The Trinity = Sun (Baal) worship

[Huldah]

If you're looking up my sources you should definitely read Truth Triumphant.

 

[Lark]

The Astartes/Blood Angels/Sons of Sanguinus did all they could to defend Baal from the Tyranids but Cadia had been over run by Chaos and reinforcements could not reach them in time.

 

[Huldah]

The Astartes/Blood Angels/Sons of Sanguinus did all they could to defend Baal from the Tyranids but Cadia had been over run by Chaos and reinforcements could not reach them in time.

Thank you for that.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

If you're looking up my sources you should definitely read Truth Triumphant.

Thank you. Anymore sources?

 

[Tomb1]

Thank you. Anymore sources?

This is how the match works.

She provided numerous quotes from the bible stating/indicating that Jesus and God are distinct. (father and son, whatever they call it).

Now it's your turn to provide quotes from the bible stating/indicating that Jesus, god and holy spirit are three in one (and/or recasts the quotes she posted).

Else you lose by default. As well, I think you have the burden of persuasion here to explain just how worshipping a trinity isn't polytheistic.

 

[Tomb1]

I'm not in the habit of slangin Bible verses, but here's some KJV.

Although, not the same archdiocese, this is the explanation provided by my Church. The Holy Trinity is a Mystery, which I know atheists absolutely hate. We're expected to know the unknowable simply because we acknowledge the unknowable. That's what the Trinity is, and the difference between the Eastern-Western Christianity.

Anything else is Sola Scriptura/Sola Fide, which is a Protestant habit. It is why I wasn't surprised when the OPs crosshairs were focused on the RCC, the arch-nemesis of Protestantism.

Thanks. This reminds me of that response Donald Rumsfeld gave about the "known knowns" and "known unknowns." Obviously falling back on it as a mystery does not satisfy that burden, but I credit you for not trying to disguise it with an intellectual platitude.

I don't accept anybody as an atheist until they are an atheist with a gun to their head. To me, it's like when somebody calls themselves a gangster. It's one of those labels you don't get credit for by simply by referring to yourself as it...like these rappers that call themselves gangsters but, as eazy e said, used to do dance music before they became "hard." In other words, they have to have certain life/death credentials (having stared into the jaws of death). An "atheist" who converts to God on his deathbed was probably never a true atheist imo., just confused. They were "atheists" when they were eggheads sipping cappuccino in a post-modern café pontificating on their atheism from an ivory tower of gibberish but when they had a gun to their head or their daughter got cancer, they now believe in God. Or they were tough mafia guys when they were out killing people, but when they are facing twenty years in prison, the rat in them comes out. So I take such claims with a grain of salt until the person can back it up with genuine life/death credentials in the trenches of hard reality (those that can are typically not atheists ime). I can't say I ever met a true one.

edit: you removed your post. why bother, in real life you don't get to erase what you say like that. once its out its out

 

[Huldah]

John 15:26 - But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

The Greek word for Comforter is “paraklētos” and it means an advocate, an intercessor, consoler:—, comforter.

John said, “My little children, these things write I unto you, that you sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate (Comforter) [paraklētos] with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:” 1 John 2:1.

The word used for advocate here is the same Greek word (paraklētos) used in John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7 for Comforter, but is translated here as advocate. So John tells us outright that our advocate and comforter is “Jesus Christ the righteous.”

John 14:16 “and he shall give you another Comforter [paraklētos], that he may abide with you for ever;”

John 14:26 “the Comforter [paraklētos], which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name,”

John 15:26 “when the Comforter [paraklētos] is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father.”

John 16:7 “for if I go not away, the Comforter [paraklētos] will not come unto you;”

1 John 2:1 “if any man sin, we have an advocate (Comforter) [paraklētos] with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:”

So the "comforter" is not a separate entity, or third person of a trinity; it's simply Christ.

“But to us there is but ONE God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and ONE Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” 1 Corinthians 8:6

Two beings, not three.

 

[Huldah]

The reformers would roll over in their graves if they heard that.

The reformation is over.

 

[Huldah]

Revelation 5:1,6,7

'And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within Seven Spirits of God and on the backside, sealed with seven seals ... And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.'

Notice that it is the lamb, which is Christ, who has "seven eyes which are the spirits of God" which is a reference to the Holy Spirit?

Romans 8:16 “The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:”

Romans 8:26 “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit ITSELF maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.”

“truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.” "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" 1 John 1:3, 1 Timothy 2:5

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Thanks. This reminds me of that response Donald Rumsfeld gave about the "known knowns" and "known unknowns." Obviously falling back on it as a mystery does not satisfy that burden, but I credit you for not trying to disguise it with an intellectual platitude.

Well, that's always been the position of The Church (Orthodox, and to some extent Catholicism), which is that God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is the greatest Mystery. He is The Mystery. If God (Father) could be known, then He is not God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Doubt is as much a part of Christianity as is Faith. Doubt is built into the religion itself. But, I digress:

God (Father) approaches us through Christ (Son) in a language we can understand, His "Word" or Logos. He is the Son, begotten, not created. An important distinction. The Holy Spirit: The Life-Giving Spirit of God

The Holy Spirit, as the third person of the Holy Trinity, is equally divine in the same way as the Father and Son. For this reason, he is given the titles ”Lord” and ”Giver of Life” (cf. Rom 8:10) – attributes, which can only properly belong to God and not to created beings. For this reason, as is recited in the Creed, the Holy Spirit is worshipped and glorified together with the Father and the Son. Beyond affirming the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the Church also taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father; yet was sent into the world, within time, by the Son of God to continue the salvific work of God. There is, therefore, an important distinction made in Orthodox theology between the Holy Spirit’s eternal procession and existence, and his temporal mission. That is to say, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father only, He is sent into the world, in time, through the incarnate Son of God. In particular, the Eastern Orthodox tradition teaches that Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone – that is, not from both the Father and the Son as is taught in Western theology with the addition of the filioque [Latin for, ”and from the Son”] in the [Nicean] Creed – whilst, He is sent into the world in time, by the Son.

(Bolded the distinction between East and West, AFAIK. The Western church teaches that the Holy Spirit comes from Christ, the Son. The East teaches that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, only. The importance of that detail, I'm still learning.)

The Holy Trinity is God's Mystery personified. How can One be Three in One and equal to Three and One at the same time? Makes no logical sense does it? Of course not. If God made logical sense, He wouldn't be God. The ultimate Unknown quantity. But, then again, it made logical sense to us at one time that the world is flat.

It's hard enough to attempt to approach (understand) God's Mystery with that in mind. So difficult that some give up altogether and revert to the claim that God is polytheistic. Moses battled this tendency throughout the OT. It is to place human limitations on God to claim that "Since I, an enlightened Human, can't understand God's mysteries, therefore *insert your favorite assertion about God." It's a bit geocentric to do so.

I believe what [MENTION=36308]Huldah[/MENTION] is attempting is to simplify God into a known quantity because that is the habit of Literalists. Literalists can't abide the unknown, so they seek to know God through their own subjective filters(Sola scriptura - Wikipedia), which is why she's spitting Bible verses she interprets as supporting her position. God is such a mystery to her that she speaks of Him in the human term of polytheism.

If I wanted to kill Asians, I bet I could find a reason in the Bible to kill Asians. And that's the problem. Literalists each see themselves as the authority and read the Bible how they wish, individually, instead of collectively with the proper context in mind. Atheists do this, too but that's because Atheists in the US come from a culture of Biblical Literalism. So ingrained into the culture is this Literalism that Atheist do it themselves. [Aside: I think it's particularly cute when Literalists (of both stripes) catch vapors upon learning that the Bible is a compiled and written work by the apostles and church fathers (men). Like the Bible was supposed to have descended to earth from the heavens]. I bet if I read the Bible drunk, high, and sober, I'd come away with different interpretations each time. For this reason, the interpretation is "Peer reviewed" in ecumenical councils, from the beginning.

Ethiopian eunuch - Wikipedia

Philip the Evangelist was told by an angel to go to the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, and there he met the Ethiopian eunuch. He had been to Jerusalem to worship (Acts 8:27), and was returning home. The eunuch was sitting in his chariot reading the Book of Isaiah, and had come to Isaiah 53:7-8. Philip asked the Ethiopian, "Do you understand what you are reading?" He said he did not ("How can I understand unless I have a teacher to teach me?"), and asked Philip to explain the text to him. Philip told him the Gospel of Jesus, and the Ethiopian asked to be baptized. They went down into some water and Philip baptized him.

The Church is the "Body of Christ." The Church is not "Christ's Arm, Christ's Leg, Christ's Hip, etc." Do you want 30,000+ denominations? Because that's how you get 30,000+ denominations; everyone reading and interpreting the Bible on their own, starting their own churches, all claiming their interpretation is the correct one. The Orthodox Church holds that there is only one correct worship, and it's the one that remains unchanged since Pentacost. "Nothing new, and nothing novel." Not a modern church, and certainly not of this world.

If the Bible was written in Greek, I'd trust the Greeks to understand the subtleties and context of the scripture and over their own language, than some random in Battle Creek, MI.

edit: you removed your post. why bother, in real life you don't get to erase what you say like that. once its out its out

I wasn't satisfied with that post, and this forum is hardly reality.

In the end, one has to be open to God. If you want God, you'll seek Him on your own. Free will and all that.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I am a Kazahk, I follow the Hawk.

 

[Huldah]

It is impossible for the Apostles to have believed in the manmade doctrine of the Trinity, because it did not exist until four generations after their deaths.

The concept of the Holy Spirit as a third being (and 3 in 1 with the Father and Son) did not yet exist, nor the word 'Trinity' itself, until around the year 200 A.D. The fully developed doctrine did not enter the church until 381 A.D; so it is impossible for any of the Bible authors, or compilers, to have believed in something that did not even exist in their lifetime as you claim.

 

[Huldah]

“John Wycliffe, William Tyndale (translated the Bible - Tyndale Bible), Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer; in the seventeenth century, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminster and Baptist confessions of Faith; Sir Isaac Newton, John Wesley, Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards; and more recently Spurgeon, Bishop J.C. Ryle and Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones; these men among countless others, all saw the office of the Papacy as the antichrist.” — (Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead to Rome, Dorchestor House Publications, p. 205, 1991)

“As fundamental errors, we might class with this counterfeit sabbath other errors which Protestants have brought away from the Catholic church, such as sprinkling for baptism, the trinity,” — (J.S. White, RH, September 12, 1854, p. 36)

From a Catholic Catechism: “What is Sunday...” “is a day dedicated by the Apostles to the honor of the most holy Trinity.” — (RH, vol. 5, no. 24, p. 86)

“Most Christians assume that Sunday is the biblically approved day of worship. The Catholic Church protests that it transferred Christian worship from the biblical Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, and that to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to base its teachings only on the Bible, it should worship on Saturday.” — (Rome's Challenge, immaculateheart.com/maryonline, Dec 2003)

“Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in scripture ... But the Protestant Churches have themselves accepted such dogmas, as the Trinity, for which there is no such precise authority in the Gospels,” — (Assumption of Mary, Life magazine, Oct 30, 1950, p. 51)

“the formal doctrine of the Trinity was the result of several inadequate attempts to explain who and what the Christian God really is ... To deal with these problems the Church Fathers met in [A.D.] 325 at the Council of Nicaea to set out an orthodox biblical definition concerning the divine identity.” However, it wasn't until 381, “at the Council of Constantinople, [that] the divinity of the Spirit was affirmed.” The New Bible Dictionary

 

[Huldah]

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Matthew 26:63 “And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you be the Christ, the Son of God.”

Matthew 27:40, 43 “You that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If you be the Son of God, come down from the cross. 43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.”

The Jews said that Jesus trusted in God, and that He claimed He was the Son of God. So did they understand Jesus as saying that He was God?

Not possible.

The Trinity doctrine makes it impossible for Jesus to be the LITERAL Son of God, which thus makes it impossible for God to be His LITERAL Father; so it denies both the Father and Son, which is Antichrist, Biblically.

1 John 2:18-19 “it is the last time: and as you have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”

1 John 2:22-23 “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same has not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son has the Father also.”

1 John 4:3 “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof you have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

2 John 1:7 “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”

 

[Huldah]

If I wanted to kill Asians, I bet I could find a reason in the Bible to kill Asians.

If I wanted to prove God is a trinity, i bet i could find reasons in the Bible.

 

[Huldah]

“The term trinity is not itself found in the Bible. It was first used by Tertullian at the close of the 2nd century, but received wide currency [common use in intellectual discussion] and formal elucidation [clarification] only in the 4th and 5th centuries.” — (1996, “Trinity”)

“It is admitted by all who thoughtfully deal with this subject that the Scripture revelation here leads us into the presence of a deep mystery; and that all human attempts at expression are of necessity imperfect.” — (The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, 1988, p. 1308)

“My conclusion, then, about the doctrine of the Trinity is that it is an artificial construct ... It produces confusion rather than clarification; and while the problems with which it deals are real ones, the solutions it offers are not illuminating. It has posed for many Christians dark and mysterious statements, which are ultimately meaningless, because it does not sufficiently discriminate in its use of terms.” “Much of the defense of the Trinity as a 'revealed' doctrine, is really an evasion of the objections that can be brought against it.” — (Cyril Richardson, The Doctrine of The Trinity,1958)

“Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves.” — (Lyman Abbott, editor, 1885, “Trinitarians”)

1 Corinthians 14:33
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

 

[Huldah]

I am a Kazahk, I follow the Hawk.

Hawks are unclean birds.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

I don't accept anybody as an atheist until they are an atheist with a gun to their head. To me, it's like when somebody calls themselves a gangster. It's one of those labels you don't get credit for by simply by referring to yourself as it...like these rappers that call themselves gangsters but, as eazy e said, used to do dance music before they became "hard." In other words, they have to have certain life/death credentials (having stared into the jaws of death). An "atheist" who converts to God on his deathbed was probably never a true atheist imo., just confused. They were "atheists" when they were eggheads sipping cappuccino in a post-modern café pontificating on their atheism from an ivory tower of gibberish but when they had a gun to their head or their daughter got cancer, they now believe in God. Or they were tough mafia guys when they were out killing people, but when they are facing twenty years in prison, the rat in them comes out. So I take such claims with a grain of salt until the person can back it up with genuine life/death credentials in the trenches of hard reality (those that can are typically not atheists ime). I can't say I ever met a true one.

I don't accept anybody as a theist until they welcome death with joy and eager anticipation of meeting their creator. In other words, they have to have certain life/death credentials (having stared into the jaws of death). A "theist", who having been diagnosed with cancer, is seeking medical treatment was probably never a true theist, just confused. It's like saying "God's love is infinite, but I would rather suffer here than experience it". A "theist", who at the funeral of his daughter sheds tears of sorrow instead of tears of joy, who casts ashes on his head instead of dancing ecstatically, thinking how happy she must be now, is just a fake. So I take such claims with a grain of salt until the person can back it up with genuine life/death credentials. I can't say I ever met a true one.

 

[Huldah]

Roman Catholicism = Mithraism.

Mithraic Doctrine

1) The center of the Mithraic sun-cult was at ROME.

2) The leader of the ritual service was titled PATER, Latin for father -- inherited by the priesthood of Catholicism (against Matthew 23:9), and they wore CRUXES as amulets, with costumes of black, having NEHRU collars, originating from the Indo-Iranian roots.

3) There was a PATER-PATRATUS over the paters -- a papa or POPE.

4) The hierarchy initiates below pater were called BROTHERS.

5) The cult was for MEN ONLY.

6) The cult had the Trinity: MITHRAS, RASHNU and VOHU MANAH -- 3 "persons," but yet "one."

7) SUN-DAY was kept hallowed in honor of Mithras -- the sun -- called Mithras Solis Invictus. This has produced our popular name for the first day of the week, Sunday. The pattern of resting on Sun-day comes to us directly through what is called the BLUE LAWS, enforced first throughout the Roman Empire then through the western traditions into our New World. The edict was initiated by Constantine I, forbidding officials, artisans or merchants from engaging in any work on the SUN-DAY, to give honor to the sun, MITHRAS.

8) There were 5 levels within the hierarchy.

9) DECEMBER 25 was observed as MITHRAS' BIRTHDAY, called "Natalis Invictus" -- the rebirth of the winter sun, unconquered.

10) Initiates had to undergo a ritual sprinkling (affusion, which involved being under a bull, or Taurus which, being cut to death, allowed the initiate to become saturated with blood. The custom of bloody BULLFIGHTS seen in Spain harken back to this cult. (The custom of performing Christian "baptisms" in the spring at Easter-time will take on greater meaning as we learn the following information).

11) Special value was attributed to the moral virtues of religion, truthfulness, purity and generosity.

12) Mithraists would enter "paradise" (a Persian word itself, also called Eleusian Fields, Nirvana and Nether World) by the THREE STEPS:

(a) The Good Thought.
(b) The Good Word.
(c) The Good Deed.

13) The cult supported the DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS (including Emperor worship).

14) The PATER (father) stood at one end of an oblong room, performing mysterious blood rituals. There was an indoor altar at his end on which a victim (Latin, "host") was SACRIFICED. They had a sun-shaped wafer disc like the Egyptians, and the assembly knelt, sat and stood in unison.

source

 

[Huldah]

The Papacy as a religio-political power = the Little Horn of Daniel 7 and the leopardlike Beast of Revelation 13, upon whom rides the Mother of Harlots (false churches), which is the Roman Catholic church, the "Whore of Babylon", who has the name MYSTERY BABYLON written upon her forehead.

The reign of the Papacy began the year the last of the three Arian kingdoms (horns) was uprooted in 538 AD (the Ostrogoths), and ended in the year 1798, when the French army under the command of Napoleon (33rd degree Freemason) marched into Rome and imprisoned the Pope; the Beast "appeared to suffer a mortal wound", and the Papacy lost it's political authority, for a time. This 1260 year period of time is known in the Bible as the "time of trouble" and the "tribulation".