"The muslim trinity"

Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
Christ, the CREATED Son OF God, the Firstborn of every creature.

There are NUMEROUS verses that tell us that Christ is, IN TRUTH, the FIRST of all CREATED Beings, i.e. MADE by God, giving Christ the position of preeminence over the other angels (Christ's BRETHREN), as would be expected for the FIRSTBORN.

Romans 8:28-29
8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [His] purpose.
8:29 For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the FIRSTBORN among MANY brethren.

Colossians 1:12-18
1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, Which hath made us meet to be sharers of the inheritance of the holy people in Light:
1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated [us] into the Kingdom of His dear Son:
1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:
1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN of every creature:

Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, THE BEGINNING of the creation OF God;

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the House of Israel know ASSUREDLY, that God hath MADE that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:30 But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who by God is MADE unto us Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Sanctification, and Redemption:

2 Corinthians 5:20-21
5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] through us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
5:21 For He hath MADE him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God through him.

Romans 8:14-17
8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the (adopted) sons of God.
8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit (Being), that we (our Beings) are the children of God:
8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ*; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.

Hebrews 1:1-4
1:1 God, Who at sundry times and in diverse manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the Prophets,
1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [His] Son, whom He hath APPOINTED heir** of all things, by whom also He made the worlds;
1:3 Who being the brightness of [His] glory, and the express IMAGE of His person, and upholding all things by the Word of His power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of His Majesty on high;
1:4 Being MADE so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

**Noe: Someone cannot be the heir of their own estate. According to Father's Law, the FIRSTBORN SON receives a double-portion relative to his brethren as the primary heir to the dad's estate, being considered the beginning of the dad's strength (Deut. 21:17). All the firstborn belong to Father (Num. 3:13), beginning with His Christ (Rev. 3:14), The One God Anointed (Luke 4:18, Acts 10:38), The Firstborn Son OF God (Col. 1:15), and Heir to The Kingdom OF God (Heb. 1:2), making Christ The Great Prince (Dan. 10:21, Dan. 12:1). The firstborn son of the king is heir to the kingdom (2 Chronicles 21:1-3), and is referred to as the prince.

Hebrews 2:9-11
2:9 But we see the Saviour, who was MADE a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
2:10 For it became him, for whom [are] all things, and by whom [are] all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to MAKE the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified [are] all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them BRETHREN,

Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be MADE like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Hebrews 5:5-11
5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be MADE The High Priest; but He that said unto him, Thou art My Son, to day have I incarnated thee.
5:6 As He saith also in another [place], Thou [art] a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
5:9 And being MADE perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
5:10 Called BY God an High Priest after the order of Melchizedek.
5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

Hebrews 6:20 Where the forerunner is for us entered, [even] Jesus, MADE The High Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7:15-17
7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest,
7:16 Who is MADE, not after The Law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless Life.
7:17 For He testifieth, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7:26 For such an High Priest became us, [who is] holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and MADE higher than the heavens;

References to Christ Being an Angel…

CHRIST'S Revelation to his Apostle John


Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Christ Jesus, which God gave unto him, to show unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass; and He sent and signified [it] by His angel unto His servant John:

Revelation 10:1-3
10:1 And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a "Cloud": and a rainbow [was] upon his head, and his face [was] as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire:
10:2 And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the "sea", and [his] left [foot] on the "earth",
10:3 And cried with a loud voice, as [when] a lion roareth (2 Esd. 12:31, Rev. 5:5): and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices.

Revelation 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was Lightened with his glory (Matt. 24:27; Luke 17:24).

And also exactly which (Arch)angel Christ is (known in heaven as PRINCE Michael).

Daniel 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify [himself] in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand (Matt. 21:44).

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the Commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Daniel 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, the first of the chief princes [of God], came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Daniel 10:21 But I will show thee that which is noted in the Scripture of Truth: and [there is] NONE that holdeth with me in these things, EXCEPT Michael your prince (Eno. 67:1; Rev. 5:3; 5; 9 & 12:7).

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael [the Archangel] (Eno. 20:5; 36:1; 40:8; 58:1; 59:9; 57:1-2; 70:4; Rev. 12:7; Sura 2:98) stand up, the Great Prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the Book [of Life] (Rev. 13:8; 17:8; 20:15; 21:27; Sura 83:20).

Acts 3:15 And killed the Prince of Life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

The firstborn son of the king is heir to the Kingdom (2 Chronicles 21:1-3), just as Christ—the Firstborn Son of God—is Heir to the Kingdom of God

born (definition)
(bôrn)
v.
A past participle of bear
adj.

1.
a. Brought into life by birth.
b. Brought into existence; CREATED: A new nation was born with the revolution.

Source: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/born

-------

Don't worry if you cannot find any references in Scripture that plainly state that Christ isn't a created Being, because there are NONE.
You don't seem to understand the difference between the Father and God (you think these are synonymous). Neither do you seem to understand the difference between Jesus and the Son (you think these are synonymous). Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, you have not provided ONE verse that says the Father created the Son.
 
Last edited:

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
6,728
You don't seem to understand the difference between the Father and God (you think these are synonymous).
You're wrong. It's you who doesn't understand, but you're blinded by your arrogance to your own ignorance.

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] MY God, and your God.

Neither do you seem to understand the difference between Jesus and the Son (you think these are synonymous). Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're wrong again.

Prince Michael/Christ IS God's Eldest/Firstborn Son, i.e. the Son of God. Jesus WAS the human son born of the virgin body of Mary.

When Christ INCARNATED the body of Jesus (John 1:14), They formed the human+Being referred to as Jesus+Christ.

Also, you have not provided ONE verse that says the Father created the Son.
You're wrong yet again, unless you meant to say that not just one but many verses have been provided to you saying exactly that: God (Father) CREATED (made) His Firstborn Son, Prince Michael/Christ.

Where is the evidence of any of your (false) claims please?
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
You're wrong. It's you who doesn't understand, but you're blinded by your arrogance to your own ignorance.

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] MY God, and your God.
Based on how you end your post (God (Father) CREATED (made) His Firstborn Son) you

You're wrong again.

Prince Michael/Christ IS God's Eldest/Firstborn Son, i.e. the Son of God. Jesus WAS the human son born of the virgin body of Mary.

When Christ INCARNATED the body of Jesus (John 1:14), They formed the human+Being referred to as Jesus+Christ.


You're wrong yet again, unless you meant to say that not just one but many verses have been provided to you saying exactly that: God (Father) CREATED (made) His Firstborn Son, Prince Michael/Christ.

Where is the evidence of any of your (false) claims please?
I went over your post again and again haven't found any scripture (I check the actual scripture by the way, not the doctored JAH scripture) and nowhere does it say the Father created the Son, and this is because you wrongly understand the Father (you see Him as identical with God) and you wrongly understand the Son (you see Him as a created being). Both misunderstandings from your part are the reason why you are unable to understand that none of the scriptures say what you think it says.

You will conflate Jesus with the Son, for instance here:

Hebrews 7:
15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears,
16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared: “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.”


This is about Jesus, the man. Jesus, the human, was created, and I've never said otherwise. Jesus, his "Christ" aspect (which you seem to be able to distinguish, yet wrongfully identify as Michael), was never created.

Another verse you posted:

Acts 2:
36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

Doesn't say the Father created the Son, at all. It doesn't even say that God has made Jesus. It says that God made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

I suggest you reread all the verses you've posted while keeping in mind that Jesus, the human, is a creation, but that the Son (or "being" if that's what you wanna go with :rolleyes:) was not.

You shared this part of 1 Col 1:12-15. But it's actually verse 16 which you left out, which is most relevant:

1 Colossians 1:
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.


Firstly, it's "the firstborn over all creation" and not "the firstborn of every creature" like your doctored JAH scripture says.
Secondly, "the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created", or even "all things have been created through him",cannot mean what you say it means, that with 'him' is meant the Prince or Michael.

If you understand the Son as uncreated however, like I do, or what Christian doctrine says, or what the scriptures say, then you're not stuck with a blatant paradox, for how can "all things were created", including the "invisible" and all "things in heaven", be created in the Son and through the Son if the Son was also created?

The Son preceeds Creation. If He preceeds Creation, He preceeds Time. If He preceeds Time, He is eternal. And He must be eternal for if there was a time that there was no Son, there would be a time that there was no Father. If there was no Father, there would just be God, but since God is also above Time, God, in His infinite nature, would have changed from not being the Father to being the Father. That's another paradox.



The Father

He existed before anything other than himself came into being. The Father is a single one, like a number, for he is the first one and the one who is only himself. Yet he is not like a solitary individual. Otherwise, how could he be a father? For whenever there is a "father," the name "son" follows.

The Son

Just as the Father exists in the proper sense, the one before whom there was no one else, and the one apart from whom there is no other unbegotten one, so too the Son exists in the proper sense, the one before whom there was no other, and after whom no other son exists. Therefore, he is a firstborn and an only Son, "firstborn" because no one exists before him and "only Son" because no one is after him.

- Tripartite Tractate
 
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
4,046
“Father, Glorify thou me with the glory I had with you before the world was” = John 17. Christ was with the father before any creation existed
 

Resistor

Established
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
340
“Father, Glorify thou me with the glory I had with you before the world was” = John 17. Christ was with the father before any creation existed
Actually in the very same chapter:

They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.
- John 17:16-19
 
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
4,046
Actually in the very same chapter:

They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.
- John 17:16-19
Beautiful
 

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
6,728
I went over your post again and again haven't found any scripture (I check the actual scripture by the way, not the doctored JAH scripture) and nowhere does it say the Father created the Son, and this is because you wrongly understand the Father (you see Him as identical with God) and you wrongly understand the Son (you see Him as a created being). Both misunderstandings from your part are the reason why you are unable to understand that none of the scriptures say what you think it says.

You will conflate Jesus with the Son, for instance here:

Hebrews 7:
15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears,
16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared: “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.”


This is about Jesus, the man. Jesus, the human, was created, and I've never said otherwise. Jesus, his "Christ" aspect (which you seem to be able to distinguish, yet wrongfully identify as Michael), was never created.

Another verse you posted:

Acts 2:
36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

Doesn't say the Father created the Son, at all. It doesn't even say that God has made Jesus. It says that God made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

I suggest you reread all the verses you've posted while keeping in mind that Jesus, the human, is a creation, but that the Son (or "being" if that's what you wanna go with :rolleyes:) was not.

You shared this part of 1 Col 1:12-15. But it's actually verse 16 which you left out, which is most relevant:

1 Colossians 1:
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.


Firstly, it's "the firstborn over all creation" and not "the firstborn of every creature" like your doctored JAH scripture says.
Secondly, "the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created", or even "all things have been created through him",cannot mean what you say it means, that with 'him' is meant the Prince or Michael.

If you understand the Son as uncreated however, like I do, or what Christian doctrine says, or what the scriptures say, then you're not stuck with a blatant paradox, for how can "all things were created", including the "invisible" and all "things in heaven", be created in the Son and through the Son if the Son was also created?

The Son preceeds Creation. If He preceeds Creation, He preceeds Time. If He preceeds Time, He is eternal. And He must be eternal for if there was a time that there was no Son, there would be a time that there was no Father. If there was no Father, there would just be God, but since God is also above Time, God, in His infinite nature, would have changed from not being the Father to being the Father. That's another paradox.



The Father

He existed before anything other than himself came into being. The Father is a single one, like a number, for he is the first one and the one who is only himself. Yet he is not like a solitary individual. Otherwise, how could he be a father? For whenever there is a "father," the name "son" follows.

The Son

Just as the Father exists in the proper sense, the one before whom there was no one else, and the one apart from whom there is no other unbegotten one, so too the Son exists in the proper sense, the one before whom there was no other, and after whom no other son exists. Therefore, he is a firstborn and an only Son, "firstborn" because no one exists before him and "only Son" because no one is after him.

- Tripartite Tractate
You're blinded by your own arrogance, which masks your ignorance, both of Scripture and of your own arrogance. It's you who have failed to provide one single verse that plainly states Christ is God, or is part of some pagan "trinity", while ignoring the hundreds of verses which prove your RCC invented viewpoint to be in error.

We are currently living in time and space, which necessarily had to be brought into existence by ONE Who is OUTSIDE TIME AND SPACE, Whom we refer to as God.

God CREATED His Firstborn Son (yes, that's what the original text says), and then in doing so, He became Father. Afterwards, and together, as Father and Son, They then created the worlds.


You're attempting to teach your Roman Catholic doctrine as if it is fact, when they are nothing more than lies promoted by the (spiritually) "blind leading the blind". No wonder Christ warned that anyone who doesn't come out of Roman Catholicism will find themselves in The Fire on the Last Day.

How blind are they (and you for following their satanic nonsense)?

One literally needs to redefine virtually every key word in Scripture to believe their LIES. Do you really not understand what the word "OF" means (originating from)? Christ is the Son OF God.

Read: Christian Legalese

References to Christ as the Son OF God (50)

Matthew (9):
4:3, 4:6, 8:29, 14:33, 16:16, 26:63, 27:40, 27:43, 27:54

Mark (5): 1:1, 3:11, 5:7, 14:61, 15:39

Luke (7): 1:32, 1:35, 4:3, 4:9, 4:41, 8:28, 22:70

John (11): 1:34, 1:49, 3:18, 5:25, 6:69 9:35, 10:36, 11:4, 11:27, 19:7, 20:30

Acts (2): 8:37, 9:20

Books with single references (5): Galatians 2:20, 2 Corinthians 1:19, Romans 1:4, Ephesians 4:13, Revelation 2:18

Hebrews (4): 4:14, 6:6, 7:3, 10:29

1 John (7): 3:8, 4:15, 5:5, 5:10, 5:12, 5:13, 5:20

Also, three of the references to Christ being the literal Son of God refer to Him as the Son of THE Most High or THE Highest. Further, there are at least three more references made by Father to His Anointed (His Christ) as His Son.

Mark 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, [thou] Son OF the Most High God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.

Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son OF the Highest: and THE LORD God his Father shall give unto him the Throne of David:

Luke 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, [thou] Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.

And in Psalms, where Father (God, the Most High) refers His Anointed (His Christ) as His Son: Psalm 2:7, 2:12, Dan. 3:25.

Also of interest is the designation of the other angels, both in heaven and here on earth, as “the sons of God”, “children of the Most High” or “sons of the Living God”, etc., including:

Genesis 6:2-7, Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7, Psalm 82:6, Hosea 1:10, John 1:12, Romans 8:14-19, Philippians 2:15, 1 John 3:1-2, which would explain why Christ is referred to as “the firstborn among many brethren” in Romans 8:29, “the firstborn of every creature” in Colossians 1:15, and “the beginning of the creation of God” in Rev. 3:14.

REFERENCES TO CHRIST AS “GOD THE SON”: ZERO (0)

The word “of”, by definition, indicates the origin or derivation of something, e.g. a Son OF God.

Common-sense: A Father ALWAYS comes BEFORE the Father's Son, just as a son ALWAYS is descended FROM the Son's Father.

Someone who does not believe Christ is the LITERAL Son OF God, which is what the antichrist Roman Catholic trinity doctrine teaches, is denying the truth, and thus is anti-Christ, by definition

There are no “positional” roles for The Most High God, which would require the ONE True God to PRETEND to be three separate characters. That is simply more antichrist nonsense, to deny the TRUTH that there is ONE True God, Who Annointed His LITERAL Firstborn Son, hence His Son's designation as The Messiah/Christ (the Anointed One).


Further, we have Jesus (the body Christ incarnated) referring to Himself over 80 times in the Gospels as the “Son of Man”:

Matthew (30): 8:20, 9:6, 10:23, 11:19, 12:8, 12:32, 12:40, 13:37, 13:41, 16:13, 16:27, 16:28, 17:9, 17:12, 17:22, 18:11, 19:28, 20:18, 20:28, 24:27, 24:30, 24:37, 24:39, 24:44, 25:13, 25:31, 26:2, 26:24, 26:45, 26:64

Mark (14): 2:10, 2:28, 8:31, 8:38, 9:9, 9:12, 9:31, 10:33, 10:45, 13:26. 13:34, 14:21, 14:41, 14:62,

Luke (26): 5:24, 6:4, 6:22, 7:34, 9:22, 9:26, 9:44, 9:56, 9:58, 11:30, 12:8, 12:10, 12:40, 17:22, 17:24, 17:26, 17:30, 18:8, 18:31, 19:10, 21:27, 21:36, 22:22, 22:48, 22:69, 24:7

John (11): 1:51, 3:13, 3:14, 5:27, 6:27, 6:53, 6:62, 8:19, 12:23, 12:34, 13:31

Please see the following from The Law, which was given to Moses directly from God, on Mt. Horeb in Sinai:-

Numbers 23:19 God [is] not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: hath He said, and shall He not do [it]? or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?

Jesus repeatedly refers to Himself throughout the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the "Son of Man" (around 80 times) which, referenced back to The Law, should leave NO DOUBT that He is NOT God. This is directly from the mouth of Jesus.

The concept of a triune God (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, 3-in-1), also referred to as the "trinity", was not part of the original teachings of Christ, nor His Disciples. It wasn't until 325 A.D., during the Council of Nicaea, that this concept was introduced by Emperor Constantine, who had taken the title of "Bishop of bishops" for himself, to become the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). That is where and when the "Creed of Nicaea", now known as the "Nicene Creed" originated, which introduced the concept of the trinity into Christianity, mixing it together with the true teachings of Christ.

As you are probably aware of, the trinity itself has pagan roots, which can be traced back to Babylon (Sura 17:7). And although it isn't widely known, the Romans are the direct descendants of the Babylonians*, which is why Christ referred to the RCC as "MYSTERY (2 Thess. 2:7), BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS (her daughters) AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." (Rev. 17:5)

*They are the only race of people to destroy Solomon's Temple. They did it the first time circa 588 B.C. as the Babylonians and the second time circa 70 A.D. as the Romans, but the Babylonians and the Romans are the same race of people.

Mark Twain is credited with having said: "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

We've all been fooled/deceived (Rev. 12:9); learning that is the first step toward the truth.

Hopefully this information will be well-received.


P.S. The pagan "trinity" that you promote was invented by the RCC, by their own admission. It couldn't be any more anti-Biblical and thus anti-Christ, which they likewise admit.

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

Source: http://www.trinitytruth.org/the-trinity-doctrine-exposed.html#Part15

From the Athanasian Creed: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is
necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep
whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the
catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity...

...This is the catholic faith
; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he
cannot be saved."

"The doctrine of the Trinity is the central Catholic Dogma, that Catholics are
obliged to believe.

“He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.”
-the Athanasian Creed"

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed

P.P.S.: If you actually still believe you understand Who the Son of God (Christ) relative to the Son of Man that Christ incarnated 2000 years ago (Jesus), then please answer the question below that Christ asked of the politicians/pharisees, which they couldn't answer.

Matthew 22:41-46
22:41 While the politicians were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
22:42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, [The Son] of David.
22:43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
22:44 The "I AM" said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is He his son?
22:46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any [man] from that day forth ask him any more [questions].
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
You're blinded by your own arrogance, which masks your ignorance, both of Scripture and of your own arrogance. It's you who have failed to provide one single verse that plainly states Christ is God, or is part of some pagan "trinity", while ignoring the hundreds of verses which prove your RCC invented viewpoint to be in error.

We are currently living in time and space, which necessarily had to be brought into existence by ONE Who is OUTSIDE TIME AND SPACE, Whom we refer to as God.

God CREATED His Firstborn Son (yes, that's what the original text says), and then in doing so, He became Father. Afterwards, and together, as Father and Son, They then created the worlds.


You're attempting to teach your Roman Catholic doctrine as if it is fact, when they are nothing more than lies promoted by the (spiritually) "blind leading the blind". No wonder Christ warned that anyone who doesn't come out of Roman Catholicism will find themselves in The Fire on the Last Day.

How blind are they (and you for following their satanic nonsense)?

One literally needs to redefine virtually every key word in Scripture to believe their LIES. Do you really not understand what the word "OF" means (originating from)? Christ is the Son OF God.

Read: Christian Legalese

References to Christ as the Son OF God (50)

Matthew (9):
4:3, 4:6, 8:29, 14:33, 16:16, 26:63, 27:40, 27:43, 27:54

Mark (5): 1:1, 3:11, 5:7, 14:61, 15:39

Luke (7): 1:32, 1:35, 4:3, 4:9, 4:41, 8:28, 22:70

John (11): 1:34, 1:49, 3:18, 5:25, 6:69 9:35, 10:36, 11:4, 11:27, 19:7, 20:30

Acts (2): 8:37, 9:20

Books with single references (5): Galatians 2:20, 2 Corinthians 1:19, Romans 1:4, Ephesians 4:13, Revelation 2:18

Hebrews (4): 4:14, 6:6, 7:3, 10:29

1 John (7): 3:8, 4:15, 5:5, 5:10, 5:12, 5:13, 5:20

Also, three of the references to Christ being the literal Son of God refer to Him as the Son of THE Most High or THE Highest. Further, there are at least three more references made by Father to His Anointed (His Christ) as His Son.

Mark 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, [thou] Son OF the Most High God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.

Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son OF the Highest: and THE LORD God his Father shall give unto him the Throne of David:

Luke 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, [thou] Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.

And in Psalms, where Father (God, the Most High) refers His Anointed (His Christ) as His Son: Psalm 2:7, 2:12, Dan. 3:25.

Also of interest is the designation of the other angels, both in heaven and here on earth, as “the sons of God”, “children of the Most High” or “sons of the Living God”, etc., including:

Genesis 6:2-7, Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7, Psalm 82:6, Hosea 1:10, John 1:12, Romans 8:14-19, Philippians 2:15, 1 John 3:1-2, which would explain why Christ is referred to as “the firstborn among many brethren” in Romans 8:29, “the firstborn of every creature” in Colossians 1:15, and “the beginning of the creation of God” in Rev. 3:14.

REFERENCES TO CHRIST AS “GOD THE SON”: ZERO (0)

The word “of”, by definition, indicates the origin or derivation of something, e.g. a Son OF God.

Common-sense: A Father ALWAYS comes BEFORE the Father's Son, just as a son ALWAYS is descended FROM the Son's Father.

Someone who does not believe Christ is the LITERAL Son OF God, which is what the antichrist Roman Catholic trinity doctrine teaches, is denying the truth, and thus is anti-Christ, by definition

There are no “positional” roles for The Most High God, which would require the ONE True God to PRETEND to be three separate characters. That is simply more antichrist nonsense, to deny the TRUTH that there is ONE True God, Who Annointed His LITERAL Firstborn Son, hence His Son's designation as The Messiah/Christ (the Anointed One).


Further, we have Jesus (the body Christ incarnated) referring to Himself over 80 times in the Gospels as the “Son of Man”:

Matthew (30): 8:20, 9:6, 10:23, 11:19, 12:8, 12:32, 12:40, 13:37, 13:41, 16:13, 16:27, 16:28, 17:9, 17:12, 17:22, 18:11, 19:28, 20:18, 20:28, 24:27, 24:30, 24:37, 24:39, 24:44, 25:13, 25:31, 26:2, 26:24, 26:45, 26:64

Mark (14): 2:10, 2:28, 8:31, 8:38, 9:9, 9:12, 9:31, 10:33, 10:45, 13:26. 13:34, 14:21, 14:41, 14:62,

Luke (26): 5:24, 6:4, 6:22, 7:34, 9:22, 9:26, 9:44, 9:56, 9:58, 11:30, 12:8, 12:10, 12:40, 17:22, 17:24, 17:26, 17:30, 18:8, 18:31, 19:10, 21:27, 21:36, 22:22, 22:48, 22:69, 24:7

John (11): 1:51, 3:13, 3:14, 5:27, 6:27, 6:53, 6:62, 8:19, 12:23, 12:34, 13:31

Please see the following from The Law, which was given to Moses directly from God, on Mt. Horeb in Sinai:-

Numbers 23:19 God [is] not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: hath He said, and shall He not do [it]? or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?

Jesus repeatedly refers to Himself throughout the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the "Son of Man" (around 80 times) which, referenced back to The Law, should leave NO DOUBT that He is NOT God. This is directly from the mouth of Jesus.

The concept of a triune God (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, 3-in-1), also referred to as the "trinity", was not part of the original teachings of Christ, nor His Disciples. It wasn't until 325 A.D., during the Council of Nicaea, that this concept was introduced by Emperor Constantine, who had taken the title of "Bishop of bishops" for himself, to become the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). That is where and when the "Creed of Nicaea", now known as the "Nicene Creed" originated, which introduced the concept of the trinity into Christianity, mixing it together with the true teachings of Christ.

As you are probably aware of, the trinity itself has pagan roots, which can be traced back to Babylon (Sura 17:7). And although it isn't widely known, the Romans are the direct descendants of the Babylonians*, which is why Christ referred to the RCC as "MYSTERY (2 Thess. 2:7), BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS (her daughters) AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." (Rev. 17:5)

*They are the only race of people to destroy Solomon's Temple. They did it the first time circa 588 B.C. as the Babylonians and the second time circa 70 A.D. as the Romans, but the Babylonians and the Romans are the same race of people.

Mark Twain is credited with having said: "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

We've all been fooled/deceived (Rev. 12:9); learning that is the first step toward the truth.

Hopefully this information will be well-received.


P.S. The pagan "trinity" that you promote was invented by the RCC, by their own admission. It couldn't be any more anti-Biblical and thus anti-Christ, which they likewise admit.

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

Source: http://www.trinitytruth.org/the-trinity-doctrine-exposed.html#Part15

From the Athanasian Creed: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is
necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep
whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the
catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity...

...This is the catholic faith
; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he
cannot be saved."

"The doctrine of the Trinity is the central Catholic Dogma, that Catholics are
obliged to believe.

“He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.”
-the Athanasian Creed"

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed

P.P.S.: If you actually still believe you understand Who the Son of God (Christ) relative to the Son of Man that Christ incarnated 2000 years ago (Jesus), then please answer the question below that Christ asked of the politicians/pharisees, which they couldn't answer.

Matthew 22:41-46
22:41 While the politicians were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
22:42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, [The Son] of David.
22:43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
22:44 The "I AM" said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is He his son?
22:46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any [man] from that day forth ask him any more [questions].
Don’t have the time to address all this bogus, some of which I have already addressed in a different conversation with you.

To get to the point. Is there Time outside of Creation?

If the Son came after the Father, then both the Son and the Father would be subject to Time. How do you square that circle?
 

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
6,728
Don’t have the time to address all this bogus, some of which I have already addressed in a different conversation with you.

To get to the point. Is there Time outside of Creation?

If the Son came after the Father, then both the Son and the Father would be subject to Time. How do you square that circle?
Nothing bogus has been shared with you. Every single shred of what's been personally shared is the truth from our Creator. That's simply more of your "self" attempting to deflect attention away from its untenable satanic viewpoints (lies).

To directly answer your question: no, the concept of time does not exist outside of Father's physical creation. And what was the BEGINNING of Father's Creation (hence the beginning of the concept of time)?

The CREATION of His Firstborn Son.

Revelation 3:13-14
3:13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the communities.
3:14 And unto the angel of the community of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness (Christ), the beginning of the creation of God;

Hebrews 1:1-4
1:1 God, Who at sundry times and in diverse manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the Prophets,
1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [His] Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds;
1:3 Who being the brightness of [His] glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by The Word of His power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of His Majesty on high;
1:4 Being made so much better than the angels (the firstborn), as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Do you understand please what an HEIR is? What it means to be appointed by another? Or what the word IMAGE means?

One cannot be the heir of their own possessions. Nor can someone appoint themselves to be an heir of their own possessions. And an image is a LIKENESS of the original, just like the IMAGE one sees in the mirror of the human they're inside of is a LIKENESS of that human, but it is NOT the human itself.

For Father, everything that has happened, is currently happening, and that will ever happen throughout eternity, has already been viewed. That is what makes prophecy possible (it all comes from Father), and why we can be absolutely certain the Bible is the inspired Word OF God. And another reason we can be absolutely certain that Christ (the Son OF God) is NOT God.

Matthew 24:36 But of That Day and Hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

And Who is Christ's Father? God Himself.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, MY God (1), MY God (2), why hast Thou forsaken me? (Eno. 89:20; Psalm 22; Isaiah 52:13-54:1; Sura 4:157-8.)

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] MY God (3), and your God.

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the Temple of MY God (4), and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of MY God (5), and the name of the city of MY God (6), [which is] New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from MY God (7)*: and [I will write upon him] my NEW name.

That's seven times Christ called Father His God. Shouldn't we believe Christ instead of a bunch of liars dressed up in silly clothes who have a reputation for molesting children?

P.S. You didn't answer the question from Matt. 22:41-46. Is that because you, like the politicians/pharisees during the days of Jesus, don't know the answer (and thus really don't know the difference between the Son of God and the Son of Man)?
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
P.S. You didn't answer the question from Matt. 22:41-46. Is that because you, like the politicians/pharisees during the days of Jesus, don't know the answer (and thus really don't know the difference between the Son of God and the Son of Man)?
I will answer any direct question asked, but not if it's buried in a wall of bogus for me to sift through. So keep your points condensed and give targeted questions at a time and I will be happy to answer them.

But this is just more proof that you're only here to enforce your presuppositions without any shred of self-doubt or -criticism. We've already dealt with Matt 22, here, to which you said:

"You have everything upside down and backwards, as usual."

With no further argument. lol

You posted Matt 22 to ask why David called Christ Lord to prove that Christ was the Angel of the Lord in the OT, while Matt 22 doesn't prove or even insinuate that at all.

Let me thus explain it again in the hope YOU will offer a rebuttal this time:

Matthew 22:
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.


Jesus here refutes that he's the son of David, for if He were the son of David, why would David, being Jesus' father, call his son Lord?

I already stated this last time, that you are interpolating something which isn't there, that to go from "Jesus denying He's the son of David" and "David calling him Lord", to "Jesus is the Angel of the Lord in the OT", is a non-sequitur.


Do you understand please what an HEIR is? What it means to be appointed by another? Or what the word IMAGE means?

One cannot be the heir of their own possessions. Nor can someone appoint themselves to be an heir of their own possessions. And an image is a LIKENESS of the original, just like the IMAGE one sees in the mirror of the human they're inside of is a LIKENESS of that human, but it is NOT the human itself.
You're getting there.

If I see your reflection in a mirror or if I see you on a picture, or if I see you post on Vigilant Forum with your account, what would I say: "Hey, it's Freeman!" or "Hey, it's the image of Freeman!" ?

This is a question of identity, ie. the who, not the what.

Jesus is the image of God and what have I been trying to explain for pages on end? That Jesus is God's avatar, just as a gamer has an avatar when he enters the video game.

Definition of avatar

1: the incarnation of a Hindu deity (such as Vishnu)
2a: an incarnation in human form
b: an embodiment (as of a concept or philosophy) often in a person
3: a variant phase or version of a continuing basic entitythe latest avatar of the conservative movement
4: an electronic image that represents and may be manipulated by a computer user (as in a game)



Concepts, people. Learn your concepts.
 

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
6,728
I will answer any direct question asked, but not if it's buried in a wall of bogus for me to sift through. So keep your points condensed and give targeted questions at a time and I will be happy to answer them.
You were asked that question directly. Not once but twice. Why is it so important for you to pretend that what was shared with you was bogus? Isn't that just more of your "self" seeing everything upside down and backwards, as usual?

But this is just more proof that you're only here to enforce your presuppositions without any shred of self-doubt or -criticism. We've already dealt with Matt 22, here, to which you said:

"You have everything upside down and backwards, as usual."

With no further argument. lol
Yep. How else would you describe someone who claims Christ isn't the firstborn of every CREATURE, when God says He is?

You posted Matt 22 to ask why David called Christ Lord to prove that Christ was the Angel of the Lord in the OT, while Matt 22 doesn't prove or even insinuate that at all.
Not to an egotistical human, who sees everything upside down and backwards.

Let me thus explain it again in the hope YOU will offer a rebuttal this time:

Matthew 22:
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.


Jesus here refutes that he's the son of David, for if He were the son of David, why would David, being Jesus' father, call his son Lord?

I already stated this last time, that you are interpolating something which isn't there, that to go from "Jesus denying He's the son of David" and "David calling him Lord", to "Jesus is the Angel of the Lord in the OT", is a non-sequitur.
Except you're wrong again, because you're still attempting to see everything through human eyes, which always see everything upside down and backwards. That is why your "self" continually diverts attention away from its numerous errors and contradictory nonsense, and pretends to be a teacher, when it is, in truth, ignorant of ANYTHING and EVERYTHING spiritual.

It (your human "self"/ego) is your worst and only enemy. That is why you MUST learn to destroy it DAILY, as we've been COMMANDED to do, or you will remain in ignorance until the Last Day.

As has already been shared with you more than once, Christ IS the IMMORTAL Spirit-Being Who is God's Firstborn Son. Christ is the firstborn Son OF God, the first among many Brethren. Christ has no human lineage.

Jesus WAS the MORTAL human son of the virgin body of Mary, descended from the line of David, making Jesus one of the sons (descendants) of David. It was Jesus Who was died from the crucifixion, and was resurrected by Father (God) after 3 days and 3 nights, NOT Christ. Christ is IMMORTAL, i.e. He cannot be killed.

This is what neither you nor the politicians/pharisees from 2000 years ago seem to get. The difference between the spirit (Being) and the flesh (human). And no amount of human intellectualizing will EVER provide you with one ounce of spiritual insight/wisdom.

As Christ said repeatedly, Father is His God. Or, if you prefer the words of Paul:-

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

David was very obviously referring to Christ, the Firstborn Son of God, Who is David's Lord (the head of every man), just as God is THE LORD, and the head of Christ. David was NOT referring to the human body of Jesus, which had not yet been born to the virgin body of Mary, since it would be one of his descendants roughly 1000 years later.

That is how David could call Christ Lord (as all men should), while Jesus could be the son of David.

You're getting there.

If I see your reflection in a mirror or if I see you on a picture, or if I see you post on Vigilant Forum with your account, what would I say: "Hey, it's Freeman!" or "Hey, it's the image of Freeman!" ?

This is a question of identity, ie. the who, not the what.

Jesus is the image of God and what have I been trying to explain for pages on end? That Jesus is God's avatar, just as a gamer has an avatar when he enters the video game.

Definition of avatar

1: the incarnation of a Hindu deity (such as Vishnu)
2a: an incarnation in human form
b: an embodiment (as of a concept or philosophy) often in a person
3: a variant phase or version of a continuing basic entitythe latest avatar of the conservative movement
4: an electronic image that represents and may be manipulated by a computer user (as in a game)



Concepts, people. Learn your concepts.
If you genuinely understood what an image is, or the difference between the spirit and the flesh, or how reincarnation actually works (which is described in The Law), you would have been able to answer the question Christ posed in Matt. 22:45.

Instead, you've allowed your "self" to make an even bigger fool of itself, while again presenting itself as a teacher, when it knows absolutely nothing about any of the concepts it's pretending to be able to teach others about.

Father (God), Who is a SPIRIT-BEING and NOT human, is The King Ruler of the Universe. His Firstborn Son is therefore The Prince, and therefore is, by birth/creation HEIR TO THE THRONE (exactly as it repeatedly teaches in The Law).

So Who is The Prince?

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the Commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Daniel 10:21 But I will show thee that which is noted in the Scripture of Truth: and [there is] NONE that holdeth with me in these things, EXCEPT Michael your prince (Eno. 67:1; Rev. 5:3; 5; 9 & 12:7).

Daniel 12:1-2
12:1 And at that time shall Michael [the Archangel] (Eno. 20:5; 36:1; 40:8; 58:1; 59:9; 57:1-2; 70:4; Rev. 12:7; Sura 2:98) stand up, the Great Prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the Book [of Life] (Rev. 13:8; 17:8; 20:15; 21:27; Sura 83:20).
12:2 And many of them that sleep in "the dust of the earth" (Gen. 13:16; 28:14) shall awake, some to Everlasting Life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.

And what does the Hebrew name Michael mean? Who is LIKE God?

Colossians 1:15 Who (the spirit-Being Christ) is the image (likeness) of the invisible God (the human Jesus was definitely visible), the firstborn (born = created) of every creature (a creature has a Creator, or it wouldn't be a creature):

If you have any love for the truth, what you NEED to do is to get rid of all of the nonsensical (satanic) Roman Catholic garbage that you've filled your(?) mind with, and start over, this time DOING what we've been Commanded to do by God and His Christ (Anointed One).

Time is rapidly running out.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
@A Freeman

You're clearly an uneducated fool who doesn't understand the argument. Half of what you said is in support of what I've been trying to explain, and the other half of what you say is illustrating that you don't understand what you're saying.

You trying to "make me understand" that there's the "flesh" and the "spirit" while I've been defending the dual nature of Jesus Christ. lol gtfo. Go bother fifth-graders with your ignorance.
 

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
6,728
@A Freeman

You're clearly an uneducated fool who doesn't understand the argument. Half of what you said is in support of what I've been trying to explain, and the other half of what you say is illustrating that you don't understand what you're saying.

You trying to "make me understand" that there's the "flesh" and the "spirit" while I've been defending the dual nature of Jesus Christ. lol gtfo. Go bother fifth-graders with your ignorance.
The days of honoring your "self" will soon be at an end. Peace be upon you.
 

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
6,728
I honour truth above anything else. If you do too, show it to me:

YES or NO:

Did Christ / the Son incarnate Jesus?
Do you actually honor the truth? Or do you honor your "self", espousing and peddling the lies you've been conned into believing from Roman Catholicism?

As Mark Twain said, "it's easier to fool someone than to convince them they've been fooled".

The truth that has been personally shared with you was done so for your benefit, and for the benefit of others reading it. It was also done to help you with your massive ego (the "self"), which is the gate-keeper of your mind, serving as the filter for what it allows in and then cons you (the spirit-Being/Soul within) into believing.

It is the "self" that sees lies as the truth, and the truth as lies, hence the reason for sharing with YOU (the spirit-Being within) that your "self" doesn't know what it's talking about (and sees everything upside down and backwards), and is being allowed to speak for you, rather than you controlling it and allowing Father (God) to speak through you, as we've been COMMANDED to do (Matt. 10:38, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Gal. 2:20, Sura 6:162).

If you would like an example of how the "self" (the ego) manipulates your mind, and is constantly deflecting attention away from itself so it can stay inflated (its arrogance is what masks its ignorance), then please take a look at your previous exchange, where your "self" said this:-

-------

Artful Revealer said:
@A Freeman

You're clearly an uneducated fool who doesn't understand the argument. Half of what you said is in support of what I've been trying to explain, and the other half of what you say is illustrating that you don't understand what you're saying.

You trying to "make me understand" that there's the "flesh" and the "spirit" while I've been defending the dual nature of Jesus Christ. lol gtfo. Go bother fifth-graders with your ignorance.

-------

It (your "self") couldn't answer the spiritual question posed by Jesus in Matt. 22:41-46, because it has no facility for understanding ANYTHING spiritual. But instead of you (the spirit-Being within) thanking Father for sending someone to reveal that truth to you, you instead allowed your "self" to go on the attack, calling me an "uneducated fool" (even though the "uneducated fool" knew more than your "self"), before immediately allowing it to reinflate itself again. Do you see how your "self" tried to claim credit for understanding the difference between the spirit and the flesh, when it obviously did not and could not (as evidenced by its inability to answer that simple question posed by Christ, through the mouth of Jesus, in Matt. 22:41-46)?

So now, it comes back and demands the answer to a question that's already been answered multiple times before, including more than once within this very thread. Why? To keep itself inflated, so its arrogance can mask its ignorance, i.e. it again has you so distracted you don't even pay attention to the truth that's shared with you (poor reading comprehension is part of its filtering process).

Yes, Christ, the IMMORTAL Son of God -- Who is a Spirit-Being -- incarnated Jesus, the MORTAL flesh and blood human born of the virgin body of Mary.

That is how Christ (the Truth - John 14:6), speaking through the mouth of Jesus (Who definitely was of this world), could say the following:-

John 8:14 (John 8:23 KJV) And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I AM NOT FROM THIS WORLD.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify Thou me with Thine Own self with the glory which I had with Thee BEFORE THE WORLD WAS.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is NOT OF THIS WORLD: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

The question for you is this: Will you continue allow your "self" to pretend this hasn't already been shared with you previously, or will you learn to destroy the "self" so that it's possible for Father (God) to share the truth with you?

The choice, as always, is yours to make.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
Yes, Christ, the IMMORTAL Son of God -- Who is a Spirit-Being -- incarnated Jesus, the MORTAL flesh and blood human born of the virgin body of Mary.
"Yes" would have sufficed.

So you said YES to: Did Christ / the Son incarnate Jesus?

You say that Jesus is human and Christ / the Son is a spirit.

Next question.

YES or NO:

When Christ / the Son incarnated Jesus, did Jesus then have a dual nature. ie. human and spiritual?
 

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
6,728
"Yes" would have sufficed.
If "yes" would have sufficed, the rest of what was shared wouldn't have been shared. This is still your "self" trying to call the shots, as if it's in a position to teach and control others, when it knows absolutely nothing, and should therefore be kept in check.

So you said YES to: Did Christ / the Son incarnate Jesus?
How many times must you allow your "self" to ask the same question? How many times must it be answered?

You say that Jesus is human and Christ / the Son is a spirit.
Correct.

Next question.

YES or NO:

When Christ / the Son incarnated Jesus, did Jesus then have a dual nature. ie. human and spiritual?
If you have a point to make, then make it. You have again allowed your "self" to ignore what was shared with you, so it can continue to arrogantly pretend to be a teacher, and dictate how another is to answer its redundant questions.

If you have a genuine question/interest in the truth, then ask it. Stop allowing your "self" (Satan really) to play his little 20 questions game in the hope that your "self" can steer someone into its abyss of self-contradictory, cognitive-dissonant nonsense.

You've already been provided at least 50 verses where Christ is referred to as the Son OF God. Your "self" ignores what the word "OF" means, so it can continue to remain in control of your mind. You've similarly been provided at least 80 verses which state Jesus was the Son of Man. So your(?) question has already been answered over 100 times in this thread alone.

Shouldn't the words of Christ, through the mouth of Jesus, be enough of an answer to your(?) question?

John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the Will of Him that sent me.

The question for you is this: do you even know why you're asking these questions please? Is it not so your "self" can try to save face, and keep itself inflated?
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
How many times must you allow your "self" to ask the same question? How many times must it be answered?
It wasn't a question. It was a repetition of your previous affirmation. lol

Also a repetition of something you'd already affirmed. But anyway, here's your logical formula:

J is H and C is S
C incarnates J

So far you've agreed.

The question is:

If C incarnates J, does JC have a dual nature, namely H and S?

This is your answer to that simple question:
If you have a point to make, then make it. You have again allowed your "self" to ignore what was shared with you, so it can continue to arrogantly pretend to be a teacher, and dictate how another is to answer its redundant questions.

If you have a genuine question/interest in the truth, then ask it. Stop allowing your "self" (Satan really) to play his little 20 questions game in the hope that your "self" can steer someone into its abyss of self-contradictory, cognitive-dissonant nonsense.

You've already been provided at least 50 verses where Christ is referred to as the Son OF God. Your "self" ignores what the word "OF" means, so it can continue to remain in control of your mind. You've similarly been provided at least 80 verses which state Jesus was the Son of Man. So your(?) question has already been answered over 100 times in this thread alone.

Shouldn't the words of Christ, through the mouth of Jesus, be enough of an answer to your(?) question?

John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the Will of Him that sent me.

The question for you is this: do you even know why you're asking these questions please? Is it not so your "self" can try to save face, and keep itself inflated
People who claim to possess THE Truth but refuse to answer direct questions to verify that Truth are in my opinion the most loathsome people of all.

So if you insist in not answering questions that try to verify your "Truth" while instead trying to explain a bipartite composition of reality to a trichotomist (lol), then just take a seat, open your mind, relax and say the following words that you've probably never uttered in your life:
"I don't know".

If you do think to know the answer to the question, then answer the goddamn question.

Which was, and still is:

If C incarnates J, does JC have a dual nature, namely H and S?
 

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
6,728
It wasn't a question. It was a repetition of your previous affirmation. lol
Then why put a question mark after it? It wasn't a rhetorical. Or is this more of your "self" lying to you (and to others)?

Also a repetition of something you'd already affirmed.

But anyway, here's your logical formula:

J is H and C is S
C incarnates J

So far you've agreed.
Of course. It's been stated repeatedly and consistently numerous times.

The question is:

If C incarnates J, does JC have a dual nature, namely H and S?
YES. And that question has already been answered MANY times before, including several more times within this thread, but your "self" keeps ignoring it.

When Christ, the Spirit-Being incarnated Jesus (the human son of the virgin body of Mary), He became the human+Being known as Jesus+Christ. Does that sound familiar to you please?

So what is your point?

This is your answer to that simple question:
People who claim to possess THE Truth but refuse to answer direct questions to verify that Truth are in my opinion the most loathsome people of all.

So if you insist in not answering questions that try to verify your "Truth" while instead trying to explain a bipartite composition of reality to a trichotomist (lol), then just take a seat, open your mind, relax and say the following words that you've probably never uttered in your life:
"I don't know".
Why would you encourage me to lie? Because you keep asking the same questions over and over, as if you're expecting a different answer?

WHAT IS YOUR POINT? And why do YOU keep evading that simple question?

If you do think to know the answer to the question, then answer the goddamn question.

Which was, and still is:

If C incarnates J, does JC have a dual nature, namely H and S?
Enough with your foul, blasphemous nature. Learn to destroy your ego before it destroys you.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
My question was:

"When Christ / the Son incarnated Jesus, did Jesus then have a dual nature. ie. human and spiritual?"
QED.

Why would you encourage me to lie? Because you keep asking the same questions over and over, as if you're expecting a different answer?

WHAT IS YOUR POINT? And why do YOU keep evading that simple question?
You've just agreed with the point I've been trying to make the entire time (albeit with different terminology because of your theology). Instead of joining in defense of Jesus' hypostatic union, for some reason you chose to go against me. Interesting.

That's what I meant with what I said in one of the previous posts:

"Half of what you said is in support of what I've been trying to explain, and the other half of what you say is illustrating that you don't understand what you're saying."

That or the problem is of a more personal nature.

Either way, thanks for playing.
 
Last edited:
Top