Christian Double Talk on Trinity is the root of their being Dead in Christ

reply to post by Akragon

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

Very true... the trinity is false doctrine... S&F

Remember you christians...

Mark 12:29
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is ONE Lord:

Yup. That should have settled the matter once and for all.
But no...... Christians ignore a direct statement on the unity of God from the mouth of Jesus and will composit several unrelated verses to conclude that God is a trinity.

It goes like this....


"see this verse... it says X"
"now look at that verse..... it means Y"
"now see this verse... it clearly points to Z"
"Put X, Y and Z together and you will see that the bible teaches a trinity.

please delete

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by AManYouALL

 

I don't know much about the historical concept of a trinity, but it is an unavoidable truth that there are three things that make a Man. There is the Father (creator), the Son (the creation), and the Holy Spirit (the seer of the two).

Uhh.... you say there are 3 things that make a man....and you include the "son" (man) as part of what it takes to make a man? How exactly were you a part of making yourself?

I said there are three things which make a Man, not a man.

Man in this reference is the consciousness which occupies the flesh known as either man or woman. Thus it has the creator of the consciousness, the consciousness, and that which knows the two exist.

Forgive me, I do not talk of the flesh in spiritual discussions.

reply to post by MagnumOpus

I don't recall that Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was Essene. Why did you post the link to Theocratic Resources?

The Raison D'être For This Site
It was felt that the need existed for a "safe" site for brothers and sisters who wish to see these early publications to do so in the context of a website containing no dangerous apostate ideas.

This site is maintained by one of Jehovah's Witnesses who fully supports the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

Do you think Jehovah's Witnesses are right on?
Here: I found a site that discusses Jesus Christ and the Essenes: Similarities and Differences

Originally posted by pthena

Do you think Jehovah's Witnesses are right on?
Here: I found a site that discusses Jesus Christ and the Essenes: Similarities and Differences

edit on 11-5-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)

The JW's are more correct than organized Christianity, but get off on certain areas. JW's reject the trinity concept, which is correct.

Your Essene likeness and differences site is 80 percent on target. It appears they only recognize the Qumran area as Essene. Essene Monastic sites were Qumran and Jerusalem Quarter. Essene held a site at Mt. Carmel as their Holy Mountain and was their School of the Masters. The Mt Carmel had the Essene temple and the area was for their Masters of Mystery School type teaching.

Nearby was the Nazarine site that was more family oriented Essene liberal group. Even the area of Alexandrea, Egypt had Essene called the Therapute and this area is where Jesus and Family sought refuge during the killing of children. Therapute were the healers and the ones that kept up with all the Roman and Greek medicine methods, akin to Hippocrates studies. This site's discussion of the "New Covenant" appears very close to right. "New Covenant" was about breaking away from many of the old ways like animal sacrifice and going with the concept of Lord's Supper. Jesus and the Essene considered the 2 nd temple akin to Satan and Corrupt Babylon, so they miss that distinction.


From the study of some of these concepts you are close to finding about the Essene and Master Jesus as one can begin to see Jesus "The Way" teachings were a breaking away from some of the 2nd temple ideas on sacrafice that connected with Yahweh. Jesus teachings for the New Covenant was to replace many of the bad concepts of Yahweh, but not to become Yahweh as too many mess up what Jesus was trying to do.

Jesus was never god, and especially not Yahweh or the god concept he was trying to recast into a New Covenant change.

Originally posted by pthena
What is that quote: "All Pagan religions from the time of Babylon, have adopted in one form or another a trinity doctrine or a triad or trinity of gods."

What? That's just made up. Maybe some Pagan religions did, but not all. What's wrong with a Trinity anyway? Would you prefer that all people be Yahwistic monotheists in some form or another?

The Trinity was not true, but forged into the Narratives with Jerome's translations. The only thing originally there was spirit, blood, water, which was more about Jesus commitments toward the New Covenant change and shift away from Yahwey and sacrifice to god.

Most that study Nimrod's times know he was shown with a crown of long horns on his head to play the Sun god with the horns being rays of light from the Sun. The Horns tie with the symbol of Bull or cows for Babylon. This same god theme gets taken up in Egypt with the issues of the Apis Bull horns and the Sun disk. The theme of Tammuz is the symbol of flame and fire and human sacrifice, associated with Moloch theme. All these themes considered Satan

I believe it was Valentinus, who originaly brought about the idea, of the Trinity, which some sources suggets he borrowed from Hermes and Plato, but it seems to me like he took the concept to a different level. Valentinus was a Christian Gnostic, and described the three natures as the Father, Son and feminine wisdom Sophia.

Of course Valentinus was declared a heritic some 20-30 years after his death, by the early RCC, but it seems like they kept this idea of three in one and just got rid of the Sophia aspect.


OF course this Sophia aspect, is all over the Gnostics texts…the extract below being one intriguing example….


From the Nag Hammadi text, “On the Origin of the World”

Israel - which is, "the man that sees God"; and another being, called Jesus Christ, who resembles the savior above in the eighth heaven, and who sits at his right upon a revered throne. And at his left, there sits the virgin of the holy spirit, upon a throne and glorifying him.

_____________________________________________________________



AS for the Trinity itself…it just doesn’t fit with many things Jesus said…

Here are a few verses, which conflict with the definition of the Trinity..


John 14:21

Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

John 14:23-24

Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

John 8:17-18

"In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father who sent me.

John 20:17

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

Mark 14:16

I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Mark 10:17-18

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

And lastly… but by no means least…


John 16:26-30

In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. 27 No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”
Then Jesus’ disciples said, “Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. 30 Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.”

- JC

reply to post by MagnumOpus

Jesus teachings for the New Covenant was to replace many of the bad concepts of Yahweh, but not to become Yahweh as too many mess up what Jesus was trying to do.

Since you lend no significance to the person, Jesus, it seems your only resort is to hearken back to "the teachings" as if you believe in salvation by knowledge.
Jesus was not presenting a "knowledge" of a new covenant, Jesus was the New Covenant, in his body and his blood.
Sorry you completely missed the boat thanks to your JW brainwashing.
A person on their own can not become YHWH. Jesus would have been YHWH by being the Existing One, thanks to being a person with, and sent from, the presence of God in Heaven, and assuming the role and taking the title as representative of God on Earth.
Monotheism was the joining of El Elyon and YHWH, the gods of the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom, as the same god of the unified kingdom of Israel, and not really a departure from the concept of there being multiple gods.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

Jesus teachings for the New Covenant was to replace many of the bad concepts of Yahweh, but not to become Yahweh as too many mess up what Jesus was trying to do.

Since you lend no significance to the person, Jesus, it seems your only resort is to hearken back to "the teachings" as if you believe in salvation by knowledge.
Jesus was not presenting a "knowledge" of a new covenant, Jesus was the New Covenant, in his body and his blood.
Sorry you completely missed the boat thanks to your JW brainwashing.
A person on their own can not become YHWH. Jesus would have been YHWH by being the Existing One, thanks to being a person with, and sent from, the presence of God in Heaven, and assuming the role and taking the title as representative of God on Earth.
Monotheism was the joining of El Elyon and YHWH, the gods of the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom, as the same god of the unified kingdom of Israel, and not really a departure from the concept of there being multiple gods.

edit on 12-5-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

That is about all wrong and more presents the values of Satan via the organized churches messed up themes.

Jesus was a Savior being set via the Essene's better insights for The Way/The Holy Spirit/The Father/god. Jesus came in the flesh from the Essene's better visions of The Father, as there was need for a Messiah.

Jesus theme was reformation of The Way and that was about ending Sacrifice via the 2nd temple's themes of Yahwah and other problems. Jesus Lord's Supper theme was teaching about better foods like Bread and Wine that provided better nutrition and went away from animal sacrifices, which were derived from Babylon's Human Sacrafice ideas.

Jesus conception came from the Essene's idea for a Messiah to correct the theme of Yahway, and symbolically he came in the flesh from the Essene's better views for the Holy Spirit/The Father. So, when Jesus speaks to this is my flesh for bread and this is my blood for wine, it is this shift in religion from the wrongs of Yahweh into the issues of The New Covenant ideas for god via the Essene's better interpretations.

The organized churches have a version of the Lord's Supper with the alter wine and cracker, but that is so weak a presentation of what it was about that most live in darkness of the real deal. The real deal was Essene Bread was living bread from sprouted grains and a special element in to soils of the Holy Lands.


So, I think your views are all wet and you've missed the boat, so to speak. You won't find any room in Heaven for such low realm thinking.

reply to post by MagnumOpus

presents the values of Satan via the organized churches

What are these values of Satan? And if the organized churches have these values of Satan, then did the so-called 2nd temple also have these values of Satan?

You make it sound like Jesus came to correct the Yahweh character on a few things he had messed up.

I think your views are all wet and you've missed the boat, so to speak. You won't find any room in Heaven for such low realm thinking.

What is this Heaven? Are you speaking of my God Tengri?

Should we try to live in Turkey? It has larger borax deposits than California. Is Turkey the holy land?

reply to post by MagnumOpus
Woops! I think I may need a new mouse.

Originally posted by pthena

Should we try to live in Turkey? It has larger borax deposits than California. Is Turkey the holy land?

I see you are beginning to study geology a bit. The Turkish Boron deposits are the biggest and they connect with the Holy Land's high boron levels, and the Jordan River has high boron levels from the same effects.

Borax is an inefficient way to get Boron because only 1/10 by weight is Boron. Though poor countries with problems with fluoride in the food and water use Borax to correct for the retention problems of fluorine in the body.

Most of the intelligent people just take Boron supplements to make sure they get enough in the diet.

Do a search for the benficial effects of Boron in the diet.

reply to post by MagnumOpus


Yes, most know of it, but don't know of it enough to present it accurately. The controversial theory, presented by Alexander Hislop in his book The Two Babylons twas confusing and lacking in proper citations to warrant further investigation. Very much not enough to convince most Christians, which is why it's vehemently denied. There's absolutely nothing to support his theory, therefore there is no Christian double speak as you claim.

Read for yourself: philologos.org...

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

Yes, most know of it, but don't know of it enough to present it accurately. The controversial theory, presented by Alexander Hislop in his book The Two Babylons twas confusing and lacking in proper citations to warrant further investigation. Very much not enough to convince most Christians, which is why it's vehemently denied. There's absolutely nothing to support his theory, therefore there is no Christian double speak as you claim.

Read for yourself: philologos.org...

Why read that, when the issue that John 1 was forged to make it appear the Babylon Trinity was in play, so the whole world knows the Christian theme was forged and it is a lie. Jesus didn't have a Trinity god issue, but someone forged one into the Vulgate that was not in the Original Greek work. Thus, making it conclusive there was/is a lie and it was to pattery Jesus after Babylon Trinity. It is a slam dunk the churches lied.

Jesus came from the Essene's want for a Messiah that grew from a New Covenant theme for god's discription, and the Jesus theme was The Way. There is only Jesus' better discribing the god theme, not being god. Jesus was not and is not god, and no Trinity was discribed by any followers in his time of living.

Yes, Jesus is dead and such as your views murders his memory daily.

reply to post by MagnumOpus


Your contention is dependent on the veracity of the Babylon Trinity, and it's been proven to be untrue. John would also have to be trained and knowledgeable of the Egyptian Mystery Schools, the Babylon Mystery School (mostly Zoroastrianism), and Advanced Platonic philosophy. John never was an any area of these schools long enough to be trained by a master. What you're saying is absolutely NOT factual.

Since this seems to be a thread on the Trinity I thought I would point out the evidence of a Trinity in the old testament. There seems to be a few places to look at.


Genesis. 18

1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
3 And said, My LORD, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.

Daniel 10
5 Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz:
6 His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.

Daniel 12
5 Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river.
6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?
7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be

Zechariah 3
8 Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.

Zechariah 4
3 And two olive trees by it, one upon the right side of the bowl, and the other upon the left side thereof.
11 Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof?
12 And I answered again, and said unto him, What be these two olive branches which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves?
13 And he answered me and said, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.
14 Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the LORD of the whole earth.

Zechariah 6
12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

Malachi 3
1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:
3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.
4 Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.

While it's not really taught it appears the God of the Jews has 2 messengers. A trinity. And when it's time to build a temple he sends a messenger to do it.

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

Your contention is dependent on the veracity of the Babylon Trinity, and it's been proven to be untrue. John would also have to be trained and knowledgeable of the Egyptian Mystery Schools, the Babylon Mystery School (mostly Zoroastrianism), and Advanced Platonic philosophy. John never was an any area of these schools long enough to be trained by a master. What you're saying is absolutely NOT factual.

edit on 13-5-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)

I don't know what you are smoking to jump for far off the theme, but the theme was the Babylon Trinity theme was forged into the Narrative long after John Passed. Forged means intentionally altered to mislead, to deceive.

Thus, there is no reason to enter into John would have to be schooled in Mystery Schools for that to happen. Perhaps the issue is that you don't know the meaning for the term forgery of the narrative. To even enter into some contention that John would have to know the mystery school tell us you can't get it straight that forgery means it was altered from John's original version and that alteration was not done by John and was done well after John had passed, so it is nonsense to even get into John would have to know mystery schooling.

Such is blowing smoke and shows you can't read with comprehension.

All around the world this is well established that the Jesus Trinity, per John, is false by forgery or alteration. What you tell is false, using some kind of bogus reasoning that tossed logic out the window, and appears intent to mislead.

islamic-replies.ucoz.com...

The Forgery Of 1 John 5:7

Another Bible scholar named Bart Ehrman in this lecture affirmed that when the 1st scholar to put together a printed Greek New Testament (Erasmus was his name, & he was from Rotterdam, who lived from 1466-1536), in the year 1516, he compiled the New Testament in Greek, but never included the verse because it wasn't in the earliest manuscripts. The Latin theologians went ballistic, and according to a story the circulated, Erasmus said: "Look, it's not in any if the previous Greek manuscripts." The theologians said: "Yes, but it is part of the church's doctrine, so we need to include it in there, otherwise you would have got rid of the trinity." Erasmus said: "If you can produce a Greek manuscript which has it in it, I'll include it in my next edition." And so, the theologians produced a Greek manuscript, by adding the verse in, themselves. When the theologians copied the Latin, they took the verse which was in Latin, translated it back into Greek, and stuck it at 1 John 5:7, and Erasmus was true to his word, and included that in his next edition of the Bible. It was on the basis of that Greek edition that the KJV is based off of.

--------

Late manuscripts of 1 John 5:7 are certainly not God-breathed since theologians had to get this verse in, to prove the Trinity! Why else would they try to get this verse in the Bible, if they believed the trinity was already explicitly taught? Because it wasn't, and they needed this verse to seal the deal. For Biblical inerrantists who are King James Onlyists, this would be a big problem for them. Christians have said regarding 1 John 5:7:

"In fact, most Christian scholars believe that this verse (1 John 5:7) on the Trinity was not in the original text that God inspired, since it scarcely appears in any manuscript before the fifteenth century." (Norman L. Geisler & Abdul Saleeb - Answering Islam: The Crescent In Light Of The Cross - Baker Books, 2002 - Page 310).

"This part is NOT PART OF THE INSPIRED TEXT." (John MacArthur - 1-3 John: NT Commentary - Moody Publishers - Page 196).

Looks like one more metaphorical case for the Ring in the Nose that leads the Christians around by the nose.

Originally posted by ntech
Since this seems to be a thread on the Trinity I thought I would point out the evidence of a Trinity in the old testament. There seems to be a few places to look at.


While it's not really taught it appears the God of the Jews has 2 messengers. A trinity. And when it's time to build a temple he sends a messenger to do it.

You would have to point out how these related to Christian Trinity that makes Jesus as god, or not god. The same Jewish folks of the OT are the ones that don't like humans to play god.

There are ways of speaking of The Word/The Father as being god, that OT religious followers then speak to this as their god. Some are called the Messengers for god. I'd hardly call that Trinity in the sense of making humans as god.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

Very true... the trinity is false doctrine... S&F

Not necessarily a false doctrine, but the best doctrine that the person can understand at their particular time of having it.

reply to post by ntech

Hey Ntech,

CaptainNemo asked a question on one of his threads that you might want to answer.

Was the crucifixion of Christ the fulfillment of the curses of Leviticus 16 or Dueteronomy 28?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Probably meant Leviticus 26.