Who is the Liar?

.
] On Jan18 PneumaPsucheSoma quoted: ... Inference will be considered "proof" by listing "attributes that prove the HS is a person", and ...
.
cybrwurm say: Sure we can *talk* about the HS in personal terms; there is nothing wrong with that. The scriptures speak
the same way about the Wisdom-of-God; and once again the sacred-texts are perfectly right to do so. And yet the
trinitarians never come right out and say in their creeds that the name of the holy-spirit is Sophia. So their refusal to
make this connection obviously forces us to conclude that there is no such connection impressing on them; which we find
exceedingly strange and confusing. Heck, they won't even tell us if the *person* of the holy-spirit is masculine or feminine!
And we should trust that these great saints, bishops, and 'Fathers of the Church' actually know what they are talking about?!
.
... I think maybe not.
.
] On Jan19 gort wrote: ... If we use the words of John we find that the logos was
] God, so there you have 2 persons of the trinity. The 3rd person is the Holy Spirit.
.
wurm say: Gosh gort, the only problem there is that the proof-text you are referring to is a *corruption* of the original
autograph, which reads as follows: "... and divine was the Logos". Please note that, for the prophet John, the 'divine-Logos'
does NOT mean 'Word'. It means something more like the 'Way of Love & Reason'. From all this we can conclude two things:
1) Today's christian-translators are ignorant of the original christian meaning of various important words and terms used in
the NT. And 2) today's christians actually *prefer* the corrupted version of the third-gospel to that of the original autograph!
.
And that unfortunate fact *should* be raising a lot of red flags among all believers who may indeed care about the truth of
things ... Anyway, saying that the Logos is divine is obviously NOT the same thing as saying that Jesus IS God. And in the
same way, when John has JC say that "the Father and I are one", the inspired author does not mean to imply that his theology
is in any way trinitarian. When trinitarians use *any* of John's texts as "proof" of a post-biblical theological development, they
clearly demonstrate their ignorance of the prophet's revolutionary teachings. Yet many trins nevertheless consider themselves
to have a very sophisticated theology. And they also seem to be completely unaware of the great violence that their episcopal-
interpretation of scripture actually does to the sacred-texts ...
.
For example, all would agree that the NT proclaims Jesus as the Christ; which basically means that he is the source of
redemption and salvation. But what does the greek-word 'christos' actually mean? In the NT there are various visions of
the significance and theological-meaning of christos, but all of the inspired authors would agree that the central meaning
depends upon the original jewish word 'messiah', which means the 'anointed one'. In other words, the anointed-one can be
understood in various ways (eg. 'son of man'), but it does not mean that 'son of god' = 'god the son'. And why not? Because
once you push JC across the line dividing 'divine' from 'deity' you immediately empty 'christos' of any and all meaning that it
might once have had. And once you do that, you make a mockery of the anointed-one centered prophetic-teachings of the NT!
.
In other words, trinitarian-theology is based upon a fundamental *denial* of the 'christos'!
.
And the sad truth is that trins are not even interested in what the NT prophets and authors are actually teaching. That's why
they gravitate so smoothly and quickly towards all the altered, added, and corrupted texts within the NT documents; and think
them *exceedingly* important (when in fact they mostly aren't). And why are trins so adamant that JC *must* be God? Because
otherwise he can't function properly as savior or "perfect sacrifice", or do much of anything else, apparently. Which only goes
to show how little they understand the true meaning of the Anointed One, how little they understand the NT, how little they
understand the prophets, and how little they understand the sacred-scriptures in general.
.
Yes, these are the same people who despise wisdom and knowledge. The same 'ignorance is a virtue' types who hate philosophy,
and reject science whenever it seems to contradict their cherished theology. The same people who think that facts, history,
and truth are optional (and determined by theological imperatives). The same people who "improved" the greek-scriptures by
inserting trinitarian elements into the texts so as to "harmonize" the sacred-documents with their "superior" theology. Is this
why trinitarians hate the truth? And try with all their might to hide the truth? Because the truth condemns their silly idolatry?
And it is these same trinitarians who are the so-called "Guardians of the Faith"? ... Maybe it's time for a changing of the guard!

/ Christian Forums > Theology Christians Only > Unorthodox Theology / Date > 29 Feb 2012 / Topic > Re: Arrr! Assuming Trinitarianism. /
.
] On 23Feb Aquila0121 say: I am not a Trinitarian either. However, I'm also not
] a Unitarian. I was raised in a church that taught the doctrine known as Oneness ...
.
cybrwurm say: This Oneness doctrine is very interesting, Aquila0121; and I would even agree that there is a
good measure of truth in this semi-sophisticated theology. However, it seems to us that Oneness achieves
its coherence and polish at the price of dismissing the *flexibility* of the scriptures. There we see the divine-
Logos, angels, Sophia, and the Spirit all spoken of and/or described in personal terms. Now we have no
problems with any of this (and neither should any other believer), regardless of the specific doctrines that
are cherished, *because* all of this is just a manner of speaking. It's the way that human-beings talk about
... well, everything.
.
So this is just the way people are built to talk about things. We *project* human qualities and attributes onto
anything and everything, and of course all this is reflected in our words and languages: Everything is alive!
Everything is (or has) spirit! Everything shines! Everything is part of the Cosmic Way! Spinoza would even go
so far as to say that 'everything is one'. That's what the Oneness doctrine sounds like to me. It sounds like a
theology that is inspired more by Spinoza than the ancient Hebrew and Greek scriptures.
.
Anyway, the problem is not that the biblical documents speak this way, but rather the problems really start
when we begin to *selectively* draw forth theological implications and consequences, and *then* build these
up into theological concepts and doctrines which are *then* in turn touted as the perfect expression of
"absolute truth", which is good forever and forevermore and a day! Of course, by that point in the process,
arrogance and vanity has long since set in and calcified any possibility of flexibility in amending the "glorious
doctrines".
.
Inflexible traditions therefore have *much* difficulty adjusting to an ever-changing world. Especially so in light
of on-growing knowledge and wisdom, and an ever-greater understanding of the sacred-texts owing to the
ever-advancing efforts of individual and collective bible-studies by scholars, sages, teachers, preachers, and
prophets; all of whom add their bits and pieces of the truth into the global-collective understanding of the
Faith (which no one denomination, doctrine, dogma, or creed can encompass).
.
] A: God, the Logos, and the Spirit are therefore not three separate divine persons.
] They are three distinct, and eternal, modes of existence of one divine person.
.
In other words, god has a split personality, big-time. A cosmic three-way of eternal
and infinite proportions. It's the party that never ends! :D
.
] A: In the fullness of time the Logos was made flesh,
.
Actually, if you want to get technical about it, Aquila0121, it's: ... the divine-Logos was made flesh
.
] a man; the man Jesus Christ. Jesus was 100% human. The Father is indeed greater than He.
] Being a man, the Father is also His God.
.
We agree with all this! :)
.
] A: However, being the Logos made flesh and blood humanity; He is also that very same God become man. <snip>
.
And this is where you part company with the prophet John and his teachings. He does NOT describe the
Logos *as* God, but rather as a divine-being emanating or radiating from the-god (and in this the prophet
is simply following in the footsteps of the already centuries-old logos-traditions). What John says (in the
third-gospel) is that the divine-Logos is "the only begotten one"; which is the foundational truth behind ALL
the NT titles for Jesus: 'Son of Man', 'Lord', 'Son of God', and even 'Christos' *because* it is this same only-
begotten-one who incarnated / became Jesus of Nazareth. In other words, the Anointed-One was anointed
with/in/by the divine-Way of Love & Reason. And this is precisely WHY we can call Jesus the Christos in the
first place! ~ ;>

.
] On March5 Ronald say: God emptied himself and became a man.
.
wurm say: Can a star "empty" itself and become a candle-flame? Can an elephant "empty" itself and become a fly? Of course not.
All things are what they are because that's what they are. How then can the-god cease to be god and become something else?
The very idea is not only utterly ridiculous, but down-right blasphemous. It makes the-god look like a fool.
.
] R: The book of John starts with: "In the beginning was the Word (who is Jesus), and the Word was with God,
] and the Word was God." So Jesus is God.
.
Wrong, Ronald. John didn't say 'and the Word was God', he said 'and divine was the Logos'. This text was very *deliberately*
changed by trinitarian a-holes just like you in order to justify their vile episcopal heresy. 'Don't believe everything you read'
applies as much to the scriptures as it does to everything else.
.
] R: "He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that
] was made." Jesus is the creator, who made all things! (Col. 16,17)
.
That's almost right: the-god made all things through the Logos, who acts on the-god's behalf.
.
] R: "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him." "And the Word became
] flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."
] -- John 1:1, 2, 10, 14 / NKJV
.
None of which means that "Jesus is God". The Logos does NOT have to be equal to the-god in order to be the Logos, and to do all
that the Logos does. In the same way, the Spirit does not have to be equal to the-god in order to be the Spirit, and to do all that
the Spirit does. You can tell trinitarians the truth about these things, but with them it's in one ear and out the other. They much
prefer their glorious theology to the true teachings of the scriptures, and will simply ignore the overwhelming testimony of the NT
in order to focus upon the tiny fraction of corrupted texts that seem to support their vile episcopal heresy (as we shall see below).
.
] R: Jesus had two natures, He is the God/Man.
.
Nowhere in the NT does it say that JC is a hybrid monstrosity called "God/Man"!
.
] R: His humanity prayed to and submitted to the Father as a humble servant. He did not regard his equality with God as
] something to be GRASPED by man, that wasn't his primary intention, he was humble. (Phil. 2:6)
.
And yet trinitarians are constantly grasping after "equality with God"; trying to force JC to be God, because they foolishly suppose that
a non-god JC is just not good enough. Trins are utterly oblivious to the fact that they deny the very meaning of the Christos by insisting
that Jesus is God. Thus the prophet asks: "Who is a liar? Who else but the person who rejects Jesus as the Messiah?" (1Jn.2:22 / God's
Word) And who is it that rejects Jesus as the Messiah? ... That's right; trinitarians! By claiming that Jesus is God they *necessarily*
deny his status as the Anointed One. The reasoning behind this truth is really quite simple; but obviously far beyond the capacity of
trinitarians to understand.
.
Here's how it goes: the Jewish concept of the Messiah was basically that of an uber-prophet. Now this super-prophet was conceived
in various ways (eg. a military leader like unto Alexander the Great who would free the Jews from the oppressive yoke of Roman rule),
but the fundamental idea was that the Messiah was the Mediator between God and humankind. By saying that Jesus is God, you are
saying that the Mediator between God and Man is God; which is utterly absurd. In fact, now that Jesus is made God (by trinitarian
theology) a *new* mediator between the triune-god and humankind is thus required. And can you guess who that might be? That's
right; the wise and glorious overseers become the mediators by default (since they also reject the prophets along with the Anointed
One (who is essentially a prophet)).
.
Do I really need to spell this out for you? These overseers are the very liars that the prophet warns us about. They are, in fact, false
prophets who have stolen the authority and ministry of the prophets, and taken it upon themselves to be the mediators between
humankind and the fabulous Trinity of their own creation. This then is the true motivation behind the entire vile structure of trinitarian
theology, which is empowered by a reckless piety mated with ignorance and stupidity. Therefore ALL those who claim that Jesus is
God are liars and loyal sons and daughters of these same ancient overseers; even those who foolishly imagine that they are free of
the romish yoke!
.
] R: Yet, when He ascended to heaven, He was glorified as he was before in heaven and given all authority in heaven and on
] earth. He can't have all authority unless you are God, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, nor could you create all. His
] is the fullness and radiance of the Father. "The Father and I are one." You cannot be full of grace unless you are fully God.
.
This is a clear denial of the teachings of the prophet John, who says that JC is indeed full of grace and truth. It is only ignorant
trinitarians who suppose that this can't be true "unless you are fully God". As for me, I'll believe what the inspired prophet says,
even if it contradicts what these foolish trinitarians say.
.
] R: There are many verses that reveal the Triune God! Matt. 3:16, 17; 1Pet.1:2; 1John 5:6, 7; 1Pet. 3:18; Eph 2:18;
] John 14:16, 17, 26 <snip remainder>
.
Let us see if the Trinity is indeed witnessed to in this grab-bag of "proof-texts":
.
] Matt. 3:16,17 > When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were
] opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came
] from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
.
Well, not only is there no Trinity present here, but there is not even the slightest hint that there might be such an absurd creature.
Which only goes to prove one thing; namely, that trinitarians are people who love to project their vile episcopal heresy into texts
that are obviously not built to hold it.
.
] 1Pet.1:2 > ... elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience
] and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ
.
Silvanus here refers to God as 'the Father', but foolishly neglects to specify that the Spirit is 'God the Spirit' and that JC is God
the Son. On the other hand, the mere mention of these three in the same sentence is considered to be "proof" of the Trinity ...
by trinitarians who see every text through their distorting theological spectacles.
.
] 1John 5:6,7 > This is He who came by water and blood - Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood.
] And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven:
] the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
.
Well, verse seven is indeed a trinitarian statement; one might even say that it is a carefully crafted dogmatic formula. Unfortunately
for the trins this verse was NOT written by the inspired prophet, but was added to the text much later. And this is a literary fact
widely recognized by bible scholars, which is why most modern versions only mention it in a footnote. That the NKJV still uses it
only proves that the makers of this version care nothing for the integrity of the text, and consider their theological biases sufficient
to justify their violent treatment of John's writings.
.
] 1Pet.3:18 > For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God,
] being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit
.
Here again Silvanus makes a clear distinction between the-god and the other two divine beings. There is no hint of equality,
no confusion of these three being the same one God, and hence no proof of the Trinity.
.
] Eph 2:17-18 > And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near.
] For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
.
Once again an awareness of three beings does NOT constitute proof of the Trinity.
.
] John 14:16,17,26 > And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever -
] the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for
] He dwells with you and will be in you. ... But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will
] teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
.
Once again an awareness of three beings does NOT constitute proof of the Trinity. What trinitarians can't seem to get through their
thick skulls is the plain and obvious fact that the trinitarian theology is a post-biblical development that began in the second century
and continued for several more centuries. Somewhere along the way it was decided (by various overseers, no doubt) that the
scriptures had to be brought into harmony with this vile theology, and so the redactors changed, adjusted, and added to the texts
with this goal in mind. And these corrupted texts are usually the ones that trins point to as their beloved "proof texts"; and they do
this immediately after ignoring the historical realities just mentioned above. The vile episcopal heresy of trinitarianism therefore
relies upon stupidity and ignorance in equal measure, and also requires a profound contempt for the basic integrity of the sacred-texts.
.

.
] On 8March Aquila0121 say: cybrwurm, I disagree with both you and Trinitarianism. Jesus was one with
] his Father. That means that the man Jesus Christ was a man who was one with God. Therefore, in him
] we see a person who is both man and God.
.
wurm say: Not so. You, just like the trins, mistakenly understand John 10:30 ('I and my Father are one') to be
an ontological statement, which is a distortion of a spiritual truth. According to John's teachings we can say
that Jesus was a divine man (and therefore the-god is revealed in him), but we can't say that JC is "both man
and God" for the simple reason that such a statement necessarily violates the oneness of the-god. So the reason
why Jesus can say that 'the Father and I are one' is precisely because he is the manifestation of the divine-
Logos who is "facing" the-god. Of course the divine-son is one with the Father; for the divine-Logos is the very
instrument of the-god's will. What the-god wants, the divine-Logos also wants. What the-god wills, the divine-
Logos also wills. And this is precisely why the Cosmic-Father is revealed in and through Jesus Christ. I really don't
see that Oneness theology adds anything of value to the prophet's teachings.
.
Moreover, when we say that Jesus is a "divine-man" we do not mean to imply that he is somehow more than
human (man+plus), as this would necessarily compromise his humanity. Jesus is not different from us in kind, but
only in *degree*. He is human-being taken to its maximum potential; and this is why the prophet urges believers
to "walk as that one walked". And this we cannot do if we hold to the unbiblical notion that Jesus is God; unless
you are willing to say that all people are also little-gods. But the prophet does not say that! Instead he says
that we have the power to become the "children of god". Now these teachings are perfectly consistent with the
prophet's Logos-theology, and are (in fact) based squarely upon the truth revealed in the third gospel: "The true
light that enlightens *every* man coming into the world" (Jn 1:9). In other words, we *all* have (in varying
degrees, of course) the Way of Love & Reason within us; in our minds and in our hearts. The divine-Logos lives
in all of us! ... This is the good-news according to John.
.
] A: While Jesus is fully human, Christ's human nature is in union with the very Spirit and divine nature of
] the Father. Therefore Christ partakes in the divine nature, and has from conception. This is why Jesus,
] although being a man, can also be said to be God.
.
Wrong again, Aquila0121. Christ partakes in the divine nature because he is the incarnation of the divine-Logos,
who is NOT the-god, but a unique divine person in his own right. The prophet John does not confuse the divine-
son with the one and only true God. But you do so deliberately ... just like the trinitarians do. Therefore you are
not so different from them as you seem to think you are. If you can say with John that 'Jesus is fully human',
why do you immediately contradict yourself with the absurd claim that Jesus "can also be said to be God". You
can't have it both ways. You can't be a trinitarian and a non-trinitarian at one and the same time. Indeed, your
theology is just as screwed up as the vile episcopal heresy.
.
] A: The attached diagram best explains Oneness from my perspective. I'll define some terms
] as found on the diagram: God = God, the only divine being, the Almighty, the Father.
] Man = The Son of God, the man Jesus Christ. <snip>
.
Aquila0121, you use the words of the prophet John as proof-texts of the Oneness theology, but it is apparent
(at least to me) that your understanding of John is severely flawed and seriously skewed, which makes your
interpretations and conclusions highly doubtful. For example, you say that the-god is "the only divine being",
but this idea certainly does NOT come from John, whose teachings revolve around the reality of the only-
begotten-one, who is the divine-Logos. So there's one very fundamental error right there.
.
] A: John 14:7-10 > If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know
] him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto
] him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath
] seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father,
] and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth
] in me, he doeth the works. (KJV)
.
Once again we have to interpret these statements within the context of the Logos-theology. ANY other approach
will *necessarily* distort John's teachings, and lead to confusion and misunderstanding. So, strictly speaking it is
the Way of Love & Reason that "dwelleth" in Jesus. But since the-god is the ultimate source of both the divine-
Logos and the holy-Spirit, Jesus is certainly not wrong to say "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father". What
IS wrong is to jump from this spiritual truth to the (unjustified) ontological conclusion that
.
] A: Jesus is both man and God. <snip>
.
As to Paul's statement that 'the-god was in Christ' ... we understand this according to the Logos-theology whereby
God was in Christ by way of the divine-Logos. Of course, Paulos himself might not agree with this interpretation, but
I see no serious problems in thus filtering Paul's teachings through the superior theology of the prophet John. Indeed
it is by far the best way to approach Paul's teachings, as it allows us to embrace the truth therein, while also
deflecting Paul's errors and mistakes.
.
As to the Oneness theology itself, is it not obvious that it is far closer to the trinitarian theology than to the Logos-
theology? It is certainly NOT in harmony with the superior Logos-theology of the prophet John; which does NOT
compromise the oneness of the-god; whereas the Oneness theology does exactly that ... just like the vile episcopal
heresy of trinitarianism! So I think that you, Aquila0121, have a rather tough choice facing you. If you want to be
faithful to the biblical teachings, then you will have to dump this Oneness theology in the trash, and embrace the
teachings of the inspired prophet without prejudice and preconception ... *OR* admit that your unbiblical heresy is
a close second cousin to the vile teachings of trinitarianism.
.
I'm praying that you'll see the light, and make the right choice ...