On the Trinity:

Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,906
I've been reading some chapters of the Way Home in order to stop being taken aback by some of your (plural) insights. So I offer as a suggestion that you would do the same to see where I'm coming from. Have the feeling you (plural) are sometimes equally taken aback by my responses as I am with yours.

You can find the literature here. (don't worry, it's not a book)
Understood.
 





A Freeman

Established
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
196
Thanks for being straightforward. That's all I ask.

Feel like you're interpolating something into the Logos which doesn't belong. But let's save that for some other time.

I'd like to know what you make of the following scripture:

John 5
16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

King of king's version: John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Considering that according to Mosaic Law, deliberately breaking the sabbath is a capital offense (Ex 3:15), which is what Jesus did in spite of the warnings of the Pharisees, how would you reconcile the incarnation of the Law with not being able to break the Law?

Exodus 3
15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Matthew 12:8-12
12:8 For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath day.
12:9 And when he was departed thence, he went into their church:
12:10 And, behold, there was a man which had [his] hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
12:11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift [it] out?
12:12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath days.


Mark 2:23-28
2:23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the Sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
2:24 And the politicians said unto him, Behold, why do they on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful?
2:25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
2:26 How he went into the House of God in the days of Abiathar the High Priest, and did eat the Showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
2:27 And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath:
2:28 Therefore the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath.


Luke 6:1-9
6:1 And it came to pass on the second Sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing [them] in [their] hands.
6:2 And certain of the politicians said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath days?
6:3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;
6:4 How he went into the "House of God", and did take and eat the Showbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?
6:5 And he said unto them, The Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath.

6:6 And it came to pass also on another Sabbath, that he entered into the church and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.
6:7 And the lawyers and politicians watched him, whether he would heal on the Sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him.
6:8 But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth.
6:9 Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the Sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy [it]?

Luke 13:14-17
13:14 And the ruler of the church answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the Sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day.
13:15 The Lord then answered him, and said, [Thou] hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or [his] ass from the stall, and lead [him] away to watering?
13:16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom SATAN hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?

13:17 And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.

John 7:15-24
7:15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man "Letters", having never been taught?
7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me.
7:17 If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself.
7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh His glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.
7:19 Did not Moses give you The Law, and [yet] NONE of you keepeth The Law? Why go ye about to kill me?

7:20 The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee?
7:21 Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel.
7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the Sabbath day circumcise a man.
7:23 If a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision, that The Law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day?
7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
 





Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
1,202
@A Freeman

I'm going to assume you agree that Jesus broke the sabbath, but that He has the authority to do so?

In that case, if it is lawful for the incarnation of the Law to break the Law, more problems arise:

Firstly, Jesus' disciples had also broken sabbath by plucking the ears of corn on sabbath day. The explanation that Jesus Christ is Lord over the Sabbath doesn't explain why His disciples were allowed to break the Law. Where does their authority come from? From Jesus? If they were allowed by Jesus to break the sabbath, why is there no mention of this in scripture?

Secondly, if Jesus wanted the Jews to follow the Law, shouldn't He have agreed with the Pharisees and rebuked His disciples? If Jesus is the Law incarnate and we have to follow the Law in order to be saved, Jesus should set the example and not the opposite by breaking it or having His disciples break it, let alone rebuke the Pharisees for taking sides with the Law.

Thirdly, the explanation Jesus gives, well-interpreted, basically implies that those who are in Christ have no use for the sabbath and that one can't be in Christ if one keeps to the sabbath (GoT 27). All the legalistic interpretations and arguments we find in Judeo-Christian apologetics are completely asinine. "The Torah says it's allowed to pluck the grain heads of a neighbour if they are for instant eating ...", "The oral tradition says that you are not allowed to put those grain heads in your pockets for harvesting ...". This is all childish nonsense of course, in light of what Jesus said, that it is lawful to do good on sabbath (or any day for that matter) regardless of the sabbath's prescriptions, for doing Good to another is the law of Christ. Anything that prevents this, even "the Law", is to be discarded.


If you don't believe Jesus broke the sabbath, then John's scripture is erroneous, for it unambiguously affirms it.
 





Last edited:

A Freeman

Established
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
196
@A Freeman

I'm going to assume you agree that Jesus broke the sabbath, but that He has the authority to do so?

In that case, if it is lawful for the incarnation of the Law to break the Law, more problems arise:

Firstly, Jesus' disciples had also broken sabbath by plucking the ears of corn on sabbath day. The explanation that Jesus Christ is Lord over the Sabbath doesn't explain why His disciples were allowed to break the Law. Where does their authority come from? From Jesus? If they were allowed by Jesus to break the sabbath, why is there no mention of this in scripture?

Secondly, if Jesus wanted the Jews to follow the Law, shouldn't He have agreed with the Pharisees and rebuked His disciples? If Jesus is the Law incarnate and we have to follow the Law in order to be saved, Jesus should set the example and not the opposite by breaking it or having His disciples break it, let alone rebuke the Pharisees for taking sides with the Law.

Thirdly, the explanation Jesus gives, well-interpreted, basically implies that those who are in Christ have no use for the sabbath and that one can't be in Christ if one keeps to the sabbath (GoT 27). All the legalistic interpretations and arguments we find in Judeo-Christian apologetics are completely asinine. "The Torah says it's allowed to pluck the grain heads of a neighbour if they are for instant eating ...", "The oral tradition says that you are not allowed to put those grain heads in your pockets for harvesting ...". This is all childish nonsense of course, in light of what Jesus said, that it is lawful to do good on sabbath (or any day for that matter) regardless of the sabbath's prescriptions, for doing Good to another is the law of Christ. Anything that prevents this, even "the Law", is to be discarded.


If you don't believe Jesus broke the sabbath, then John's scripture is erroneous, for it unambiguously affirms it.
There are two fatal flaws in your argument @Artful Revealer .

First, The Master (Christ) IS The Master/Teacher. So thinking He should be doing as the scribes and pharisees instructed, who The Master rightly described as "the blind leading the blind", is exactly backwards. Christ is THE Master/Teacher NOT the blind guides of organized religion.

Secondly, there are no "oral traditions" that anyone needs to follow. Father's Law is everything we need, and it has been given to us IN WRITING to leave no doubt or excuses for not following it.

It was the scribes and pharisees, who added their "oral traditions" (Talmud) in direct violation of The Law (Deut. 4:2, 12:32), that were in the wrong, making the Commandments of God of no effect.

The Sabbath was made for man - to provide him with a day of rest from the ways of the world to learn and apply The Law (Justice, Mercy and Righteousness) - not the other way around.
 





Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,906
I've been reading some chapters of the Way Home in order to stop being taken aback by some of your (plural) insights. So I offer as a suggestion that you would do the same to see where I'm coming from. Have the feeling you (plural) are sometimes equally taken aback by my responses as I am with yours.

You can find the literature here. (don't worry, it's not a book)
Some of this has been encountered before.

"The gnostic demiurge—An agnostic trickster. The demiurge represents a negative paradigm which is an important component in the soteriological process generating a new concept of man and a new concept of being man. In 'Sethian' gnosticism the demiurge is viewed as a negative being and cannot, as many of the traditional tricksters,..."

But, have these gnostics/people really and truly understood the trick of the demuirge? Or have they just been tricked once again, by the demiurge (Satan) into believing that they have understood it, while they are just being led astray yet once again (being led up the garden path, so to speak)? After all, "the demuirge" is known as being the biggest confidence trickster ever (deceiving by giving misleading clues or signals):

CON - Satan is known as the biggest con-artist ever. He invented it. http://jahtruth.net/xmas.htm


Satan/the demiurge also pretends to be "you" (inside of your own head - Satan is the Ego voice, that tells people to do evil things and also to think evil of others) and also is known for having slandered Father, in the past and misleading 1/3 of the angels, with his tail/tale of lies and thereby causing the war in heaven (Rev. 12:4), which then led to all of the pain and misery that we see happening in the world today. That was Satan's modus operandi, from the start. It worked for Satan before.. so, why would the trick be any different now?

"The bigger the trick and older the trick, the easier it is to pull, based on two principles. Because they think it can't be that old, or that it can't be that big, for so many people to have fallen for it." - Revolver

Lessons about the demiurge, from "Revolver"
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL586E2CC2784483A9

"NEVER under-estimate Satan!!!" - The Way home or face The Fire
 





Last edited:
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,906
According to:

http://www.trinitytruth.org/was1john5_7addedtext.html

Introduction
The only verse in the entire Bible that can be genuinely interpreted as saying the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are a 3 in1 being is 1 John 5:7.

The Comma Johanneum made it's way into the Bible "...because of pressure from the Catholic Church.":

(No surprise there, to anyone who has been paying attention.)

Does 1 John 5:7-8 have Added Text?
Some person or persons in centuries past were so zealous to find support for their belief in the trinity that they literally added it. There are numerous Scholars in fact that inform us that this passage has a spurious comment which has been added. The textual Scholar Bart Ehrman described this forgery as follows: “…this represents the most obvious instance of a theologically motivated corruption in the entire manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

Thus the scholarly consensus is that this passage is a Latin corruption that found its way into a Greek manuscript at an early date while being absent from the THOUSANDS of other manuscripts. This addition is so famous and hence so well known that it has even been given its own name and is called the “Comma Johanneum.” Comma means a short clause."

How did the Comma Johanneum first get added?
It began with Desiderius Erasmus and his “Novum Instrumentum omne” which was the first New Testament in Greek to be published. This Greek text is also referred to as the Textus Receptus. Erasmus did not include the infamous Comma Johanneum of 1 John 5:7-8 in either his 1516 or 1519 editions of his Greek New Testament with very good reason. But it made its way into his third edition in 1522 because of pressure from the Catholic Church...."


PLEASE NOTE: The "trinity" doctrine is a Vatican Mind-Control (MK) Program.

MK-BABYLON/Vatican fear/mental-trauma based Mind-Control (MK) "trinity" Programming:
https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/on-the-trinity.6477/page-22#post-249845

That has been widely and very successfully employed, against Christians, for centuries.
 





Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
1,202
There are two fatal flaws in your argument @Artful Revealer .

First, The Master (Christ) IS The Master/Teacher. So thinking He should be doing as the scribes and pharisees instructed, who The Master rightly described as "the blind leading the blind", is exactly backwards. Christ is THE Master/Teacher NOT the blind guides of organized religion.

Secondly, there are no "oral traditions" that anyone needs to follow. Father's Law is everything we need, and it has been given to us IN WRITING to leave no doubt or excuses for not following it.

It was the scribes and pharisees, who added their "oral traditions" (Talmud) in direct violation of The Law (Deut. 4:2, 12:32), that were in the wrong, making the Commandments of God of no effect.

The Sabbath was made for man - to provide him with a day of rest from the ways of the world to learn and apply The Law (Justice, Mercy and Righteousness) - not the other way around.
When Jesus condemned the scribes, the written Talmud did not yet exist. Why would He condemn scribes who had not yet scribed? Which scribes was He then condemning if not for those who had scribed the Hebrew scriptures, ie. the Torah??

The Law, whether old or new, was given to us by scribes who had heard it. The old law was written down 800 years after the tablets of stone, of which there is no archeological evidence, or the Ark of the Covenant in which they were stored. What then was the Law before it was written down in the Torah other than, at best, an oral tradition, or more probable, an unborn invention?

The new law was written down by those who had heard it from those who had heard it. Jesus did not write down the law, nor did He command His disciples to write it down, nor was it ever intended to be written down for Paul said the law is not written in tablets of stone, but on our hearts. It was the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, who helped spread His new law throughout the world. But God bless for those writings, since they render clear the Word of God regarding His mission, which is, not to destroy, but to render all things Good. That's the proper way to interpret the Sermon on the Mount, and the relation of the new law with the old.

We will never agree on this as long as our identification of the Christ is different. If you believe that the Christ of the New Testament who gave us the new law is the same as the Angel of the Lord of the Old Testament who gave the law on mount Sinai, then you have to believe Christ is master of both.

Naturally, He is not master of both in the sense that He gave both. Christ had not been revealed before the events documented in the Gospels, only prophecied, therefore the law given in the Torah was given by another. Only then can one begin to understand the dynamic between Jesus and the Pharisees on Sabbath day, which I have already given twice, so there's no need to repeat it a third time.
 





A Freeman

Established
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
196
When Jesus condemned the scribes, the written Talmud did not yet exist. Why would He condemn scribes who had not yet scribed? Which scribes was He then condemning if not for those who had scribed the Hebrew scriptures, ie. the Torah??
The "oral traditions", i.e. the Talmud, first took on written form in BABYLON, where the "House of Judah" was taken into captivity c. 588 BC, as attested to by both the Prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Jer. 11:9-10, Ezek. 22:25-26). They were added to later in Jerusalem, but it is unquestionably these traditions (the Babylonian Talmud - the traditions of the fathers/elders) that Jesus was referring to in Matthew 15:3-6 and 23:4.

Throughout the Gospels Christ, through the mouth of Jesus, admonished the scribes (lawyers) and pharisees (politicians) for NOT KEEPING GOD'S LAW. How is it possible for you to have overlooked that?

15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the COMMANDment of God by your Tradition?
15:4 For God Commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the Commandment of God of none effect by your Tradition (Talmud).
15:7 [Ye] hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,
15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is FAR from me.
15:9 But in vain they do worship Me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men (man-made laws/legislation).
15:10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the politicians were offended, after they heard this saying?
15:13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath NOT planted, shall be rooted up.
15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch (or Pit).


John 5:42-47
5:42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that [cometh] from God only?
5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is [one] that accuseth you, [even] Moses, in whom ye trust.
5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
5:47 But if ye believe NOT his writings, how shall ye believe my words?


The Law, whether old or new, was given to us by scribes who had heard it.
There is no "old law" or "new law"; there is only ONE Law: The Law that was given directly to Moses on Mt. Horeb in Sinai, exactly as God Himself has said in The Law.

The old law was written down 800 years after the tablets of stone, of which there is no archeological evidence, or the Ark of the Covenant in which they were stored. What then was the Law before it was written down in the Torah other than, at best, an oral tradition, or more probable, an unborn invention?
The two stone tablets, upon which the 10 Commandments were inscribed, are the basic principles of The Law, but the first five books of the Bible, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, referred to as "the books of Moses", the Pentateuch" and "the Torah" in Hebrew, which means "The Law" in English, were also given to Moses in scroll form on Mt. Horeb in Sinai.

The originals of both the stone tablets and the scrolls are still inside of, or in the side of, the Ark of The Covenant, which is buried underneath the Mound of the Hostages (2 Chron. 25:24) at the Hill of Tara (Torah) in Royal Co. Meath, IRELAND, where it's been for the past 2600 years, since it was brought from Jerusalem to Ireland by Jeremiah the Prophet and King Zedekiah's daughter Teia Tephi c. 583 BC.

The rock-solid archaeological evidence of this is the Coronation Stone that was brought with the Ark of The Covenant, which is known by many names, e.g. the Lia Fail (in Gaelic), the Stone of Destiny (in English), the Bethel Stone and Jacob's Pillar/Pillow Stone. The same stone that Jacob/Israel laid his head on near Bethel and saw the angels ascending and descending back and forth to heaven, which is also the same stone that will be CHRIST'S THRONE HERE ON EARTH.

For almost 1000 years, all of the Irish kings and queens, from Eochaidh mac Duach and Teia Tephi were coronated on that Stone until 500 AD, when it was "lent" by the Irish king Muircheartach (Murdoch) son of Earc to his brother, Fergus Mor Mac Earc, who had invaded and settled Western Scotland which was previously occupied by the Picts. Fergus wanted to be crowned king of the (Scots) Irish who had migrated to Scotland on The Lia Fail Stone and Muircheartach loaned the Stone to him for that occasion.

The Stone stayed there, in Scotland, for almost 800 years, with every Scottish king and queen - all descended from Eochaidh and Teia Tephi, who was from the line of David - being coronated on THAT Stone, until Edward the 1st (Longshanks) invaded Scotland, defeated the Scots, and brought the Stone back to Westminster Abbey, where he built "Edwards chair" to place over it. From that point forward, all of the English kings and queens, who were likewise descended from Eochaidh and Teia Tephi, were coronated on that Stone, right up to George VI.

In the wee morning hours of Christmas Day in 1950, four Scottish nationalists repatriated the Stone to Scotland from Westminster Abbey, where it remains in hiding ever since. A fake stone, made out of yellowish, Scottish-Perthshire sandstone, was left a few months later (in April 1951) in Arbroath Abbey, where it was collected by the English authorities and taken to England.

The fake is an obvious fake for several reasons. It is a different material and color (yellowish Scottish Perthshire sandstone instead of a purplish porphyry from the Bethel area in Israel), a different weight (336 lbs for the fake v. 458 lbs for the real Jacob's Pillar Stone) and the fake has a flat top, whereas the real Stone has a very obvious wear mark where the pole, that was inserted through the metal rings at either end if it, was used to carry it through the wilderness for 40 years had worn a very obvious groove in the top of it.

If you're genuinely interested in this mountain of evidence, then please read the hyperlinked articles above.

The new law was written down by those who had heard it from those who had heard it.
There is no such thing as a "new law" in Scripture. There is only ONE Law: The Law that God gave us, exactly as it says in The Law.

Jesus did not write down the law, nor did He command His disciples to write it down, nor was it ever intended to be written down for Paul said the law is not written in tablets of stone, but on our hearts.
Why would He/they? They already had The Law in writing. That's why Christ said He didn't come to destroy The Law (Matt. 5:17-20) and why Paul said that he too was living by The Law (Rom. 7:25) and establishing it everywhere he went (Rom. 3:31)

It was the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, who helped spread His new law throughout the world. But God bless for those writings, since they render clear the Word of God regarding His mission, which is, not to destroy, but to render all things Good. That's the proper way to interpret the Sermon on the Mount, and the relation of the new law with the old.
Except there is no such thing as a "new law". The Truth/Word/Message and the Commandments have been the same since the beginning (1 John 2:1-7), and will NEVER change.

We will never agree on this as long as our identification of the Christ is different. If you believe that the Christ of the New Testament who gave us the new law is the same as the Angel of the Lord of the Old Testament who gave the law on mount Sinai, then you have to believe Christ is master of both.
There is no such thing as a "new law"; there is, and ever shall be, only ONE Law: God's Law. And Father's Christ (Anointed One), His Firstborn Son, Who is known in heaven as Prince Michael and is The Law made flesh, is referenced throughout both the Old Covenant, New Covenant and the Koran.

Naturally, He is not master of both in the sense that He gave both. Christ had not been revealed before the events documented in the Gospels, only prophecied, therefore the law given in the Torah was given by another.
How then did David know of Christ and refer to Christ as his Lord?

Only then can one begin to understand the dynamic between Jesus and the Pharisees on Sabbath day, which I have already given twice, so there's no need to repeat it a third time.
What makes you think you understand anything given you've been taught all of the nonsense you post from the very same people that Christ warned us are "the blind leading the blind"?
 





Last edited:
Top