Trinitarians are Polytheists

reply to post by pthena

. . . worshipping angels as if they were God, is an evil thing . . .

I don't know if it is even that.
I think it is really just self worship and they just made up whatever they needed in order to make themselves out as being superior.
I had a real turn around, from believing every bit of it, to believing none of it other than that there really is a book or whatever, and even that I seriously question.(talking about the Old Testament here)
Don't worship gods or angels or demons!
Jesus said love god only because the standard convention of his culture was that we love other people only because God said so.
ETA: and if anyone wonders, I'm not making that up, it comes from probably the highest authority in Christianity today.

reply to post by jmdewey60

The point being, when we need help, it may be unanswered by other humans and then it falls on the gods or rather God, to fill in the gap, because that is a really good person without reservations that are just too natural for mere mortals.

If I understand this correctly, you're talking about what the orthodox are only allowed to call "guardian angels" and others may call "familiar spirits". If they have no physical needs themselves, they can help people.

Jesus could have been like that, helpful even if it cost him his life, because he had no such attachments to this life and he knew he had another, in another p[lace, and he knew that he had one waiting for him, again, in that place, as a god.

By saying a god, do you think: a god for everyone, or maybe not for everyone? What I mean is: if the god does not present himself to someone, there is no amount of badgering by third parties that can introduce him in any meaningful way.

If the only thing that someone knows about the god is what they were pressured into claiming they believed, then that person who doesn't know the god shares his own ignorance with others, there can be a very negative ripple effect. If it becomes official state religion, there is no reason to think that it would be any better than any other state religion, in my opinion.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Jesus said love god only because the standard convention of his culture was that we love other people only because God said so.
ETA: and if anyone wonders, I'm not making that up, it comes from probably the highest authority in Christianity today.

Quite feasible.

I did a google search and couldn't find this authority mentioned.

reply to post by pthena

If I understand this correctly, you're talking about what the orthodox are only allowed to call "guardian angels" and others may call "familiar spirits". If they have no physical needs themselves, they can help people.

I think that if you set aside things like organized religion, like what would be exemplified by Rome on one side, and Jerusalem on the other, and throw in Egypt and Parthia, where they were organized along the lines of national gods, who helped, supposedly that nation to have an empire over its neighboring countries within their reach, you would be left with that sort of thing, the intercession of inexplicable somethings that appear or cause things to happen that are supernatural.
That could be a basis for the Old Testament religion, where you have this character, Jacob, who is really the head of a tribe, and he is concerned about the inevitable meeting of what he imagines as the rival tribe, who in all rights, even by his own reckoning, should just annihilate his tribe, while incorporating into itself the good things, while of course eliminating himself among the bad things that the victorious tribe would have no use for.
He has some sort of testing by this unknown entity, and then miraculously, the leader of the opposing tribe accepts him as his brother when they meet.
Then all that which makes a nice personal story gets blown up by the institution as a national religion to justify their own little bit of an empire.

reply to post by pthena

Quite feasible.

I did a google search and couldn't find this authority mentioned.

I went to sleep right after writing that, tired from a little day hike I took in a local park.
I wasn't so much promoting a particular person as god on earth, as much as answering ahead of time the question people ask themselves at least, 'are you just sitting there making all this up?'.
I just threw that 'authority' in there because she happens to be probably the most quoted living author that I run across while reading these academic type books on the New Testament. So there, and if you wanted to Google her, try Adela Yarbro Collins. And read her books, I have several. Specifically what I was referring to last night was this great (to me) masterpiece of a book, Mark, a commentary in the Hermeneia series.
What I think is that if someone wanted to understand a lot about the New Testament, a good start would be to read that book, and another in that same series, Romans, by Robert Jewett.

reply to post by pthena


No it's no fairytale and it ain't about a movie but Egyptians mention it and the real reason I speak of such things is because when I was at a funeral inside the church service and what I saw began to change my views. I was sitting not really paying attention to the sermon as I was not Christian as of yet and it was on this site I proclaimed my faith a year ago.

I was sitting there and all of a sudden I looked up and saw this being come through the wall and his body was like crystal and the companion was smaller in stature and I sat up straight. My wife looked at me and she knew what was happening, but she could not see this happening. My son is like this as well as my late grandmother on my father's side.

They stood there all through the sermon and they went the same way they came in but I knew who this person was and I was not gonna share this story but I care for you guys. I do not wish to be smarter than you with knowledge but I pray for these things and they are given and believe it has been given to you and you will begin to see these deceptions.

The person was Christ and I knew it in my heart and these are the sort of things that come into my life everyday and these demons and are not friendly at all how ever you spell it. They like to bang on walls and say things in the dark to get you to talk to them, they want you to talk with them and of course there is good spirits but you have to test them.

Roger Morneu explains this well in "a trip into the supernatural"

reply to post by jmdewey60


You should come for hike in my back yard, you'll probably have a blast my friend and I haven't gone out to pray in the forest as yet this year but the snow melted a little slow this year up north.

reply to post by WarriorOfLight96

Roger Morneu explains this well in "a trip into the supernatural"

I think that I read his other book about 10 years ago, Beware of angels, Deceptions in the last days

.these demons and are not friendly at all how ever you spell it. They like to bang on walls and say things in the dark to get you to talk to them, they want you to talk with them and of course there is good spirits but you have to test them.

The difference is obvious to you though. Jesus and His companion did not demand your attention, your attention was natural (perhaps unavoidable). Things banging on walls and muttering in the dark don't even compare. I don't think that food is what makes the difference.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Then all that which makes a nice personal story gets blown up by the institution as a national religion to justify their own little bit of an empire.

By all rights, this should have been seen as the defining moment of an emerging nation, much more than just how it got it's name.

It would have been a nation among other nations. But in order to present itself as more than a nation, the pretend mass exodus was invented, and the pretend empire of Solomon. Insofar as the later prophets went along with the pretense rather than the reality, they were hypocrites and liars, playing upon hope built upon fantasy.

Here is where the crisis of faith comes in:

Was Jesus preaching the kingdom of God in the same way the post-exile prophets were? If so, then I would consider him a false prophet. If Jesus was preaching that it's not a bad thing to submit to Rome as the stronger earthly empire (kind of like Jeremiah) in order to save his whole generation ( 40 years give or take ), then he was a true prophet. For some reason, the rebellion that killed so many people did not occur until the late 60s.

I have no doubt that Jesus is one of the Great Ones, elevated to a high position (whatever that means), but it doesn't follow that he is the only one, in my thinking.

reply to post by pthena

Was Jesus preaching the kingdom of God in the same way the post-exile prophets were?

I think he would be more like the antichrist to the high priests of the temple in Jerusalem. They had a pretty good deal going with the idea of a material kingdom, that if you show up in Jerusalem every year to offer sacrifices, then you are a member in good standing with the group who will have all the advantages when God acts and fulfills all the promises spelled out in the Law and the Prophets.
Jesus said I'm not doing away with that but defining exactly what the kingdom is, in detail, where it is maybe a bit fuzzy previously.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by pthena

 

Was Jesus preaching the kingdom of God in the same way the post-exile prophets were?

I think he would be more like the antichrist to the high priests of the temple in Jerusalem. They had a pretty good deal going with the idea of a material kingdom, that if you show up in Jerusalem every year to offer sacrifices, then you are a member in good standing with the group who will have all the advantages when God acts and fulfills all the promises spelled out in the Law and the Prophets.
Jesus said I'm not doing away with that but defining exactly what the kingdom is, in detail, where it is maybe a bit fuzzy previously.

How could he be like the anti-Christ when they couldn't really define who the Christ was?

You'll notice as I explained in my last thread (Who is your neighbour?) that he let people believe what they wanted to...

Another example is where he Healed the leper... and then afterwards he told the man to be sure to go do as moses commanded... Meaning the usual sacrifices and procedures made at the temple dealing with healing a leper...Or "cleansing" as the scripture says...

But why would one need to do such sacrifices IF said person is already "cleansed"?

it would be pointless... Unless Jesus actually wanted the priests to believe their sacrifices and procedure was what healed the man...

He said specifically after he healed the leper "tell no one of what I did"... which he always said...

Originally posted by Akragon
Another example is where he Healed the leper... and then afterwards he told the man to be sure to go do as moses commanded... Meaning the usual sacrifices and procedures made at the temple dealing with healing a leper...Or "cleansing" as the scripture says...

But why would one need to do such sacrifices IF said person is already "cleansed"?

To be allowed back in the Jewish community -- lepers were exiles and only allowed back in if they proved they were clear of the disease and had jumped through all the hoops.

If he just went in to the Synagogue, sat down and said "woo-hoo, this guy over there cured me!" they'd have run him out of town on a rail.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by jmdewey60

Then all that which makes a nice personal story gets blown up by the institution as a national religion to justify their own little bit of an empire.

By all rights, this should have been seen as the defining moment of an emerging nation, much more than just how it got it's name.

It would have been a nation among other nations. But in order to present itself as more than a nation, the pretend mass exodus was invented, and the pretend empire of Solomon. Insofar as the later prophets went along with the pretense rather than the reality, they were hypocrites and liars, playing upon hope built upon fantasy.

Here is where the crisis of faith comes in:

Was Jesus preaching the kingdom of God in the same way the post-exile prophets were? If so, then I would consider him a false prophet. If Jesus was preaching that it's not a bad thing to submit to Rome as the stronger earthly empire (kind of like Jeremiah) in order to save his whole generation ( 40 years give or take ), then he was a true prophet. For some reason, the rebellion that killed so many people did not occur until the late 60s.

I have no doubt that Jesus is one of the Great Ones, elevated to a high position (whatever that means), but it doesn't follow that he is the only one, in my thinking.

edit on 14-5-2013 by pthena because: (no reason given)

I get what your say buddy and but I believe the whole world is connected with God and you could look to the natives of north america and probably other cultures who speak of the true great white prophet. I think colbie posted a pprophesy about this blue star and it confirms my speculation that everyone on earth is connected to one source.

Jesus came to them and spoke to them and told them to prepare for the this coming for the coming cleansing.

reply to post by Akragon

How could he be like the anti-Christ when they couldn't really define who the Christ was?

"Antichrist" like the term antichrist used as a colloquial term today, in the sense of being an arch heretic.

". . . the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father."
and
"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Are not the sort of thing the temple leaders wanted to hear.

The healed leper's offerings would be thank offerings. You couldn't offer anything at the temple if you were physically unfit because they saw that as punishment for being a sinner.

reply to post by adjensen


I agree... especially since I would assume, there was no cure for the disease in that time... I don't even think we have one now...

He didn't want people announcing that he had cured the man... which would also be keeping with Matthew 6 as well...

He let those stuck on the old man made traditions to stay right where they were...

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon

 

How could he be like the anti-Christ when they couldn't really define who the Christ was?

"Antichrist" like the term antichrist used as a colloquial term today, in the sense of being an arch heretic.

". . . the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father."
and
"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Are not the sort of thing the temple leaders wanted to hear.

The healed leper's offerings would be thank offerings. You couldn't offer anything at the temple if you were physically unfit because they saw that as punishment for being a sinner.

edit on 14-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Still in terms of the sacrifice, they had it wrong to begin with... Why is there a need to sacrifice an animal, or in this case a bird for the remission of "sins"?

As if one can pawn his issues off on an innocent life?

Just as sacrificing a lamb... to a blood thirsty God of the flesh... It does nothing except destroy an innocent creature... and never has done ANYTHING except that.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen

 

I agree... especially since I would assume, there was no cure for the disease in that time... I don't even think we have one now...

Yes, it is curable now with antibiotics, though it's a bit more complicated than just popping a couple of pills.

How to Cure Leprosy (CAUTION: graphic pictures of people with leprosy on that page, if you're eating dinner, might want to give it a miss.)

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen

 

I agree... especially since I would assume, there was no cure for the disease in that time... I don't even think we have one now...

Yes, it is curable now with antibiotics, though it's a bit more complicated than just popping a couple of pills.

How to Cure Leprosy (CAUTION: graphic pictures of people with leprosy on that page, if you're eating dinner, might want to give it a miss.)

Fair enough... and good to know


DO you believe it was curable back then?

Especially without relying on Alchemists?

Originally posted by Akragon
DO you believe it was curable back then?

No, apart from "accidents", there were no antibiotics, necessary to clear certain bacteriological infections, including leprosy. I don't know enough about biology and medicine to say for sure, but my guess is that anyone who was "cured" of leprosy back then didn't have it in the first place (until Jesus came along, of course )

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
DO you believe it was curable back then?

No, apart from "accidents", there were no antibiotics, necessary to clear certain bacteriological infections, including leprosy. I don't know enough about biology and medicine to say for sure, but my guess is that anyone who was "cured" of leprosy back then didn't have it in the first place (until Jesus came along, of course

)

Right... so...

The only ones that were cured were those that came to him... and he cured them through their belief in him...

Meaning the belief in the correct God... and after which preceded to tell them to make sure to do the usual temple sacrifices...

Which would likely cause the priests to praise their God for curing the man... No prevention of said worship on Jesus' part... even though he said specifically to the "givers of the law" your Father is the devil