• 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!

Who epitomizes the "blind leading the blind"?

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
There is no Trinity with God.

God is exalted above all knowledge. This has been explained in detail by Baha'u'llah.

'Christ', which means 'Annointed One' , is a 'Station' of the Holy Spirit, to which Jesus and all God's Messengers eminate from, they are all anointed of the Holy Spirit and come into being of the Holy Spirit.

We are born of the Human Spirit and must be born again in Faith of the Messenger to become a soul that will in turn reflect the Holy Spirit.

All we can know of God is the Messenger. All praise of God reverts to the Messenger a,s God is above all praise and attributes.

Big topic, a lot now explained in over 100 volumes of scripture.

Regards Tony

Let me remind you what you previously wrote:
Thus it is now Christ, The Father, Baha'u'llah, the Glory of God that is that teacher that must abide within.

You are apparently now defining anyone who is anointed, as "Christ", and that would include Baha, and his "station" of being "of the holy Spirit", and referred to as the "Father". So now Baha is the "Father", "Christ", and of the "station of the Holy Spirit". Kind of like a Trinity of personalities. And as a follower of Baha, and "born into the Faith of the Messenger"/Baha, you are apparently are a Trinity also. Well, I don't know. Since I didn't just arrive on the turnup truck, I think I will let that one pass.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Paul states the "food" is "not anything", nor the "idol" "anything", such as there are no gods to sacrifice to, and therefore eating the food is perfectly fine for guys like him with perfect understanding and who are not weak in faith. His only restriction is to not eat in front of those who are weak in faith.
You have a serious conflict between Paul and the other Christian leaders such as James and Peter. To put it another way, you have a conflict between what your Christian scriptures say in one place verses another.

In Act 15, you have the Council of Jerusalem which determined that Gentie believers did not need to become Jews and take upon themselves the 613 Laws. However, it was decreed they still had to observe a very few things, one of which was not to eat food sacrificed to idols. James REITERATES this years later to Paul in Acts 21, and Paul does not argue with him.

So you go and figure it out. But, like I said, there is something rotten in Denmark.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Let me remind you what you previously wrote:
Thus it is now Christ, The Father, Baha'u'llah, the Glory of God that is that teacher that must abide within.

You are apparently now defining anyone who is anointed, as "Christ", and that would include Baha, and his "station" of being "of the holy Spirit", and referred to as the "Father". So now Baha is the "Father", "Christ", and of the "station of the Holy Spirit". Kind of like a Trinity of personalities. And as a follower of Baha, and "born into the Faith of the Messenger"/Baha, you are apparently are a Trinity also. Well, I don't know. Since I didn't just arrive on the turnup truck, I think I will let that one pass.

Trinity is a doctrinal word a veil, or but a cloud that Christ returns upon. One has to look beyond the word Trinity back to original scripture. God is not a Trinity and is unknowable, beyond the mind of man. So what is scripture describing when it talks of God?

I wish you all the best.

Regards Tony
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Well, it is like your backyard pig meat barbeque. The aroma goes to the unseen gods, but you eat the flesh of the swine. (Isaiah 66:17)

I think that is weird idea, how is something sacrificed to some god, if one eats the flesh himself. I don’t understand what is a sacrifice, if you don’t really give up anything concrete.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Trinity is a doctrinal word a veil, or but a cloud that Christ returns upon. One has to look beyond the word Trinity back to original scripture. God is not a Trinity and is unknowable, beyond the mind of man. So what is scripture describing when it talks of God?

I wish you all the best.

Regards Tony

The Nicene Trinity is the doctrine on which the official Roman church is built via the decree of emperor Theo. As for knowing the "LORD", well, if you read Jeremiah 31:33-34, knowing the LORD is the bases of the "new covenant". "They shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them", but of course, this is with respect to the "house of Israel, and the house of Judah" (Jer 31:31). And of course, that hasn't been brought about. And certainly, Baha and his followers apparently remain in the dark as well.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
I think that is weird idea, how is something sacrificed to some god, if one eats the flesh himself. I don’t understand what is a sacrifice, if you don’t really give up anything concrete.

The gods are the fallen angels. Their offspring with women are the source of the demons. The demons reside in men and of course the unclean, such as swine. Apparently the demons like to eat, and most probably to excess. Spirits can't actually eat, but the hosts of the demons certainly can. As far as the end times, the demons/unclean spirits of the false prophet, the beast, and the devil will apparently possess the kings and the whole world (Rev16:13-16). Although all the 7 heads of the beast are dead (Rev 17:11), the 8th, the one who was and is not, his spirit is still alive, as well as the unclean spirit of the false prophet.

Rev 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I think Yeshua brought it into better perspective then your own view. His message was first take the log out of your own eye before trying to take the splinter out of your neighbors eye.
That’s good advice for you, judging by the flavor of your thread.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The general notion of the blind leading the blind is someone, not knowing what they are talking about, leading the many. The "many", such as the "many" of Matthew 7:13-15 being led to "destruction" by the "false prophet". Now who was blinded by a supposed angel of light, which apparently according to Paul, is often the appearance of Satan, and has gone onto be the spiritual leader of approximately 2 billion "Christians"? Tell me that Paul, blinded by an angel of light, is not the false prophet of Matthew 7:15, and is leading the "many" to "destruction".
Oh, yay! Another Archie Bunker-esque, bigoted and underinformed diatribe against orthodoxy.

Paul is not the false prophet. There. I told you.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Christianity was built upon the sandy foundation of both Peter and Paul. It was Paul's homespun rhetoric, and Peter's supposed authority. Both, along with Judas Iscariot, were fulfilling a role set out in Zechariah 11. The Christian churches, the daughters of Babylon, will "fall", and Paul, the false prophet will wind up beside the "beast" (Rev 20:10). Apparently, creating a church of the "many", will not be held as a positive creation, but necessary to fulfill Scripture (Hosea 3).
You don’t like people much, it appears from your posts.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The "Christian" bible also contains the Law and the prophets. Does that mean you have to reject the law and the prophets too? Apparently the "LORD" has problems with the "sons of Israel" as well. It seems he found no faithfulness or kindness among them, nor knowledge of God in the Land (Hosea 4:1). For this reason they have been under judgment, both Ephraim and Judah (Hosea 5), and will remain so until they acknowledge their guilt. Ephraim and Judah will not be revived until after "two days" (Hosea 6:2), which would be 2000 years. Per Zechariah 12, Judah has now been coming into the land of Jacob, but they have not acknowledged the prophet to come of Dt 18, and wept for their act of piercing "Me". (Zechariah 12:10). The "new covenant"/new testament is a sham of Paul and his apparent associates, but Paul's church is the woman bought with the equivalent of 30 shekels of silver to help the sons of Israel seek the LORD in the "last days". (Hosea 3)
Nothing in the Hebrew texts speaks of the Christian movement, or its church.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The book of Hebrews was written by some unknown author. The Christian church has based their whole religion on unknown authors, and the false prophet Paul and his false gospel of grace. Throw in the "worthless shepherd" Peter (Ze 11:16-17), and you have a sand foundation, ready to "fall" (Mt 7:27).
So, who is your religion based on?
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Nothing in the Hebrew texts speaks of the Christian movement, or its church.

The book of Hebrew states that the "first"/old testament, is "obsolete", which is the basis for the "Christian" new testament based on the babel/babble of Paul. Of course their "new covenant" has nothing to do with the "new covenant" mentioned in Jeremiah 31:31-34 which was aimed at the house of Judah and the house of Israel, and was about not making the "My laws" "obsolete", but about putting them upon their hearts.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Paul didn’t produce the canon.


Apparently, you feel qualified and authoritative enough to speak for God.

The Trinitarian Athanasius established the Roman canon in his feast of Astarte/Easter letter in 367 AD, but Paul and his associates produced 2/3 of the content of his Christian Church's New Testament.

Having graduated from a certified public school, I feel qualified to quote from the actual "Word of God". As for you standing up for Paul's work, well, despite Paul guaranteeing to his followers that "we shall not all sleep", Paul and his listeners have appeared to have done just that. According to the Word of God, Jeremiah 31:30, his present followers shall follow that same path. At the "end of the age", in which we now live, the chaff or tare seeds (Mt 13:40), depending on imagery, will be separated from the wheat. The serpent's guarantee of "you shall surely not die" is a often used to lead the naïve.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The Trinitarian Athanasius established the Roman canon in his feast of Astarte/Easter letter in 367 AD, but Paul and his associates produced 2/3 of the content of his Christian Church's New Testament.

Having graduated from a certified public school, I feel qualified to quote from the actual "Word of God". As for you standing up for Paul's work, well, despite Paul guaranteeing to his followers that "we shall not all sleep", Paul and his listeners have appeared to have done just that. According to the Word of God, Jeremiah 31:30, his present followers shall follow that same path. At the "end of the age", in which we now live, the chaff or tare seeds (Mt 13:40), depending on imagery, will be separated from the wheat. The serpent's guarantee of "you shall surely not die" is a often used to lead the naïve.
Having graduated from an accredited graduate program in biblical studies and theology, I feel qualified to inform you that there are 27 books in the canonical NT (26 if you put Luke-Acts back together as it originally was), and Paul is known to have written 7 of them. That’s 1/4, not 2/3. The canon was not settled until around 450 CE.

I don’t know why you have a problem with Paul; none of your arguments stand up under scholastic scrutiny, and Bible scholars know a whole lot more than someone with a public high school diploma.

No one ascribes any kind of authority to you to speak for God. That authority derives communally, not personally. So unless you hold ecclesial standing in a recognized denomination, you don’t speak for God, no matter how many public schools you graduated from.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The book of Hebrew states that the "first"/old testament, is "obsolete", which is the basis for the "Christian" new testament based on the babel/babble of Paul. Of course their "new covenant" has nothing to do with the "new covenant" mentioned in Jeremiah 31:31-34 which was aimed at the house of Judah and the house of Israel, and was about not making the "My laws" "obsolete", but about putting them upon their hearts.
This doesn’t address my post. No Hebrew text speaks of the Christian movement, or its churches. The book of Hebrews isn’t a Hebrew text. It’s a Greek text. Did your public school education appears to have failed you in this small matter. I haven’t the slightest idea why you believe it qualifies you to quote what you don’t understand.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Having graduated from an accredited graduate program in biblical studies and theology, I feel qualified to inform you that there are 27 books in the canonical NT (26 if you put Luke-Acts back together as it originally was), and Paul is known to have written 7 of them. That’s 1/4, not 2/3. The canon was not settled until around 450 CE.

I don’t know why you have a problem with Paul; none of your arguments stand up under scholastic scrutiny, and Bible scholars know a whole lot more than someone with a public high school diploma.

No one ascribes any kind of authority to you to speak for God. That authority derives communally, not personally. So unless you hold ecclesial standing in a recognized denomination, you don’t speak for God, no matter how many public schools you graduated from.

Maybe you need a refresher course in reading. My comment was that Paul and his associate wrote around 2/3 of the NT. That would include Acts, Luke, and Hebrews. And actually Paul is commonly thought to have written more than 7 books, but the proof is so lacking, that Paul's appointed teachers have scaled back those claims. As for the teachers, apostles etc. that the false prophet Paul proscribed, their opinion would rank no higher than that of Paul's.

I also noted that I graduated from an accredited public school. I never mentioned the level. Your presumptions are on par with those of Paul, thinking you mirror the mind of God, whereas you seem to stumble over reading simple sentences. Your "scholastic scrutiny" kind of resulted in the same end result as that of Babel, and you have wound up with around 28,000 different Christian sects.

The 27 books used by most sects today was canonized by Athanasius in 367. As for formalization, there has been no common formalization by all sects, and it has never been included in the official lectionary of the Eastern Orthodox Church. As late as Martin Luther, there have been efforts to change the canon, to better fit into the Pauline dialogue. It makes little difference, for it is mostly the work of the false prophet Paul and his associates.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
This doesn’t address my post. No Hebrew text speaks of the Christian movement, or its churches. The book of Hebrews isn’t a Hebrew text. It’s a Greek text. Did your public school education appears to have failed you in this small matter. I haven’t the slightest idea why you believe it qualifies you to quote what you don’t understand.

The term "book of Hebrew" referred to "Hebrews", the book following what is often referred to as the "epistle of Paul to the Philemon". The number of books thought to have been written by Paul apparently vary. Your "scholarship" seems to be different from that of other scholars. As with 2 Peter, people seem to write books under other peoples names, and apparently, by doing so, they receive unwarranted credence.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Maybe you need a refresher course in reading. My comment was that Paul and his associate wrote around 2/3 of the NT. That would include Acts, Luke, and Hebrews. And actually Paul is commonly thought to have written more than 7 books, but the proof is so lacking, that Paul's appointed teachers have scaled back those claims. As for the teachers, apostles etc. that the false prophet Paul proscribed, their opinion would rank no higher than that of Paul's.

I also noted that I graduated from an accredited public school. I never mentioned the level. Your presumptions are on par with those of Paul, thinking you mirror the mind of God, whereas you seem to stumble over reading simple sentences. Your "scholastic scrutiny" kind of resulted in the same end result as that of Babel, and you have wound up with around 28,000 different Christian sects.

The 27 books used by most sects today was canonized by Athanasius in 367. As for formalization, there has been no common formalization by all sects, and it has never been included in the official lectionary of the Eastern Orthodox Church. As late as Martin Luther, there have been efforts to change the canon, to better fit into the Pauline dialogue. It makes little difference, for it is mostly the work of the false prophet Paul and his associates.
Maybe you need a refresher course in writing. Your issue appears to be with Paul. That’s what I addressed. “Associates” could mean anything, so your comment there is just slinging anything you can lay your hands on against the wall to see what sticks. That’s just not good, terse writing.
Then there’s your weak accusation with regard to those who teach Paul. You don’t know them or their credentials; you merely assume they’re not legitimate because they teach something you don’t believe in. Your bias slip is showing.

As for my assessment of your education, you’re either being intentionally disingenuous, or you’re actually ignorant with regard to common educational terms. In fact, you didn’t say you graduated from an “accredited public school.” You said you graduated from a “certified public school.” Which is it really? The term “school” commonly refers to high school. Institutions of higher learning are commonly referred to as “college,” “university,” “undergraduate” or “graduate,” “doctoral program” or “master’s program,” or “seminary.” “Business school” indicates a certificated, not degreed, program. “Business college” indicates a degreed program.” “Public school” indicates “Riverdale High School.” “Public university” indicates “Ohio State University.” You said “school.” Learn your nomenclature.

Yes, there are many facets to the jewel that is the Christian household — including those (like you) in darkness. They are to be included too. Because the Church is one. “Unity” is not “uniformity.” Unity comes through diversity.

The canon was set by the Western Church, but not finally settled until much later. You seem to disregard the entire NT. Therefore, I must ask: where do you get reliable information about Jesus? If you disregard the NT and the Tradition of the Church, what have you got left?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The term "book of Hebrew" referred to "Hebrews", the book following what is often referred to as the "epistle of Paul to the Philemon". The number of books thought to have been written by Paul apparently vary. Your "scholarship" seems to be different from that of other scholars. As with 2 Peter, people seem to write books under other peoples names, and apparently, by doing so, they receive unwarranted credence.
As I corrected you. How could someone who’s a product of some unnamed-but-highly-regraded “public school” make such a simple error and then presume to lecture someone else on the subject of literacy?

I wasn’t talking about the NT book of Hebrews, I was talking about the corpus of Hebrew texts — the texts written in the Hebrew language. In real, graduate bible studies the “OT” is generally referred to as “the Hebrew texts,” out of respect for the culture that produced them. This can be confusing to the typical, public school graduate. Your misapprehension illustrates your educational level.

Nevertheless, my point stands: your use of Hebrew texts to try to inform issues regarding the Faith or the Church does not help either your argument or your case, because the Hebrew texts do not inform Christian teaching, polity, or ecclesiology — and their use indicates that your biblical studies are sub-par for the task in which you engage here.
 
Top