Jahcub:The Trinity existed in Kemet as Ausar, Auset, and Heru long before it was in Babylon. And the Israelites and Yeshua spent a long time in Kemet. The Old and New Testaments are full of Kemetic teachings. And so, if the Kemetic teachings are pagan, than so are most of the teachings in the Ible, from both the Old and New Testaments.
Exactly.
Jahcub: Well this is an old debate amongst early Christians. There were those early Christians and Church Fathers who sighted the Trinity and there were those that did not. The ones that sighted the Trinity did so with scripture like these:
Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"
Yep, and these were weak then as they are now. For example, Yeshua calls YHWH his Father, not the ruach hakodesh even though the NT says that it was by the ruach that Mary conceived. Of course the reason for this is because the Hebrews understood the ruach to be the presence of YHWH. They called it the "holy" spirit in order to distinguish it from other spirits.
All one must do to combat this interpretation is ask 2 questions:
1. Is God a spirit? (John 4:24)
2. Is The Father holy?
If the answer to both of these questions is yes then the Father = The Holy Spirit.
2 Corinthians 13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."
Paul wrote many letters. Here is how most of them started.
1 Corinthians 1:3 - 3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
God is introduced as "our FATHER" while "Jesus Christ" is introduced as "the Lord". What is another name for lord? Master. What's another name for master? Teacher. What is the hebrew equivalent of teacher? Rabbi. So calling someone a lord (or baal) is not the same as calling someone God. And even calling someone god in Hebrew does not mean the same as calling them God in Hebrew. God (EL) means "power". When used of YHWH they combined this word with others or pluralized it (plural-intensive) as a means of saying "all powerful" or "almighty". Only one person can have "ALL power" or "ALL might". It is a superlative description. The second you say 2 are sharing all the power? That is the second that one of them ceases to have ALL(capitalized for emphasis; I don't yell) power.
And so judges and kings were also called "elohim" if speaking of them in the plural. But elohim, used for a singular God meant that he was singularly all powerful. That is plural intensive. It is NOT plural intensive if it is simply plural. Paul, a Hebrew, never departs from this understanding. You can have a ONENESS with God THROUGH the spirit but that doesn't mean you are God too. It just means there is a connection and an expression of the divine in you.
4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
This statement would be worded totally different if Paul was saying Jesus was God. No, the title he was giving Jesus was "Christ/Messiah" which is the equivalent of saying he is the chosen KING of Yisrael. God isn't a "messiah" as this is a lower title possessed by human leaders. What Paul believed was that God, YHWH, The Father, had a plan (of salvation), from the very beginning. And he believed Yeshua/Jesus was the fulfillment of that plan. Therefore "with him" from the beginning, but not as a person.
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
This is kind of the same thing execept the word for word is logos.
http://www.linkedword.com/john/1/-1/0
if you read the definition, it talks about speech and doctrine. White people weren't sure what John meant so, for example, this definition also tells you that a Greek philosopher first used the term logo for "divine plan". Again, this could be understood as the same plan of salvation that YHWH had from the beginning. However, it could also simply be talking about the actual "word of God". It is the same word of God that spoke creation into existence. So all things were made by the literal Word. The word is compared in John 1:4 to life. What is the "bread of life"? When Yeshua was tempted with food he said
Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
So please understand that this is where you get the "LIVING WORD" from. SO the life in John 1:4 is the same "word" of God from Matthew 4:4. Literally talking about the words that come out of God's mouth. Do you see?
John 14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works."
The holy spirit is not a new concept in the NT. In a similar way that they believed one could be possessed by evil spirits/demons; they also believed that the spirit of God could FILL a person like a vessel.
Exodus 28:3
And thou shalt speak unto all that are wise hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, that they may make Aaron's garments to consecrate him, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.
see this context is even less literal than this second one.
Exodus 31:3
And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,
so when you compare Exodus 35:31 to Luke 2:40 to Acts 2:4 you see consistency in the message; not a new doctrine. But you have to learn this from Hebrews, not Christians. Because they were influenced by pagan ideas. They were never monotheists. But the Hebrews, aside from their spiritual fornications, were commanded to repeat the Shema 3 times a day (Deut 6:4).
Hebrews 1:8-9 "But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
Again... this is reference back to David; a HUMAN king.
Psalm 45:7
Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Verse 1 tells us this was about the king (David). David and every other king of Yisrael were ANOINTED (cap for emphasis). That is why it says "anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows". Who were his fellows? Other Israelites. This anointing was a coronation ceremony. God doesn't need to get coronated or promoted "above his fellows" because there is nothing higher than God and there are no "fellows" on his level to be made higher than them. And by who? Again... these misunderstandings were a result of 2 different CULTURES colliding. And the fact is that the Greek didn't have a continuous line of Hebrew rabbis. They started their own religion based on their own ideas of what Paul and Jesus had taught. And that was largely based on stories whose interpretations, Yeshua clearly tells you, were explained privately to his disciples; not public knowledge.
So Christians could be just as wrong, trying to interpret the NT as the Pharisees were wrong, trying to stone Yeshua for what they perceived him to be saying in John 10:18-21.
So before he said "I and my Father are one" he said "29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."
John 13:16
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.
and...
John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
There is no such thing as a co-equal God where one person is greater than another. So clearly many people simply misunderstood.
And it was understood by his true followers that (1 John 4:4) God was something inside them ALL who sought righteousness according to 1 John 3. The seed of God, the consciousness of God, was in his children. That is why Acts 13:33 said (just like Psalm 2:7), "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee"
or...
Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
these are future tense. "I WILL BE". "He SHALL BE". If this was the case from the beginning then you could not say these things using a future tense. Not to mention "this day" (whenever that was exactly) is an indication that BEFORE that day, the conditions were NOT MET for him to be his son.
So again... this was not something understood by modern Christianity.
P.S - glad you didn't try to cite the Johanine Comma
|
|