okinrus said:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
1+1+1=1? What's Up with the Trinity?
- Thread starter goofyfish
- Start date
And who's to say that God did not reveal the Trinity to me? Jesus said, "I am in the Father and the Father is in me." If so, then it's clear that the Father and the Son are two separate persons.I have volumes of scriptures to show the error of the trinity teaching as anti-christ doctrine.....but if the Lord has withheld the understanding of it from your eyes there is nothing I can say that will make you see it.
No, these are not Catholic beliefs.<b>1.</b> They say the days of miracles are over,
<b>2.</b> They believe in the "apostles creed" that only the apostles had such power.
This is untrue. Ignatius to the Trallians(circa 120AD)M*W: The is a lot of contradiction about the trinity--Three God's in One. I see the concept of the trinity to be the Creator, the Created, and the One Spirit of God that makes humanity One. The trinity wasn't invented until Nicaea in 325 AD. The trinity wasn't there at Jesus' time. In fact, when he was crucified (if it really happened), Jesus was not considered to be a deity until Nicaea.
<blockquote>
For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak38 of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power.Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons. And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with39 Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles. He that is within the altar is pure, but40 he that is without is not pure; that is, he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons,41 such a man is not pure in his conscience.</blockquote>
okinrus said:And who's to say that God did not reveal the Trinity to me? Jesus said, "I am in the Father and the Father is in me." If so, then it's clear that the Father and the Son are two separate persons.
No, these are not Catholic beliefs.
*************
M*W: I can accept that. It's like saying I am One with God and God is One with me. It's like saying Humanity is God and God is in Humanity. God is One.
And who's to say that God did not reveal the Trinity to me?
--------------------
The Word of God for one.
If it's not in the Word, Paul said let it be accursed.
That's what Catholic's have done in the past is quote what they as men have created, making themselves great men one of another.....
Holy bishop so and so..............Rev Father Doctor so and so..........
God never did this neither is it in the Word of God.
Ignatius De Loyal was a Jesuit Preist that was of the "society of Jesus".
Their true mission wasn't the propogation of the gosphel, but the undermining of any protest and sentiment against the Pope and the Holy Roman Empire.
He was a member of the illuminati, and a satanist............
68 million christians were murdered who spoke against the teachings of the catholic church in what is known as "The Great Inquisition".
Read "Foxes book of Martyrs" for more information on this subject.
You have much to learn of the history of your own church, if you chose to turn a blind eye to it all you become guilty of the conspiracy by association.
She has the blood of the saints on her hands, and wrath of God is set to come down upon her.
--------------------
The Word of God for one.
If it's not in the Word, Paul said let it be accursed.
That's what Catholic's have done in the past is quote what they as men have created, making themselves great men one of another.....
Holy bishop so and so..............Rev Father Doctor so and so..........
God never did this neither is it in the Word of God.
Ignatius De Loyal was a Jesuit Preist that was of the "society of Jesus".
Their true mission wasn't the propogation of the gosphel, but the undermining of any protest and sentiment against the Pope and the Holy Roman Empire.
He was a member of the illuminati, and a satanist............
68 million christians were murdered who spoke against the teachings of the catholic church in what is known as "The Great Inquisition".
Read "Foxes book of Martyrs" for more information on this subject.
You have much to learn of the history of your own church, if you chose to turn a blind eye to it all you become guilty of the conspiracy by association.
She has the blood of the saints on her hands, and wrath of God is set to come down upon her.
Last edited:
The Igantius that I quoted was the one of the first martyr's of the early Church. Foxes book of Martyr's says
In this persecution suffered the blessed martyr, Ignatius, who is held in famous reverence among very many. This Ignatius was appointed to the bishopric of Antioch next after Peter in succession. Some do say, that he, being sent from Syria to Rome, because he professed Christ, was given to the wild beasts to be devoured. It is also said of him, that when he passed through Asia, being under the most strict custody of his keepers, he strengthened and confirmed the churches through all the cities as he went, both with his exhortations and preaching of the Word of God.
The Word mentioned in John is the Greek word Logos, and the statement that Paul made was that if any one preach a different gospel(the good news, not the text itself) than the one you received, let them be anathema. Since the New Testament canon came after Ignatius and the Trinity, I'm not sure why you are treating the bible as an authority on its own when it's clearly not. Different men can interpret however they wish, but only the true interpretation that comes from the Church is completely true.The Word of God for one.
If it's not in the Word, Paul said let it be accursed.
Only the true interpretation that comes from the Church is completely true.
-----------------------
They didn't believe in three Gods in the beginning of the church. You can't find that sort of belief amongst the apostles. It was after the apostolic age that this theory came in and really became an issue and a cardinal doctrine at the Nicene Council. The doctrine of Godhead caused a two way split at Nicaea. And from that split there came two extremes. One actually went into polytheism, believing in three Gods, and the others went into unitarianism. Of course that was a little while in coming about, but it did, and we have it right today. But the Revelation through John by the Spirit to the churches was, "I am the Lord Jesus Christ, and I am ALL of it. There isn't any other God". And He put His seal on this Revelation.
Consider this: Who was the Father of Jesus? Matthew 1:18 says, "She was found with child of the Holy Ghost". But Jesus, Himself, claimed that God was His Father. God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, as we often express these terms, make the Father and the Spirit ONE. Indeed they are, or else Jesus had two Fathers. But notice that Jesus said that He and His Father were One--not two. That makes ONE God.
Since this is historically and Scripturally true, people wonder where the three came from. It became a foundational doctrine at the Nicene Council in 325 A.D. This trinity (an absolutely unscriptural word) was based upon the many gods of Rome. The Romans had many gods to whom they prayed. They also prayed to ancestors as mediators. It was just a step to give new names to old gods, so we have saints to make it more Biblical. Thus, instead of Jupiter, Venice, Mars, etc., we have Paul, Peter, Fatima, Christopher, etc., etc. They could not make their pagan religion work out with just one God, so they split Him up into three, and they made intercessors of the saints as they had made intercessors of their ancestors.
If anyone has any false ideas that history can prove water baptism in any other way than in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I would advise you to read the histories and find out for yourself. The following is a true record of a Baptism which took place in Rome A.D. 100 and was reproduced in TIME Magazine December 5, 1955. "The deacon raised his hand, and Publius Decius stepped through the baptistry door. Standing waist-deep in the pool was Marcus Vasca the woodseller. He was smiling as Publius waded into the pool beside him. `Credis?' he asked. `Credo,' responded Publius. `I believe that my salvation comes from Jesus the Christ, Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. With Him I died that with Him I may have Eternal Life.' Then he felt strong arms supporting him as he let himself fall backward into the pool, and heard Marcus' voice in his ear--`I baptize you in the Name of the Lord Jesus'--as the cold water closed over him."
Right up until the truth was lost (and did not return until this last age--this is from Nicaea till the turn of this century) they baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. But it has come back
-----------------------
They didn't believe in three Gods in the beginning of the church. You can't find that sort of belief amongst the apostles. It was after the apostolic age that this theory came in and really became an issue and a cardinal doctrine at the Nicene Council. The doctrine of Godhead caused a two way split at Nicaea. And from that split there came two extremes. One actually went into polytheism, believing in three Gods, and the others went into unitarianism. Of course that was a little while in coming about, but it did, and we have it right today. But the Revelation through John by the Spirit to the churches was, "I am the Lord Jesus Christ, and I am ALL of it. There isn't any other God". And He put His seal on this Revelation.
Consider this: Who was the Father of Jesus? Matthew 1:18 says, "She was found with child of the Holy Ghost". But Jesus, Himself, claimed that God was His Father. God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, as we often express these terms, make the Father and the Spirit ONE. Indeed they are, or else Jesus had two Fathers. But notice that Jesus said that He and His Father were One--not two. That makes ONE God.
Since this is historically and Scripturally true, people wonder where the three came from. It became a foundational doctrine at the Nicene Council in 325 A.D. This trinity (an absolutely unscriptural word) was based upon the many gods of Rome. The Romans had many gods to whom they prayed. They also prayed to ancestors as mediators. It was just a step to give new names to old gods, so we have saints to make it more Biblical. Thus, instead of Jupiter, Venice, Mars, etc., we have Paul, Peter, Fatima, Christopher, etc., etc. They could not make their pagan religion work out with just one God, so they split Him up into three, and they made intercessors of the saints as they had made intercessors of their ancestors.
If anyone has any false ideas that history can prove water baptism in any other way than in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I would advise you to read the histories and find out for yourself. The following is a true record of a Baptism which took place in Rome A.D. 100 and was reproduced in TIME Magazine December 5, 1955. "The deacon raised his hand, and Publius Decius stepped through the baptistry door. Standing waist-deep in the pool was Marcus Vasca the woodseller. He was smiling as Publius waded into the pool beside him. `Credis?' he asked. `Credo,' responded Publius. `I believe that my salvation comes from Jesus the Christ, Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. With Him I died that with Him I may have Eternal Life.' Then he felt strong arms supporting him as he let himself fall backward into the pool, and heard Marcus' voice in his ear--`I baptize you in the Name of the Lord Jesus'--as the cold water closed over him."
Right up until the truth was lost (and did not return until this last age--this is from Nicaea till the turn of this century) they baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. But it has come back
Neither do we.They didn't believe in three Gods in the beginning of the church.
Your not answering my quotation of Ignatius, the disciple of John.You can't find that sort of belief amongst the apostles. It was after the apostolic age that this theory came in and really became an issue and a cardinal doctrine at the Nicene Council.
Your dead wrong here. Not a single member denied the separate personhood of the Father and Son, I believe. The dispute was that four members out of the 300 or so present believe in the Arianism heresy, which believes basically that Jesus was a less god than the Father. While Arianism could be effectivly considered polytheism, the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be.The doctrine of Godhead caused a two way split at Nicaea. And from that split there came two extremes. One actually went into polytheism, believing in three Gods, and the others went into unitarianism.
As I mentioned before, we believe that there is one God, one Divinity. While both the Father and Son share in this divinity, they are separate persons, perfectly united within love. As a divine member of the Trinity, Jesus is the alpha and the omega.Of course that was a little while in coming about, but it did, and we have it right today. But the Revelation through John by the Spirit to the churches was, "I am the Lord Jesus Christ, and I am ALL of it. There isn't any other God". And He put His seal on this Revelation.
"the Father and Son share in this divinity, they are separate persons, perfectly united within love"
-------------------
Matthew 1:18 says, "She was found with child of the Holy Ghost".
But Jesus, Himself, claimed that God was His Father.
Who was the father of Jesus then...?
God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, as we often express these terms, make the Father and the Spirit ONE. Indeed they are, or else Jesus had two Fathers.
But notice that Jesus said that He and His Father were One--not two.
That makes ONE God., and ONE preson in that God, not three.
Here's the truth of what has been called a trinty.
Imagine if I had a blackboard... let me draw you a little circle.
I'm going to make one ring, then I'm going to make another ring on the inside of that ring; that's two.
Then I'm going to make a ring on the inside of that ring; that's three rings, three circles. Now, that's you. That's God. God in a trinity is One, and without a trinity He's not God. He can't be manifested any other way. And neither can you be manifested without being the trinity person that you are.
You are a tri-une being.
That's body, spirit, soul. Without either one of them, you're not complete. See? If you didn't have a soul, you'd be nothing. If you didn't have a spirit, you wouldn't be nothing. If you didn't have a body, you'd be a spirit, and not a body.
Just as I am a father of my son, and also a son of my father, and also a human being......
These are just titles for the one and same person....me.
So God is complete in the tri-unity of a Being; not triunity of beings, but one Being in a triunity. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one true manifested God.
-------------------
Matthew 1:18 says, "She was found with child of the Holy Ghost".
But Jesus, Himself, claimed that God was His Father.
Who was the father of Jesus then...?
God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, as we often express these terms, make the Father and the Spirit ONE. Indeed they are, or else Jesus had two Fathers.
But notice that Jesus said that He and His Father were One--not two.
That makes ONE God., and ONE preson in that God, not three.
Here's the truth of what has been called a trinty.
Imagine if I had a blackboard... let me draw you a little circle.
I'm going to make one ring, then I'm going to make another ring on the inside of that ring; that's two.
Then I'm going to make a ring on the inside of that ring; that's three rings, three circles. Now, that's you. That's God. God in a trinity is One, and without a trinity He's not God. He can't be manifested any other way. And neither can you be manifested without being the trinity person that you are.
You are a tri-une being.
That's body, spirit, soul. Without either one of them, you're not complete. See? If you didn't have a soul, you'd be nothing. If you didn't have a spirit, you wouldn't be nothing. If you didn't have a body, you'd be a spirit, and not a body.
Just as I am a father of my son, and also a son of my father, and also a human being......
These are just titles for the one and same person....me.
So God is complete in the tri-unity of a Being; not triunity of beings, but one Being in a triunity. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one true manifested God.
Last edited:
How do you explain Jesus' statement that the Father was greater than him?
------------------
God, whom Jesus refered to as "The Father" is Spirit, not flesh and blood.
Jesus was speaking as one man, whom this Spirit was manifested through.
All that was in God was poured out or "enmorphe" into Christ, all that was in Christ He poured into His church, which is His body.
The individual believers which comprise the "body" of Christ, not a building or an organization.
When Jesus left the earth, here's what He said.
He that believeth on Me, the works that I do, shall he do also."
And the English translation there says, "Greater than this shall he do, for I go to My Father."
But if you'll take the original translation on that, it said, "More shall he do."
Now, no one could do greater than He did, because He raised the dead, stopped nature, and just done everything.
He meant only more.....greater in quanity, not quality.
But what He said was; , "A little while and the world will see Me no more" (Now, that word is 'Kosmos,' which means 'the world order.').
It shall see Me no more, yet ye (the church) shall see Me, for I (And "I" is a personal pronoun, we know that), I will be with you (He's even said), in you unto the end of the world."
Now, what was it then?
God could manifest Himself through one Man, a Man, His Son called Jesus.
Now, God takes the Spirit of that Jesus and puts back into His children, that's been adopted by Jesus Christ, and manifest the same Spirit and same power, the world around. That's God in us, Emmanuel in us.
------------------
God, whom Jesus refered to as "The Father" is Spirit, not flesh and blood.
Jesus was speaking as one man, whom this Spirit was manifested through.
All that was in God was poured out or "enmorphe" into Christ, all that was in Christ He poured into His church, which is His body.
The individual believers which comprise the "body" of Christ, not a building or an organization.
When Jesus left the earth, here's what He said.
He that believeth on Me, the works that I do, shall he do also."
And the English translation there says, "Greater than this shall he do, for I go to My Father."
But if you'll take the original translation on that, it said, "More shall he do."
Now, no one could do greater than He did, because He raised the dead, stopped nature, and just done everything.
He meant only more.....greater in quanity, not quality.
But what He said was; , "A little while and the world will see Me no more" (Now, that word is 'Kosmos,' which means 'the world order.').
It shall see Me no more, yet ye (the church) shall see Me, for I (And "I" is a personal pronoun, we know that), I will be with you (He's even said), in you unto the end of the world."
Now, what was it then?
God could manifest Himself through one Man, a Man, His Son called Jesus.
Now, God takes the Spirit of that Jesus and puts back into His children, that's been adopted by Jesus Christ, and manifest the same Spirit and same power, the world around. That's God in us, Emmanuel in us.
Last edited:
[QUOTE=TheVisitor
*************
God, whom Jesus refered to as "The Father" is Spirit, not flesh and blood.
*************
M*W: I agree with this, but I would rephrase it to say: The Creator, to whom Humanity refers to as "the Father," is pure positive energy--or Spirit, and not flesh and blood.
*************
Jesus was speaking as one man, whom this was manifested through.
*************
M*W: Humanity will speak as the One Spirit of God manifests through it.
*************
All that was in God was poured out or "enmorphe" into Christ, all that was in Christ He poured into His church, which is His body.
*************
M*W: The Creator is pouring out the One Spirit of God into Humanity which is the physical body of the One Spirit of God.
*************
The individual believers which comprise the "body" of Christ, not a building or an organization.
*************
M*W: This is correct. The body of God--humanity--is made up of individual believers who comprise the One Spirit of God.
*************
When Jesus left the earth, here's what He said. "He that believeth on Me, the works that I do, shall he do also."
*************
M*W: I believe this is a misinterpretation. I think it means those who believe they are part of the One Spirit of God will do God's work.
*************
And the English translation there says, "Greater than this shall he do, for I go to My Father."
*************
M*W: I translate this to mean, "Greater than this shall humanity do for the One Spirit of God."
*************
But if you'll take the original translation on that, it said, "More shall he do."
*************
M*W: "More shall humanity do as the One Spirit of God."
*************
Now, no one could do greater than He did, because He raised the dead, stopped nature, and just done everything.
*************
M*W: No one can do greater than humanity which is the body of God. Humanity will be able to raise the dead, stop nature, and do everything as the One Spirit of God.
*************
He meant only more.....greater in quanity, not quality.
*************
M*W: Humanity as the body of the One Spirit of God will be able to do greater things in quanity AND quality, because humanity is the body of the One Spirit of God.
*************
But what He said was; "A little while and the world will see Me no more" (Now, that word is 'Kosmos,' which means 'the world order.').
*************
M*W: What I think was said was, "In a while, humanity will be able to see the face of God, because humanity will be God in the flesh." The definition of "cosmos" means, "the universe regarded as an orderly, harmonious whole." Your definition of "kosmos" could mean a world of disorder, too.
*************
It shall see Me no more, yet ye (the church) shall see Me, for I (And "I" is a personal pronoun, we know that), I will be with you (He's even said), in you unto the end of the world."
*************
M*W: Humanity shall seek God no more, because humanity is "the church," and humanity is the body and spirit of God for all eternity.
*************
Now, what was it then? God could manifest Himself through one Man, a Man, His Son called Jesus.
*************
M*W: God manifests itself through all humanity, not just one man. Jesus, if he existed, may have been AN EXAMPLE of how humanity was expected to evolve. The problem I have with Jesus, per se, is that the name Jesus doesn't mean anything. Humanity is "Im-manu-el." "Im" means "plural," "manu" means "humanity," and "el" stands for God. Literally "Immanuel" means "God is with us."
*************
Now, God takes the Spirit of that Jesus and puts back into His children, that's been adopted by Jesus Christ, and manifest the same Spirit and same power, the world around. That's God in us, Emmanuel in us.
*************
M*W: The One Spirit of God dwells within the body of humanity for all eternity. Humanity is God. We were created for the sole purpose of being the face of God on Earth. Humanity represents the example of Jesus. Anywhere in the Bible it says Jesus, just use the word humanity instead, and you'll get it right.
*************
God, whom Jesus refered to as "The Father" is Spirit, not flesh and blood.
*************
M*W: I agree with this, but I would rephrase it to say: The Creator, to whom Humanity refers to as "the Father," is pure positive energy--or Spirit, and not flesh and blood.
*************
Jesus was speaking as one man, whom this was manifested through.
*************
M*W: Humanity will speak as the One Spirit of God manifests through it.
*************
All that was in God was poured out or "enmorphe" into Christ, all that was in Christ He poured into His church, which is His body.
*************
M*W: The Creator is pouring out the One Spirit of God into Humanity which is the physical body of the One Spirit of God.
*************
The individual believers which comprise the "body" of Christ, not a building or an organization.
*************
M*W: This is correct. The body of God--humanity--is made up of individual believers who comprise the One Spirit of God.
*************
When Jesus left the earth, here's what He said. "He that believeth on Me, the works that I do, shall he do also."
*************
M*W: I believe this is a misinterpretation. I think it means those who believe they are part of the One Spirit of God will do God's work.
*************
And the English translation there says, "Greater than this shall he do, for I go to My Father."
*************
M*W: I translate this to mean, "Greater than this shall humanity do for the One Spirit of God."
*************
But if you'll take the original translation on that, it said, "More shall he do."
*************
M*W: "More shall humanity do as the One Spirit of God."
*************
Now, no one could do greater than He did, because He raised the dead, stopped nature, and just done everything.
*************
M*W: No one can do greater than humanity which is the body of God. Humanity will be able to raise the dead, stop nature, and do everything as the One Spirit of God.
*************
He meant only more.....greater in quanity, not quality.
*************
M*W: Humanity as the body of the One Spirit of God will be able to do greater things in quanity AND quality, because humanity is the body of the One Spirit of God.
*************
But what He said was; "A little while and the world will see Me no more" (Now, that word is 'Kosmos,' which means 'the world order.').
*************
M*W: What I think was said was, "In a while, humanity will be able to see the face of God, because humanity will be God in the flesh." The definition of "cosmos" means, "the universe regarded as an orderly, harmonious whole." Your definition of "kosmos" could mean a world of disorder, too.
*************
It shall see Me no more, yet ye (the church) shall see Me, for I (And "I" is a personal pronoun, we know that), I will be with you (He's even said), in you unto the end of the world."
*************
M*W: Humanity shall seek God no more, because humanity is "the church," and humanity is the body and spirit of God for all eternity.
*************
Now, what was it then? God could manifest Himself through one Man, a Man, His Son called Jesus.
*************
M*W: God manifests itself through all humanity, not just one man. Jesus, if he existed, may have been AN EXAMPLE of how humanity was expected to evolve. The problem I have with Jesus, per se, is that the name Jesus doesn't mean anything. Humanity is "Im-manu-el." "Im" means "plural," "manu" means "humanity," and "el" stands for God. Literally "Immanuel" means "God is with us."
*************
Now, God takes the Spirit of that Jesus and puts back into His children, that's been adopted by Jesus Christ, and manifest the same Spirit and same power, the world around. That's God in us, Emmanuel in us.
*************
M*W: The One Spirit of God dwells within the body of humanity for all eternity. Humanity is God. We were created for the sole purpose of being the face of God on Earth. Humanity represents the example of Jesus. Anywhere in the Bible it says Jesus, just use the word humanity instead, and you'll get it right.
W
WildBlueYonder
Guest
still want to kill us? can't stop the whipping & the crucifying, can you?Medicine Woman said:*************
M*W: I'm with you, Babe. I'll bring the matches.
I don't understand why M*W as such great faith in humanity when all our history would show otherwise. Nor would I see having faith in oneself any better, for we would surely be doomed to repeat our past. I just sure hope M*W does not truly accept her "verbage" arguments as fact.
While Jesus manifested the Father and showed the Father to us, he is not the Father. In fact, Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would take from what is his and share it to us. So, the case for Jesus and the Holy Spirit being the separate persons is that the Holy Spirit and Jesus have two different ownership roles, and that his disciples had not received the Holy Spirit yet but Jesus.God, whom Jesus refered to as "The Father" is Spirit, not flesh and blood.
Jesus was speaking as one man, whom this Spirit was manifested through.
All that was in God was poured out or "enmorphe" into Christ, all that was in Christ He poured into His church, which is His body.
Saints have raised the dead and stopped nature. In fact, the legend is that St. Nicholas did just that by praying to God.Now, no one could do greater than He did, because He raised the dead, stopped nature, and just done everything.
While Jesus manifested the Father and showed the Father to us, he is not the Father.
---------------------------
Jesus was God manifested in the flesh. He was God the Word.
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.
Jesus is the Son of God, that is the body, and God was the Spirit that dwelt in that Tabernacle that He created for Himself, a virgin body.
That's why He said; "I've been so long with you and you don't know Me?
He that's seen Me hath seen the Father."
In other words, "You see the Father working through Me.
God is a Spirit.
---------------------------
Jesus was God manifested in the flesh. He was God the Word.
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.
Jesus is the Son of God, that is the body, and God was the Spirit that dwelt in that Tabernacle that He created for Himself, a virgin body.
That's why He said; "I've been so long with you and you don't know Me?
He that's seen Me hath seen the Father."
In other words, "You see the Father working through Me.
God is a Spirit.
Last edited:
It's clear that Jesus was a separate person from the Father as he said in John that he sees whatever the Father does, and like a good son does what the Father does. Philip was able to see the Father since Jesus revealed Him as it says in the beginning of John that no man as seen the Father, but who revealed him.
It's clear that Jesus was a separate person from the Father
----------------------
No, it is not in any way clear that Jesus was a "separate person" from the Father.
This is the confusion that the false doctrine of the trinty purposes to spread.
Jesus said, "If I do not the works of My Father, then don't believe Me." Is that right? They couldn't believe Him, being a man, being God.
They just couldn't see it.
They said; "You make Yourself equal to God, being the Son of God."
Now, we know Jesus was Son. He said, "The Son can do nothing in Himself, but what He sees the Father doeth."
Thomas said, "Show us the Father and it sufficeth us."
He said, "I've been so long with you, and you don't know Me?
He that seen Me hath seen the Father. It's not Me that doeth the works.
It's My Father that dwelleth in Me." God is a Spirit, Jesus was the man. He was a Tabernacle that God dwelt in. See?
Now, He had the Spirit without measure, like all that water out there in the sea. That was what was in Him.
But in us, it's just a spoonful out of it. We got it by measure.
But remember, the same chemicals that's in the whole sea is in the spoon, not as much of it, but the same kind.
That's the reason He said, "He that believeth on Me, the works that I do, shall he do also."
----------------------
No, it is not in any way clear that Jesus was a "separate person" from the Father.
This is the confusion that the false doctrine of the trinty purposes to spread.
Jesus said, "If I do not the works of My Father, then don't believe Me." Is that right? They couldn't believe Him, being a man, being God.
They just couldn't see it.
They said; "You make Yourself equal to God, being the Son of God."
Now, we know Jesus was Son. He said, "The Son can do nothing in Himself, but what He sees the Father doeth."
Thomas said, "Show us the Father and it sufficeth us."
He said, "I've been so long with you, and you don't know Me?
He that seen Me hath seen the Father. It's not Me that doeth the works.
It's My Father that dwelleth in Me." God is a Spirit, Jesus was the man. He was a Tabernacle that God dwelt in. See?
Now, He had the Spirit without measure, like all that water out there in the sea. That was what was in Him.
But in us, it's just a spoonful out of it. We got it by measure.
But remember, the same chemicals that's in the whole sea is in the spoon, not as much of it, but the same kind.
That's the reason He said, "He that believeth on Me, the works that I do, shall he do also."
The ancient histories agree with the Bible that this Babylonish religion was most certainly not the original religion of earth's early peoples. It was the first to drift away from the original faith; but it was not itself the original one. Historians such as Wilkinson and Mallett have proven conclusively from the ancient documents that at one time all the peoples of the earth believed in ONE GOD, supreme, eternal, invisible, Who by the Word of His mouth spoke all things into existence, and that in His character He was loving and good and just. But as Satan will always corrupt whatever he can, we find him corrupting the minds and hearts of men so that they reject the truth. As he has always attempted to receive worship as though he were God and not the servant and creation of God, he drew worship away from God to the end that he might draw it unto himself and so be exalted. He certainly did accomplish his desire to spread his religion throughout the whole world. This is authenticated by God in the Book of Romans, "When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, until they became vain in their imaginations, and through darkness of heart accepted a corrupted religion to the extent that they worshipped creatures and not the Creator." Remember, Satan was a creature of God (Son of the Morning). Thus we find that where once truth was disseminated amongst men, and all held to that one truth, there later came a day when a vast group turned from God and spread a diabolical form of worship around the world. History bears it out that those of the tribe of Shem that stood with the unchanging truth were in solid opposition to those of Ham who turned away from truth to the devil's lie. There is no time to engage in a discussion of this; it is merely introduced that you may see there were two religions and two only, and the evil one became world wide.
Monotheism turned to polytheism in Babylon. The devil's lie and the devil's mysteries rose up against the truth of God and the mysteries of God in that city. Satan truly became the god of this world and exacted worship from those that he had duped, causing them to believe that he was truly the Lord.
The polytheistic religion of the enemy began with the trinitarian doctrine. It was way back there in antiquity that the "one God in three persons" idea came into existence. How strange that our modern theologians have not spotted this; but evidently just as duped by Satan as their forebears were, they still believe in three persons in the Godhead. Let us be shown just one place in Scripture where there is any authority for that doctrine. Is it not strange that while the descendants of Ham went on their way in Satanic worship which involved a basic concept of three gods that there is not one trace of the descendants of Shem believing such a thing or having any ceremonial worship that involved even a type of it? It is not strange that the Hebrews believed, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is ONE God", if there were three persons in the Godhead? Abraham, the descendant of Shem, in Genesis 18 saw only ONE God with two angels.
Now how was this trinity expressed? It was expressed by an equilateral triangle even as it is expressed in Rome today. Strange, the Hebrews did not have such a concept. Now who is right? Is it the Hebrews or the Babylonians? In Asia the polytheistic idea of three gods in one came out in an image with three heads on one body. He is expressed as three intelligences. In India, they found it in their hearts to express him as one god in three forms. Now that really is good modern day theology. In Japan there is a great Buddha with three heads like the one we previously described. But the most revealing of all is that which sets forth the trinitarian concept of God in a triune form of: 1. The head of an old man symbolizing God the Father, 2. A circle which in the mysteries signified "Seed" which in turn means the Son. 3. The wings and tail of a bird (dove). Here was the doctrine of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, three persons in the Godhead, a veritable trinity. You can see the same thing in Rome. Now let me ask once again, is it not strange that the devil and his worshipers actually had more truth revealed than the father of faith, (Abraham) and his descendants? Is it not strange that the worshipers of Satan, knew more about God than the children of God? Now that is what modern theologians try to tell us when they talk about a trinity. Just remember this one thing from now on: these records are facts and this is a fact--Satan is a liar and the father of lies, and whenever he comes with any light it is still a lie. He is a murderer. And his doctrine of the trinity has destroyed the multitudes and will destroy until Jesus comes.
According to history it did not take long for a change to be made in this concept of a Father and a Son and the Holy Ghost. Satan took them a step at a time away from the truth. The evolved concept of Deity was now: 1. The eternal father, 2. The Spirit of God incarnate in a HUMAN mother. (Does that make you think?) 3. A Divine Son, the fruit of that incarnation, (Woman's seed).
But the devil is not content. He hasn't achieved worship of himself yet, except in an indirect way. So he takes the people away from the truth still further. Through his mysteries he reveals to the people that since the great invisible father God does not concern himself in the affairs of men, but remains silent relative to them, then it follows that he may well be worshipped in silence. Actually it means to ignore him as much as possible, if not altogether. This doctrine spread around the world also, and right today in India you can see that temples to the great creator, the silent god, are strikingly few in number.
Since it was not necessary to worship the creator-father, it was only natural that worship swung to the "Mother and Child" as the objects of adoration. In Egypt there was the same combination of mother and son called Isis and Osiris. In India it was Isi and Iswara. (Note the similarity of names even.) In Asia it was Cybele and Deoius. In Rome and in Greece it followed suit. And in China. Well, imagine the surprise of some Roman Catholic missionaries as they entered China and found there a Madonna and Child with rays of light emanating from the head of the babe. The image could well have been exchanged for one in the Vatican except for the difference of certain facial features.
It now behooves us to discover the original mother and child.
The original goddess-mother of Babylon was Semiramis who was called Rhea in the eastern countries. In her arms she held a son, who though a babe, was described as tall, strong, handsome and especially captivating to the women. In Ezekiel 8:14 he was called Tammuz. Amongst classical writers he was called Bacchus. To the Babylonians he was Ninus. What accounts for the fact that he is represented as a babe in arms and yet described as a great and mighty man is that he is known as the "Husband-Son". One of his titles was "Husband of the Mother", and in India where the two are known as Iswara and Isi, he (the husband) is represented as the babe at the breast of his own wife.
That this Ninus is the Nimrod of the Bible we can affirm by comparing history with the Genesis account. Pompeius said, "Ninus, king of Assyria, changed the ancient moderate ways of life by the desire for conquest. HE WAS THE FIRST WHO CARRIED WAR AGAINST HIS NEIGHBORS. He conquered all nations from Assyria to Lybia as these men knew not the arts of war." Diodorus says, "Ninus was the most ancient of Assyrian kings mentioned in history. Being of warlike disposition he trained many young men rigorously in the arts of war. He brought Babylonia under him while yet there was no city of Babylon." Thus we see this Ninus started to become great in Babylon, built Babel and took over Assyria, becoming its king, and then proceeded to devour other vast territories where the people were unskilled in war and lived in a moderate way as said Pompeius. Now in Genesis 10, speaking of the kingdom of Nimrod it says, "And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Asshur and builded Nineveh, and Calah etc." But the translators made a mistake in translating Asshur as a noun for it is a verb, and in the Chaldee means 'to make strong.' Thus it is Nimrod, who having been made strong (he established his kingdom by building the world's first army which he trained by drilling and through the rigors of hunting) went beyond Shinar with his strong army and subdued nations and built such cities as Nineveh, which was named after him, for even today a chief part of the ruins of that city is called Nimroud!
Since we have discovered who Ninus was, it is now necessary to discover who his father was. According to history it was Bel, the founder of Babylon. (Now it is to be noted here that Bel founded it in the sense that he started this whole move, but it was the son, Ninus, that established it and was the first king etc.) But according to the Scripture, the father of Nimrod was Cush: "And Cush begat Nimrod." Not only is this so but we find that Ham begat Cush. Now, in the Egyptian culture Bel was called Hermes, and Hermes means, "THE SON OF HAM". According to history Hermes was the great prophet of idolatry. He was the interpreter of the gods. Another name by which he was called was Mercury. (Read Acts 14:11-12)
Hyginus says this about that god who was known variously as Bel, Hermes, Mercury etc, "For many ages men lived under the government of Jove (not the Roman Jove, but Jehovah of the Hebrews who predates Roman history) without cities and without laws, and all speaking one language. But after that Mercury (Bel, Cush) interpreted the speeches of men (whence an interpreter is called Hermeneutes) the same individual distributed the nations. Then discord began." It is seen from this that Bel or Cush, the father of Nimrod, originally was the ring leader that led the people away from the true God and encouraged the people as the "interpreter of the gods" to take another form of religion. He encouraged them to go ahead with the tower which his son actually built. This encouragement is what brought the confusion and the division of men, so that he was both, "interpreter and confuser".
Cush, then, was the father of the polytheistic system and when men were deified by men, he of course, became the father of the gods. Now Cush was called Bel. And Bel in Roman mythology was Janus. He is pictured as having two faces and he carried a club by which he confounded and "scattered" the people. Ovid writes that Janus said concerning himself, "the ancients called me Chaos". Thus we find that the Cush of the Bible, the original rebel against monotheism was called Bel, Belus, Hermes, Janus, etc. amongst the ancient peoples. He purported to bring revelations and interpretations from the gods to the people. In so doing he caused the wrath of God to scatter the people, bringing division and confusion.
Now up to this point we have seen whence polytheism or the worship of many gods came. But did you notice that we also found a mention of a man named Cush who was given a title of "the father of the gods."? Did you notice here the old theme of ancient mythologies, that gods identify themselves with men? That is where ancestor worship comes from. So we might just examine history to find out about ancestor worship. Well, it was brought out that Cush introduced a three god worship of father, son and spirit. Three gods who were all equal. But he knew about the seed of the woman coming, so there would have to be a woman and her seed come into the picture. This was brought to pass when Nimrod died. His wife, Semiramis deified him, and thus made herself the mother of the son and also the mother of the gods. (Just exactly as the Roman church has deified Mary. They claim she was without sin and was the Mother of God.) She (Semiramis) called Nimrod "Zeroashta" which means, "the woman's promised seed".
But it wasn't too long until the woman began to attract more attention than the son, and soon she was the one who was depicted as trampling underfoot the serpent. They called her "the queen of the heaven" and made her divine. How like today wherein Mary, the mother of Jesus, had been elevated to immortality and in September 1964 the Vatican council attempted to give a quality to Mary she does not possess, for they would like to call her, "Mary the Mediatrix," "Mary the Mother of All Believers," or "Mother of the Church." If there was ever Babylonish ancestor worship in a religion, it is the religion of the Church of Rome.
Not only was ancestor worship originated in Babylon but so also was the worship of nature. It was in Babylon the gods were identified with the sun and moon, etc. The chief object in nature was the sun which has light giving and heat giving properties and appears to man as a ball of fire in the heavens. Thus the chief god would be the sun god whom they called Baal. Often the sun was depicted as a circle of flame and soon around that flame there appeared a serpent. It wasn't long until the serpent became a symbol of the sun and consequently worshipped. Thus the desire of Satan's heart became full-fledged. He was worshipped as God. His throne was established. His slaves bowed to him.
Can you see now why John in Revelations 17, called her Mystery Babylon, the mother of harlots and abombinations of the Earth.?
Monotheism turned to polytheism in Babylon. The devil's lie and the devil's mysteries rose up against the truth of God and the mysteries of God in that city. Satan truly became the god of this world and exacted worship from those that he had duped, causing them to believe that he was truly the Lord.
The polytheistic religion of the enemy began with the trinitarian doctrine. It was way back there in antiquity that the "one God in three persons" idea came into existence. How strange that our modern theologians have not spotted this; but evidently just as duped by Satan as their forebears were, they still believe in three persons in the Godhead. Let us be shown just one place in Scripture where there is any authority for that doctrine. Is it not strange that while the descendants of Ham went on their way in Satanic worship which involved a basic concept of three gods that there is not one trace of the descendants of Shem believing such a thing or having any ceremonial worship that involved even a type of it? It is not strange that the Hebrews believed, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is ONE God", if there were three persons in the Godhead? Abraham, the descendant of Shem, in Genesis 18 saw only ONE God with two angels.
Now how was this trinity expressed? It was expressed by an equilateral triangle even as it is expressed in Rome today. Strange, the Hebrews did not have such a concept. Now who is right? Is it the Hebrews or the Babylonians? In Asia the polytheistic idea of three gods in one came out in an image with three heads on one body. He is expressed as three intelligences. In India, they found it in their hearts to express him as one god in three forms. Now that really is good modern day theology. In Japan there is a great Buddha with three heads like the one we previously described. But the most revealing of all is that which sets forth the trinitarian concept of God in a triune form of: 1. The head of an old man symbolizing God the Father, 2. A circle which in the mysteries signified "Seed" which in turn means the Son. 3. The wings and tail of a bird (dove). Here was the doctrine of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, three persons in the Godhead, a veritable trinity. You can see the same thing in Rome. Now let me ask once again, is it not strange that the devil and his worshipers actually had more truth revealed than the father of faith, (Abraham) and his descendants? Is it not strange that the worshipers of Satan, knew more about God than the children of God? Now that is what modern theologians try to tell us when they talk about a trinity. Just remember this one thing from now on: these records are facts and this is a fact--Satan is a liar and the father of lies, and whenever he comes with any light it is still a lie. He is a murderer. And his doctrine of the trinity has destroyed the multitudes and will destroy until Jesus comes.
According to history it did not take long for a change to be made in this concept of a Father and a Son and the Holy Ghost. Satan took them a step at a time away from the truth. The evolved concept of Deity was now: 1. The eternal father, 2. The Spirit of God incarnate in a HUMAN mother. (Does that make you think?) 3. A Divine Son, the fruit of that incarnation, (Woman's seed).
But the devil is not content. He hasn't achieved worship of himself yet, except in an indirect way. So he takes the people away from the truth still further. Through his mysteries he reveals to the people that since the great invisible father God does not concern himself in the affairs of men, but remains silent relative to them, then it follows that he may well be worshipped in silence. Actually it means to ignore him as much as possible, if not altogether. This doctrine spread around the world also, and right today in India you can see that temples to the great creator, the silent god, are strikingly few in number.
Since it was not necessary to worship the creator-father, it was only natural that worship swung to the "Mother and Child" as the objects of adoration. In Egypt there was the same combination of mother and son called Isis and Osiris. In India it was Isi and Iswara. (Note the similarity of names even.) In Asia it was Cybele and Deoius. In Rome and in Greece it followed suit. And in China. Well, imagine the surprise of some Roman Catholic missionaries as they entered China and found there a Madonna and Child with rays of light emanating from the head of the babe. The image could well have been exchanged for one in the Vatican except for the difference of certain facial features.
It now behooves us to discover the original mother and child.
The original goddess-mother of Babylon was Semiramis who was called Rhea in the eastern countries. In her arms she held a son, who though a babe, was described as tall, strong, handsome and especially captivating to the women. In Ezekiel 8:14 he was called Tammuz. Amongst classical writers he was called Bacchus. To the Babylonians he was Ninus. What accounts for the fact that he is represented as a babe in arms and yet described as a great and mighty man is that he is known as the "Husband-Son". One of his titles was "Husband of the Mother", and in India where the two are known as Iswara and Isi, he (the husband) is represented as the babe at the breast of his own wife.
That this Ninus is the Nimrod of the Bible we can affirm by comparing history with the Genesis account. Pompeius said, "Ninus, king of Assyria, changed the ancient moderate ways of life by the desire for conquest. HE WAS THE FIRST WHO CARRIED WAR AGAINST HIS NEIGHBORS. He conquered all nations from Assyria to Lybia as these men knew not the arts of war." Diodorus says, "Ninus was the most ancient of Assyrian kings mentioned in history. Being of warlike disposition he trained many young men rigorously in the arts of war. He brought Babylonia under him while yet there was no city of Babylon." Thus we see this Ninus started to become great in Babylon, built Babel and took over Assyria, becoming its king, and then proceeded to devour other vast territories where the people were unskilled in war and lived in a moderate way as said Pompeius. Now in Genesis 10, speaking of the kingdom of Nimrod it says, "And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Asshur and builded Nineveh, and Calah etc." But the translators made a mistake in translating Asshur as a noun for it is a verb, and in the Chaldee means 'to make strong.' Thus it is Nimrod, who having been made strong (he established his kingdom by building the world's first army which he trained by drilling and through the rigors of hunting) went beyond Shinar with his strong army and subdued nations and built such cities as Nineveh, which was named after him, for even today a chief part of the ruins of that city is called Nimroud!
Since we have discovered who Ninus was, it is now necessary to discover who his father was. According to history it was Bel, the founder of Babylon. (Now it is to be noted here that Bel founded it in the sense that he started this whole move, but it was the son, Ninus, that established it and was the first king etc.) But according to the Scripture, the father of Nimrod was Cush: "And Cush begat Nimrod." Not only is this so but we find that Ham begat Cush. Now, in the Egyptian culture Bel was called Hermes, and Hermes means, "THE SON OF HAM". According to history Hermes was the great prophet of idolatry. He was the interpreter of the gods. Another name by which he was called was Mercury. (Read Acts 14:11-12)
Hyginus says this about that god who was known variously as Bel, Hermes, Mercury etc, "For many ages men lived under the government of Jove (not the Roman Jove, but Jehovah of the Hebrews who predates Roman history) without cities and without laws, and all speaking one language. But after that Mercury (Bel, Cush) interpreted the speeches of men (whence an interpreter is called Hermeneutes) the same individual distributed the nations. Then discord began." It is seen from this that Bel or Cush, the father of Nimrod, originally was the ring leader that led the people away from the true God and encouraged the people as the "interpreter of the gods" to take another form of religion. He encouraged them to go ahead with the tower which his son actually built. This encouragement is what brought the confusion and the division of men, so that he was both, "interpreter and confuser".
Cush, then, was the father of the polytheistic system and when men were deified by men, he of course, became the father of the gods. Now Cush was called Bel. And Bel in Roman mythology was Janus. He is pictured as having two faces and he carried a club by which he confounded and "scattered" the people. Ovid writes that Janus said concerning himself, "the ancients called me Chaos". Thus we find that the Cush of the Bible, the original rebel against monotheism was called Bel, Belus, Hermes, Janus, etc. amongst the ancient peoples. He purported to bring revelations and interpretations from the gods to the people. In so doing he caused the wrath of God to scatter the people, bringing division and confusion.
Now up to this point we have seen whence polytheism or the worship of many gods came. But did you notice that we also found a mention of a man named Cush who was given a title of "the father of the gods."? Did you notice here the old theme of ancient mythologies, that gods identify themselves with men? That is where ancestor worship comes from. So we might just examine history to find out about ancestor worship. Well, it was brought out that Cush introduced a three god worship of father, son and spirit. Three gods who were all equal. But he knew about the seed of the woman coming, so there would have to be a woman and her seed come into the picture. This was brought to pass when Nimrod died. His wife, Semiramis deified him, and thus made herself the mother of the son and also the mother of the gods. (Just exactly as the Roman church has deified Mary. They claim she was without sin and was the Mother of God.) She (Semiramis) called Nimrod "Zeroashta" which means, "the woman's promised seed".
But it wasn't too long until the woman began to attract more attention than the son, and soon she was the one who was depicted as trampling underfoot the serpent. They called her "the queen of the heaven" and made her divine. How like today wherein Mary, the mother of Jesus, had been elevated to immortality and in September 1964 the Vatican council attempted to give a quality to Mary she does not possess, for they would like to call her, "Mary the Mediatrix," "Mary the Mother of All Believers," or "Mother of the Church." If there was ever Babylonish ancestor worship in a religion, it is the religion of the Church of Rome.
Not only was ancestor worship originated in Babylon but so also was the worship of nature. It was in Babylon the gods were identified with the sun and moon, etc. The chief object in nature was the sun which has light giving and heat giving properties and appears to man as a ball of fire in the heavens. Thus the chief god would be the sun god whom they called Baal. Often the sun was depicted as a circle of flame and soon around that flame there appeared a serpent. It wasn't long until the serpent became a symbol of the sun and consequently worshipped. Thus the desire of Satan's heart became full-fledged. He was worshipped as God. His throne was established. His slaves bowed to him.
Can you see now why John in Revelations 17, called her Mystery Babylon, the mother of harlots and abombinations of the Earth.?
Last edited:
Visitor, God does not deal in trivalities nor does he try to trick us. It's written in Issaih that the only reason why God does not show his face is because of our sin and only our sin. God's not going to be partial to someone who is able to "discover" something on his own or knowing something that requires extraordinary feats of logic.Jesus said, "If I do not the works of My Father, then don't believe Me." Is that right? They couldn't believe Him, being a man, being God.
They just couldn't see it.
Unless if God truly died and resurrected is our salvation meaningful. If God did not truly die, then your commiting mistakes made by gnostics. Although Paul says that God is Spirit, he refers to the Father or the Son before he assumed human flesh. Jesus was not just a man, since he existed before Abraham.God is a Spirit, Jesus was the man. He was a Tabernacle that God dwelt in. See?
The Spirit is distinct from the Father and Jesus. His voice is as well.Now, He had the Spirit without measure, like all that water out there in the sea. That was what was in Him.
But in us, it's just a spoonful out of it. We got it by measure.
But remember, the same chemicals that's in the whole sea is in the spoon, not as much of it, but the same kind.
That's the reason He said, "He that believeth on Me, the works that I do, shall he do also."
The Church has never called Mary divine, but has repeatively confirmed that she is a creature, even in spite of heresy which said otherwise. She is, however, the Queen of Heaven since she is the mother of Jesus, the king of heaven. In hebrew tradition the mother of a king is the queen. Any source that tries to put down Mary without mentioning these facts is being dishonest. If Jesus is your brother, then Mary is your mother. For Jesus said to Mary Magdalene like "I must be going to see my brothers."But it wasn't too long until the woman began to attract more attention than the son, and soon she was the one who was depicted as trampling underfoot the serpent. They called her "the queen of the heaven" and made her divine. How like today wherein Mary, the mother of Jesus, had been elevated to immortality and in September 1964 the Vatican council attempted to give a quality to Mary she does not possess, for they would like to call her, "Mary the Mediatrix," "Mary the Mother of All Believers," or "Mother of the Church." If there was ever Babylonish ancestor worship in a religion, it is the religion of the Church of Rome
As for your other sources, you do believe in sola-scriptura correct? Your sources beg the question why they weren't in the bible if they were so important to your intepretation. I think there's an obvious answer: there're not true. I don't believe in sola-scriptura, but I don't see how you would come to any other conclusion.