Well you simply have a misunderstanding of the Trinity. Jesus has two natures. He was fully divine and fully human. In His humanity, He is subordinate to the Father, but in His divinity, he is perfectly equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit.
@magnus56j No. I have a very good understanding of the trinity doctrine. I also have a very good understanding of its pagan origins, and its non-biblical teachings. I wasn't always LDS. I started out catholic, eventually became "mainstream" christian among other things. I understand fully what the trinity doctrine is about, who created it, and why. You can't vote to decide who God and Jesus are.
@M424Filmcast No you do have a misunderstanding because your questions only refer to Christ's human nature. For example, you ask if Jesus was praying to Himself when he was praying to the Father. No, Jesus was not praying to himself, he was praying to the Father. Jesus, as human, would pray to God. Since Jesus was fully human, and humans die, he died. But, His Divine Nature did not die, because God is immortal. You have to remember that Jesus has two separate natures.
@M424Filmcast Btw, catholicism is mainstream Christianity. Do you mean protestant. Roman Catholicism, Orthodox (which is what I am), and Protestantism is considered mainstream Christianity.
@M424Filmcast Also, the pagans did not teach anything remotely close to the doctrine of the Trinity, so it is not of pagan origin. That's another reason I know you have a misunderstanding, because to say it's of pagan origin is blatantly false. Also, if you read the Church Fathers before the Council of Nicaea, you will notice they clearly believed in the Trinity, and therefore the belief always existed and was not invented. It was simply explicitly defined at the council.
@magnus56j You have just shown me that you do not understand the origins of this doctrine. You also don't know why it has pagan origins. That is not blatantly false, but true. The "belief" in the doctrine was not held by all of the "fathers" or it would not have had to go up for VOTE. You really should study the origins. I have.
@M424Filmcast The origins of the Trinity is clearly in the Bible. Mainstream Christians believe that, in the one eternal God, there are three distinct Persons who each totally and equally possess the Godhead. These three Persons are the unbegotten Father, the Son who proceeds from the Father through a mysterious eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father through an equally mysterious, eternal process called spiration. Paganism never taught anything remotly close to this
@magnus56j The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the Trinity "is not. . . directly and immediately the word of God." The Encyclopedia of Religion And Ethics records: At first the Christian Faith was not Trinitarian. . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the New Testament and other early Christian writings."
@M424Filmcast You are using ellipses. Show me the full quotes because it looks like you are hiding something in those quotes when you are using ellipses.
@magnus56j These are quotes from the books mentioned. Look them up. They are not hard to find online. Then you can read everything. You can worship your three-headed trinity god of paganism if you want. But I would suggest reading thoroughly through my responses, then look it up for yourself. I have much more. This is only the beginning.
@magnus56j Besides, it's not my job to convince you of anything. These are your own people that are speaking. You said I was wrong. Now you can back up that claim. Read what your own people wrote, then get back to me.
@M424Filmcast I don't get why you Mormons hate us so much. People are nice to your religion, but why do you have to attack ours? I am stunned how bigoted many Mormons are. If cruelty and malice is your game, I want no part of it. I was simply pointing out that you had a misunderstanding. If you say we believe in a three headed God then you have a very serious misunderstanding.
@magnus56j (cont.) L. L. Paine, professor of Ecclesiastical History acknowledged: "The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a trinity is to be found there . . . is utterly without foundation."The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: "Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity." (cont.)
@magnus56j (cont.) The New Catholic Encyclopedia also admits: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament." Jesuit Edmund Fortman wrote in his book, The Triune God: ". . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a Trinity within the Godhead. . . Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers." (cont.)
@magnus56j (cont.) The Encyclopedia of Religion says: "Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."
The New Encyclopedia Britannica reports: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology confirms: "The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity." (cont.)
@M424Filmcast Yeah it's not explicitly stated, but implicitly it is there. That's one of the purposes of the Council of Nicaea. It was to explicitly define the Trinity to avoid future heresies from arising. Also, you are using ellipses from the Encyclopedia quotes. Where are the full quotes? I want to make sure you aren't hiding something by using ellipses.
@magnus56j Read the entire thing yourself. I cannot quote all of these encyclopedias here on the comment forum. I am not hiding anything. The books and names are here for you.
@magnus56j (cont.) Jesuit Fortman similarly states: "The New Testament writers. . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead."
@magnus56j (cont.) Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins affirms in the Origin and Evolution of Religion: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . .they say nothing about it." Historian Arthur Weigall records in The Paganism in Our Christianity: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. (cont.)
@magnus56j (cont.) The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord." The New Catholic Encyclopedia notes: "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. . . Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." (cont.)
@magnus56j (cont.) The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: "Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds." The Encyclopedia Americana plainly reports: "Fourth Century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."
@magnus56j (cont.) The Ethnic Trinities by L. L. Paine, page 219, states that the development of the trinity was an evolutionary process. "The Christian dogma did not start from a polytheistic or pantheistic ground, but from Jewish monotheism; but the development from one God to a trinity was just as completely a historical evolution as any other." THE TRINITY IDEA WAS INFUSED INTO CHRISTIANITY
@magnus56j (cont.) The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge plainly documents the historical influence that Greek Philosophy had on the development of the Trinity: "The doctrine of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who. . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied." (cont.)
@magnus56j (cont.) The book entitled, The Church of the Fist Three Centuries acknowledges: "The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation: . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers." (cont.)
@M424Filmcast You are not convincing me of anything until you show me the FULL quotes WITHOUT ellipses. You are clearly leaving things out. I am not a stupid or careless reader. I notice you are using ellipses.
@magnus56j (cont.) The Platonizing Fathers were the Greek Philosophers that became Christian but continued to follow the teachings of Plato. These Philosophers mixed Christians Ideas with Pagan Greek Philosophy to formulate the concept of a three person Godhead. The apostle Paul warned the Greek Colossian city, "Beware lest any man cheat you through philosophy and vain deceit. . .(Colossians 2:8)"
What kind of philosophy was Paul warning about? (cont.)
@magnus56j (cont.) Since Paul was addressing a Greek city, he must have been warning about the entrance of Greek Philosophical Thought. The Platonic Fathers also known as Greek Apologists were the first to introduce Pagan Trinitarian Thought into Christianity. Church Historian Adolf Harnack states that the Church Fathers which developed the Nicene Creed were Platonists who appealed to Plato in support of the Trinity. (cont.)
@magnus56j (cont.) Volume 4. Page 88: "Science concluded on alliance with the Nicene Creed; that was a condition of the triumph of orthodoxy. . . These men took their stand on the general theory of the universe which was accepted by the science of the time; they were Platonists, and they once more naively appealed to Plato in support even of their doctrine of the Trinity." (cont.)
@magnus56j (cont.) Church Historian Jaroslav Pelikan states in his book - The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition - that Greek Platonic elements were unmistakably present in the Trinitarian definition of One God in "three persons."
"The doctrine of the Trinity. . .must be interpreted in a manner that would be consistent with this a priori definition of the deity of God (One essence, three persons). Neoplatonic elements were unmistakably present in this definition. . ." (cont.)
@magnus56j (cont.) The New Catholic Encyclopedia vol. 10, page 335 admits: "From the middle of the 4th century onward, however, Christian thought was strongly influenced by Neo-platonic philosophy and mysticism."
Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, that church doctrine became "firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians." (cont.)
@magnus56j (cont.) Andrew Norton declares in the book "A Statement of Reasons" that the Trinity originated not from the Bible, but from Platonic Philosophy: "We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists." (cont. )
@magnus56j (cont.) A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge records that many historians believe that the Trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith."
Edward Gibbons's History of Christianity notes: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. (cont. )
@magnus56j (cont.) The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief." Historian Will Durant observed: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity."
@magnus56j (cont.) James Hastings wrote in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: "In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus. . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic views of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality. which is triadically represented. (cont. )
@magnus56j (cont.) "Siegfried Morenz, in the book 'Egyptian Religion' notes: "The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . These gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology." (cont.)
@magnus56j (cont.) The French New Universal Dictionary reveals both Plato's Greek Philosophical Influence upon Christianity and that of ancient pagan religions: "The Platonic Trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian Churches. . . (cont.)
@magnus56j (cont.) Thus Greek philosophers conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient pagan religions."
L. L. Paine records that the Trinity idea stems from Pagan Roots: ". . . among the more highly civilized Chaldaeans, Babylonians, Assyrians, and Egyptians, triads of gods were a common and notable feature of their theogonies."
@magnus56j (cont.) H. P. Blavatsky in Isis Unveiled (pages 45,46), reveals that the Trinity Dogma originated from Babylon: "We find it northeast of the Indus; and tracing it to Asia Minor and Europe, recognize it among every people who had anything like an established religion. It was taught in the oldest Chaldaean, Egyptian, and Mithraitic schools. The Chaldaean Sun-god, Mithra, was called 'Triple,' and the trinitarian idea of the Chaldaeans was a doctrine of the Akkadians, (cont.)
@magnus56j (cont.) who themselves belonged to a race which was the first to conceive a metaphysical trinity. According to Rawlinson, the Chaldaeans are a tribe of the Akkadians, who lived in Babylonia from the earliest of times."
You have told me that I don't know. Here are your own mainstreamers contradicting everything you told me. Rebuttal?
@M424Filmcast You are putting ellipses into your quotes as if you are trying to hide something. If you are going to proof text, you better be giving full quotes without ellipses. Taking things out of context doesn't prove anything. If you Mormons hate Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants so much, then why do you use the Bible? The Bible was compiled by the Orthodox at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. Why do you accept all the books of the NT as inspired if a "corrupt" church compiled it?
"Never was there a more deceptive doctrine advanced that that of the Trinity. It could have originated only in one mind, and that the mind of Satan the Devil." Any one like to comment on this?
@TheJpgr1958 I agree. Funny how many have been taken in by this doctrine that only appeared after the pagan Constantine needed to find a way to unite the people so that he could rule more effectively.
@M424Filmcast "I agree." Thanks for your response. The quote you are agreeing with came from a publication called "Reconciliation," published in 1928 by The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, better known as the Jehovah Witnesses. Just wondering if you knew this, and does this make the JW the true church seeing that the Mormon church and they practice and believe the exact same thing? Your not a closet JW are you? You can go ahead and block me now if you wish.
@TheJpgr1958 I know where it came from. One of my best friends is JW. It was also reprinted in another one of your publications a few years ago. Just because we agree on one thing does not mean we agree on all. But it's cool. I don't block people just because they are J-dub. I block people only when they irritate me or become contentious just for the purpose of contention. You never know who might convert. My friends son did when he turned 18. Became LDS.
@M424Filmcast "I block people only when they irritate me or become contentious just for the purpose of contention." Can you expound on this more. How would one irritate you and become contentious? By the way, I'm not a J-dub.
@TheJpgr1958 When one ignores fact and insists that typical antimormon rhetoric is true rather than listen to someone who is actually a member of the church. When they rely on ad hominem or other fallacious argument. Things like that. Sorry for the mistaken identity.
@M424Filmcast "When one ignores fact and insists that typical antimormon rhetoric" When you use the word "anti-mormon," isn't that really meant to be nothing more than an ugly pejorative, much like the word "nigger?" Are you not slapping that on anyone who questions or disagrees with the teachings of the LDS faith while implying that the perceived critic is somehow "against" (anti) Mormons (as individuals)? When you throw down the hate card, aren't you running the risk of bearing false witness?
@TheJpgr1958 The use of the word "antimormon" as far as I'm concerned is not an ugly perjorative lilke the word "nigger". I do not "slap" that on anyone who questions or disagrees with the teachings of the LDS faith. I do not imply that the critic is "against" Mormons based simply on their position. I do not "throw down the hate card", nor do I appreciate the insinuations you are making here. These are accusatory in nature, and you do not know me well enough to judge. (cont.)
@TheJpgr1958 (cont.) When I refer to "antimormon(s)", I refer very specifically not to the general critic, but very specifically to those who are actively attempting to disprove the church and it's teachings, rather than attempt to understand our position on doctrinal matters, and recycling criticisms that have no basis in fact. If you would like to ask about specific things, I will gladly answer, but please leave the accusations, ad hominem, and strawman tactics aside.
@M424Filmcast "When they rely on ad hominem or other fallacious argument. Things like that." Well if this were true, why would you allow someone who claims to be Mormon, state the following: "These people are mentally disturbed or just pure evil?" Or this one: "You can't reason with this moron..just block him..he is not cognitive of his stupidity?" You aren't allowing this because this fellow claims to be Mormon now are you? I'll probably be blocked now after this one.
@TheJpgr1958 No, you will not be blocked. However, you are now sounding very familiar to me. Your "style" is very much that of someone I recently blocked. In regards to what the "someone who claims to be Mormon" said, unless you were involved in the entire debate, you may not understand the reasons for that statement. Additionally, you are implying that the person on the receiving end never said anything similar. Have you read my profile? I too will fire back if needed. (cont.)
@M424Filmcast (cont.) I do not claim to be perfect. I do claim that I will come out all guns blazing if I feel the need to. Now, are we going to talk about the video? Or are you here to simply attempt to attack my character?
I think I know who you are now. You kept talking about being blocked last time too....
@TheJpgr1958 I'm sure you are being facetious here. Using the word "forgot" as though this was really the purpose of your question. I'm sure you know what my answer is to that. However, one thing you must realise, is that we do not believe that we have a monopoly on truth. True church, yes. But most religions (if not all) contain some truth.
@M424Filmcast "However, one thing you must realise, is that we do not believe that we have a monopoly on truth." Sorry, but Mormon Missionaries, as well as JWS, Roman Catholics, Muslims, Oneness, Moonies, all have stated to my face that they do. "But most religions (if not all) contain some truth." And this is exactly the same thing those other groups stated to me. Why is that?
@TheJpgr1958 Sorry, but the official teaching of the church is that we know that all religions have at least some truth. For you to state otherwise is either you failing to state facts, or a misunderstanding of what was said. Missionaries are very specifically instructed to make sure that this is taught. For you to say otherwise shows a lack of knowledge, or a lack of truthfulness.
Believe or don't believe. It is a human construct. Nothing is the truth unless you choose to believe so. Nothing. All beliefs are manufacterued by the human mind. None are real...except that we choose do believe them. Scriptures, preaching, believing...all created by the human mind....and most sadly...by the male human mind.
Consider all religious "beliefs". Are they all not aimed at dominatiing another? Trully, guilt is the main focuse of religion.
@sownsew As a former atheist/agnostic, I can tell you that I used to feel the same way. Sorry, but I just simply do not agree. Our church has no need, nor does it have the intention by any means to "dominate" any other.
As a former christian...i uteraly know that religion is all about control. No religion is "truth"...only the construct of what helps us feel safe. Also a church must survive financially....you can view this as willfull giving or as "paying your way to heaven" (guilt). We all want to feel that we can be safe. Religion...of any kind, provides some means of believing that we can be "saved". Not a one of us is "saved" We are all going to die. It's a given. Live free.
@sownsew I was limited in my response so here is the rest. Your church does have a need...at the very least a financial need. In addition it has a need for attendents. Also you have a need for a "leader" who can make your church experience worth you time and money. You also have a need to feel that your church is providing you with the nurturing you need regarding your spirituality. No church that I am aware of does not want your money.
@sownsew You are not aware then that we have no paid clergy, and the only money going to leadership goes to the general authorities. That money is only enough to allow them to take care of basic needs. The only reason for that allowance is that they travel around the world, not only to teach, but to meet the people of the church. All other income goes to building chapels and temples, printing books for free distribution, and welfare/relief programs. So it's not about money with us.
@sownsew That is all very philosophical of you, but as stated before, I've been there. I cannot deny the experiences I had that ultimately led me to what I now know is true. When I though like you, I though I was free. But like a kite, I cannot fly if there is nothing keeping me down to earth. Funny enough, it's what holds you down that let's you fly higher. A kite without a string will fall and crash.
@M424Filmcast You asked me to post this question here. Thanks. I went to your youtube channel and saw a video on it called "Why I Don't Believe in the Trinity." I've been studying that topic and I found this quote and would like your opinion. The quote is: "Never was there a more deceptive doctrine advanced that that of the Trinity. It could have originated only in one mind, and that the mind of Satan the Devil." Thanks for your view on this.
Three persons in one..... Sub-Conscious self, Conscious self & Super Conscious self... It is the same as: Spirit/mind, or thought/feeling, Body & Soul. Jesus was the embodiment of the the Soul/Creator, in human form, suseptable to all the same, lesser energies that attempt to break the connection with the Soul, causing. Soul is perfect, matter is not perfect and therein, lies the cross of matter and spirit, that we must bear.
@Sk8er408 Alien? No dear. Of God, created in his image. My Creator is not alien. You and I are both souls, everlasting, but our bodies are material and subject to physical laws and lower forces. The lower forces/energies/spirits, etc. are always working to divert us, away from God's love, but when we are alligned within our own trinity, we are united with God the Creator, Christ the God Consciousness, made physical & The Holy Spirit, who moves us and helps us to connect with God.
2. We are physical & have conscious awareness, the physical representation of the human soul, incarnate. Son of man, physical form is not eternal.
3. We are a subconscious. Our spirit, emotions and the automatic part of us, that remembers to breath and controls all body functions, without conscious control, or intent. We can not live without the subconscious.
@Sk8er408 , You are not required to believe anything, but what you choose to believe, or see things in the way that I, or anyone else sees them. God bless you and all your loved ones. I remain
These are pretty much the reason I do not accept the trinity... that and the trinity has everyone confused. If they are honest about the trinity at the end they will admit that they do not understand it and will claim that no body understands G-d.
Its becoming more and more evident that the trinity is false.As we close in on the last days, I think the one true god Yaweh will manifest his name for all to see and finally put to rest this false doctrine that satan has kept alive for centuries deceiving millions.
Here's the issue sir, you are trying to understand the trinity by human logic. The Psalms say that God's ways are higher than our ways. To expect that all aspects of God fit into what our mind can comprehend is not only arrogant, it's just plain wrong. At a certain point, one must say to God, "I don't understand, but I know you love me and sent your Son (fully God and fully human) to die for me. By my faith in Him alone am I saved." I pray a revelation of truth on you, in the name of Jesus!
@kfed1991 No. I am not trying to use human logic. I am refuting the human logic that created the three-headed pagan god of the Council of Nicea. Don't know the origins of the pagan doctrine you claim as truth? Do a little research if your not afraid.
Faith alone, by the way, is not Biblical. Read James chapter 2. I think you may have skipped it.
Concerning the nature of Christ, the first Nicene Creed reads: "The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes those who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not; and that before he was begotten he was not, and that he was made out of nothing, or out of another substance or essence, and is created, or changeable, or alterable." Give me a verse in the Bible that says that's wrong. "In the beginning was the Word (Jesus). And the Word was with God. And the Word WAS God."
@kfed1991 You are using John 1:1 out of context and as a standalone verse to back your pagan doctrine which was created by political vote. This creed was brought about by intimidation, political manoeuvering, violence, and torture more than 300 years after Christ. So unless you believe it was brought about by latter-day prophecy (which your creeds denounce), you cannot claim that this creed was inspired of God. It is man-made, and you follow it. Research it and tell me I'm wrong.
@M424Filmcast Please explain how I used John 1:1 out of context. It's the beginning of the book. There is no context that comes before it, so you must be talking about something cultural?
@kfed1991 No. Not something cultural. You are not putting the scripture in context with all other scripture. In Genesis, God is not speaking to Himself. In Gethsemene, Christ did not pray to Himself. In John 14:28, God spoke of His Father being "greater" than He. Jesus died on the cross, so did God die? In whom was God "well pleased"? Jesus said He does only what He has seen the Father do. How could Jesus give Himself "all glory" if He already had it? Jesus is the Son of God.
@M424Filmcast Right, that's where the human logic part comes in. Does it make sense in my mind that Jesus and the Father are one, but Jesus says the Father is greater than he? No. But God's word says it. In Genesis, why can't God be speaking to Himself? He can, because the Father (the one speaking) is not the only person there. He is talking to other members of the Trinity. Why does it say, "Let US make man in OUR image?" Because all three were there and all three ARE God.
@kfed1991 Look, I'm not going to go in circles with you anymore. You obviously want to believe in your trinity god. Go ahead. It is not going to change the fact that the doctrine is of pagan origin. You don't want to research it. Fine. I don't care. Now stop spamming my inbox.
Here is a scholarly proof of your corrupted, man-made Trinity. The Encyclopedia Americana: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicaea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." -- (1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
The New Encyclopedia Britannica: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: (Deut. 6:4). . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since." -- Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. (1976)
The deity of Jesus Christ was decided upon by a vote . A few hundred church leaders gathered at Nicea in 325 AD. to vote on the matter. (the vote was loaded, because most of the opposing bishops were either KILLED or EXHILED or excluded!) Representation for the TRUTH about the Godhead was allowed by only a small fraction of those TRUE Christians...we lost the TRUTH then to the pagan trinity of man.
Jesus' on the false "christian" churches of men and thier CREEDS: JS-H 1: 19
I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.
@imtherealthing "Three separate Gods." Let me quote that again: "Three separate Gods." How can you seriously call yourselves christian when what you just said goes against the Bible at it's very core? Isaiah 45:5 "I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God." Tell me you are not a Christian and I will let this topic be for now.
NOWHERE does THREE GODS go against the Bible - the pagan philosophies -yes. For GOD the Father is a GOD "AND" GOD the SON is a GOD "AND" GOD the HOLY GHOST is a GOD = now count with me..GOD+GOD+GOD= 3 GODS. I know that your kind have a hard time counting to three. Now, when it says there is but ONE GOD - yes in the CONTEXT that the FATHER is the ONLY GOD to whom we pray to. He is the HEAD GOD in the GODHEAD. Jesus represents the Father at times (as he did as Jehovah).
@imtherealthing "Apart from me there is no God." It doesn't say, "don't pray to any God but me" or "I am alone at the top of the God hierarchy." It says "Apart from me there is no God." In other words, besides the one God who is speaking, there are no other Gods. There is one. Just one. And Jesus is that God. And so is Holy Spirit. And so is the Father. It doesn't make sense but God never claims to make sense. In fact, he claims he doesn't. Isaiah 55:9. Also, I don't appreciate the insult.
"You are READING INTO (interpolating) the Bible a theology that just does not exist in the reading. One can say in CONTEXT that there is no God but God in "REALATION" to the "pagan gods" of the time, but this does not negate the existence of other gods in the hierarchy.
@imtherealthing "One can say in CONTEXT that there is no God but God in "REALATION" to the "pagan gods" of the time, but this does not negate the existence of other gods in the hierarchy." Why do you claim I'm interpolating and then do exactly the same thing yourself. You are "READING INTO" the context of the passage. Every false religion has "god(s)" at its head. These are false gods. They lead people astray, I don't think you would disagree.
God is not a God over False or non-existing gods...understand? As for my interpolating...where? I quote only "biblical" words from Jesus on his relation to the Father he says who is his God and our God. NOWHERE does Jesus teach us about this "trinity". Where does he use analogies like those of today to explain the Godhead? (i.e. the analogy of the egg, or water/ice/vapour, etc)..nor does his apostles or prophets nor do we see this "trinity" in the OT. So what we do see is THREE GODS.
@imtherealthing I quoted your interpolation, my friend. You made a point about the CONTEXT of a passage. Anytime someone makes a point, and disregards the plain reading of a verse of scripture, they are interpolating. I'll quote it again. "One can say in CONTEXT that there is no God but God in "REALATION" to the "pagan gods" of the time, but this does not negate the existence of other gods in the hierarchy."
Ok..I'll bite...how much more clearer are these meanings then in CONTEXT (do NOT use creedal statments): "I go to my God and your God" - Jesus to Mary. "My Father is GREATER than I" - Jesus.
Surely the scholars and reserchers of "The New Encyclopedia Britannica" and "The Encyclopedia Americana" and ALL of the sources they cite are wrong and you are right.
RE:How the "trinity" had "evolved" over centruies up to the time of Nicea and the doctrine was not in the scripture - do you disagree with those scholars and researchers on the histrocity of the doctrine of the trinity?
It never ceases to amaze me to what level people will justify this devilsih doctrine - I honestly believe one has to tell this lie over and over and put aside all logic including math to do so.
I once taught a man from China. As an experiment I asked him to just read the entire New Testament and tell me how many Gods there are in his reading. The man was an atheist. The conclusion: He said there were two Gods - possibly a third if one reads into The Holy Ghost being one when it is mentioned alongside the other two in certain verses. Right from the mouth of babes - no theological taint. You are a by-product of your upbringing and your society that taught you the "trinity"
@imtherealthing Thats like handing a farmer from the Middle East to read Darwin's Origen of Species and asking him if he thought evolution was true. If he said no would that make evolution any less plausible?
Here is a scholarly proof of your corrupted, man-made Trinity. The Encyclopedia Americana: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicaea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." -- (1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
The New Encyclopedia Britannica: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: (Deut. 6:4). . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since." -- Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. (1976)
@imtherealthing which is why I reject sola-scriptura. When you think about it the doctrine of sola-scriptura refutes itself, because it is not taught in the Bible. But remember Protestants aren't the only ones that believe in the Trinity, so do Catholics. So you can't just refute sola-scriptura and say that therefore mormonism is true, it doesn't even come close to that, there is also the Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholicism among many other sects to consider.
You are CONFUSING your FALSE theology of the trinity with the TRUE theology of the scriptures - that there are three GODS who are fully GOD each. Your "trinity" is a 4th century creation nowhere found within the pages of the Bible. It is a Hellenized creation by "philosophers" not what Jesus taught nor the apostles and prophets. Jesus said quite CLEARLY "I go to MY God and YOUR God" and "The Father is GREATER than ME"...you silly trinitarains have to rely on extra-biblical creeds.
TITLES like : Eternal Father or LORD can be applied to both the FATHER GOD and JESUS, Elohim also ...these are "TITLES" in MOST cases we LDS know that Lord is Jehovah/Jesus as Elohim is the Father
In LDS theology we say that The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are ONE in PURPOSE not BEING...this GODHEAD is what we LDS say constitutes "ONE GOD" - a unity of GODS who are ALL FULLY GOD working as ONE unit in a GODHEAD.
@imtherealthing Hard to deal with a hard-head who has been deeply indoctrinated (brainwashed?), by thier confusing and tangled creeds isn't it? They claim that we are the ones who are using corrupted and extra-biblical sources, then rely on corrupted human writings by non-prophets using pagan-originated teachings to create a new theology. Hmmm....
Thanks for your commentary my friend. Always appreciated. You are definitely "the real thing."
@M424Filmcast No prob my friend. I hope someday we do get to meet. Just uploaded a tribute vid to all my supporters! Check it out! Hope you like it cuz it's partly dedicated to you!
The gist of the Trinity is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different aspects of one God. So every single argument you just made that ended with "That means that God ____ Himself?" (well over half) is COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT. I'm not sure you understand what you're trying to refute.
@StevoDesign I'm not sure I really care what you think. If you want to believe in a pagan doctrine that came from a VOTE by threats, violence, and intimidation, go ahead.
@M424Filmcast Then I don't understand why you replied to my comment. None of the people I've spoken to in your video threads have been very Christian-like anyway, so I'm not exactly feeling like your "true faith" is something I can stake my soul on. Your replies to others aren't very uplifting either.
@StevoDesign My apologies. But you have to understand that 99% of the folks I deal with here on YT are nothing but critics who want to try and disprove my beliefs rather than engage in discussion. Personally, I would never judge a church or a religion based on the actions of perceived "un-christian" or "un-" anything actions. In this case, I had already spent three days in a row being attacked on many fronts. So, yeah, I may have come off a bit strong. It doesn't make the church less true tho'.
bro william Branham said that both trinity and oneness are BOTH WRONG!
he said when you get it between oneness and trinity you will get it just exaclty
some of the in between terminology that he used was Jesus was a Dual person, Father and Son were inseperable or yoked together.
God and Christ were in divine fellowship. that is why when Jesus said I have sat down with my Father on His throne yet John only saw ONE sitting upon the throne
Thank you for this video! You needed help teaching Yahweh's Truth, so I left you a few JESUS teachings that Jesus himself declares that he Is NOT "God in the flesh" as many teachers of Satan's false trinity doctrine assume to be true, YET JESUS himself completely annihilates the trinity at JOHN Chapter 5 in the Bible.
Behold, Listen to JESUS! don't listen to money preachers that care nothing for your soul, but only care to gain riches with polluted doctrine and false teachings.
JOHN Chapter 5. JESUS himself does not teach the trinity! John 5:26
"For as the Father YAHWEH hath life in HIMSELF; so hath he given to the son to have life in himself"
Clear as day, YAHWEH Himself has his own body-soul and Spirit to have LIFE IN HIMSELF! And Jesus a son of Yahweh has his own body-soul & spirit to have life in himself.
Yahweh created his children in His likeness, therefore we have a body-soul & spirit, just as Yahweh does; OTHERWISE we are not created in Yahweh's likeness!
Here is another JESUS VERIFIED Scripture that he is not "God in the flesh". JOHN 5:30
"I CAN OF MINE OWN SELF DO NOTHING: As I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I SEEK NOT MINE OWN WILL, BUT THE WILL OF THE FATHER, YAHWEH which hath sent me."
NOTICE that Jesus himself DECLARES that he can do NOTHING of his own power! YAHWEH can do everything by His own Power! It is clear as day. Period. JESUS also says that he does seek his own will!
JESUS himself is against the false trinity doctrine! Let's let Jesus settle this once and for all. John 5 is an entire teaching against the trinity of today's errors!
37 "And the FATHER, YAHWEH Himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard Yahweh's voice AT ANY TIME, NOR SEEN Yahweh's shape!"
Clear as day, JESUS is saying that he is not God in the flesh, because the JEWS whom are listening to Jesus are not looking upon Yahweh nor hearing Yahweh's voice!!
God the Father and God the holy Spirit CANNOT BE TEMPTED, but God the SON "can."
The whole reason why God became a human being was so that he could die for our sins and because GOD the SPIRIT could "NEVER" die. Also, know this, when Jesus Christ died on the cross, it was only the BODY that died, not the SPIRIT.
Jesus said, "I and the Father are One." And he also said that the followers would be ONE IN CHRIST! We are the body of Jesus Christ, God would never throw a part of his body in hell.
The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians such as Ignatius, Irenaeus, etc.
@thegorn68 The scripture you quoted in Matthew does not by any means justify a teaching of a triune god. This teaching did not appear officially until over 300 years later during the Council of Nicea. This was done by vote, not inspiration. Threats, force, fear, and even physical harm and death were the tools of those whose agenda it was to make this official. The other scriptures you quote do not show a doctrine of a triune god to be true either.
@M424Filmcast I see. It was an "invention" 300 years later even though the Council of Nicea didn't even address the nature of the Trinity. That's why all the early Christian writings BEFORE that council NEVER mention the Trinity (i.e. The Didache, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, etc., etc,) Just pulled the entire concept out of thin air, LOL!
@thegorn68 Do some research. The Council oc Nicea is when the deity of Christ was decided by vote. Yes, it very much addressed the nature of the trinity as it was specifically to use man's wis-dumb to decide whether Christ was also God. The trinity doctrine did not exist earlier because it was false. The creed of Athanasius later gave further clarity (if you can call it that), to the trinity doctrine.
the sinner on the cross went to paradise to be with Jesus "saved in heaven" ....3 days later he told Mary at the tomb as the risen Lord that he had not yet ascended to his father. That is another good one.
no man knoweth the day or the hour of the coming of the Lord no not the angels in heaven nor the Son but the father only. Can God hold information from himself?
@lmadigan1971 Let me say that the biggest insult to God is that He has people like you who insist that He is unable to do as He pleases. Let me also say that it is another big insult to decide as a mere human that God no longer speaks to man, and cannot restore that which was lost. Don't bother telling me that the church was never lost to apostasy. It's in the Bible. The saddest thing is that you consider those who have looked to be the blind ones.
@M424Filmcast Let me also say that the saddest thing is that well intentioned people like yourself are afraid to say that you might be wrong or mistaken. Because of a lack of willingness to explore beyond that which is mainstream, you are much like the people who were afraid that Jesus was right. You also are human and can be deceived. You also can make mistakes. God lives. He continues to speak. I once was mainstream christian too, til I started a real study of the Gospel.
@M424Filmcast you are now at a point where you say you have looked and from here on you cannot change your mind i put my trust in God not JS Mormons always attack
I do note that while I attack the Church you attack the individual and lessen the individuals worth common in the Mormon organization they preach about love family etc but are vicious and dismissive of others
I know there are well intentioned people in Mormonism but it doesnt make them right or make you superior Amen
@lmadigan1971 And this is the point where you say that I am just brainwashed and lost and am a poor soul who has been misled.
I do not attack the individual. I defend my beliefs and my Saviour against those who decide that attacking is the best way to "save" me. I am neither "vicious" nor "dismissive". I simply state the way I feel without apology. I stand up for my testimony. It is unshakeable.
You may feel well intentioned, buy you are not superior either.
@lmadigan1971 Questionable character? What crime was he convicted of. What did he ever do illegal. Where did he sin? You must realize all these charges are brought forth by anti-mormons.
That being said didn't David commit adultery, Solomon have concubines. When was it ever written that prophets are perfect and without sin?
Of course we don't. We believe Jesus is Jesus, and God is God. We do not believe in man-written creeds that were created by political vote. Especially those that were created by people who could not possibly be inspired by God through revelation as other creeds they created so clearly state.
@tylerbyang If Jesus IS God, then why would He call Himself His own Father? Why would He say that "...the Father is greater than I", if He already is the greatest? Can God be tempted by Satan as Jesus was? Why would you want to believe in a doctrine that is very much non-scriptural, and has pagan roots? Why believe in a man-made creed that was only decided by vote 300+years after Christ? He was sinless because He had the divine attributes of the Father while still being a man.
@M424Filmcast Yes exactly fully God and fully man. In exodus 3:13-14 Gods name is cleary stated as I am
13And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? 14And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Taken from the Creed of Athanasius. Not scriptural. In regards to "I AM", this is a reference to the premortal Jesus Christ who later in the NT identified himself by this name. This is not a reference to God the Father.
6Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
@tylerbyang These references do not in any way work as proof texts. The reason being that you have to take them out of the context with the rest of OT and NT scripture in order to prove the trinity doctrine. Sorry, but these scriptures prove nothing about a triune god.
@tylerbyang Well if you can't see the contextual problems with the scriptures you quoted, and you are unwilling to research further into the pagan and political origins of the trinity doctrine, then you will probably be better off just going on with whatever you choose to believe.
I will be posting a Part II to this vid in the next few weeks that will explain quite a bit more. Hope you have a lotta faith dude, 'cause the trinity doctrine is neither scriptural nor historical. R u ready 4 it?
Comment removed
magnus56j 1 month ago
Well you simply have a misunderstanding of the Trinity. Jesus has two natures. He was fully divine and fully human. In His humanity, He is subordinate to the Father, but in His divinity, he is perfectly equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit.
magnus56j 1 month ago
@magnus56j No. I have a very good understanding of the trinity doctrine. I also have a very good understanding of its pagan origins, and its non-biblical teachings. I wasn't always LDS. I started out catholic, eventually became "mainstream" christian among other things. I understand fully what the trinity doctrine is about, who created it, and why. You can't vote to decide who God and Jesus are.
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@M424Filmcast No you do have a misunderstanding because your questions only refer to Christ's human nature. For example, you ask if Jesus was praying to Himself when he was praying to the Father. No, Jesus was not praying to himself, he was praying to the Father. Jesus, as human, would pray to God. Since Jesus was fully human, and humans die, he died. But, His Divine Nature did not die, because God is immortal. You have to remember that Jesus has two separate natures.
magnus56j 1 month ago
@M424Filmcast Btw, catholicism is mainstream Christianity. Do you mean protestant. Roman Catholicism, Orthodox (which is what I am), and Protestantism is considered mainstream Christianity.
magnus56j 1 month ago
@M424Filmcast Also, the pagans did not teach anything remotely close to the doctrine of the Trinity, so it is not of pagan origin. That's another reason I know you have a misunderstanding, because to say it's of pagan origin is blatantly false. Also, if you read the Church Fathers before the Council of Nicaea, you will notice they clearly believed in the Trinity, and therefore the belief always existed and was not invented. It was simply explicitly defined at the council.
magnus56j 1 month ago
@magnus56j You have just shown me that you do not understand the origins of this doctrine. You also don't know why it has pagan origins. That is not blatantly false, but true. The "belief" in the doctrine was not held by all of the "fathers" or it would not have had to go up for VOTE. You really should study the origins. I have.
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@M424Filmcast The origins of the Trinity is clearly in the Bible. Mainstream Christians believe that, in the one eternal God, there are three distinct Persons who each totally and equally possess the Godhead. These three Persons are the unbegotten Father, the Son who proceeds from the Father through a mysterious eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father through an equally mysterious, eternal process called spiration. Paganism never taught anything remotly close to this
magnus56j 1 month ago
@magnus56j The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the Trinity "is not. . . directly and immediately the word of God." The Encyclopedia of Religion And Ethics records: At first the Christian Faith was not Trinitarian. . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the New Testament and other early Christian writings."
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@M424Filmcast You are using ellipses. Show me the full quotes because it looks like you are hiding something in those quotes when you are using ellipses.
magnus56j 1 month ago
@magnus56j These are quotes from the books mentioned. Look them up. They are not hard to find online. Then you can read everything. You can worship your three-headed trinity god of paganism if you want. But I would suggest reading thoroughly through my responses, then look it up for yourself. I have much more. This is only the beginning.
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j Besides, it's not my job to convince you of anything. These are your own people that are speaking. You said I was wrong. Now you can back up that claim. Read what your own people wrote, then get back to me.
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@M424Filmcast I don't get why you Mormons hate us so much. People are nice to your religion, but why do you have to attack ours? I am stunned how bigoted many Mormons are. If cruelty and malice is your game, I want no part of it. I was simply pointing out that you had a misunderstanding. If you say we believe in a three headed God then you have a very serious misunderstanding.
magnus56j 1 month ago
@magnus56j Nobody hates you. You are probably the most easily offended person I have ever run across.
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) L. L. Paine, professor of Ecclesiastical History acknowledged: "The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a trinity is to be found there . . . is utterly without foundation."The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: "Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity." (cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) The New Catholic Encyclopedia also admits: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament." Jesuit Edmund Fortman wrote in his book, The Triune God: ". . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a Trinity within the Godhead. . . Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers." (cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) The Encyclopedia of Religion says: "Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."
The New Encyclopedia Britannica reports: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology confirms: "The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity." (cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@M424Filmcast Yeah it's not explicitly stated, but implicitly it is there. That's one of the purposes of the Council of Nicaea. It was to explicitly define the Trinity to avoid future heresies from arising. Also, you are using ellipses from the Encyclopedia quotes. Where are the full quotes? I want to make sure you aren't hiding something by using ellipses.
magnus56j 1 month ago
@magnus56j Read the entire thing yourself. I cannot quote all of these encyclopedias here on the comment forum. I am not hiding anything. The books and names are here for you.
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) Jesuit Fortman similarly states: "The New Testament writers. . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead."
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins affirms in the Origin and Evolution of Religion: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . .they say nothing about it." Historian Arthur Weigall records in The Paganism in Our Christianity: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. (cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord." The New Catholic Encyclopedia notes: "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. . . Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." (cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: "Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds." The Encyclopedia Americana plainly reports: "Fourth Century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) The Ethnic Trinities by L. L. Paine, page 219, states that the development of the trinity was an evolutionary process. "The Christian dogma did not start from a polytheistic or pantheistic ground, but from Jewish monotheism; but the development from one God to a trinity was just as completely a historical evolution as any other." THE TRINITY IDEA WAS INFUSED INTO CHRISTIANITY
THROUGH PAGAN GREEK PLATONIC THOUGHT. (cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge plainly documents the historical influence that Greek Philosophy had on the development of the Trinity: "The doctrine of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who. . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied." (cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) The book entitled, The Church of the Fist Three Centuries acknowledges: "The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation: . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers." (cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@M424Filmcast You are not convincing me of anything until you show me the FULL quotes WITHOUT ellipses. You are clearly leaving things out. I am not a stupid or careless reader. I notice you are using ellipses.
magnus56j 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) The Platonizing Fathers were the Greek Philosophers that became Christian but continued to follow the teachings of Plato. These Philosophers mixed Christians Ideas with Pagan Greek Philosophy to formulate the concept of a three person Godhead. The apostle Paul warned the Greek Colossian city, "Beware lest any man cheat you through philosophy and vain deceit. . .(Colossians 2:8)"
What kind of philosophy was Paul warning about? (cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) Since Paul was addressing a Greek city, he must have been warning about the entrance of Greek Philosophical Thought. The Platonic Fathers also known as Greek Apologists were the first to introduce Pagan Trinitarian Thought into Christianity. Church Historian Adolf Harnack states that the Church Fathers which developed the Nicene Creed were Platonists who appealed to Plato in support of the Trinity. (cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) Volume 4. Page 88: "Science concluded on alliance with the Nicene Creed; that was a condition of the triumph of orthodoxy. . . These men took their stand on the general theory of the universe which was accepted by the science of the time; they were Platonists, and they once more naively appealed to Plato in support even of their doctrine of the Trinity." (cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) Church Historian Jaroslav Pelikan states in his book - The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition - that Greek Platonic elements were unmistakably present in the Trinitarian definition of One God in "three persons."
"The doctrine of the Trinity. . .must be interpreted in a manner that would be consistent with this a priori definition of the deity of God (One essence, three persons). Neoplatonic elements were unmistakably present in this definition. . ." (cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) The New Catholic Encyclopedia vol. 10, page 335 admits: "From the middle of the 4th century onward, however, Christian thought was strongly influenced by Neo-platonic philosophy and mysticism."
Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, that church doctrine became "firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians." (cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) Andrew Norton declares in the book "A Statement of Reasons" that the Trinity originated not from the Bible, but from Platonic Philosophy: "We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists." (cont. )
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge records that many historians believe that the Trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith."
Edward Gibbons's History of Christianity notes: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. (cont. )
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief." Historian Will Durant observed: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity."
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) James Hastings wrote in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: "In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus. . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic views of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality. which is triadically represented. (cont. )
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) "Siegfried Morenz, in the book 'Egyptian Religion' notes: "The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . These gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology." (cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) The French New Universal Dictionary reveals both Plato's Greek Philosophical Influence upon Christianity and that of ancient pagan religions: "The Platonic Trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian Churches. . . (cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) Thus Greek philosophers conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient pagan religions."
L. L. Paine records that the Trinity idea stems from Pagan Roots: ". . . among the more highly civilized Chaldaeans, Babylonians, Assyrians, and Egyptians, triads of gods were a common and notable feature of their theogonies."
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) H. P. Blavatsky in Isis Unveiled (pages 45,46), reveals that the Trinity Dogma originated from Babylon: "We find it northeast of the Indus; and tracing it to Asia Minor and Europe, recognize it among every people who had anything like an established religion. It was taught in the oldest Chaldaean, Egyptian, and Mithraitic schools. The Chaldaean Sun-god, Mithra, was called 'Triple,' and the trinitarian idea of the Chaldaeans was a doctrine of the Akkadians, (cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@magnus56j (cont.) who themselves belonged to a race which was the first to conceive a metaphysical trinity. According to Rawlinson, the Chaldaeans are a tribe of the Akkadians, who lived in Babylonia from the earliest of times."
You have told me that I don't know. Here are your own mainstreamers contradicting everything you told me. Rebuttal?
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@M424Filmcast You are putting ellipses into your quotes as if you are trying to hide something. If you are going to proof text, you better be giving full quotes without ellipses. Taking things out of context doesn't prove anything. If you Mormons hate Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants so much, then why do you use the Bible? The Bible was compiled by the Orthodox at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. Why do you accept all the books of the NT as inspired if a "corrupt" church compiled it?
magnus56j 1 month ago
"Never was there a more deceptive doctrine advanced that that of the Trinity. It could have originated only in one mind, and that the mind of Satan the Devil." Any one like to comment on this?
TheJpgr1958 1 month ago
@TheJpgr1958 I agree. Funny how many have been taken in by this doctrine that only appeared after the pagan Constantine needed to find a way to unite the people so that he could rule more effectively.
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@M424Filmcast "I agree." Thanks for your response. The quote you are agreeing with came from a publication called "Reconciliation," published in 1928 by The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, better known as the Jehovah Witnesses. Just wondering if you knew this, and does this make the JW the true church seeing that the Mormon church and they practice and believe the exact same thing? Your not a closet JW are you? You can go ahead and block me now if you wish.
TheJpgr1958 1 month ago
@TheJpgr1958 I know where it came from. One of my best friends is JW. It was also reprinted in another one of your publications a few years ago. Just because we agree on one thing does not mean we agree on all. But it's cool. I don't block people just because they are J-dub. I block people only when they irritate me or become contentious just for the purpose of contention. You never know who might convert. My friends son did when he turned 18. Became LDS.
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@M424Filmcast "I block people only when they irritate me or become contentious just for the purpose of contention." Can you expound on this more. How would one irritate you and become contentious? By the way, I'm not a J-dub.
TheJpgr1958 1 month ago
@TheJpgr1958 When one ignores fact and insists that typical antimormon rhetoric is true rather than listen to someone who is actually a member of the church. When they rely on ad hominem or other fallacious argument. Things like that. Sorry for the mistaken identity.
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@M424Filmcast "When one ignores fact and insists that typical antimormon rhetoric" When you use the word "anti-mormon," isn't that really meant to be nothing more than an ugly pejorative, much like the word "nigger?" Are you not slapping that on anyone who questions or disagrees with the teachings of the LDS faith while implying that the perceived critic is somehow "against" (anti) Mormons (as individuals)? When you throw down the hate card, aren't you running the risk of bearing false witness?
TheJpgr1958 1 month ago
@TheJpgr1958 The use of the word "antimormon" as far as I'm concerned is not an ugly perjorative lilke the word "nigger". I do not "slap" that on anyone who questions or disagrees with the teachings of the LDS faith. I do not imply that the critic is "against" Mormons based simply on their position. I do not "throw down the hate card", nor do I appreciate the insinuations you are making here. These are accusatory in nature, and you do not know me well enough to judge. (cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@TheJpgr1958 (cont.) When I refer to "antimormon(s)", I refer very specifically not to the general critic, but very specifically to those who are actively attempting to disprove the church and it's teachings, rather than attempt to understand our position on doctrinal matters, and recycling criticisms that have no basis in fact. If you would like to ask about specific things, I will gladly answer, but please leave the accusations, ad hominem, and strawman tactics aside.
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@M424Filmcast "When they rely on ad hominem or other fallacious argument. Things like that." Well if this were true, why would you allow someone who claims to be Mormon, state the following: "These people are mentally disturbed or just pure evil?" Or this one: "You can't reason with this moron..just block him..he is not cognitive of his stupidity?" You aren't allowing this because this fellow claims to be Mormon now are you? I'll probably be blocked now after this one.
TheJpgr1958 1 month ago
@TheJpgr1958 No, you will not be blocked. However, you are now sounding very familiar to me. Your "style" is very much that of someone I recently blocked. In regards to what the "someone who claims to be Mormon" said, unless you were involved in the entire debate, you may not understand the reasons for that statement. Additionally, you are implying that the person on the receiving end never said anything similar. Have you read my profile? I too will fire back if needed. (cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@M424Filmcast (cont.) I do not claim to be perfect. I do claim that I will come out all guns blazing if I feel the need to. Now, are we going to talk about the video? Or are you here to simply attempt to attack my character?
I think I know who you are now. You kept talking about being blocked last time too....
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@M424Filmcast Oh yesI forgot, are the JWS the one tue church or is it the Mormon church?
TheJpgr1958 1 month ago
@TheJpgr1958 I'm sure you are being facetious here. Using the word "forgot" as though this was really the purpose of your question. I'm sure you know what my answer is to that. However, one thing you must realise, is that we do not believe that we have a monopoly on truth. True church, yes. But most religions (if not all) contain some truth.
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@M424Filmcast "However, one thing you must realise, is that we do not believe that we have a monopoly on truth." Sorry, but Mormon Missionaries, as well as JWS, Roman Catholics, Muslims, Oneness, Moonies, all have stated to my face that they do. "But most religions (if not all) contain some truth." And this is exactly the same thing those other groups stated to me. Why is that?
TheJpgr1958 1 month ago
@TheJpgr1958 Sorry, but the official teaching of the church is that we know that all religions have at least some truth. For you to state otherwise is either you failing to state facts, or a misunderstanding of what was said. Missionaries are very specifically instructed to make sure that this is taught. For you to say otherwise shows a lack of knowledge, or a lack of truthfulness.
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
Believe or don't believe. It is a human construct. Nothing is the truth unless you choose to believe so. Nothing. All beliefs are manufacterued by the human mind. None are real...except that we choose do believe them. Scriptures, preaching, believing...all created by the human mind....and most sadly...by the male human mind.
Consider all religious "beliefs". Are they all not aimed at dominatiing another? Trully, guilt is the main focuse of religion.
How do yo
sownsew 1 month ago
@sownsew As a former atheist/agnostic, I can tell you that I used to feel the same way. Sorry, but I just simply do not agree. Our church has no need, nor does it have the intention by any means to "dominate" any other.
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
As a former christian...i uteraly know that religion is all about control. No religion is "truth"...only the construct of what helps us feel safe. Also a church must survive financially....you can view this as willfull giving or as "paying your way to heaven" (guilt). We all want to feel that we can be safe. Religion...of any kind, provides some means of believing that we can be "saved". Not a one of us is "saved" We are all going to die. It's a given. Live free.
sownsew 1 month ago
@sownsew I was limited in my response so here is the rest. Your church does have a need...at the very least a financial need. In addition it has a need for attendents. Also you have a need for a "leader" who can make your church experience worth you time and money. You also have a need to feel that your church is providing you with the nurturing you need regarding your spirituality. No church that I am aware of does not want your money.
sownsew 1 month ago
@sownsew You are not aware then that we have no paid clergy, and the only money going to leadership goes to the general authorities. That money is only enough to allow them to take care of basic needs. The only reason for that allowance is that they travel around the world, not only to teach, but to meet the people of the church. All other income goes to building chapels and temples, printing books for free distribution, and welfare/relief programs. So it's not about money with us.
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
@sownsew That is all very philosophical of you, but as stated before, I've been there. I cannot deny the experiences I had that ultimately led me to what I now know is true. When I though like you, I though I was free. But like a kite, I cannot fly if there is nothing keeping me down to earth. Funny enough, it's what holds you down that let's you fly higher. A kite without a string will fall and crash.
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M424Filmcast You asked me to post this question here. Thanks. I went to your youtube channel and saw a video on it called "Why I Don't Believe in the Trinity." I've been studying that topic and I found this quote and would like your opinion. The quote is: "Never was there a more deceptive doctrine advanced that that of the Trinity. It could have originated only in one mind, and that the mind of Satan the Devil." Thanks for your view on this.
TheJpgr1958 1 month ago
Three persons in one..... Sub-Conscious self, Conscious self & Super Conscious self... It is the same as: Spirit/mind, or thought/feeling, Body & Soul. Jesus was the embodiment of the the Soul/Creator, in human form, suseptable to all the same, lesser energies that attempt to break the connection with the Soul, causing. Soul is perfect, matter is not perfect and therein, lies the cross of matter and spirit, that we must bear.
cowgirlmoon 1 month ago
@cowgirlmoon
Really? This is how you view your god?
Sk8er408 1 month ago
@Sk8er408 , Created in his image.
cowgirlmoon 1 month ago
@cowgirlmoon
We are the offspring... the children.... yet you still view your god as alien
Sk8er408 1 month ago
@Sk8er408 Alien? No dear. Of God, created in his image. My Creator is not alien. You and I are both souls, everlasting, but our bodies are material and subject to physical laws and lower forces. The lower forces/energies/spirits, etc. are always working to divert us, away from God's love, but when we are alligned within our own trinity, we are united with God the Creator, Christ the God Consciousness, made physical & The Holy Spirit, who moves us and helps us to connect with God.
cowgirlmoon 1 month ago
@cowgirlmoon
Nina, We don't have a trinity... There is no such thing as a trinity in terms of G-d or us. This is a tradition of man... and a fairly new one.
Sk8er408 1 month ago
@Sk8er408 You asked us to comment. I did so.
God bless you.
Your friend in spirit,
Jeannie
cowgirlmoon 1 month ago
@cowgirlmoon
I did... I might have asked to you clarify and you left me more confused then any other ever has about the trinity.
Sk8er408 1 month ago
@Sk8er408 SK8er, I didn't mean to confuse you...
We humans are like, 3 person's in one.
1. We are soul. Child of God, eternal.
2. We are physical & have conscious awareness, the physical representation of the human soul, incarnate. Son of man, physical form is not eternal.
3. We are a subconscious. Our spirit, emotions and the automatic part of us, that remembers to breath and controls all body functions, without conscious control, or intent. We can not live without the subconscious.
cowgirlmoon 1 month ago
@cowgirlmoon
We persons are not like three persons in one... yes we have a physical body that embodies a spirit... this is what makes up the soul of man.
Sk8er408 1 month ago
@Sk8er408 , You are not required to believe anything, but what you choose to believe, or see things in the way that I, or anyone else sees them. God bless you and all your loved ones. I remain
Your friend in spirit,
Jeannie
cowgirlmoon 1 month ago
These are pretty much the reason I do not accept the trinity... that and the trinity has everyone confused. If they are honest about the trinity at the end they will admit that they do not understand it and will claim that no body understands G-d.
Sk8er408 1 month ago
@Sk8er408 Yeah, the easy answer is just to say that since they cannot understand who God is, it's just a mystery, and should not be questioned.
M424Filmcast 1 month ago
Its becoming more and more evident that the trinity is false.As we close in on the last days, I think the one true god Yaweh will manifest his name for all to see and finally put to rest this false doctrine that satan has kept alive for centuries deceiving millions.
ruffaz24 2 months ago
@ruffaz24 Thanks for your comment.
M424Filmcast 2 months ago
Here's the issue sir, you are trying to understand the trinity by human logic. The Psalms say that God's ways are higher than our ways. To expect that all aspects of God fit into what our mind can comprehend is not only arrogant, it's just plain wrong. At a certain point, one must say to God, "I don't understand, but I know you love me and sent your Son (fully God and fully human) to die for me. By my faith in Him alone am I saved." I pray a revelation of truth on you, in the name of Jesus!
kfed1991 4 months ago
@kfed1991 No. I am not trying to use human logic. I am refuting the human logic that created the three-headed pagan god of the Council of Nicea. Don't know the origins of the pagan doctrine you claim as truth? Do a little research if your not afraid.
Faith alone, by the way, is not Biblical. Read James chapter 2. I think you may have skipped it.
M424Filmcast 4 months ago
Concerning the nature of Christ, the first Nicene Creed reads: "The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes those who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not; and that before he was begotten he was not, and that he was made out of nothing, or out of another substance or essence, and is created, or changeable, or alterable." Give me a verse in the Bible that says that's wrong. "In the beginning was the Word (Jesus). And the Word was with God. And the Word WAS God."
kfed1991 4 months ago
@kfed1991 You are using John 1:1 out of context and as a standalone verse to back your pagan doctrine which was created by political vote. This creed was brought about by intimidation, political manoeuvering, violence, and torture more than 300 years after Christ. So unless you believe it was brought about by latter-day prophecy (which your creeds denounce), you cannot claim that this creed was inspired of God. It is man-made, and you follow it. Research it and tell me I'm wrong.
M424Filmcast 4 months ago
@M424Filmcast Please explain how I used John 1:1 out of context. It's the beginning of the book. There is no context that comes before it, so you must be talking about something cultural?
kfed1991 4 months ago
@kfed1991 No. Not something cultural. You are not putting the scripture in context with all other scripture. In Genesis, God is not speaking to Himself. In Gethsemene, Christ did not pray to Himself. In John 14:28, God spoke of His Father being "greater" than He. Jesus died on the cross, so did God die? In whom was God "well pleased"? Jesus said He does only what He has seen the Father do. How could Jesus give Himself "all glory" if He already had it? Jesus is the Son of God.
M424Filmcast 4 months ago
@M424Filmcast Right, that's where the human logic part comes in. Does it make sense in my mind that Jesus and the Father are one, but Jesus says the Father is greater than he? No. But God's word says it. In Genesis, why can't God be speaking to Himself? He can, because the Father (the one speaking) is not the only person there. He is talking to other members of the Trinity. Why does it say, "Let US make man in OUR image?" Because all three were there and all three ARE God.
kfed1991 4 months ago
@kfed1991 Look, I'm not going to go in circles with you anymore. You obviously want to believe in your trinity god. Go ahead. It is not going to change the fact that the doctrine is of pagan origin. You don't want to research it. Fine. I don't care. Now stop spamming my inbox.
M424Filmcast 4 months ago
@kfed1991
TRINITY
Here is a scholarly proof of your corrupted, man-made Trinity. The Encyclopedia Americana: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicaea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." -- (1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
imtherealthing 4 months ago
@kfed1991
The New Encyclopedia Britannica: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: (Deut. 6:4). . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since." -- Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. (1976)
imtherealthing 4 months ago
@kfed1991
John 5:22
For the Father judgeth no man, but hath COMMITTED "ALL" JUDGMENT unto the Son:
So if God and Jesus are of the SAME substance/essence/mind..how can this be?
imtherealthing 4 months ago
@kfed1991
On the devil-inspired doctrine of the “Trinity”
The deity of Jesus Christ was decided upon by a vote . A few hundred church leaders gathered at Nicea in 325 AD. to vote on the matter. (the vote was loaded, because most of the opposing bishops were either KILLED or EXHILED or excluded!) Representation for the TRUTH about the Godhead was allowed by only a small fraction of those TRUE Christians...we lost the TRUTH then to the pagan trinity of man.
imtherealthing 4 months ago
@kfed1991
Jesus' on the false "christian" churches of men and thier CREEDS: JS-H 1: 19
I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.
imtherealthing 4 months ago
@kfed1991
LDS THEOLOGY(that has NEVER changed):
The Father = Fully GOD
The Son (Jehovah/Jesus) = Fully GOD
The Holy Spirit = Fully GOD
THREE seperate GODS worthy of worship, yet we pray to the FATHER GOD in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST and receive confirmation by the Holy Ghost.
imtherealthing 4 months ago
@imtherealthing "Three separate Gods." Let me quote that again: "Three separate Gods." How can you seriously call yourselves christian when what you just said goes against the Bible at it's very core? Isaiah 45:5 "I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God." Tell me you are not a Christian and I will let this topic be for now.
kfed1991 4 months ago
@kfed1991
NOWHERE does THREE GODS go against the Bible - the pagan philosophies -yes. For GOD the Father is a GOD "AND" GOD the SON is a GOD "AND" GOD the HOLY GHOST is a GOD = now count with me..GOD+GOD+GOD= 3 GODS. I know that your kind have a hard time counting to three. Now, when it says there is but ONE GOD - yes in the CONTEXT that the FATHER is the ONLY GOD to whom we pray to. He is the HEAD GOD in the GODHEAD. Jesus represents the Father at times (as he did as Jehovah).
imtherealthing 4 months ago
@imtherealthing "Apart from me there is no God." It doesn't say, "don't pray to any God but me" or "I am alone at the top of the God hierarchy." It says "Apart from me there is no God." In other words, besides the one God who is speaking, there are no other Gods. There is one. Just one. And Jesus is that God. And so is Holy Spirit. And so is the Father. It doesn't make sense but God never claims to make sense. In fact, he claims he doesn't. Isaiah 55:9. Also, I don't appreciate the insult.
kfed1991 4 months ago
@kfed1991
"You are READING INTO (interpolating) the Bible a theology that just does not exist in the reading. One can say in CONTEXT that there is no God but God in "REALATION" to the "pagan gods" of the time, but this does not negate the existence of other gods in the hierarchy.
Read Joshua 22:22
God is the God of gods...
Now is God the God of TRUE gods or FALSE gods?
imtherealthing 4 months ago
@imtherealthing "One can say in CONTEXT that there is no God but God in "REALATION" to the "pagan gods" of the time, but this does not negate the existence of other gods in the hierarchy." Why do you claim I'm interpolating and then do exactly the same thing yourself. You are "READING INTO" the context of the passage. Every false religion has "god(s)" at its head. These are false gods. They lead people astray, I don't think you would disagree.
kfed1991 4 months ago
@kfed1991
God is not a God over False or non-existing gods...understand? As for my interpolating...where? I quote only "biblical" words from Jesus on his relation to the Father he says who is his God and our God. NOWHERE does Jesus teach us about this "trinity". Where does he use analogies like those of today to explain the Godhead? (i.e. the analogy of the egg, or water/ice/vapour, etc)..nor does his apostles or prophets nor do we see this "trinity" in the OT. So what we do see is THREE GODS.
imtherealthing 4 months ago
@imtherealthing I quoted your interpolation, my friend. You made a point about the CONTEXT of a passage. Anytime someone makes a point, and disregards the plain reading of a verse of scripture, they are interpolating. I'll quote it again. "One can say in CONTEXT that there is no God but God in "REALATION" to the "pagan gods" of the time, but this does not negate the existence of other gods in the hierarchy."
kfed1991 4 months ago
@kfed1991
Ok..I'll bite...how much more clearer are these meanings then in CONTEXT (do NOT use creedal statments): "I go to my God and your God" - Jesus to Mary. "My Father is GREATER than I" - Jesus.
Read Joshua 22:22
God is the God of gods...
What "gods" are here that God is the God over? Molech? BAAL? - really?
imtherealthing 4 months ago
@kfed1991
Surely the scholars and reserchers of "The New Encyclopedia Britannica" and "The Encyclopedia Americana" and ALL of the sources they cite are wrong and you are right.
RE:How the "trinity" had "evolved" over centruies up to the time of Nicea and the doctrine was not in the scripture - do you disagree with those scholars and researchers on the histrocity of the doctrine of the trinity?
imtherealthing 4 months ago
@kfed1991
It never ceases to amaze me to what level people will justify this devilsih doctrine - I honestly believe one has to tell this lie over and over and put aside all logic including math to do so.
imtherealthing 4 months ago
@kfed1991
I once taught a man from China. As an experiment I asked him to just read the entire New Testament and tell me how many Gods there are in his reading. The man was an atheist. The conclusion: He said there were two Gods - possibly a third if one reads into The Holy Ghost being one when it is mentioned alongside the other two in certain verses. Right from the mouth of babes - no theological taint. You are a by-product of your upbringing and your society that taught you the "trinity"
imtherealthing 4 months ago
@imtherealthing Thats like handing a farmer from the Middle East to read Darwin's Origen of Species and asking him if he thought evolution was true. If he said no would that make evolution any less plausible?
philosophizer149 2 months ago
@philosophizer149 when I said handing I meant telling, sorry for the confusion.
philosophizer149 2 months ago
@kfed1991
You are like most trinitarians...stretching for something that is just not there. PERIOD.
imtherealthing 4 months ago
@kfed1991
TRINITY
Here is a scholarly proof of your corrupted, man-made Trinity. The Encyclopedia Americana: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicaea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." -- (1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
imtherealthing 4 months ago
@kfed1991
The New Encyclopedia Britannica: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: (Deut. 6:4). . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since." -- Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. (1976)
imtherealthing 4 months ago
@imtherealthing Thus, Deuteronomy 10 says God is the God of everything, he is sovereign over everything in the Universe, including these false gods.
kfed1991 4 months ago
@kfed1991
Your perspective is tainted by "Creedal statments" that are EXTRA-BIBLICAL.
imtherealthing 4 months ago
@imtherealthing which is why I reject sola-scriptura. When you think about it the doctrine of sola-scriptura refutes itself, because it is not taught in the Bible. But remember Protestants aren't the only ones that believe in the Trinity, so do Catholics. So you can't just refute sola-scriptura and say that therefore mormonism is true, it doesn't even come close to that, there is also the Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholicism among many other sects to consider.
philosophizer149 2 months ago
@kfed1991
You are CONFUSING your FALSE theology of the trinity with the TRUE theology of the scriptures - that there are three GODS who are fully GOD each. Your "trinity" is a 4th century creation nowhere found within the pages of the Bible. It is a Hellenized creation by "philosophers" not what Jesus taught nor the apostles and prophets. Jesus said quite CLEARLY "I go to MY God and YOUR God" and "The Father is GREATER than ME"...you silly trinitarains have to rely on extra-biblical creeds.
imtherealthing 4 months ago
@kfed1991
TITLES like : Eternal Father or LORD can be applied to both the FATHER GOD and JESUS, Elohim also ...these are "TITLES" in MOST cases we LDS know that Lord is Jehovah/Jesus as Elohim is the Father
imtherealthing 4 months ago
@kfed1991
In LDS theology we say that The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are ONE in PURPOSE not BEING...this GODHEAD is what we LDS say constitutes "ONE GOD" - a unity of GODS who are ALL FULLY GOD working as ONE unit in a GODHEAD.
imtherealthing 4 months ago
@imtherealthing Hard to deal with a hard-head who has been deeply indoctrinated (brainwashed?), by thier confusing and tangled creeds isn't it? They claim that we are the ones who are using corrupted and extra-biblical sources, then rely on corrupted human writings by non-prophets using pagan-originated teachings to create a new theology. Hmmm....
Thanks for your commentary my friend. Always appreciated. You are definitely "the real thing."
M424Filmcast 4 months ago
@M424Filmcast
Thanks my friend. I hope one day we can meet in person and talk. You are a good man.
imtherealthing 4 months ago
@M424Filmcast No prob my friend. I hope someday we do get to meet. Just uploaded a tribute vid to all my supporters! Check it out! Hope you like it cuz it's partly dedicated to you!
M424Filmcast 4 months ago
Not to mention, Jesus sits at the right hand of God in Heaven. So that pretty much destroys the Nicene Creed's trinity.
MassacreBlast 5 months ago
The gist of the Trinity is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different aspects of one God. So every single argument you just made that ended with "That means that God ____ Himself?" (well over half) is COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT. I'm not sure you understand what you're trying to refute.
StevoDesign 6 months ago
@StevoDesign I'm not sure I really care what you think. If you want to believe in a pagan doctrine that came from a VOTE by threats, violence, and intimidation, go ahead.
M424Filmcast 4 months ago
@M424Filmcast Then I don't understand why you replied to my comment. None of the people I've spoken to in your video threads have been very Christian-like anyway, so I'm not exactly feeling like your "true faith" is something I can stake my soul on. Your replies to others aren't very uplifting either.
StevoDesign 4 months ago
@StevoDesign My apologies. But you have to understand that 99% of the folks I deal with here on YT are nothing but critics who want to try and disprove my beliefs rather than engage in discussion. Personally, I would never judge a church or a religion based on the actions of perceived "un-christian" or "un-" anything actions. In this case, I had already spent three days in a row being attacked on many fronts. So, yeah, I may have come off a bit strong. It doesn't make the church less true tho'.
M424Filmcast 4 months ago
bro william Branham said that both trinity and oneness are BOTH WRONG!
he said when you get it between oneness and trinity you will get it just exaclty
some of the in between terminology that he used was Jesus was a Dual person, Father and Son were inseperable or yoked together.
God and Christ were in divine fellowship. that is why when Jesus said I have sat down with my Father on His throne yet John only saw ONE sitting upon the throne
dieselcowboy777 9 months ago
Thank you for this video! You needed help teaching Yahweh's Truth, so I left you a few JESUS teachings that Jesus himself declares that he Is NOT "God in the flesh" as many teachers of Satan's false trinity doctrine assume to be true, YET JESUS himself completely annihilates the trinity at JOHN Chapter 5 in the Bible.
Behold, Listen to JESUS! don't listen to money preachers that care nothing for your soul, but only care to gain riches with polluted doctrine and false teachings.
Trust YAHWEH.
upNyaBizznizz 1 year ago
@upNyaBizznizz What?
gfscarface13 10 months ago
JOHN Chapter 5. JESUS himself does not teach the trinity! John 5:26
"For as the Father YAHWEH hath life in HIMSELF; so hath he given to the son to have life in himself"
Clear as day, YAHWEH Himself has his own body-soul and Spirit to have LIFE IN HIMSELF! And Jesus a son of Yahweh has his own body-soul & spirit to have life in himself.
Yahweh created his children in His likeness, therefore we have a body-soul & spirit, just as Yahweh does; OTHERWISE we are not created in Yahweh's likeness!
upNyaBizznizz 1 year ago
Here is another JESUS VERIFIED Scripture that he is not "God in the flesh". JOHN 5:30
"I CAN OF MINE OWN SELF DO NOTHING: As I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I SEEK NOT MINE OWN WILL, BUT THE WILL OF THE FATHER, YAHWEH which hath sent me."
NOTICE that Jesus himself DECLARES that he can do NOTHING of his own power! YAHWEH can do everything by His own Power! It is clear as day. Period. JESUS also says that he does seek his own will!
YAHWEH seeks His own Will every second!
upNyaBizznizz 1 year ago
JESUS himself is against the false trinity doctrine! Let's let Jesus settle this once and for all. John 5 is an entire teaching against the trinity of today's errors!
37 "And the FATHER, YAHWEH Himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard Yahweh's voice AT ANY TIME, NOR SEEN Yahweh's shape!"
Clear as day, JESUS is saying that he is not God in the flesh, because the JEWS whom are listening to Jesus are not looking upon Yahweh nor hearing Yahweh's voice!!
TRUE.
upNyaBizznizz 1 year ago
Simple. With God, ALL things are possible.
ChristianAmerican 1 year ago
God the Father and God the holy Spirit CANNOT BE TEMPTED, but God the SON "can."
The whole reason why God became a human being was so that he could die for our sins and because GOD the SPIRIT could "NEVER" die. Also, know this, when Jesus Christ died on the cross, it was only the BODY that died, not the SPIRIT.
Jesus said, "I and the Father are One." And he also said that the followers would be ONE IN CHRIST! We are the body of Jesus Christ, God would never throw a part of his body in hell.
TheCatholicCommunity 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheCatholicCommunity 1 year ago
The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians such as Ignatius, Irenaeus, etc.
thegorn68 1 year ago
@thegorn68 The scripture you quoted in Matthew does not by any means justify a teaching of a triune god. This teaching did not appear officially until over 300 years later during the Council of Nicea. This was done by vote, not inspiration. Threats, force, fear, and even physical harm and death were the tools of those whose agenda it was to make this official. The other scriptures you quote do not show a doctrine of a triune god to be true either.
M424Filmcast 1 year ago
@M424Filmcast I see. It was an "invention" 300 years later even though the Council of Nicea didn't even address the nature of the Trinity. That's why all the early Christian writings BEFORE that council NEVER mention the Trinity (i.e. The Didache, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, etc., etc,) Just pulled the entire concept out of thin air, LOL!
thegorn68 1 year ago
@thegorn68 Do some research. The Council oc Nicea is when the deity of Christ was decided by vote. Yes, it very much addressed the nature of the trinity as it was specifically to use man's wis-dumb to decide whether Christ was also God. The trinity doctrine did not exist earlier because it was false. The creed of Athanasius later gave further clarity (if you can call it that), to the trinity doctrine.
M424Filmcast 1 year ago
the sinner on the cross went to paradise to be with Jesus "saved in heaven" ....3 days later he told Mary at the tomb as the risen Lord that he had not yet ascended to his father. That is another good one.
no man knoweth the day or the hour of the coming of the Lord no not the angels in heaven nor the Son but the father only. Can God hold information from himself?
cammon88 1 year ago
@cammon88 Thanks for the input. I am currently still working on a part II to this vid. I will definitely be adding more.
M424Filmcast 1 year ago
let me say that the biggest insult to god is that he needed a man of very questionable character to relaunch his church
it doesn't make sense so i put Mormonism in the same basket as all man made religions
not worth looking into
the saddest thing is to see well intentioned people blinded by it totally scared to even question or even think that they could be wrong or mistaken
mormon people you are human you can be deceived and you can make mistakes god is not wrong you are this is the step
lmadigan1971 1 year ago
@lmadigan1971 Let me say that the biggest insult to God is that He has people like you who insist that He is unable to do as He pleases. Let me also say that it is another big insult to decide as a mere human that God no longer speaks to man, and cannot restore that which was lost. Don't bother telling me that the church was never lost to apostasy. It's in the Bible. The saddest thing is that you consider those who have looked to be the blind ones.
M424Filmcast 1 year ago
@M424Filmcast Let me also say that the saddest thing is that well intentioned people like yourself are afraid to say that you might be wrong or mistaken. Because of a lack of willingness to explore beyond that which is mainstream, you are much like the people who were afraid that Jesus was right. You also are human and can be deceived. You also can make mistakes. God lives. He continues to speak. I once was mainstream christian too, til I started a real study of the Gospel.
M424Filmcast 1 year ago
@M424Filmcast you are now at a point where you say you have looked and from here on you cannot change your mind i put my trust in God not JS Mormons always attack
I do note that while I attack the Church you attack the individual and lessen the individuals worth common in the Mormon organization they preach about love family etc but are vicious and dismissive of others
I know there are well intentioned people in Mormonism but it doesnt make them right or make you superior Amen
lmadigan1971 1 year ago
@lmadigan1971 And this is the point where you say that I am just brainwashed and lost and am a poor soul who has been misled.
I do not attack the individual. I defend my beliefs and my Saviour against those who decide that attacking is the best way to "save" me. I am neither "vicious" nor "dismissive". I simply state the way I feel without apology. I stand up for my testimony. It is unshakeable.
You may feel well intentioned, buy you are not superior either.
Amen.
M424Filmcast 1 year ago
@lmadigan1971 Questionable character? What crime was he convicted of. What did he ever do illegal. Where did he sin? You must realize all these charges are brought forth by anti-mormons.
That being said didn't David commit adultery, Solomon have concubines. When was it ever written that prophets are perfect and without sin?
pilottim79 1 year ago
Mormons do not believe Jesus was and is God, end of story
hemet92544 1 year ago
@hemet92544
Of course we don't. We believe Jesus is Jesus, and God is God. We do not believe in man-written creeds that were created by political vote. Especially those that were created by people who could not possibly be inspired by God through revelation as other creeds they created so clearly state.
M424Filmcast 1 year ago
@M424Filmcast , so you dont believe Jesus was and is God, so then your saying God sent his child to die, isn't that chicken?!
hemet92544 1 year ago
@hemet92544
Check my answer on my other video where you asked the exact same question.
M424Filmcast 1 year ago
@M424Filmcast
If Jesus was not God than how was he perfect? If he was merely a man he would have sinned. Jesus was fully God and fully man.
tylerbyang 1 year ago
@tylerbyang If Jesus IS God, then why would He call Himself His own Father? Why would He say that "...the Father is greater than I", if He already is the greatest? Can God be tempted by Satan as Jesus was? Why would you want to believe in a doctrine that is very much non-scriptural, and has pagan roots? Why believe in a man-made creed that was only decided by vote 300+years after Christ? He was sinless because He had the divine attributes of the Father while still being a man.
M424Filmcast 1 year ago
@M424Filmcast Yes exactly fully God and fully man. In exodus 3:13-14 Gods name is cleary stated as I am
13And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? 14And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
tylerbyang 1 year ago
@tylerbyang "Fully God and fully man..."
Taken from the Creed of Athanasius. Not scriptural. In regards to "I AM", this is a reference to the premortal Jesus Christ who later in the NT identified himself by this name. This is not a reference to God the Father.
M424Filmcast 1 year ago
@M424Filmcast And in John 8:56- 59 Jesus states that he is the I AM
6Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
tylerbyang 1 year ago
@tylerbyang See my answer above.
M424Filmcast 1 year ago
@M424Filmcast and in many other places in the word it shows us that God and Jesus are one.
John 8:19
John 10:30
John 10:38
tylerbyang 1 year ago
@tylerbyang These references do not in any way work as proof texts. The reason being that you have to take them out of the context with the rest of OT and NT scripture in order to prove the trinity doctrine. Sorry, but these scriptures prove nothing about a triune god.
M424Filmcast 1 year ago
@M424Filmcast I do not see how this is at all out of context
tylerbyang 1 year ago
@tylerbyang Well if you can't see the contextual problems with the scriptures you quoted, and you are unwilling to research further into the pagan and political origins of the trinity doctrine, then you will probably be better off just going on with whatever you choose to believe.
I will be posting a Part II to this vid in the next few weeks that will explain quite a bit more. Hope you have a lotta faith dude, 'cause the trinity doctrine is neither scriptural nor historical. R u ready 4 it?
M424Filmcast 1 year ago