• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST FIVE OF FIVE


It’s unnecessary to the purpose of this exposition to discussed the symbolism of Lucifer’s apparel, his armor, and the “names” which were written in his hand (as the christian Abbaton also describes in greater detail), but it’s apparent that Lucifer unwillingly undergoes a ritual removal of his powers and authorities and authority for leadership and, with those angels who took part in his planned rebellion, he is cast down into the earth.

However, such histories lend sense and context and confirmation to other histories such as Apocalypse of abraham when Azaz’el is told regarding Abraham...shame on you Azazel! For Abraham’s portion is in heaven, and yours is on earth, for you have selected here, (and) become enamored of the dwelling place of your blemish. .... For behold, the garment which in heaven was formerly yours has been set aside for him, and the corruption which was on him has gone over to you.” (The Apocalypse of Abraham 13: 4,5,7-14)

Once Lucifer finds himself and his fallen angels on the earth, his own recognition and understanding and sense of what he had done increased, but this recognition was not associated with remorse nor repentance, but rather with an obstinate resolve and desire and plan for revenge (and other motives) and for continuing his rebellion.

..he fled from heaven; Sotona, because his name was satanail. 5 In this way he became different from the angels. His nature did not change, (but) his thought did, since his consciousness of righteous and sinful things changed. And he became aware of his condemnation and of the sin which he sinned previously. 6 And that is why he thought up the scheme against Adam." (2nd Enoch 31:2-8, 32:1)


It is in such a context that later, the fallen Lucifer later explained to the fallen Adam the source of Lucifers' enmity towards Adam (who could not remember events prior to mortality) : ..Michael brought you and made (us) worship you in the sight of God, and the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.’ And I answered, ‘I do not worship Adam.’ ...’Why do you compel me? I will not worship one inferior and subsequent to me. I am prior to him in creation; before he was made, I was already made. He ought to worship me.’ .... When they heard this, other angels who were under me refused to worship him. And Michael asserted, ‘Worship the image of God. But if now you will not worship, the Lord God will be wrathful with you.’ And I said, ‘If he be wrathful with me, I will set my throne above the stars of heaven and will be like the Most High.” (Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 12: 1-2, 13:13, 14:2-3; 15:1-3)

I hope that it is clear that the early Christian doctrine and tradition that Adam was created in the image of God not only existed but the doctrine finds itself in the midst of multiple other profound doctrines and traditions which are inextricably tied to it. One cannot simply explain away this single doctrine by claiming a single word was a metaphor. MANY other doctrines and traditions are tied to this doctrine.

I hope it is also clear that the early Christians and texts DID have a sensible concept of the origin of the Devil and for some of the underlying motives as to why Lucifer battles against God and God's plan for the moral education of those among mankind who are willing and wanting to live by the moral laws which will ultimately prepare them to live in happiness and harmony in a social heaven for eternity.

Compared to modern theories (or lack of theories), the ancient Christian doctrines were, I think, more coherent and more logical and represented a more accurate view of the Devils origin. This is partly why I was so astounded to find a modern Christianity that was tied into these base historical issues so closely and converted to restorational theology. I hope restorationists will see that there is a great deal of historical data the supports their position on these base doctrines.

Such doctrines were "great crossroads of agreement" for early Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions AND Importantly, they explain and make rational, many of the most difficult moral and theological questions that plague modern christian theory.


Soapy, now that I answered your question and also gave you examples of the type of historical data that is clearly available to support the early Judeo-Christians beliefs, do you have ANY data at all to support your own theories that God was talking to Satan when God said “Let us create man in our own likeness” or that “Satan created the body of Adam” ?

Clear
φισιακτωφιω
 
Last edited:

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Soapy Good to meet you...
You say... You know definition of ‘God’?! Then you answer.. "It's impossible to have THREE PERSONS as a ONE GOD".
I reply:
Apparently your god is NOT almighty, your god has limits on what he can do! The God of the Christian has NO limits the Christian God is almighty! The Christian God can do all things! He can take the form of a burning bush, of Smoke, of a pillar of fire, a Dove and he can even take the form of a man or of ordinary bread!
Soapy Jews are NOT Christian they are just like you; you also reject Jesus is God! Satan rejects Jesus is God! Soapy just as you do!
My God; the Christian God can do all things; even becoming part of his own creation!

You say..." I believe what the scriptures says" FACT: The scriptures tell you "God is LOVE"! Question Soapy.... Is perfect love: "Love of self" or is perfect love "Love for another"!? Love if self is called "SELFISHNESS"! The Christian God is NOT selfish he is PERFECT!
Soapy The God of the Christian is PERFECT he does all things perfectly! Perfect LOVE can only be: love for another! How can perfect love be selfish!? Answer is: It can't!

For God to be perfect he needs another to love! GOD IS LOVE"! God needs someone other then himself to love otherwise he would not be perfect, then he would Not Be God!
From the beginning there was always a God thus there must always have been two: Love for another is PERFECT LOVE!
Soapy you MUST have two (2) to have perfect love!!
1 John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

1 John 4:16
And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

Soapy.. Question "Do you believe the scriptures!?" You say..." I believe what the scriptures says"! Reread the scripture (above) God IS LOVE!
You say there needs to be two for live to exist.

Who then was with Your God for him to love?
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
POST FIVE OF FIVE


It’s unnecessary to the purpose of this exposition to discussed the symbolism of Lucifer’s apparel, his armor, and the “names” which were written in his hand (as the christian Abbaton also describes in greater detail), but it’s apparent that Lucifer unwillingly undergoes a ritual removal of his powers and authorities and authority for leadership and, with those angels who took part in his planned rebellion, he is cast down into the earth.

However, such histories lend sense and context and confirmation to other histories such as Apocalypse of abraham when Azaz’el is told regarding Abraham...shame on you Azazel! For Abraham’s portion is in heaven, and yours is on earth, for you have selected here, (and) become enamored of the dwelling place of your blemish. .... For behold, the garment which in heaven was formerly yours has been set aside for him, and the corruption which was on him has gone over to you.” (The Apocalypse of Abraham 13: 4,5,7-14)

Once Lucifer finds himself and his fallen angels on the earth, his own recognition and understanding and sense of what he had done increased, but this recognition was not associated with remorse nor repentance, but rather with an obstinate resolve and desire and plan for revenge (and other motives) and for continuing his rebellion.

..he fled from heaven; Sotona, because his name was satanail. 5 In this way he became different from the angels. His nature did not change, (but) his thought did, since his consciousness of righteous and sinful things changed. And he became aware of his condemnation and of the sin which he sinned previously. 6 And that is why he thought up the scheme against Adam." (2nd Enoch 31:2-8, 32:1)


It is in such a context that later, the fallen Lucifer later explained to the fallen Adam the source of Lucifers' enmity towards Adam (who could not remember events prior to mortality) : ..Michael brought you and made (us) worship you in the sight of God, and the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.’ And I answered, ‘I do not worship Adam.’ ...’Why do you compel me? I will not worship one inferior and subsequent to me. I am prior to him in creation; before he was made, I was already made. He ought to worship me.’ .... When they heard this, other angels who were under me refused to worship him. And Michael asserted, ‘Worship the image of God. But if now you will not worship, the Lord God will be wrathful with you.’ And I said, ‘If he be wrathful with me, I will set my throne above the stars of heaven and will be like the Most High.” (Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 12: 1-2, 13:13, 14:2-3; 15:1-3)

I hope that it is clear that the early Christian doctrine and tradition that Adam was created in the image of God not only existed but the doctrine finds itself in the midst of multiple other profound doctrines and traditions which are inextricably tied to it. One cannot simply explain away this single doctrine by claiming a single word was a metaphor. MANY other doctrines and traditions are tied to this doctrine.

I hope it is also clear that the early Christians and texts DID have a sensible concept of the origin of the Devil and for some of the underlying motives as to why Lucifer battles against God and God's plan for the moral education of those among mankind who are willing and wanting to live by the moral laws which will ultimately prepare them to live in happiness and harmony in a social heaven for eternity.

Compared to modern theories (or lack of theories), the ancient Christian doctrines were, I think, more coherent and more logical and represented a more accurate view of the Devils origin. This is partly why I was so astounded to find a modern Christianity that was tied into these base historical issues so closely and converted to restorational theology. I hope restorationists will see that there is a great deal of historical data the supports their position on these base doctrines.

Such doctrines were "great crossroads of agreement" for early Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions AND Importantly, they explain and make rational, many of the most difficult moral and theological questions that plague modern christian theory.


Soapy, now that I answered your question and also gave you examples of the type of historical data that is clearly available to support the early Judeo-Christians beliefs, do you have ANY data at all to support your own theories that God was talking to Satan when God said “Let us create man in our own likeness” or that “Satan created the body of Adam” ?

Clear
φισιακτωφιω
I’ve never heard so much nonsense from one who claims to be a scholar (I think that’s what you claim!).

You believe that a vision of heaven showed almighty God together with ‘one who looked liked a Son of man’, Jesus …

And that is a claim that Jesus is GOD as a trinity?

Configure the scientific Math(s):
  • 1+ 1 = 2
Consider trinity Math(s):
  • 1 + 1 = 3
There were many books written claiming to be scriptures of old. The book of Enoch was wisely not chosen as one such canonical book. And since it is dismissed it should not be presented as evidence to anything scriptural.

This is not denying a person called Enoch, but refuting the written text claimed under the name of Enoch.

It is similar to claims made from the book of Thomas… where it is clear that this was written maliciously … so the same with the book of Enoch.

AND BY THE WAY…. I did not say that ‘Satan’ and God were PARTNERS in the creation of Adam.

There is no PARTNERSHIP (equality of order) when a commander gives a command and a commanded carries out the command.

If the book of Enoch is your research basis then you are already on a losing streak in your research.

And, no! You aren’t answering the questions I ASKED YOU… you are just posting a load of pointless nonsense from a book that is not canonical.

AND, everything you posted is A BELIEF from whomever wrote it and you quote it. Nothing you posted was EVIDENCE except evidence of FALLACY!

If I was marking your posts as an academic thesis you would receive a FAIL!
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
REGARDING ANCIENT JEWISH, CHRISTIAN, AND ISLAMIC LITERATURE CONCERNING THE FALL OF SATAN AND HIS BECOMING AN ENEMY OF GOD

Soapy said : “I’ve never heard so much nonsense from one who claims to be a scholar
You are confused.

This presentation of Historical data is not for individuals like you.
Instead instead it is presented for the benefit of the more cerebral and more educated and more historically minded readers on the forum.

It is presented to them so that they can see that early Judeo-Christianity was a more educated religion than the religion you have created by your interpretations.

It is for the educated and non fanatical readers to see that the early Judeo-Christians possessed interpretations that underlie a more historically coherent religion than your religion.

It is to demonstrate to educated Christians that the early Christians had more data and their religion was more intuitive than your religion.

It demonstrates to minimally historically minded readers that the early Christians had historically coherent reasons and data underlying their belief in contrast to your religious beliefs regarding Satan that has no significant historical data to support it.

In short, the historical data and it's witnesses of early Christianity are not for you nor for people like you.

Historical data, as a type of information is given so that educated readers are able to see that the Christianity of the early Christians was better than the religion you are creating by your uninformed and illogical and historically incoherent interpretations.



Soapy said : “(I think that’s what you claim!).”

This is another problem for you.
You seem to operate under the misapprehension that you are thinking accurately when you make your conclusions and assumptions.
Leave the accurate thinking and accurate conclusions to those who are able to use data and think logically when they make conclusion..



Soapy said : "You believe that a vision of heaven showed almighty God together with ‘one who looked liked a Son of man’, Jesus …"
You are confused.
It is the early Judeo-Christians and their beliefs they are describing in the early Judeo-Christian Literature.



Soapy claimed : "If I was marking your posts as an academic thesis you would receive a FAIL!
You are confused.
It is another incoherent statement for you to think you have sufficient religious education to be able to comprehend and adequately judge any academic religious thesis.


Soapy, before we can continue this conversation on a serious basis, you must prove to me that you are not an anti-Christian who is simply posting on the forums in order to make Christians appear stupid and their religion an ignorant mess.


Clear
φισινετζσιω
 
Last edited:

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
REGARDING ANCIENT JEWISH, CHRISTIAN, AND ISLAMIC LITERATURE CONCERNING THE FALL OF SATAN AND HIS BECOMING AN ENEMY OF GOD

Soapy said : “I’ve never heard so much nonsense from one who claims to be a scholar
You are confused.

This presentation of Historical data is not for individuals like you.
Instead instead it is presented for the benefit of the more cerebral and more educated and more historically minded readers on the forum.

It is presented to them so that they can see that early Judeo-Christianity was a more educated religion than the religion you have created by your interpretations.

It is for the educated and non fanatical readers to see that the early Judeo-Christians possessed interpretations that underlie a more historically coherent religion than your religion.

It is to demonstrate to educated Christians that the early Christians had more data and their religion was more intuitive than your religion.

It demonstrates to minimally historically minded readers that the early Christians had historically coherent reasons and data underlying their belief in contrast to your religious beliefs regarding Satan that has no significant historical data to support it.

In short, the historical data and it's witnesses of early Christianity are not for you nor for people like you.

Historical data, as a type of information is given so that educated readers are able to see that the Christianity of the early Christians was better than the religion you are creating by your uninformed and illogical and historically incoherent interpretations.



Soapy said : “(I think that’s what you claim!).”

This is another problem for you.
You seem to operate under the misapprehension that you are thinking accurately when you make your conclusions and assumptions.
Leave the accurate thinking and accurate conclusions to those who are able to use data and think logically when they make conclusion..



Soapy said : "You believe that a vision of heaven showed almighty God together with ‘one who looked liked a Son of man’, Jesus …"
You are confused.
It is the early Judeo-Christians and their beliefs they are describing in the early Judeo-Christian Literature.



Soapy claimed : "If I was marking your posts as an academic thesis you would receive a FAIL!
You are confused.
It is another incoherent statement for you to think you have sufficient religious education to be to comprehend and adequately judge any academic religious thesis.


Soapy, before we can continue this conversation on a serious basis, you must prove to me that you are not an anti-Christian who is simply posting on the forums in order to make Christians appear stupid and their religion an ignorant mess.


Clear
φισινετζσιω
Wow, you love your ‘proofs’, eh!

How do you prove to yourself every day that you are real?

You present ‘historical data’ from many who themselves were anti-Christians who declare that Jesus the man was in heaven before being created as a man on earth. And you say that that is coherent historical and provable data?

Prove it to me now, that Jesus was in heaven as a man before creation?

I know you won’t answer because it is not true.

It goes beyond my imagination how one do wise and scholarly as yourself can take up with the trinitarian brigade and form (uphold) the claim that Jesus created all things when it is clear that it was GOD who did so. And you have the audacity to claim that I am anti-Christ? Whoohoo!! The anti-Christ one is the first to claim others are so!

I speak and say that Jesus is the Son of God… and you call me an Anti-Christ?

I speak that Jesus was born the son of the Virgin Mary in whom God put the spirit of Jesus into the “seed of a woman” - just as he promised as written in the book of Genesis… That the messiah, whom Abraham foresaw in vision coming from his lineage, would come forth from - not the seed of a man, Procreation, but by a new creation, a new Son of God, just as Adam was the first Son of God in flesh, the image in flesh of God, hence Jesus is called, ‘The last Adam’ because no other man in flesh would ever be directly created by God. Sin comes through the seed of a man and hence why a new man without inherited sin was created to save mankind. The body of Jesus is by the seed, the egg, of Mary - and the spirit enlivened it by the overshadowing of God’s Holy Spirit, just as the inert body of Adam was enlivened when the Holy Spirit overshadowed it - and the man became a living Soul.

And you call me ‘Anti-Christ’?

See, you are confused… Is Jesus Almighty God that created all things?

Then why isn’t he called ‘Father’?

Why is the creator of all things called ‘Father’?

Dare I ask you to define the word, ‘Father’? But you won’t answer - I know you!! So let me help you. Consider this:
Father, means (by context):
  • ‘He who gives life’
  • ‘He who brings into being’
  • ‘He who creates’
  • ‘He who is the head’
Why is God called ‘Father’ and the creation called ‘Son’?

Even holy SPIRIT angels are called ‘Sons of God’, hence God is their ‘Father’, the creator of Spirits.

And Adam was ‘Son of God’ in the time before he sinned! Why? Because he was created ‘Holy, Sinless and Righteous’ by the sinless righteous holy SPIRIT OF GOD.

The ‘Historical Data’ that you gorge yourself on believing it to be academically sound is hollow and full of holes but because you don’t really believe what you are ‘researching’ you cannot see that it is false.

Christ came to REVEAL THE FATHER. It is GOD , the Father, that he preaches as his testimony because that is what GOD, the Father taught him and gave him (Rev 1:1).

It is also illogical that Jesus should exist before creation because, as you said yourself, God is love - and it takes two for live to exist…. Except for VANITY of course… Vanity is self-love.

Oh! You are going to say that God isn’t vain? Whoops!

Hmmm… have you considered that man is made in the image of God and that vanity is one of the attributes inherent in man (more so in WO-MAN)… that the vanity part was taken out of man and fashioned as part of the ‘Rib’ into WO-MAN.

Oh dear, your research isn’t that well formed, it seems! ‘Could do better’!!

And what I wrote to you about Satan… Remember that he was not ‘Satan’ when God gave him the privilege to create the body of Adam… he was a fully compliant holy and glorious Angel. His downfall was to seek worship from the creature he helped create.

You say that it is nonsense that I say to you… but is your nonsense any more credible - Absolutely preposterous, I say (That’s MY opinion).

Come now, @Clear, angels are IMMENSELY more intelligent than human Beings… And human beings in their minute of life on earth by creation time can create ‘robotic’, ‘Virtual Reality’, ‘Artificial Intelligent’ ‘agents’… and you don’t think that angels could do anything like that … and greater than that? Heck! Angels made human-like bodies that procreated with human women to produce the Nephilim….

And check this, I only said that Satan created the BODY … IT WAS GOD THAT PUT THE SPIRIT IN IT TO ENLIVEN IT. It is the SPIRIT that drives the body… the body is an inert machine without a spirit. The angels put THEIR OWN spirit in the bodies they created to enliven them because ONLY GOD can create spirits.

You need to show me that what I say is not true… or else eat humble pie!!
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @Soapy

Soapy, I am assuming that you mean well and are trying in some fashion to support religious principles that you believe in. I honor that specific principle.
However, I see multiple problems that are going to keep you from doing the good that (I think) you want to do.


1) Soapy, your inability to correctly apprehend and correctly apply basic but specific words is a problem.

I asked for you to simply provide some sort of data or justification regarding how you came up with the theory that Satan created the body of Adam, and why you think God was talking to Satan when God said “Let us create man in our own likeness”.
To ask for basic data is not asking for proof of objective truth.
The fact that you consistently confuse different principles contributes to your inability to respond accurately.

Just as asking for data is not asking for proof in this case, providing historical data from early Christian is not “proof” of objective truth.
Unless you can understand the nuance of meanings, this will cause problems in your ability to communicate with others.


2) Soapy, your inability to come to coherent interpretation of data is a problem.

For example : Soapy said : “You present ‘historical data’ from many who themselves were anti-Christians who declare that Jesus the man was in heaven before being created as a man on earth. “ (soapy in post #1145)

When John 1:1 says “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God..”, John does not become an anti-Christian, and when he speaks of Jesus as “the Word” being in with God in the beginning, John is not saying Jesus was a “man” in the beginning with God.



3) Soapy, your inability to be accurate with data and attribution is a problem.

For example : Soapy said “…as you said yourself, God is love - and it takes two for live to exist…” (soapy in post #1145)

I never said this to you.
You are actually referring to the poster Godknox20 when HE said “…GOD IS LOVE"! God needs someone other then himself to love…” (Godknox20 in post #1136)
You have a habit of attributing statements and declarations to me that are non-existent. It is a problem of not taking enough care with the truth.


4) Soapy, your inability to be accurate with the biblical narrative and use of inaccurate paraphrases is a problem.
For example, when presenting your theory that Satan created the body of Adam and said to Satan “Let us make man in our own likeness”, you offered readers an inaccurate paraphrasing of the bible rather than authentic biblical text.

Soapy said : Now down and worship me and I will give you the kingdom … IT IS MINE TO GIVE TO WHOM I WILL!’" (Post #1114)

It took several posts before you realized this was not accurate nor authentic biblical text. Paraphrasing the biblical text to try to make it say what you want is a problem for those who value accuracy.



5) Soapy, your habit of creating religious doctrine based on the merest whisp of illogical reasoning is a problem.

Soapy said “Hmmm… have you considered that man is made in the image of God and that vanity is one of the attributes inherent in man (more so in WO-MAN)… that the vanity part was taken out of man and fashioned as part of the ‘Rib’ into WO-MAN.” Oh dear, your research isn’t that well formed, it seems! ‘Could do better’!! (soapy in post #1145)

The dictionary tells us Vanity is characterized by
1) an excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements and by
2) the quality of being worthless or futile
.


1) Your statements themselves are often evidence that vanity in mankind was not removed from all men as you seem to have excessive pride in your own theories beyond their actual merit and usefulness.

2) The above theory that vanity of adam was fashioned into the woman Eve does not seem to be based on any logical or reasonable data, but instead, on an irrational and misogynistic attitude toward women.

3) The tendency to offer petty ad hominems (personal attacks) on individuals who simply ask you for data serves to simply antagonize and belittle those who are asking you for information and does not serve any legitimate Christian purpose.

4) The tendency to see one’s own point of view as objectively true and set in concrete reflects an unwillingness to even consider additional data that might improve and correct our opinions and worldviews. It is a refusal to progress intellectually and socially.



For all of these reasons and more, it is difficult to tell if you are trying to further the cause of your version of Christianity or simply trying to tear down all other Christianities that do not accept your own interpretation.

If you are trying to serve a Christian purpose, your methods are quite counter-productive.

Your methods are not bringing honor and glory to the Savior, but are serving to display the fact that some Christians are no better than the people they are working so hard to condemn.

If, in fact, you ARE an anti-Christian, posting to try to make christians look stupid and uneducated and misogynistic and unable to either process new data or to consider any other point of view than their own, then you are doing a good job at this.



Readers. The early Christian Origen said that evil was "the refusal to progress".

It is important for you to understand that there are Christianities that are NOT self-centered and proud and uneducated and illogical. Certain Christianities are perfectly willing to admit that they do not know the truth and that their views are tentative pending greater knowledge and greater understanding and who allow, even invite their religious views to change and become more correct and more mature and more insightful and understanding over their lifetimes.

There are christianities that realize that learning about Christianity is a process and that all of us (ALL of us) have some errors in our models of truth and of God and of the savior. Such Christianities invite more and newer and better data into their lives with the intention of getting rid of inaccurate concepts and adopting more correct concepts over their lives.




Clear
φισινεσεδρω
 
Last edited:

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
….
There are christianities that realize that learning about Christianity is a process and that all of us (ALL of us) have some errors in our models of truth and of God and of the savior. Such Christianities invite more and newer and better data into their lives with the intention of getting rid of inaccurate concepts and adopting more correct concepts over their lives.

Clear
φισινεσεδρω
I’m glad to see you know this. But rather than just saying it, you need to apply it to yourself as well.

Well, all I can say is that you had better find someone else to put your one and only question to.

All through the exchanges we have had you seem hell bent on only one thing: ‘Proof’ or ‘evidence’ that the Angel that became known as ‘Satan’ created the body of Adam.

I gave you good reasoning for it but since you objectively cannot understand the spiritual world (being only a researcher of beliefs) it passes you by to accept my answer.

Well, you are quite at liberty to refuse the answers I gave you but don’t say I didn’t give you answers. I said that God was talking to the Angel who was the highest in the heavens, the most glorious, wise, intelligent, and powerful of all the created angels of God.

These accolades were the reasons for the downfall of this high and mighty Angel… he sought after worship from the creation that he was involved with but was refused by God.

What gets me is that you appear to accept nonsense - nonsensical writings - as your ‘Historical Data’ without even blinking an eye at the fact that they are incorrect. You seem to think that just because you can see, feel, and maybe touch erroneous information then that makes it true.

Yet, when I ask you questions, you don’t answer me!

Being honest, I don’t expect answers from you because the truth is not in you. What is in you is just a compilation of ‘Historical Data’ that even a ten year old could see was nonsense.

Quite frankly, thus is what comes of ‘Research’ into something you do not understand. It is exactly because you don’t understand Judaism and Christianity that you accept such grave errors n your ‘Data’ and will ultimately come to the wrong conclusion.

It is like a ‘researcher’ in maths formulae who doesn’t understand that zero divided by zero is not permissible in an equation that is expected to give a result. Do you understand that… I think not! You just see the equation or formulae and don’t notice that one or more elements will become as described. Yet you insist that there is a valid answer. When it is told to you that there is an error, you say, ‘show me the historical data’!! When it is shown to you - because you are not math-minded - you dismiss the evidence (or at least the information leading to the evidence… in truth, I do not know why zero divided by zero is invalid but I can tell someone that if they try it they will find it is true…)

From the example, you say that because trinity claims that GOD WAS TALKING TO JESUS…. that is your ‘Historical Data’ that you believe.

Hmmm…. ‘God was talking to Jesus!’

Keep on believing that! Later than sooner you will find out how wrong you’ve been.

God spoke of the messiah to come that he would put his spirit on.

Abraham foresaw that this messiah was to come from his lineage.

David wrote about the ‘Lord’ that would be seated on his throne.

Isaiah prophesied through God about the SERVANT of God…

An apostle wrote that God sent his Son… This ‘sending’ did not occur until AFTER Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit of God.

Goodness!!! Why hasn’t your researched ‘historical data’ shown you all this. Shown you these things such that you should question the fallacious trinity ideology that you appear to hold as your baseline for Christian truth?

Surely it is true then (and quite rightly so since God it is prophesied) that ‘God will send them a strong delusion such that they will believe the lie!’

Zero divided by zero is a grave error.
God cannot be DIVIDED … but you believe trinity that divides God into three - but God is not composed of parts (‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’) nor is God ‘Essence’… which means that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (which isn’t a person) are IN ESSENCE… and therefore are WITHIN a greater bounded entity: like three fish in a bowl of ESSENCE (water) bounded by the fish bowl.

You still can’t see your error?

Believing Jesus to be God AND the word of God AND the Son of God AND the Son of Man… is a grave error!

God does not give way to anyone. Yet Jesus gives way to the Father.

God gives glory to the Son - and, like a perfect image, the Son REFLECTS the glory of God.

Who is the primary source.. is it not GOD?

Is an image the thing that it images? No!

So how do you accept trinity that says that Jesus being the perfect image of God MAKES JESUS EQUAL TO GOD?

Even saying ‘EQUAL TO’ should raise your hackles… Something can’t be the something if is EQUAL TO. It can only BE the thing and therefore there is no such thing as an EQUALITY with itself.

‘In the beginning was the word’… It was GOD’s word.
‘And the word was with God’… It was GOD’s word.
‘And the word was GOD’ … It was ALMIGHTY.

I asked you to define the word, ‘God’. You refuse because to do so would show that ‘God’ is a TITLE that carries a description of:
  • All Mighty
  • Heroic
  • Majestic
  • Monumental
  • Glorious
  • … and such
The Israelites, the Jews, Christians, came to know the NAME of the Deity (worshipped Being) they worship and found that since they only have the ONE DEITY they do not need to NAME HIM when referring to him. They simply use his TITLE: ‘God’. Yes, in some places, for emphasis, ‘YHWH’ is used to underline which God is being referred to.

At times, the description of ‘God’ is exchanged to ‘God’. So you might see, ‘God, my God!’, which means, ‘Yhwh, my majestic one!’

Or, ‘The word was GOD’, meaning, ‘The word [of God] was an almighty word’.

Or, the angels being referred to as ‘Gods’, meaning, ‘Mighty ones’.

I think that’s enough for you to chew on for the time being. But if you refuse the ‘lesson’ in truth you will never (unless you do) find the truth and your research will all be for nought.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @Soapy

1) HOW DOES AN INDIVIDUAL CLAIMING TO BE A CHRISTIAN JUSTIFY CONDEMNATION OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANS?


My medical group once had the contract to deliver medical care to prisoners in a state prison for five years. I served as the director of emergencies, including psychiatric conditions. It was actually very fascinating, partly because of the unexpected mechanisms by which prisoners justified how they treated people. They had very slick justifications for rape, for robbery, for murder, etc.

One prisoner justified robbery because his victim “was stupid enough” to walk through his neighborhood late at night. The prisoner explained that if he had not robbed the man, another robber just down the block would have robbed him.
The robber explained that “I did not do anything to the man that wasn’t going to happen to him anyway, just another half block down the street."
Using this skewed logic, the robber blamed the robbed for the robbery.

“But you shot the man!” I replied.

“Yes, but that was his fault as well” the inmate said.

The prisoner explained that he told the victim, “Give me your money, or I will shoot you.” Well, the idiot said “no” and so I shot him".
The victim himself chose the outcome in this case according to the logic of the prisoner.

Similarly, Various inmates gave justifications for rape, for torture, for murder, for molestation of children, etc.


My question to you Soapy is how do you justify not merely dismissing the beliefs of the earliest Christians, but why do your interpretations and beliefs have priority over that of Clement (as an example), who was a colleague of the apostle Peter and the apostle Paul?

You label such people as “anti-Christian” (soapy post #1145) simply because their Christianity and it’s interpretations and it’s beliefs are different than yours.

Paul, the apostle, spoke of Clement and other co-workers glowingly. In phillipians 4:3 paul said “...have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.”

Since Clement is one of those "whose names are in the book of life" and taught the original Christianity with the apostles Peter and Paul, how to you justify calling this man an “anti-Christian” and how do you justify placing your personal interpretations and beliefs in preference to that of Clement?

I came to understand how the justifications of prisoners were made, but I do not understand how you justify this specific action.


Can you explain to the forum readers what you are thinking in calling Clement an Anti-Christian and how you justify placing him into that category?


Clear
φιακτζτζνεω
 
Last edited:

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
You say there needs to be two for live to exist.

Who then was with Your God for him to love?
Soapy I hope all is well..
You ask; Who was with my God? Answer: He was with my God from the beginning!.... In the beginning was the Word

I reply.... It is imposable to have perfect love by self! Love MUST be given if it is kept and not given it is not love but selfishness!

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind
.

Soapy did you see it..? (above verse) the Word was God.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
Did you see it? the Word was God. AND the word became flesh and lived among us!

Soapy Who is the word that was with God from the beginning? Clearly it is...... The one that was made flesh and lived among us!

Soapy The Christians believe the scriptures! Christians have always worshiped Jesus as God!
.........................In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..................................

You ask; Who was with my God? He was with my God from the beginning... the Word was God
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Soapy I hope all is well..
You ask; Who was with my God? Answer: He was with my God from the beginning!.... In the beginning was the Word

I reply.... It is imposable to have perfect love by self! Love MUST be given if it is kept and not given it is not love but selfishness!

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind
.

Soapy did you see it..? (above verse) the Word was God.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
Did you see it? the Word was God. AND the word became flesh and lived among us!

Soapy Who is the word that was with God from the beginning? Clearly it is...... The one that was made flesh and lived among us!

Soapy The Christians believe the scriptures! Christians have always worshiped Jesus as God!
.........................In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..................................

You ask; Who was with my God? He was with my God from the beginning... the Word was God
Dogknox, the word of God, Trinitarians claim, WAS GOD!

The problem is that sentence does not work in truth. God’s word is his spoken (or thought in) action.

‘God’ is a title…. Why is it necessary to keep repeating this to trinitarians. And a title has a meaning…

God spoke a monumental word… God spoke a Glorious word… God spoke a majestic work… God spoke an almighty word (and more than ‘one word’, obviously)

It was God’s word that created all things because what God speaks must be accomplished. So he is as good as his word… and his word is good!

Trinitarian believers, in their desperation to claim that Jesus was God, search the scriptures for opportunities to mislead their congregation.

John 1:1 is one of those chances.

It is true that ‘the word created all things’. Yes, without God’s word nothing that was created was created. True.

You see the part of the verse saying, ‘The word was WITH GOD’? Well, Trinitarians tell me that Jesus was God! So how is ‘God the word’ WITH ‘GOD… the who?’.

And trinity defines ‘God’ as ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’.

So, differentiating this, we get:
  • The Holy Spirit of God
  • The Son of God
  • The Father of God
Is this correct?

But further, if Jesus IS GOD then we get a recursive entity:
  • God is Father son and Holy Spirit
  • Jesus is God
  • Jesus is …..(Father son and Holy Spirit)
  • Jesus is the Son, and Son is God, so:
    • Jesus is Father, (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), Holy Spirit
and so the recursive Son who is God continues eternally defines as itself! Ridiculous.

AND of course, this applies to the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Ok, read that back a few times until the absurdity hits you… Yes, it will be absurd such that you ridicule it… but then you will realise that that is exactly what trinity says.

Ok, again… You will say (trinity says) ALTERNATIVELY (so trinity can’t agree with itself because it’s founded on miscreation) that GOD is ESSENCE.

Well, check it out: If GOD is essence (and what is that?) then the three are IN ESSENCE … which means that ESSENCE is overarching the three!

It is like three fish in a fish bowl with the water as the ESSENCE. The three fish SHARE EQUALLY in the water ESSENCE… and the essence is contained in the fish bowl…!!!

Trinitarians have tried to their distress to explain what they mean in both scenarios but as yet can only configure new stories and ideologies in their attempt - each disagreeing with each other (that is, those who don’t just repeat the Trinity Creed or what ‘gotQuestion’ and ‘CARM’ websites say!)
 

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
Dogknox, the word of God, Trinitarians claim, WAS GOD!

The problem is that sentence does not work in truth. God’s word is his spoken (or thought in) action.

‘God’ is a title…. Why is it necessary to keep repeating this to trinitarians. And a title has a meaning…

God spoke a monumental word… God spoke a Glorious word… God spoke a majestic work… God spoke an almighty word (and more than ‘one word’, obviously)

It was God’s word that created all things because what God speaks must be accomplished. So he is as good as his word… and his word is good!

Trinitarian believers, in their desperation to claim that Jesus was God, search the scriptures for opportunities to mislead their congregation.

John 1:1 is one of those chances.

It is true that ‘the word created all things’. Yes, without God’s word nothing that was created was created. True.

You see the part of the verse saying, ‘The word was WITH GOD’? Well, Trinitarians tell me that Jesus was God! So how is ‘God the word’ WITH ‘GOD… the who?’.

And trinity defines ‘God’ as ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’.

So, differentiating this, we get:
  • The Holy Spirit of God
  • The Son of God
  • The Father of God
Is this correct?

But further, if Jesus IS GOD then we get a recursive entity:
  • God is Father son and Holy Spirit
  • Jesus is God
  • Jesus is …..(Father son and Holy Spirit)
  • Jesus is the Son, and Son is God, so:
    • Jesus is Father, (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), Holy Spirit
and so the recursive Son who is God continues eternally defines as itself! Ridiculous.

AND of course, this applies to the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Ok, read that back a few times until the absurdity hits you… Yes, it will be absurd such that you ridicule it… but then you will realise that that is exactly what trinity says.

Ok, again… You will say (trinity says) ALTERNATIVELY (so trinity can’t agree with itself because it’s founded on miscreation) that GOD is ESSENCE.

Well, check it out: If GOD is essence (and what is that?) then the three are IN ESSENCE … which means that ESSENCE is overarching the three!

It is like three fish in a fish bowl with the water as the ESSENCE. The three fish SHARE EQUALLY in the water ESSENCE… and the essence is contained in the fish bowl…!!!

Trinitarians have tried to their distress to explain what they mean in both scenarios but as yet can only configure new stories and ideologies in their attempt - each disagreeing with each other (that is, those who don’t just repeat the Trinity Creed or what ‘got Question’ and ‘CARM’ websites say!)

Soapy Opinion... Is all you got; Just your opinion! Christians worship Jesus, Christians believe Jesus is God!
FACT: You MUST jettison scriptures to believe what you do!
Scripture:
The word became flesh!
The word was God!
The word became flesh and lived among us!

Think...Satan wanted Jesus to worship him... Jesus' answer to Satan was.. "Worship Only God"! Jesus knows and understands "Worship is ONLY for God"!
Matthew 4:10
Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”

Matthew 14:33
Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

Soapy Do you see it? Jesus does not stop the worship! You never read Jesus correcting them as he did Satan! Jesus would be worse then Satan if he accepted worship knowing full well that Worship is ONLY for God! Jesus would be committing a grave sin by accepting worship because worship is ONLY for God.. ONLY!

Matthew 28:9
Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.
Soapy Worship is ONLY FOR GOD!
Jesus does NOT stop the worship! Jesus lets them worship him! "The word became man and lived among us"!

Matthew 2:11
On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.
Soapy From his birth to his death they WORSHIP Jesus!
Christians have ALWAYS worshiped Jesus!
Jews, Jehovah Witness, Satan, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist are NOT Christian to name a few! Christians worship Jesus!
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @Dogknox20 and @Soapy


I have to agree with Soapy specifically regarding the illogic αnd incoherence of the 3=1 model of the trinity that became popular in the later centuries.

That specific model of the trinity has no logical nor historical advantage over the earliest model where the three individuals of the trinity were not the same being.



Regarding a non-christian labeling others as “non-christian”

Dogknox20 admits : "Yup you are right according to the Anti-Catholic sites "Catholic's worship Mary"
The problem with the worship of Mary and the worship of idols and icons and the worship of dead saints that ex-catholics and anti-catholics point out is part of roman Catholicism is that is places individuals like Dogknox20 outside of the pale of Judeo-Christiantity where individuals are NOT to worship any other being but God.


The sacred texts tell us repeatedly that these things are wrong, even evil.
One of the clearest commandments is "thou shalt have no other Gods before me".
Dogknox20 even ADMITs in post #287 that "Worship is ONLY for God..." (Dogknox20, post #287 different thread)


Dogknox20, Since you believe in worshipping these things in preference to God and in opposition to Christian principles, how can you then call yourself a Christian?
And how can you do the same thing as Soapy is doing by calling others “non” Christians simply because they disagree with your personal version of the trinity?



Clear
φιακτζσεσε
 
Last edited:

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Hi @Dogknox20 and @Soapy


I have to agree with Soapy specifically regarding the illogic αnd incoherence of the 3=1 model of the trinity that became popular in the later centuries.

That specific model of the trinity has no logical nor historical advantage over the earliest model where the three individuals of the trinity were not the same being.



Regarding a non-christian labeling others as “non-christian”

Dogknox20 admits : "Yup you are right according to the Anti-Catholic sites "Catholic's worship Mary"
The problem with the worship of Mary and the worship of idols and icons and the worship of dead saints that ex-catholics and anti-catholics point out is part of roman Catholicism is that is places individuals like Dogknox20 outside of the pale of Judeo-Christiantity where individuals are NOT to worship any other being but God.


The sacred texts tell us repeatedly that these things are wrong, even evil.
One of the clearest commandments is "thou shalt have no other Gods before me".
Dogknox20 even ADMITs in post #287 that "Worship is ONLY for God..." (Dogknox20, post #287 different thread)


Dogknox20, Since you believe in worshipping these things in preference to God and in opposition to Christian principles, how can you then call yourself a Christian?
And how can you do the same thing as Soapy is doing by calling others “non” Christians simply because they disagree with your personal version of the trinity?



Clear
φιακτζσεσε
I am against TRINITARIAN Christianity.

Jesus said:
  • “This means eternal life that they should believe in you [Father], THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and in Jesus Christ whom YOU [the only true God] sent”
This verse on its own declares YHWH as the ONLY TRUE GOD (which does not deny there are others who are ‘called’ Gods - see next extract but even so other beliefs also have Gods… because ‘God’ is simply a title just as ‘Judge’ and there are many judges by context, and Kings and there are many kings, by context).

Yet trinity claims that Jesus is ALSO that said same ONLY TRUE GOD that he calls the Father. It’s just that he doesn’t promote himself, says trinity. But hold on… where is the third partner in the trinity… It’s only when it is mentioned that Trinitarians rush to say, ‘of course, the Holy Spirit is included in the ONLY TRUE GOD[ship]’

And further, Jesus only claims that he and the Father are one… It is evident that this means that they agree 100% with each other. But trinity says that this is proof that Jesus IS GOD because the Father is God… But, of course, the saying also starts a new belief that Jesus IS the Father… Yes, another type of trinity belief where Jesus appears as the Father and the Holy Spirit at different times…

See how trinity develops and is ANTI-Christ (Goes against what CHRIST represents) … The Messiah, the SERVANT SON OF GOD, the anointed ONE (see next extract).

But definitions count for everything. Trinitarians do not define what they mean by ‘Son of God’, nor even what they mean by ‘God’.

So, in this extract, Jesus remonstrates with the Jews who wrongfully claim that Jesus is blaspheming by ‘calling himself God’… a claim that Jesus emphatically denies. The ‘claim’ being that ‘A Son is an identical being to his Father’… therefore Jesus saying he is the son of God is supposedly meant to say that Jesus is God!!:
“Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. 24The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”

  • 25Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all c ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”
  • 31Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
  • 33“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
  • 34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” ’ d ? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father.38But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” (John 10:23-38)
Jesus is at pains to explain to the Jews the meaning of ‘Son of God’ (“God’s Son”). He says that he is God’s son because he is doing the works of the Father (God).

If Jesus were God, he would he doing HIS OWN WORKS (as trinity threesome…) and would not have to say anything about the Father. But notice again, only two persons are mentioned - not three as trinity would have said if there was such a thing.
 
Last edited:

tigger2

Active Member
reply to #1151:


The Greek word proskuneo (or proskyneo) is defined in the 1971 trinitarian United Bible Societies’ A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 154: “[Proskuneo] worship; fall down and worship, kneel, bow low, fall at another’s feet.”

Even the trinitarian W. E. Vine writes in his An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 1247:

“PROSKUNEO ... to make obeisance, do reverence to (from pros, towards, and kuneo, to kiss), is the most frequent word rendered ‘to worship’. It is used for an act of homage or reverence (a) to God ...; (b) to Christ ...; (c) to a man, Matt. 18:26.”

“Obeisance,” of course, shows “respect, submission, or reverence” - Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1961.

Noted Bible scholar J. H. Thayer defines proskuneo:

“prop. to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence ... hence in the N. T. by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication. It is used a. of homage shown to men of superior rank [position] ... Rev. 3:9 .... b. of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ, to heavenly beings [angels]” - p. 548, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House Publ., 1977.

Hasting’s A Dictionary of the Bible tells us:

“Worship, both as [noun] and verb, was formerly used of reverence or honour done to men as well as to God …” - p. 941, vol. 4.

The Hebrew word most often translated “worship” is shachah, and it is usually rendered as proskuneo in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Unger and White say of this word: “Shachah ... ‘to worship, prostrate oneself, bow down.’” And,

“The act of bowing down in homage done before a superior [in rank] or a ruler. Thus David ‘bowed’ himself [shachah] before Saul (1 Sam. 24:8). Sometimes it is a social or economic superior to whom one bows, as when Ruth ‘bowed’ [shachah] to the ground before Boaz (Ruth 2:10).” - Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, 1980, Thomas Nelson Publ., p. 482.

Perhaps the most famous Biblical Hebrew scholar of all, Gesenius, tells us in Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, p. 813, (#7812), ‘Shachah’:

“(1) to prostrate oneself before anyone out of honor .... Those who used this mode of salutation fell on their knees and touched the ground with the forehead ..., and this honor was not only shown to superiors, such as kings and princes, 2 Sam. 9:8; but also to equals; Gen. 23:7.”

The act described by proskuneo (or shachah) was of bowing or kneeling, and it generally indicated an act of respect and a display of one’s willingness to submit to or serve another person who occupied a superior position, regardless of his nature (somewhat similar to a salute in the military today). It was done, of course, in its very highest sense to God alone, but it was also done, in a lower sense of the same word, to kings, angels, prophets, etc. That is why proskuneo is translated “prostrated himself before” at Matt. 18:26 NASB, even though the KJV uses “worship” there. Notice how other trinitarian translations render that verse (RSV and NIV for example) where a servant “worships” [proskuneo] his master. And that is why, in the account of the man blind from birth whom Jesus healed, we see that man giving proskuneo to Jesus at John 9:38. The ASV, in a footnote for John 9:38, says,

“The Greek word [proskuneo] denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here [Jesus], or to the Creator.”

At Rev. 3:9 Jesus shows the position of authority he will give to some of his human followers when he says he will make people “worship before thy feet.” - KJV. The word used there is proskuneo! The ASV again adds this footnote: “The Greek word [proskuneo] denotes an act of reverence whether paid to a creature, or the Creator.”

We can see the same thing at Is. 45:14. Here God, speaking to his faithful human followers of the last days, says:

“and they [the rest of surviving mankind] ... shall fall down [shachah - ‘worship’] unto thee, they shall make supplication [palal - ‘pray’: see The Jerusalem Bible and AT] unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee [see IN/WITH study]; and there is none else.” - KJV, ASV. - cf. Is. 49:23.

Even the ancient Greek translation, the Septuagint, says at Is. 45:14 -

“and they ... shall [proskuneo - ‘worship’] thee and make supplication [proseuchomai - ‘pray’] to thee: because God is in thee; and there is no God beside thee, O Lord.” (Notice all the trinitarian-type “evidence” here that could “prove” these men are “equally God”!) - The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, Greek and English, Zondervan Ed., 1970.

So we see that the king of Israel, for example, could receive proskuneo or shachah in his role as a representative of a higher authority (Jehovah), or he could receive it in recognition of his own earthly position of authority that God allowed him to have. For example, at 2 Sam. 14:22 Joab “worships” ‘my Lord’ (King David). The Hebrew word shachah translated in most places in the Bible as “worship” is here translated “did obeisance” in the RSV. In the Greek Septuagint the word used is proskuneo. So, in spite of their both sharing the same fleshly human nature, one gave the other proskuneo or shachah!

We see the same thing at 1 Kings 1:16, 31 when Bathsheba gives shachah to her husband and king, David. Not only does the Septuagint use proskuneo for these verses (3 Kings 1:16, 31 in Sept.), but at verses 21 and 31 she calls David, “The Lord of me” (“My Lord”).

Angels, when acting as representatives of Jehovah and speaking his words, could properly receive proskuneo as representatives for a superior authority.

Gen. 18:2 uses shachah to describe what Abraham did to the angels (p. 37, New Bible Dictionary, second ed., 1982, Tyndale House Publ.) who came to him, and what Lot did to two of those same angels (shachah) is described at Gen. 19:1 (Also see Unger and White, pp. 7 and 482.) Proskuneo is also used in these two scriptures in the Septuagint. Also see Numbers 22:31: Balaam “worshiped” (proskuneo - Sept. and shachah [”fell flat” - KJV] - Hebrew OT) the ANGEL and the angel accepted it! (Unlike Rev. 19:10 and 22:8, 9.)

So, like the word theos ("God"/"a god"), proskuneo and shachah had different levels of meaning. Only God was to receive worship in the highest sense of the word.
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
reply to #1151:


The Greek word proskuneo (or proskyneo) is defined in the 1971 trinitarian United Bible Societies’ A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 154: “[Proskuneo] worship; fall down and worship, kneel, bow low, fall at another’s feet.”

Even the trinitarian W. E. Vine writes in his An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 1247:

“PROSKUNEO ... to make obeisance, do reverence to (from pros, towards, and kuneo, to kiss), is the most frequent word rendered ‘to worship’. It is used for an act of homage or reverence (a) to God ...; (b) to Christ ...; (c) to a man, Matt. 18:26.”

“Obeisance,” of course, shows “respect, submission, or reverence” - Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1961.

Noted Bible scholar J. H. Thayer defines proskuneo:

“prop. to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence ... hence in the N. T. by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication. It is used a. of homage shown to men of superior rank [position] ... Rev. 3:9 .... b. of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ, to heavenly beings [angels]” - p. 548, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House Publ., 1977.

Hasting’s A Dictionary of the Bible tells us:

“Worship, both as [noun] and verb, was formerly used of reverence or honour done to men as well as to God …” - p. 941, vol. 4.

The Hebrew word most often translated “worship” is shachah, and it is usually rendered as proskuneo in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Unger and White say of this word: “Shachah ... ‘to worship, prostrate oneself, bow down.’” And,

“The act of bowing down in homage done before a superior [in rank] or a ruler. Thus David ‘bowed’ himself [shachah] before Saul (1 Sam. 24:8). Sometimes it is a social or economic superior to whom one bows, as when Ruth ‘bowed’ [shachah] to the ground before Boaz (Ruth 2:10).” - Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, 1980, Thomas Nelson Publ., p. 482.

Perhaps the most famous Biblical Hebrew scholar of all, Gesenius, tells us in Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, p. 813, (#7812), ‘Shachah’:

“(1) to prostrate oneself before anyone out of honor .... Those who used this mode of salutation fell on their knees and touched the ground with the forehead ..., and this honor was not only shown to superiors, such as kings and princes, 2 Sam. 9:8; but also to equals; Gen. 23:7.”

The act described by proskuneo (or shachah) was of bowing or kneeling, and it generally indicated an act of respect and a display of one’s willingness to submit to or serve another person who occupied a superior position, regardless of his nature (somewhat similar to a salute in the military today). It was done, of course, in its very highest sense to God alone, but it was also done, in a lower sense of the same word, to kings, angels, prophets, etc. That is why proskuneo is translated “prostrated himself before” at Matt. 18:26 NASB, even though the KJV uses “worship” there. Notice how other trinitarian translations render that verse (RSV and NIV for example) where a servant “worships” [proskuneo] his master. And that is why, in the account of the man blind from birth whom Jesus healed, we see that man giving proskuneo to Jesus at John 9:38. The ASV, in a footnote for John 9:38, says,

“The Greek word [proskuneo] denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here [Jesus], or to the Creator.”

At Rev. 3:9 Jesus shows the position of authority he will give to some of his human followers when he says he will make people “worship before thy feet.” - KJV. The word used there is proskuneo! The ASV again adds this footnote: “The Greek word [proskuneo] denotes an act of reverence whether paid to a creature, or the Creator.”

We can see the same thing at Is. 45:14. Here God, speaking to his faithful human followers of the last days, says:

“and they [the rest of surviving mankind] ... shall fall down [shachah - ‘worship’] unto thee, they shall make supplication [palal - ‘pray’: see The Jerusalem Bible and AT] unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee [see IN/WITH study]; and there is none else.” - KJV, ASV. - cf. Is. 49:23.

Even the ancient Greek translation, the Septuagint, says at Is. 45:14 -

“and they ... shall [proskuneo - ‘worship’] thee and make supplication [proseuchomai - ‘pray’] to thee: because God is in thee; and there is no God beside thee, O Lord.” (Notice all the trinitarian-type “evidence” here that could “prove” these men are “equally God”!) - The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, Greek and English, Zondervan Ed., 1970.

So we see that the king of Israel, for example, could receive proskuneo or shachah in his role as a representative of a higher authority (Jehovah), or he could receive it in recognition of his own earthly position of authority that God allowed him to have. For example, at 2 Sam. 14:22 Joab “worships” ‘my Lord’ (King David). The Hebrew word shachah translated in most places in the Bible as “worship” is here translated “did obeisance” in the RSV. In the Greek Septuagint the word used is proskuneo. So, in spite of their both sharing the same fleshly human nature, one gave the other proskuneo or shachah!

We see the same thing at 1 Kings 1:16, 31 when Bathsheba gives shachah to her husband and king, David. Not only does the Septuagint use proskuneo for these verses (3 Kings 1:16, 31 in Sept.), but at verses 21 and 31 she calls David, “The Lord of me” (“My Lord”).

Angels, when acting as representatives of Jehovah and speaking his words, could properly receive proskuneo as representatives for a superior authority.

Gen. 18:2 uses shachah to describe what Abraham did to the angels (p. 37, New Bible Dictionary, second ed., 1982, Tyndale House Publ.) who came to him, and what Lot did to two of those same angels (shachah) is described at Gen. 19:1 (Also see Unger and White, pp. 7 and 482.) Proskuneo is also used in these two scriptures in the Septuagint. Also see Numbers 22:31: Balaam “worshiped” (proskuneo - Sept. and shachah [”fell flat” - KJV] - Hebrew OT) the ANGEL and the angel accepted it! (Unlike Rev. 19:10 and 22:8, 9.)

So, like the word theos ("God"/"a god"), proskuneo and shachah had different levels of meaning. Only God was to receive worship in the highest sense of the word.
I have posted the same (in my own words) so many times and yet Trinitarians don’t seem to understand - but more like they are afraid of the truth.

It is well known that the Jews were seeking ways to get Jesus killed… they made false allegations against him, accused him of defiling the sabbath, made claims that he was calling himself ‘God’ by merely stating that he was “God’s Son”, when it was well and fully known that a ‘Son of God’ is:
  • ANYONE who fully carries out the works of the Father
Even Paul adopted as his ‘Son’, the runaway slave, Onesimus, because Onesimus so faithfully, gladly, and absolutely carried out the works Paul gave him to do… therefore Onesimus could be called, ‘Son of Paul’ (Philemon 1) (out of one of the smallest books in the Bible comes one of the greatest examples of truth of definition)

And notice that ‘Son of Paul’ does not mean that Onesimus IS Paul.
So why do Trinitarians say that ‘Son of GOD’ means that Jesus IS GOD??

John 3:17: “[Father, ……] This means eternal life that they should believe in you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and in Jesus Christ whom you sent!”

((I am a little suspicious of the last part of the sentence (declaration) where Jesus addresses himself in the third person. It sounds like the trinitarian translators added that portion in… but nevertheless they seem to have EXCLUDED a THIRD PERSON as a requirement to believe in… odd - isn’t it?))
 

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
Hi @Dogknox20 and @Soapy


I have to agree with Soapy specifically regarding the illogic αnd incoherence of the 3=1 model of the trinity that became popular in the later centuries.

That specific model of the trinity has no logical nor historical advantage over the earliest model where the three individuals of the trinity were not the same being.



Regarding a non-christian labeling others as “non-christian”

Dogknox20 admits : "Yup you are right according to the Anti-Catholic sites "Catholic's worship Mary"
The problem with the worship of Mary and the worship of idols and icons and the worship of dead saints that ex-catholics and anti-catholics point out is part of roman Catholicism is that is places individuals like Dogknox20 outside of the pale of Judeo-Christiantity where individuals are NOT to worship any other being but God.


The sacred texts tell us repeatedly that these things are wrong, even evil.
One of the clearest commandments is "thou shalt have no other Gods before me".
Dogknox20 even ADMITs in post #287 that "Worship is ONLY for God..." (Dogknox20, post #287 different thread)

Dogknox20, Since you believe in worshipping these things in preference to God and in opposition to Christian principles, how can you then call yourself a Christian?
And how can you do the same thing as Soapy is doing by calling others “non” Christians simply because they disagree with your personal version of the trinity?
Clear
φιακτζσεσε

Hello Clear.... Catholics worship ONLY God.... Catholics worship Jesus because he is God! Christians have always worshiped Jesus as the scriptures prove! Catholic are Christians, all Christians worship Jesus!
Catholics do NOT worship Mary "WE HONOR HER" as the scriptures prophesy! Because we HONOR Mary our mother; you wrongly think we worship her!

Jesus honors Mary his mother; because Catholics are the Body of Jesus we also MUST HONOR Mary our Mother.. It is one of the ten commandments "Honor your father and mother"! Mary is the Mother of the; One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church; Being my Mother I honor Mary as God commands!

Clear Question...Do you claim "God is your father"? NO...
No father gains the title "father" unless a mother gives birth... You are "Mother-less" Satan is motherless, snails and all one celled animals are also mother-less!

God' family is not broken (as most are today) God' holy family is complete Father God, Mother Mary, child is the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church (The Holy Catholic Body of Jesus)!

please answer the question
 

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
I have posted the same (in my own words) so many times and yet Trinitarians don’t seem to understand - but more like they are afraid of the truth.

It is well known that the Jews were seeking ways to get Jesus killed… they made false allegations against him, accused him of defiling the sabbath, made claims that he was calling himself ‘God’ by merely stating that he was “God’s Son”, when it was well and fully known that a ‘Son of God’ is:
  • ANYONE who fully carries out the works of the Father
Even Paul adopted as his ‘Son’, the runaway slave, Onesimus, because Onesimus so faithfully, gladly, and absolutely carried out the works Paul gave him to do… therefore Onesimus could be called, ‘Son of Paul’ (Philemon 1) (out of one of the smallest books in the Bible comes one of the greatest examples of truth of definition)

And notice that ‘Son of Paul’ does not mean that Onesimus IS Paul.
So why do Trinitarians say that ‘Son of GOD’ means that Jesus IS GOD??

John 3:17: “[Father, ……] This means eternal life that they should believe in you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and in Jesus Christ whom you sent!”

((I am a little suspicious of the last part of the sentence (declaration) where Jesus addresses himself in the third person. It sounds like the trinitarian translators added that portion in… but nevertheless they seem to have EXCLUDED a THIRD PERSON as a requirement to believe in… odd - isn’t it?))

Soapy Christians have ALWAYS worship Jesus because he is GOD- Worship is ONLY FOR GOD!!

The Didache
“After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

Ignatius of Antioch
“[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 18:2).

Justin Martyr
“We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein” (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).

Theophilus of Antioch
“It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom” (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

Irenaeus
“For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit” (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

Soapy it looks like Irenaeus would label you a heretic!


Tertullian
“We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit” (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).

“And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (ibid.).

“Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (ibid., 9).

Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number” (ibid., 25).

Origen
“For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a being outside himself, so that there was a time when he [the Son] did not exist” (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).

For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages” (ibid.).
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Dogknox20 posted ‘Historical Data’ concerning the Catholic view that Jesus is God.

I’m sure you can see that this ‘historical data’ does not prove anything except that there was false ideology (I can’t even call it ‘Theology’… as it is clearly pagan nonsense!) spoken and written by persons not wholly in accord with the truth.

I’m saying to you that just because there is ‘Historical Data’ ascribed to the ‘early church’ patriarchs, it doesn’t make the ‘historical data’ FACTUAL or TRUE.

Point of fact that documents were produced by Joseph Smith declaring what became the Mormon belief. Does that mean that MORMON Christianity is the true Christianity?

My grouse is against the TRINITARIAN Christianity, and that is whom I debate with. I don’t even really rail against JW’s much - not that I believe their ideology - but mostly because they don’t show up as much in forums … and those that do tend to be so radical as to not bother debating with.

So when you keep asking me for ‘Historical Data’, you need to understand that such ‘H.D.’ is more oftentimes ‘B.S.’ from anyone claiming to belong to the TRINITARIAN (of any kind of 3 persons - one God) fraternity. Heck! Even one ideology of trinity rages against another trinity ideology (Satan fighting Satan…!)

… Just a friendly heads up that ‘Historical Data’ about religious matters is NEVER going to gain you a cohesive thesis. The most you can get is ‘Historical Data’ that supports YOUR IDEOLOGY. So, if you don’t have a real aim on a particular ideology (what you might call a ‘Theology’) then your researching will end up a complete waste of time!

Hey, did you like the Math element of my post? I put it there because Math is ABSOLUTE BINARY. It is either RIGHT or else it is WRONG!

Religious matters are far far far from the binary conclusion you may be searching for.

But yet… there is a true belief…

The Truth - is out there - and in you!

You just have to BELIEVE!

But remember that Jesus said:
  • ‘The Jews seek a sign but no sign will be shown to them except the sign of Jonah’
Work out what that means and your research will have a point and a purpose!

Oh, by the way, you didn’t give me any ‘Historical Data’ on what [St.] Clement was supposed to have said that was profound to the early church. I’m interested to hear something about him - thanks.

(By the way, great story about the prisoner! He’s smart - but not that smart!)
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @Soapy


1) KNOWLEDGE AND HISTORICAL DATA IS NOT A BAD THING
Soapy said in regard to @Dogknox20 's historical references : "I’m sure you can see that this ‘historical data’ does not prove anything except that there was false ideology (I can’t even call it ‘Theology’… as it is clearly pagan nonsense!) spoken and written by persons not wholly in accord with the truth.
I’m saying to you that just because there is ‘Historical Data’ ascribed to the ‘early church’ patriarchs, it doesn’t make the ‘historical data’ FACTUAL or TRUE." (post #1158)


You are still confused and should try not to render an opinion on historical data since you consistently misinterpret and misapprehend and do not understand their significance.

Dogknox20 is to be applauded in providing historical information when he is making a historical claim.
Providing historical data is a GOOD thing when making a historical claim.
The fact that your religious theories do not have historical support places them outside of historical Christianity.
Dogknox's historical references are not talking about your religion, we are talking about an earlier, more historically authentic Christian religion than yours represents.


2) SOAPY AND THE UNANSWERED QUESTION

You still have not answered my question :
Soapy, Why do your interpretations and beliefs have priority over that of Clement (as an example), who was a colleague of the apostle Peter and the apostle Paul?

You label such people as “anti-Christian” (soapy post #1145) simply because their Christianity and it’s interpretations and it’s beliefs are different than yours.

Paul, the apostle, spoke of Clement and other co-workers glowingly. In phillipians 4:3 paul said “...have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.”

Since Clement is one of those "whose names are in the book of life" and taught the original Christianity with the apostles Peter and Paul, how to you justify calling this man an “anti-Christian” and how do you justify placing your personal interpretations and beliefs in preference to that of Clement?

I came to understand how the justifications of prisoners were made, but I do not understand how you justify this specific action.

Can you explain to the forum readers what you are thinking in calling Clement an Anti-Christian and how you justify placing him into that category?


Clear
φιακειφυνεω
 

tigger2

Active Member
soapy #1155:
John 3:17: “[Father, ……] This means eternal life that they should believe in you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and in Jesus Christ whom you sent!”
That should be John 17:3.
...............................
@Dogknox20 #1157:

Because of the great paucity of extant manuscripts (sometimes only one) and the relatively recent dates when they were copied, there are many questions concerning the writings of the early Christian writers. For example, all copyists from the 5th century onward were trinitarians who would not dare add anything that was not trinitarian. They did, though, change and add trinitarian material to their copy of the previous copyist.

So when the copy of the copy of the copy of the early writer's manuscript was made in much later centuries, trinitarian "evidence" could be found. What is strange, though, there is non-trinitarian material that is also found. Which do you think would have been added by centuries of recopying by trinitarian copyists?

“Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world, but nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father.” - p. 110, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.

“The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.

“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ... Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact.” - Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries.

For much more on this subject see my personal study here:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/creeds.html
 
Top