Idol worship and sacrifice

[jo7241974]

How do I turn off a thread? Whatever I write about, always seems to get turned around into Christian idol talk.

Take all this jesus talk to the Christian threads!

Hi TK!

Perhaps we could get a Moderator to split this thread and put all of the Jesus posts into a new thread on the Unorthodox forum, as what I am saying is not considered Christian.

Regards,

jo

[xcav8tor]

Hi Jo,

I will limit myself to only a few comments as I don't have time to address every point.

Jesus is going to write upon those who are allowed to enter the New Jerusalem His NEW name. IOW, the name of the Father and the name of the Son are NOT the same; they are NOT the same God... Revelation doesn't even reveal what Jesus' new name will be. Therefore, your claim Revelation teaches us that the name of God (ie the Most Hight God or Heavenly Father) and the name of Jesus are the same, is in error. Also, this is in direct conflict with the trinity which you claim never says that God and Jesus are one and the same.

Last point first. The Trinity doctrine DOES CLAIM that Jesus the Son and God the Father are one and the same BEING/ENTITY. The Trinity doctrine DENIES that Jesus the Son and God the Father are the same PERSON/MIND. For human beings, it is 1 person/mind to every 1 being (same with angels). God is not limited as we are in this regard. Please keep this in mind when telling Trinitarians what we claim to avoid confusion on both sides.

Jesus Himself said we are to be baptized "in THE NAME (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). One name they have in common is YAHWEH (Exod. 3:14 / John 8:58 / 1 Sam. 16:14), and it goes without saying that Jesus and the Father share the same divine titles of Lord, Saviour, King of Kings, and Alpha and Omega (among others). That Jesus would have other names unique to Himself as the Messiah (like "The Word of God" and the one only He and the Father knows) does not negate that He and the Father are one God in their divine essence.

If you will search the writings done by Irenaeus of Lyons (died around 202AD) against heresies, as well as the writings of the early church fathers listed by franktalk, you will be able to discover why the church felt it was necessary to go along with Constantine's orders to come up with a unifying belief for Christendom. But this feeling of necessity was caused by man, NOT by God. This council's efforts then immediately made any other belief about God a heresy. Now, this would have retro-actively made the earlier church fathers heretics; thus the earlier church fathers would not have been Christian according to the new "standard" which was manifested by the council of Nicea was done so by mankind for mankind as the official trinity theory... Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "one" in that they are united in purpose; not united by one and the same essence...

Jo, did you read the quotations I provided from the ante-nicene fathers which clearly demonstrate that they believed in the Trinity (or at least the fundamentals of it)? Which of their comments did I quote that you feel could be construed as heresy today?

The council of Nicea did not invent the trinity doctrine, but merely established that this was the official consensus of the majority of leaders in the Christian Church based on scripture, and then declared the handful of dissenters as heretical. As one can see from my post, none of these earlier church fathers would have been "retro-actively made heretics." As to your assertion that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one only in the sense of being "united in purpose" as opposed to one in essence, if that was all Jesus was claiming for Himself, there would not have been so many attempts to kill him for blasphemy.

And we are to recognize Jesus as the Creator of our physical world, and as our Savior and Beloved Redeemer, and the Son of Almighty God. Yet He is a separate God from the Father, as is the Holy Ghost a separate Being from the Father and from Jesus.

This is POLYtheism jo. This flies in the face of the undeniable and united MONOtheism of both the Old and New Testament (as was discussed on the basketball court). This is the main reason that Mormonism is not a mere extension of Biblical truth as it claims, but a distinct religion in contrast to historic Christianity, presenting another Jesus (John 10:30), another God (Deut. 13:1-3), and another gospel (Gal. 1:8).

Regards,
xcav8tor

[xcav8tor]

Hi Tanakh Keeper,

How do I turn off a thread? Whatever I write about, always seems to get turned around into Christian idol talk. Take all this jesus talk to the Christian threads!

I appreciate your frustration in seeing your Jewish thread become a discussion about Jesus, but don't you think you may have inadvertently opened the door to the problem in your OP when you said, "Idolaters labels as 'gods' people or objects, and then attempt to use them to get salvation and comfort" and then later on accused Christians of idolatry? This was bound to attract the kind of attention you didn't want.

Idol worship is a practice in which one worships a physical form, instead of the creator of the physical form. Idolatry came about because ancient people recognized that they were dependent on a higher power. They knew they had to rely on a controlling heavenly force, though they were unsure whether there was a single power or a multiplicity of powers. Regardless, they still constructed idol(s) that represented in physical form, the higher power(s) in which they believed. G-d knows that humans, as physical beings, have an urge to show devotion to physical objects. Idolatry is a counterfeit attempt to satisfy the basic human need to connect to a dimension beyond ourselves. Idolaters labels as “gods” people or objects, and then attempt to use them to get salvation and comfort. These created things with a physical presence are more controllable than an all-powerful G-d that is in all places at all times. However, ultimate freedom can never be found in denial. To experience true freedom, we must seek out the authentic values and meanings for which all humans desperately want, which is the One Creator.

Sacrifices are an outgrowth of our drive to serve and worship a higher power. As we are physical beings, we are driven to show our passion to higher powers with physical gifts. Indeed the true meaning of the Hebrew word for sacrifice is “closeness”. This is why the admonitions and prohibitions against idol worship are the single most common warning that G-d tells us. E.g. D e u t 5:8 You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness which is in the heavens above, which is on the earth below, or which is in the water beneath the earth. To direct worship to a physical form is a type of rebellion against the Creator. G-d is always present at all times, prayers can always be directed to Him instead of wasting worship towards physical forms. To worship an image or likeness is to assign powers to that person or object. D e u t 5:7 You shall not have the gods of others in My presence. Also to temper the human need for devotion to higher powers and to properly guide the closeness that we want to feel to the authentic source, G-d prohibited sacrifices unless they are given at the Temple, under proper guidance from our leaders. His Laws help us to focus our sacrifices on the Creator, instead of on a creation.

I can agree with what you have said in your OP about the commandments against worshiping "people or objects," but not that it applies to Christians. You seem to have overlooked a scriptural exception that was touched on earlier that I would like to draw to your attention.

We read Genesis18 that Abraham was approached by three "men," one of whom he addressed as "my Lord" (vs 3) and "the Judge of all the earth" (vs 25) and who is identified throughout the text as YAHWEH (vs 1, 13, 22, 26, 33) and identifying Himself as the One Who chose Abraham to be a blessing to all the nations of the earth (vs 18, 19). He was also requested by Abraham to spare the lives of those in Sodom indicating he recognized his visitor's power over life and death - the ultimate divine prerogative. Note that Abraham saw Him, spoke to Him, and provided food for Him, demonstrating that this was not a vision, but a real-life physical encounter.

There have been other similar instances where a visible and/or physical being has been identified as the G-d of the Jewish scriptures (the Angel of the LORD appearing to Moses at the burning bush in Exodus 3; the "man" Jacob wrestled with until dawn in Genesis 32).

So we have special situations in which G-D appears visibly or physically in the presence of Biblical characters and interacts with them. There is no doubt that YAHWEH is personally present and being worshiped in these accounts. So the question is, "When G-D decided to appear temporarily in physical form to these people, was it idolatry for them to worship Him?" and if not, "Were G-D to choose to take on a permanent physical form, would it still be idolatry to recognize Him as G-D?" (keeping in mind that nothing is too hard for the LORD - Gen. 18:16)

You say that, "To direct worship to a physical form is a type of rebellion against the Creator," but if the Creator Himself appears in physical form, how can it be rebellion to worship Him?

Regards,
xcav8tor

[jo7241974]

No, sister, you are not.

Yes, I am. It's just that I don't believe in the trinity theory. You think that because I reject this theory then I must not understand it. This is a grave error on your part and upon others who think that way. In fact, if you had been present in the meetings and arguments I had with my Lutheran Pastor, you would never try to make the claim that I don't understand the trinity theory.

The very Book of Revelation, that you repeatedly reference, is entirely Trinitarian – even in English.

It only appears to be Trinitarian through the eyes of those who already believe the trinity theory is correct, because Revelation is thereby being interpreted through the filtering eyes of the trinity theory.

Just as in the past you have yet to demonstrate a single point against the Trinity, sister.
When pressed to look to the Greek, you run away.

Ad homs prove nothing other then the person using them is struggling with getting the attacked person to agree with their POV. They feel, as you do, that you must, therefore, resort to trying to make the person who does not agree with you appear to have no viable credibility in their argument.

I actually frequently look to both Greek and Hebrew to support my stance. Since anyone can do this, I find that both sides of an argument wind up using the same methods and sources to support their stance. Therefore, since that type of argument doesn't get a person anywhere in gaining a foothold to appear as though they believe they are "winning" an argument, I have found that looking beyond the actual belief to see what type of fruit it has born is a better way of determining if any particular belief will be able to stand the test of time; thereby allowing the fruit to ripen. Then we can discover if the fruit is good fruit or bad fruit. In fact, I find it silly to try to "win" a discussion. There can only be one Truth; so we are left with presenting the reasons why we believe what we do. The cards will fall where they may. Our faithfulness to what we believe to be true is counted as righteousness; not our correctness. I believe in Christ, who is the Son of God. Just because you believe He looks different from the way I believe Christ looks, does not change WHO Christ is. It is our faith in Christ, our following Christ, keeping the commandments, loving one another, sharing the Gospel message, being faithful to the knowledge of truth which the Holy Ghost leads us to, our faithfulness to what we believe is true is what counts. We cannot know the thoughts of God; but we can do the will of our Father, we can accept His will because He knows what is best for each of us, we can repent of our sins, forgive others who have sinned against us. We can allow the Holy Ghost to guide and direct our lives; we can choose good over evil.

Inasmuch as ever since the trinity theory became a standard for what one is allowed to believe according to the mandates of man, what I see is that the fruit of this theory has brought contention, confusion, death, division, etc. This tells me much more than any words another may try to use in support of the trinity theory. In fact, according to what the Bible teaches us about testing, the trinity theory fails each test. I already know that you are going to disagree with this comment, so I challenge you to refute it. When you do so, should you resort to trying to disparage the LDS Church, which has nothing to do with the results of the trinity theory, I will be quick to point out your rabbit trail argument.

More merit-less assertions without any reference to scripture.

The Trinity Shield you presented had zero references to scripture. You merely copied the list of twelve statements as you admittedly claimed to do so in order to "visualize" this manmade interpretation. This, by the way, is ALL that the trinity theory is; an interpretation.

Jews could not understand their scriptures from the very beginning, that is why Jesus called them murderers, liars, and offspring of Satan.

At the time Jesus walked the earth, the Jewish people were keeping the Law of Moses. However, the keeping of the Law did not equate them with the ability to recognize that Prophesy had been fulfilled when Jesus entered Jerusalem on the day we now celebrate as Palm Sunday. Why did they not recognize the fulfillment of Daniel's prophesy? Because the scribes and Pharisees were teaching for doctrine the commandments of men. So, even though there was by then an unbelievable number of laws that had evolved over the years since the Law of Moses was first introduced, faithful Jews who tried to keep every jot and tittle of the Law STILL managed to not be able to identify who Christ was.

Do you think they are the only people who are capable of misinterpreting scripture? The Apostles were constantly warning members of the church to watch for false teachers and false prophets so that they would not be led astray. They also warned that false teachers and false prophets were already among them. So, what happened to those false teachers and false prophets? I do not see where they were excommunicated from the church. What makes you think that the beliefs you hold to today (especially the trinity theory which wasn't even taught in the Bible, as it is merely an interpretation), do not include doctrine taught by the false teachers and false prophets who were part of the body of Christ back then?

Why do you think Jesus taught us that it would be the Holy Ghost who would come and lead us to all truth? I would offer it was because man too quickly would change the Truths which Jesus and the Apostles taught. Not only does the Holy Ghost lead us to all Truth; He IS the witness for Jesus and for Father on the earth.

Read the portion in red again, sister.

Job 1:6-7 (KJV)

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

I have read it many times. (Have you read and understood all of Job?) Satan is one of the sons of God who came to present themselves before the Lord. Since no unclean or wicked thing can enter the presence of the Most High God, how is it that Satan was able to enter the Lord's presence? I offer it is because unclean things will be able to enter the presence of the Lord (Jesus) until such time as Jesus is given the deed to the earth and is made King of Kings. Once the Millenium is over, no unclean thing will be able to enter the New Jerusalem where Jesus will then reign forever and ever over the new earth. It is the Most High God (Father; i.e., Jesus' Father and our Father) who cannot have any unclean thing enter into His presence. This is another indication that the Father and the Son are two separate Beings. BTW, this meeting did NOT take place on the earth as you have claimed. The Lord asks Satan where he had come FROM (in order to present himself to the Lord), and tells the Lord that he came FROM the earth.

In fact, this passage supports the concept that there is more than one level in Heaven. Since this meeting of the sons of God did not take place on the earth, and since it could NOT have taken place where Jesus' Father dwells, then it stands to reason there is a place in between the earth and where Father dwells. The NT indeed teaches us about at least three levels of Heaven which are likened to the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars.

That’s because you have never taken the time to study the scriptures for yourself.

Useless ad hom.

You rely upon some one else to tell you what to believe.

The "someone" else I rely on is the Holy Ghost. I do not rely on what man tries to teach me. When man tries to teach me, I take their teaching to Father in Heaven in prayer. My faith is placed in the Heavens; and the Holy Ghost confirms or disconfirms if what I am being taught by man is true or not so that I cannot be led astray FROM Truth, but rather TO Truth, which is what the Holy Ghost does.

LDS is a cult, and are not considered Christians.

The fictional works of Smith are not even in the same league as the Trinitarian scriptures contained in the Holy Bible.

You have been taught the above by man. You are merely repeating what man has told you. Also, the above has nothing to do with the discussion we are having about the trinity theory.

You still have yet to tell us how it is that Revelation has the Jesus sitting upon the singular Throne of the Father (Rev 3.21) long before He opens the seals.

Jesus is NOT sitting on the Throne of the Father.

Revelation 1:4-5 KJV

4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

"AND from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness...." Jesus is before the throne; He is NOT sitting on the throne.

Revelation 5:1-7 KJV (emphasis added)

1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.

2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?

3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.

4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.

5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

It is Jesus who came and took the book out of the right hand of Him that sat upon the throne.

Revelation 5:11-12 KJV (emphasis is added)

11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;

12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.[

Jesus is worthy to RECEIVE power, and riches and wisdom, and strength....., which means they are being given to Him; He did NOT have them eternally like Father has had them.

Revelation 5:13 KJV (emphasis added)

And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

The Lamb is NOT sitting upon the throne. Also, this is when the Lamb will finally receive glory. When the new city of Jerusalem descends from Heaven, it is the throne in the new city which Jesus will be sitting upon. However, the throne being described in Heaven will still be in Heaven; and Father will still be sitting upon that throne. There are two different thrones being described here. The Father is sitting on the first throne; Jesus is sitting upon the second one which descends from Heaven which is located in the new City of Jerusalem. For now, Jesus still stands on the right hand of Father; it is Father sitting on the throne in the Heaven which John was taken to.

Revelation 13:14-15 KJV (emphasis added)

14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

The above is a passage which shows that satan DOES have the power to give life.

You just got through stating that Jesus is the sole creator of everything.

Now…you want to backtrack and say that He was limited in His creation power?

Come on, sister…

No, there is no back-tracking. Jesus created everything in our world that was created. Our world is a physical world. Heavenly Father is the Father of our spirits. Our spirit is housed in a physical body. Our physical body first came from the dust of the earth. But our spirits are eternal; they have been placed in our temporary physical body. Jesus did not create our spirits. He created things we can see, and touch, and feel. BTW, not everything that exists in our world was created. Some things have co-existed with Father eternally. For instance, we exist eternally; however, we first existed as intelligences. Father organized our co-existing intelligences and we became His spirit sons and daughters. When our physical, mortal body dies, our spirit will return to a spiritual realm where we will continue our eternal existence. We will eventually receive a glorified body when we are resurrected and put on our immortal body. We will then continue our eternal existence within our immortal, glorified body.

Whoever said that Jesus is the Father?

The Trinity does not.

You are just showing your ignorant understanding of what you reject.

No, it is the trinity theory which pretends to say one thing, and then says another which those who believe in the trinity theory just refuse to admit are contradictory. They get past the contradiction by depending upon the mystery and mystical aspect incorporated into the theory for that very purpose.

So what if I reject the trinity theory of man? The requirement that we MUST accept this theory is a commandment of man; not God.

Regards,

jo

[jo7241974]

No, sister.

No claim has ever been made that Jesus is the Father.

Nor will you ever be able to even produce a single, solitary quote from me stating your ignorance.

You still are ignoring the discrepancy of how it is that no unclean thing can be in the presence of the Father, but they CAN be in Jesus' presence; in fact, they cannot flee Him unless He commands them to leave. If you believe that both are God, then why the inconsistencies??

You just can’t quite make the connection, sister.

You already accept that the Son and the Father are the same God…however, you are unable to comprehend that the Son is not the Father.

Please take some time to study the Trinity Shield as this will give you the visual that you can’t quite picture in your head.

Visualizing the shield does not remove the inconsistencies.

Where does it not?

The opening greeting in Revelation is from Father, Son, and Spirit, and all the way through Revelation it elaborates upon this triune concept.

If you are not Trinitarian, then you are not Christian.

Said like a true Judgmental Trinitarian who is thus breaking the very commandments Jesus taught. You teach as doctrine the commandments of men. You usurp Jesus' rights and powers to Judge.

Since you are a follower of LDS, then most assuredly, you are not Christian.

Said like a true Judgmental orthodox Christian who is thus breaking the very commandments Jesus taught. You teach as doctrine the commandments of men. You usurp Jesus' rights and powers to Judge.

Regards,

jo

[jo7241974]

No, sister.

In Revelation, the text specifically states that John was taken in the Spirit.

There is no mention of Jesus being taken in the Spirit in Mathew.

This means you believe that Satan had the power to take Jesus' physical body into a spiritual realm, which gives him even greater power than merely taking a spirit into the spirit realm.

No, sister.

Satan does not have power to create anything.

I have already shown you where, in Revelation, Satan has the power to give life - is that not a form of the power to create? In my mind it certainly is.

Remember, the Holy Bible states that Satan was created, and, as such, he cannot ever be on equal footing with Jesus, His creator.

Actually, technically, the version of created used to describe along with Satan (Lucifer), is not the version you are applying.

Eze 28:13 E-Sword (emphasis added)

Thou hast beenH1961 in EdenH5731 the gardenH1588 of God;H430 everyH3605 preciousH3368 stoneH68 was thy covering,H4540 the sardius,H124 topaz,H6357 and the diamond,H3095 the beryl,H8658 the onyx,H7718 and the jasper,H3471 the sapphire,H5601 the emerald,H5306 and the carbuncle,H1304 and gold:H2091 the workmanshipH4399 of thy tabretsH8596 and of thy pipesH5345 was preparedH3559 in thee in the dayH3117 that thou wast created.H1254

H1254
בּרא
bârâ'
baw-raw'
A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).

Here is the one you are hoping for, but which is NOT the version used:

G2938
κτίσμα
ktisma
ktis'-mah
From G2936; an original formation (concretely), that is, product (created thing): - creature.

The LDS doctrine that you hold to is pure blasphemy and cannot be supported by scripture.

Just another rabbit trail. In fact, I have purposely only used Biblical passages whenever I have cited scripture in my posts to you. You merely have a different interpretation of scripture. This does NOT equate to "pure blasphemy". You have shown no Biblical support for your accusations. Just because you keep making these types of statements does not have the power to make them true.

No, sister.

Again, you are not taking the time to read your Book of Revelation examples.

We are told in the following verse that the Apocalypse is a Revelation that has been given from God, to Jesus Christ, and revealed unto His slave, John, through an Angel…

αποκαλυψις ιησου χριστου ην εδωκεν αυτω ο θεος δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει και εσημανεν αποστειλας δια του αγγελου αυτου τω δουλω αυτου ιωαννη

Rev 1.1A Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show to His slaves things which must occur quickly. And He signified by sending through His angel to His slave, John,

Compare to this verse…

εγω ιησους επεμψα τον αγγελον μου μαρτυρησαι υμιν ταυτα επι ταις εκκλησιαις εγω ειμι η ριζα και το γενος δαυιδ ο αστηρ ο λαμπρος ο πρωινος

Rev 22.16 I, Jesus, sent My angel to testify these things to you over the assemblies. I amthe Root and Offspring of David, the Bright Morning Star.

Observe that in the first instance, the signifying angel sent to John is referred to as God’s angel, via the usage of the genitive singular definite article “ho”.

In the second instance, the signifying angel that is sent to testify to John is referred to as Jesus’ angel, via the usage of the first person nominative singular personal pronoun “ego” and the usage of the accusative singular masculine definite article, “ho”.

The angel sent to John is God’s angel.

The angel sent to John is Jesus’ angel.


Thus, we have yet another Revelatory instance of the deity interchangeability that exists between God and Jesus.

It amazes me to read your comments after you have also claimed that the Father and Jesus are not the same God; however you are okay with claiming interchangeability between them.

The following verses emanate from the Resurrected Jesus Christ…


και οτε ειδον αυτον επεσα προς τους ποδας αυτου ως νεκρος και εθηκεν την δεξιαν αυτου επ εμε λεγων μη φοβου εγω ειμι ο πρωτος και ο εσχατος και ο ζων και εγενομην νεκρος και ιδου ζων ειμι εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων και εχω τας κλεις του θανατου και του αδου γραψον ουν α ειδες και α εισιν και α μελλει γινεσθαι μετα ταυτα

1.17 - 19 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet, as dead. And He put His right hand on me, saying to me, Do not fear. I am the First and the Last, and the Living One; and I became dead; and, behold, I am living forever and ever. And I hold the keys to hell, and of death. Write what things you saw, and what things are, and what things are about to occur after these things.


John records these verses confirming that the resurrected Jesus Christ is the one speaking to him, and telling him specifically to write down all things that he is about to encounter.

Observe that John is allowed to worship the resurrected Jesus.

Yes, and please note that John is doing so IN THE FUTURE; not during the time John was living in the flesh, nor today in our time.

The following verse demonstrates the truth of the words that John has been told and which he has written down…

και ειπεν μοι ουτοι οι λογοι πιστοι και αληθινοι και ο κυριος ο θεος των πνευματων των προφητων απεστειλεν τον αγγελον αυτου δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει

22. 6 And he said to me, These Words are faithful and true. And the Lord, the God, the Spirits of the prophets sent His angel to show His slaves what must happen quickly.



We have already been told that the angel that was sent to John is both Jesus’ and God’s angel. Now we have just been informed that this same angel, which was sent to John, also belongs to the plural Spirits “pneuma”.

Reinforcing the Biblical concept of the Holy Trinity, we have been told that this angel is from:

• Father
• Son
• Spirit

Further, even though three entities show ownership, this angel is sent out as one via the usage of the singular verb “apostello”.

Why wouldn't the angel be an angel for every Being in the Godhead? This does not prove that the Godhead is a Trinity. It just indicates that there are three Beings who make up the Godhead for our world.

Finally, compare these verses in which John attempts to worship Jesus’ angel…

καγω ιωαννης ο ακουων και βλεπων ταυτα και οτε ηκουσα και εβλεψα επεσα προσκυνησαι εμπροσθεν των ποδων του αγγελου του δεικνυοντος μοι ταυτα και λεγει μοι ορα μη συνδουλος σου ειμι και των αδελφων σου των προφητων και των τηρουντων τους λογους του βιβλιου τουτου τω θεω προσκυνησον

22.8 - 9 I, John, was the one seeing and hearing these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel showing me these things. And he said to me, Behold! Stop! For I am your fellow-slave, and of your brothers the prophets, and of the ones keeping the Words of this Book. Do worship to God.




These verses, along with numerous others, have John repeatedly proclaiming that he is the one hearing and seeing these things, and writing them all down.

In this particular instance, John attempts to worship the angel that has been sent to deliver Jesus’ Revelation. Observe that John is rebuked by Jesus’ angel for attempting to worship at his feet. In fact, John is rebuked twice in Revelation for attempting to worship Jesus’ angel.

The angel’s reply to John is that he must only worship God; and, as already witnessed in the beginning of Revelation, John did exactly that when he fell at the feet of the resurrected Jesus Christ.

Yes, and John appropriately did so IN THE FUTURE. Afterall, we are taught that in the new City of Jerusalem, Jesus will reign as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. BTW, this also indicates that there are more than one King, and more than one Lord; i.e., more than one God. We just need to make sure that we worship and give glory to the correct God. Jesus taught us to worship and give glory to the Father, just as He did. We are to follow Jesus' example. Once Jesus receives the deed (is able to take the sealed scroll from Father), then Jesus will rightfully receive glory as well.

Regards,

jo

[Bowman]

Where does this "established truth" come from? Also, are you speaking about spiritual "truth" or "physical" truth? It is ONLY the Holy Ghost who CAN witness spiritual truth to our spirit; Spirt to spirit. Since this "truth" is unseen by the physical eye, it is a spiritual truth which remains in the realm of our faith - because our spirit is trapped within its temple of flesh. Thus we walk in spiritual faith; not physical truth. In order for a person to receive a witness of spiritual truth, they must first believe. It is an error to claim that just because a person has been told about Jesus by another who has received the personal witness of the Holy Ghost, that the listener has also "heard" the message. The listener will not hear the message until they choose to believe (exercise faith - desire to believe), at which time they, too, will receive a personal witness of the Holy Ghost. The faith we all must exercise is our own personal faith. There is no fruit born until a person chooses to believe. Faith is NOT established until faith is exercised. THAT is when the Holy Ghost will witness to that person.

Hebrews 11:1 KJV

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Regards,

jo

If you want to discuss “faith” as it applies to this discussion, then you need to define the term(s) as they are used in scripture, lest you fall into the very same predicament as followers of islam who think that they understand the terms that they are using, when, in fact, they do not.

The reasoning that you just supplied is subjective and does not even fit any definition.

Here is how “faith” is defined in the OT…



H529
אמוּן
'êmûn
ay-moon'
From H539; established, that is, (figuratively) trusty; also (abstractly) trustworthiness: - faith (-ful), truth.


H529
אמוּן
'êmûn
BDB Definition:
1) faithfulness, trusting
1a) faithful, trusty (as adjective)
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H539
Same Word by TWOT Number: 116d




H539
אמן
'âman
BDB Definition:
1) to support, confirm, be faithful
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to support, confirm, be faithful, uphold, nourish
1a1a) foster-father (substantive)
1a1b) foster-mother, nurse
1a1c) pillars, supporters of the door
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be established, be faithful, be carried, make firm
1b1a) to be carried by a nurse
1b1b) made firm, sure, lasting
1b1c) confirmed, established, sure
1b1d) verified, confirmed
1b1e) reliable, faithful, trusty
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to stand firm, to trust, to be certain, to believe in
1c1a) stand firm
1c1b) trust, believe
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 116






H530
אמנה אמוּנה
'ĕmûnâh 'ĕmûnâh
em-oo-naw', em-oo-naw'
Feminine of H529; literally firmness; figuratively security; moral fidelity: - faith (-ful, -ly, -ness, [man]), set office, stability, steady, truly, truth, verily.




אמנה / אמוּנה
'ĕmûnâh
BDB Definition:
1) firmness, fidelity, steadfastness, steadiness
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H529
Same Word by TWOT Number: 116e








Here is how “faith” is defined in the NT…



G4102
πίστις
pistis
pis'-tis
From G3982; persuasion, that is, credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly constancy in such profession; by extension the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself: - assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.



G4102
πίστις
pistis
Thayer Definition:
1) conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man’s relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
1a) relating to God
1a1) the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
1b) relating to Christ
1b1) a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
1c) the religious beliefs of Christians
1d) belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2) fidelity, faithfulness
2a) the character of one who can be relied on
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G3982
Citing in TDNT: 6:174, 849



As you can verify for yourself, the OT & NT contextual passages containing ‘faith’ do not mandate that the Spirit is responsible for this witness such as you want to believe by your own personal definition..

Your definition of ‘faith’ is not even Biblical.

[Salty]

I appreciate your frustration in seeing your Jewish thread become a discussion about Jesus, but don't you think you may have inadvertently opened the door to the problem in your OP when you said, "Idolaters labels as 'gods' people or objects, and then attempt to use them to get salvation and comfort" and then later on accused Christians of idolatry? This was bound to attract the kind of attention you didn't want.

Be that as it may, campus decorum dictates that the wishes of the OP should be observed regarding thread content and direction.

I can agree with what you have said in your OP about the commandments against worshiping "people or objects," but not that it applies to Christians.

Fancy that.

You seem to have overlooked a scriptural exception that was touched on earlier that I would like to draw to your attention.

We read Genesis 18 that Abraham was approached by three "men," one of whom he addressed as "my Lord" (vs 3) and "the Judge of all the earth" (vs 25) and who is identified throughout the text as YAHWEH (vs 1, 13, 22, 26, 33) and identifying Himself as the One Who chose Abraham to be a blessing to all the nations of the earth (vs 18, 19). He was also requested by Abraham to spare the lives of those in Sodom indicating he recognized his visitor's power over life and death - the ultimate divine prerogative. Note that Abraham saw Him, spoke to Him, and provided food for Him, demonstrating that this was not a vision, but a real-life physical encounter.

There have been other similar instances where a visible and/or physical being has been identified as the G-d of the Jewish scriptures (the Angel of the LORD appearing to Moses at the burning bush in Exodus 3; the "man" Jacob wrestled with until dawn in Genesis 32).

So we have special situations in which G-D appears visibly or physically in the presence of Biblical characters and interacts with them. There is no doubt that YAHWEH is personally present and being worshiped in these accounts.

I disagree with all that position because it overlooks, as you claim TK has done, other verses which explicitly state He has no form, that no man can see Him and live. For at least the 3rd time in this thread, I offer Deut. 4:15-18, which clearly says you cannot make an image of G-d because He has no image to copy. And then there are verses such as Numbers 23:19 and Exodus 33:20. And if you're more convinced by the NT (I'm not but you probably are), look at 1 John 4:12.

So, how do you reconcile these passages that seem to contradict each other, saying both that He has appeared in a form and yet He does not have a form? Several different ways, depending on the context. For passages like Genesis 18, angels/messengers are sent. Angels are kind of like a spiritual telephone, where you are talking directly with G-d through the angel, just like you talk with your friends on the phone. But G-d is no more the angel than your friend is the phone. Other passages are anthropomorphic, in other words, metaphoric and symbolic.

What is one consipcuous aspect that separates Judaism from all other religions of the world? Only Judaism has a G-d with no form, and no name, just a declaration of existence. All other gods have a form, like Zeus or Krishna or Quetzalcoatl, but it is forbidden to even try to make an image of G-d. Why would He then make one of Himself for us to worship? Is He a hypocrite, a Father who says, "do as I say, not as I do?" Nope.

If Jesus was G-d in the same manner as you assert is the proper interpretation of Genesis 18, then how is it he did not know all that G-d knows, and had no power until G-d gave it to him?

[Bowman]

Perhaps you should reread these verses:

Revelation 3:12 KJV (emphasis added)

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Jesus is going to write upon those who are allowed to enter the New Jerusalem His NEW name. IOW, the name of the Father and the name of the Son are NOT the same; they are NOT the same God.

Revelation 19:12 KJV

His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

Revelation doesn't even reveal what Jesus' new name will be. Therefore, your claim Revelation teaches us that the name of God (ie the Most Hight God or Heavenly Father) and the name of Jesus are the same, is in error. Also, this is in direct conflict with the trinity which you claim never says that God and Jesus are one and the same.


Regards,

jo

More study of scripture is in order for you, sister…


His Name will be on their Foreheads

• John declares that he sees the 144,000 sealed, residing with The Lamb (i.e. Jesus Christ), on Mount Zion (Rev 14.1)
• These are the ones that have Jesus’ singular name (onoma autos) and His Father’s singular name (onoma ho pater autos) written on their foreheads
• Thus, both the Father and the Son are demonstrated have their singular namesake written on the redeemed people, and being in direct possession of the people, via the usage of the genitive singular “autos”
• Although both God and The Lamb are identified separately in the Book of Revelation, they are treated as one entity, one God, via the prolific usage of singular personal pronouns and singular nouns such as found in these verses (Rev 22.1 – 4):

• One Throne (thronos)
• His (autos) slaves
• Worship Him (autos)
• His (autos) face (prosopon)
• His (autos) name (onoma)

• Just as the singular name of The Lamb and the singular name of the Father are written on the foreheads of the Elect, as stated in Revelation 14.1, we are told that this is “His name”, as Jesus Christ and the Father are one God
• The 144,000 are in the direct presence of God and will see His face, and they will worship Him
• Observe that Revelation declares three separate times that Jesus’ name will be upon His believers, the 144,000 sealed. The First time that this is mentioned, Jesus declares, in the first person singular, that only He writes the name on His Elect. (Rev 3.12 – 13)
• Thus, three separate times Revelation declares that Jesus’ name will be upon His Elect, with each of the Elect having three names written upon them: Theos, Jesus, & The New Jerusalem
• Observe that the one speaking (lego) at the beginning of this section, to each of the seven assemblies (Rev Chapters 2 & 3), is applied to Jesus, and in each case, it ends with the proclamation that the Spirit is the one speaking – yet another indication of the deity interchangeability between the Spirit and Jesus

• These verses also clearly indicate:

• Father
• Son
• Spirit

[franktalk]

Tertullian wrote: explicitly of, "a trinity of one divinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit." "Even then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had within Himself both Reason, and inherent in Reason, His Word..." "Thus does He [the Father] make Him [the Son] equal to Him... while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father." (De Pudicitia, Against Praxeas 5)


Regards,
xcav8tor

Hi there,

Nice to be writing posts again. I have focused on Tertullian for a reason. He was the first to lay out the Trinity. But his understanding of scripture is suspect.

Tertullian

ON IDOLATRY
CHAP. IX.--PROFESSIONS OF SOME KINDS ALLIED TO IDOLATRY. OF ASTROLOGY IN PARTICULAR.
A couple of points.

“One proposition I lay down: that those angels, the deserters from God, the lovers of women, were likewise the discoverers of this curious art, on that account also condemned by God.”

Does this mean that those who teach a line of Cain as the meaning of Gen 6:2 are wrong? Are they not Christian because they disagree with Tertullian?

“You know nothing, astrologer, if you know not that you should be a Christian. If you did know it, you ought to have known this also, that you should have nothing more to do with that profession of yours which, of itself, fore-chants the climacterics of others, and might instruct you of its own danger. There is no part nor lot for you in that system of yours. He cannot hope for the kingdom of the heavens, whose finger or wand abuses the heaven.”

Does this mean that those who believe in astrology are not Christians?

AD NATIONES.

CHAP. IX. THE POWER OF ROME. ROMANIZED ASPECT OF ALL THE HEATHEN MYTHOLOGY.

“Such are the more obvious or more remarkable points which we had to mention in connection with Varro's threefold distribution of the gods, in order that a sufficient answer might seem to be given touching the physical, the poetic, and the gentile classes. Since, however, it is no longer to the philosophers, nor the poets, nor the nations that we owe the substitution of all (heathen worship for the true religion) although they transmitted the superstition, but to the dominant Romans, who received the tradition and gave it wide authority, another phase of the widespread error of man must now be encountered by us; nay, another forest must be felled by our axe, which has obscured the childhood of the de generate worship with germs of superstitions gathered from all quarters. Well, but even the gods of the Romans have received from (the same) Varro a threefold classification into the certain, the uncertain, and the select.”

So the Romans had a history of Romanizing other gods way before they did the same with Christianity. So does changing the date of the birth of Jesus mean anything? And does it mean something that the date was changed to sit on top of a pagan holiday?

AN ANSWER TO THE JEWS.
CHAP. VIII.--OF THE TIMES OF CHRIST'S BIRTH AND PASSION, AND OF JERUSALEM'S DESTRUCTION.

“Seventy hebdomads have been abridged upon thy commonalty, and upon the holy city, until delinquency be made inveterate, and sins sealed, and righteousness obtained by entreaty, and righteousness eternal introduced; and in order that vision and prophet may be sealed, and an holy one of holy ones anointed. And thou shalt know, and thoroughly see, and understand, from the going forth of a word for restoring and rebuilding Jerusalem unto the Christ, the Leader, hebdomads (seven and an half, and) lxii and an half: and it shall convert, and shall be built into height and entrenchment, and the times shall be renewed: and after these lxii hebdomads shall the anointing be exterminated, and shall not be; and the city and the holy place shall he exterminate together with the Leader, who is making His advent; and they shall be cut short as in a deluge, until (the) end of a war, which shall be cut short unto ruin. And he shall confirm a testament in many. In one hebdomad and the half of the hebdomad shall be taken away my sacrifice and libation, and in the holy place the execration of devastation, (and) until the end of (the) time consummation shall be given with regard to this devastation."

It is interesting how he changed Daniel. Pretty much a Preterist interpretation. Does that mean we have to be a Preterist to be Christian?

CHAP. XIV.--CONCLUSION. CLUE TO THE ERROR OF THE JEWS.
“So, too, in Zechariah, in His own person, nay, in the very mystery of His name withal, the most true Priest of the Father, His own Christ, is delineated in a twofold garb with reference to the TWO ADVENTS. First, He was clad in "sordid attire," that is, in the indignity of passible and mortal flesh, when the devil, withal, was opposing himself to Him--the instigator, to wit, of Judas the traitor--who even after His baptism had tempted Him. In the next place, He was stripped of His former sordid raiment, and adorned with a garment down to the foot, and with a turban and a clean mitre, that is, (with the garb) of the SECOND ADVENT; since He is demonstrated as having attained "glory and honour."

Please tell me what he is saying here? It seems he is pretty confused. I think I know what he is saying but I want to hear your view first.

Need I say that using Tertullian as a foundation is poor. If his interpretations are of man which they appear to be then man picked one of his many ideas and has cast off the others. Again a thing that men do.

I stopped way before the end of his writings. I try and only read those things from the first layer of disciples. Around 160 AD things start to get weird. And by 300 AD the wheels have come off.

You don't have to respond to all of this. I was just showing how Tertullian was not solid in the faith, at least in my opinion.

Frank

[xcav8tor]

Be that as it may, campus decorum dictates that the wishes of the OP should be observed regarding thread content and direction.

Hi Salty,

Out of respect for Tanakh Keeper's expressed sentiments to not take over his Jewish thread with overtly Christian discussion, I have copied your post into the "Unorthodox Theology 201" Forum, under the thread, "Transfer of Trinity discussion from Judaism Forum." I will try to respond asap, but tomorrow is a busy day and I have to go to bed now. Perhaps the others can join us there to continue this discussion.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[franktalk]

Out of respect for Tanakh Keeper's expressed sentiments to not take over his Jewish thread with overtly Christian discussion, I have copied your post into the "Unorthodox Theology 201" Forum, under the thread, "Transfer of Trinity discussion from Judaism Forum." I will try to respond asap, but tomorrow is a busy day and I have to go to bed now. Perhaps the others can join us there to continue this discussion.

Regards,
xcav8tor

Good idea. I will post there.

[Bowman]

I do not recall making these complaints; however, I will retract this current statement if you can show me where I made these complaints.


Regards,

jo

Post #118…

Even after your long post, I still see no real answers to the questions I posed. I do not think you will be able to answer them, however, unless you sincerely look at the trinity theory and are willing to admit that, as it stands, the trinity cannot satisfactorily answer the questions.

Regards,

jo

One excuse after another from you, sister...

[Bowman]

Beyond the point that it is absurd that all of mankind mush understand Greek in order to get the correct definitions in their head in order to believe "correctly", I will take you to task on what you feel is so important. What I see in your comments is an effort to not allow the trinity theory to be in conflict with itself; so you are grasping at straws.

You must study the original languages in order to understand what is being transmitted in the scriptures, sister.

It is likely that you think all scripture was originally written in English, as this is what was told to you by Smith.

Another excuse from you.

[Bowman]

Mar 3:28 E-sword

VerilyG281 I sayG3004 unto you,G5213 AllG3956 sinsG265 shall be forgivenG863 unto theG3588 sonsG5207 of men,G444 andG2532 blasphemiesG988 wherewith soeverG3745 G302 they shall blaspheme:G987

G988
βλασφημία
blasphēmia
blas-fay-me'-ah
From G989; vilification (especially against God): - blasphemy, evil speaking, railing.

Mar 3:29 E-sword

ButG1161 heG3739 G302 that shall blasphemeG987 againstG1519 theG3588 HolyG40 GhostG4151 hathG2192 never forgiveness,G3756 G859 G1519 G165 butG235 isG2076 in dangerG1777 of eternalG166 damnation:G2920

Isn't it interesting that even though the sin against the Holy Ghost is unforgivable, that the person who commits this sin is only in "danger" of eternal damnation. Therefore, the stance of many in Christendon who claim that those who reject the Holy Ghost (their version, which is that they reject the message of the Gospel and thus automatically have rejected the Holy Ghost), are doomed to eternal damnation is in direct conflict with this teaching which Jesus gave.

So, how is it that someone cannot blaspheme against the Holy Ghost and be forgiven; but they can still blaspheme God and be forgiven. Merely writing down the twelve possible deities of the shield is NOT an explanation; nor does it provide any Biblical support.

Again, you have the wrong verses and the wrong Greek terms, sister.

Unfortunately, this Trinity Shield is not spiritualized, but has been turned into a visualization created by man. Do you not believe that the Holy Ghost is capable enough of teaching each of us sufficiently in order to NOT have to resort to something manmade?

This goes back to your lack of understanding of what Biblical faith is, sister.

You have yet to refute or posit a verifiable definition for what you even speak of.

The following verses proclaim distinct separateness. Also, I am sticking to scripture; not redrawing anything manmade.

John 14:26 KJV

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

That verse does NOT say, "But the Comforter, which is God the Holy Ghost, whom God the Father will send in my name (and I am God), thus God will teach you all things, and bring to your rememberance, whatsoever I, God, have said unto you. HOWEVER, even though the Comforter is God, He is Not God (Father God), nor is He me (Jesus God)."

Again, failure on your part to understand the concept of the Biblical Trinity.

The Trinity is separate and yet the same.

Being cognizant of this, dismisses any verse you could ever bring against he Trinity.

All of you who hold to this beilef that unless you are a Trinitarian you are NOT a Christian, are current day scribes and Pharisees.

You are not Christian, sister.

LDS feel the need to add the disclaimer that they are Christian no doubt due to feelings of insecurity.