put the broth in a pot, and brought it out unto him under the oak, and presented it.
20 And the angel of God said unto him, Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and pour out the broth. And he did so.
21 Then the angel of the LORD put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there rose up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes. Then the angel of the LORD departed out of his sight.:

So point to see is that a pre-incarnate man cannot eat food. And yet one or all three of these men are called Yahweh. Human Yahweh or Yahwehs.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
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.

edit on 11-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I had not heard of "Christophanies" before, only Theophanies. I figured it must be a newer teaching.

reply to post by pthena

Didn't I write that attention should be paid to the fact that these three men ate the food?
The eating of food is offered in the gospel of Luke as proof of flesh and blood existence.

Not necessarily. Jesus ate with the disciples post resurrection. And He talks about feasts we'll eat in the Kingdom.

reply to post by truejew


No, Jesus said He had this glory with God before the world was. That affairms they shared glory before the world was created.

reply to post by WarriorOfLight96

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

I'm slightly acquainted with the Enoch books. I was raised on the fallen angel story indirectly. From Enoch story to Milton to Ellen G. White in The Great Controversy. As of right now, (I reserve the right to change my mind later), I think that the Enoch books themselves are part of the set up for the conspiracy you mention, the hostile division of man against man.

As for unclean spirits (to give a label I'm comfortable with), they are lesser than human. To allow one self to be controlled or dictated by such is a serious degradation of the human. I think that there is a lot of that going on among political and religious leaders.

Originally posted by pthena
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.

In all the time I've been here, I've never known you to be foolish my friend...

We're all on this journey together, and in reality none of us knows what is to come... or how to describe God.

We stick to what we know, and what feels right... I've found that there is no better description of God in any other text when compared to the Apocryphon of John... At least the best description that we can understand with words... and keep in mind while it might not be true, it was supposed to be a revelation directly from Jesus in a dire moment of doubt in Johns life.

I thought it would be appropriate in this thread because it is about the trinity... and while this text doesn't disprove the trinity... it does reinforce the idea of ONE God as opposed to three in one.

On the other hand this text also says "all was created for Jesus"... making him co creator as well... which I disagree with...

In any case its a good read

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

No, Jesus said He had this glory with God before the world was. That affairms they shared glory before the world was created.

Only by God's plan and foreknowledge. "Son of God" is a title that the Son of God has because He really is the Son of God. He had a beginning and it was in 4BC. Only the Spirit of the Son of God, the Father, pre-existed that birth.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

And He talks about feasts we'll eat in the Kingdom.

I'm beginning to wonder about your dispensationalism. Is it real to you that Jesus brought a new understanding? That the new has surpassed the old? Or is it the sectarian view that holds that the old is the real deal, and the new understanding is merely a temporary glitch?

Mark 14:22 As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had blessed, he broke it, and gave to them, and said, "“Take, eat. This is my body.”"

23 He took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them. They all drank of it. 24 He said to them, "“This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Most certainly I tell you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it anew in the Kingdom of God.”" 26 When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
- WEB -

When you eat the bread and drink the wine, do you discern the body and blood? Or is this just a symbolic gesture? Are you still looking for another Messiah to bring back the old?

Matt 9:14 Then John’s disciples came to him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples don’t fast?”

15 Jesus said to them, "“Can the friends of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast. 16 No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch would tear away from the garment, and a worse hole is made. 17 Neither do people put new wine into old wineskins, or else the skins would burst, and the wine be spilled, and the skins ruined. No, they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.”"

Luke 5 39 No man having drunk old wine immediately desires new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’”"

reply to post by pthena


What if what Jesus presented was the Old...

Just not what's in the OT... more like the rules that always have been, and have never changed.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

According to the statements made, they are polytheist.

I would not think that a brainwashed person would be a good source on whether or not another religion is a "cult".

Pot, meet kettle.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

According to the statements made, they are polytheist.

I would not think that a brainwashed person would be a good source on whether or not another religion is a "cult".

Pot, meet kettle.

I am not the one making illogical claims that three gods are one god.

reply to post by truejew


I was talking about the last line of your post.

reply to post by Akragon

What if what Jesus presented was the Old...

Just not what's in the OT... more like the rules that always have been, and have never changed.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that I am a temporal person. I have no expectation that I will know the end and the beginning in my lifetime. Did Jesus know the beginning? Perhaps. But yet would it make sense for him to share that knowledge with people whose imaginations could not reach beyond "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?

The written stories indicate that Jesus used what seemed older verses of the Old Testament to contradict what would seem to be newer.

Mark 10 - WEB
2 Pharisees came to him testing him, and asked him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

3 He answered, "“What did Moses command you?”"

4 They said, “Moses allowed a certificate of divorce to be written, and to divorce her.”

5 But Jesus said to them, "“For your hardness of heart, he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this cause a man will leave his father and mother, and will join to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”"

Regardless of what some people believe, God did not write the Bible. People wrote it, people redacted it, people edited and compiled it. People with agendas.

I don't know if you watched the video of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, most influential rabbi of the twentieth century, explain how g.d's hand is forced to honor and endorse decisions of rabbinical councils. It was a couple of years ago, but I shudder still when I recall it.

It seems glaringly obvious to me that any g.d like that is not God.

If we take the criteria that Jesus used in the quote from Mark and apply it to other areas of scripture we find a pattern.

1) Did the OT god want the Israelites to even have a king?
1 Samuel 8 pretty clearly states that answer was no. After Yahweh explains that having a king is outright rebellion against himself, he says, " 9 Now therefore listen to their voice: however you shall protest solemnly to them, and shall show them the way of the king who shall reign over them.”; The moral: rebel against the god enough and you get what you want.

Don't worry, some royal scribe will write down that a later, Judean/Moabite brigand is a man after his own heart. Paid musicians will write psalms of praise about an everlasting dynasty. So it is written, so it must be. The god's hands are tied.

2) How did Jerusalem become a holy city? If a holy city was a prerequisite for there to be a holy nation, then the nation wasn't holy from the times of Abraham right up until the time of David. Why Jerusalem? Because paid psalm writers wrote it so. "The city of the Great King" The Great King is that long line of Davidic Messiahs. Each messiah a son of god. That's right, if the nation had kings like all the other nations had kings, and all the other nation's kings had a mythological god as an ancestor, then Judah needed that too. Right?

Do you see where this is going? Was the whole concept of "the kingdom" and "the Messiah" something that the god had planned from the beginning, or was it all a result of rebellion?

3) Did the god want a stone temple to live in? A hand made stone object within which the essence of a god is worshipped is an idol by definition. Why is it that zero people seem to get it? Because it is written in a holy book.

The priest-king-son of god messiah Solomon, by making a river of blood from thousands of animals coaxed some dark entity to enter this temple, thus it became an idol indeed. Why does this not strike any one as a bad thing? Because it's written in a "holy book". The god is powerless to voice a convincing protest.

The post exile prophets wrote up that Zion, city of the great king would be the capital of the World Empire. All nations would pay tribute or else.

When Jesus came preaching the gospel of the kingdom, was he merely repeating what was written already? I very seriously doubt that.

Edit to add: I'm sorry about being a slow writer.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by truejew

 

I was talking about the last line of your post.

If you were trying to say that I am brainwashed, I am not.

reply to post by pthena


I think you kinda misunderstood what I was saying...

NOT whats in the OT

The rules Jesus gave were always the rules... the writers of the OT didn't have a clue as to what God wanted, having followed "angels" of a god which likely wasn't the true Father of Creation that Jesus spoke about.

One of the reasons he came was to "clarify" the fact that everyone had it wrong.

For some reason a lot of people believe Jesus came and changed the rules... I believe he merely gave the correct ones which were in place from the beginning...

Remember he said " all that came before me were thieves and robbers"

reply to post by pthena

Does this imply that by seeing these three men, he was seeing Yahweh? Is that three persons, and yet one Yahweh?

2 were angels, one was the Son of God that later became Christ. The phyisical manifestation of the Father is his Glory. We can't see Yahweh himself, we can only see his Glory which is his Light. Kinda like having your back to the sun and someone walks up behind you, you cant see them you only see their shadow. There were many other instances where God's Glory appeared to men, Exodus 32, Joshua 5:5, Judges 13, Daniel 12, Daniel 3 are some. When he was not in a corporeal form but appeared as fire, that was him as Holy Spirit the Ruach ha'Kodesh or Ruach Elohim. The Shekinah is his presence.

Did Yahweh lie? Or did he actually go down to Sodom to see for himself?

He sees through his servants. Apostle Paul elborates more on this whenever he speaks about the Body of Christ. We are his temples and he inhabits us. What we see He sees, what we hear He hears. He is the Head and we are his Body, his extensions into this world. He did go to Sodom, but he stood there before Abraham and listened to Abraham's intercession. The purpose of the Temple was to bear the Shekinah which is another allusion to the coming of Messiah, as the Ark was inside the Temple, and the Temple inside the city of Jerusalem, the allusion to the future Bride of Christ.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


The Shekinah is the female pressence of God and comes from Kabbalah teaching. It has no place in Christian teaching.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

The Shekinah is the female pressence of God and comes from Kabbalah teaching. It has no place in Christian teaching.

Actually it does, because it's as much a part of what we believe as are the feast days. The Torah and Tenach is the foreshadowing of what we represent. The Menorah, Feast Days, the 2 witnesses all of it.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


You are very much infected with the Kabbalah.

For your own good, I suggest you repent and turn from the evil of the Kabbalah.

reply to post by Akragon

I think you kinda misunderstood what I was saying...

NOT whats in the OT

The rules Jesus gave were always the rules...

It isn't that I misunderstood the question. It's that I understood the magnitude of the extremely huge question you were asking. I cleverly side-stepped it. Evidently, not cleverly enough.

You may have noticed that accusations of brainwashing and denials of brainwashing have been bandied about quite freely in this thread. Allow me to share some of my own brainwashing, the reaction against which serves as a very powerful emotional block to my grappling with some issues.

I was raised (completely immersed culturally) with a particular mythology. It went like this:

God's law is eternal and immutable. The ten commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai are a perfect copy of what has existed in heaven from eternity, long before creation. In heaven there is a stone temple. In this stone temple there are stone tablets eternally enshrined, glowing with the glory of God.

That was the unquestionable myth of my culture. The one clearly established a priori fact, upon which all other facts flowed.

There came a time, when I began to doubt this myth. I took an imaginary journey, back, back, through the eons of time, to a time (or absence thereof) before any physical reality existed. In the spirit of imagination I approached this stone temple to observe the reaction of other spirit beings to this thing that somehow existed before there were things.

There was a curator/tour guide to keep this thing and explain this thing to spirits (in the myth they were called angels even though there were no messages yet, nor anyone to deliver them to, but no one had any other name yet for these beings, so angel became the default label even though it has no meaning as to their being when stripped of function)

As I watched, an angel approached (although approach has little or no meaning when there is no space) the curator.

Angel:
What is this?

Curator (in a very officious yet monotone voice):
THIS IS THE TEMPLE OF THE MOST HIGH, IT IS ...

Angel interrupts:
No, I mean this, this right here.

Curator looks where Angel points with his/her genderless incorporeal finger:
You mean the stone?

Angel:
Stone, stone, yes, what is this stone?

Curator:
It is the physical ...

Angel interrupts:
What do you mean physical?

Curator resuming officious monotone voice:
THE TIME WILL COME WHEN THE MOST HIGH WILL ...

Angel interrupts:
Time? Time? What is time?

Curator very impatiently:
For crying out loud! Just follow me inside and see what's here! And don't you dare ask me what inside means!

So once they were inside the temple, whatever inside means, Curator resumed his canned speech:
THIS IS THE ETERNAL AND IMMUTABLE LAW OF THE MOST HIGH, WHICH ALL MANKIND MUST FOLLOW.

-------- Editor's note: here begins the condensed version. You can imagine for yourselves how the question and answer went about such words as: land, Egypt, image, bow down, day, rest, mother, father, servant, neighbor, wife, ass, etc. went. --------

Angel:
And this is that stone again, I suppose? I won't even ask what mankind is.

Curator darts a furtive glance around and whispers:
Just between you, me, and that imaginary observer over there, I've got no idea in the world, whatever that may be, what any of this stuff means.

Just then two large(yeah, whatever large may mean) brutes burst in, grabbed Angel, Curator, and imaginary observer and hurled them out of heaven.
YOU HAVE CAST DOUBT UPON THE ETERNAL AND IMMUTABLE LAW OF THE MOST HIGH. YOU ARE THEREFORE CAST DOWN.

The last thing the imaginary observer heard was Angel:
What does down mean?

------- Thus ended the imaginary journey -----

I believe he merely gave the correct ones which were in place from the beginning...

And whenever I hear or read what remotely resembles ETERNAL IMMUTABLE LAW I have an extreme emotional reaction that effectively throws up a wall that blinds me.

I'm just a blind temporal man, wandering in a physical morass of moral relativism. So far I've managed to pick out a few things that seem extremely wrong, even evil, if such a concept has meaning without an absolute law.

(a useful quote in continue)